TOC1

Madam SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing members that Senator the Hon Paul Calvert, President of the Australian Federal Senate, accompanied by the Deputy Speaker, is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat.

The Hon Paul Calvert, accompanied by the Deputy Speaker, entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.

Points of Order

Estimates—Select Committee Examination

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your ruling and consequent advice on what I think is a reasonably important matter. Select committees at the moment are going through the estimates process, whereby Ministers turn up to the committees to answer questions about various policy proposals in their ministries. Written questions are submitted to departments and other agencies, so that the committee may get a clear idea of exactly what the money voted in the Budget is for.

It has become a bit of a concern to National members that the replies of a number of departments suggest that their output plans have not yet been prepared, and that they will be given to the committee at a later time. It is not just one ministry; it is many ministries that are in this situation. An example is a reply stating that the budget for the Government’s emission reduction plan, which is to be developed by December 2007, is still to be finalised. Also in the case of Ministry of Economic Development, we are told that the output plan of the ministry is being prepared, and will be finalised at a later time, and that it will then be made available to the committee.

Parliament has voted money to these departments, Parliament has a right to scrutinise what the expenditure is for, and Parliament has a right to expect that Government departments bidding for funds, then being granted funds by Ministers, will know what they will use those funds for. So I ask your opinion, Madam Speaker, and your ruling as to where we go to get Government departments to tell us, firstly, why they have had funds voted to them, and, secondly, what those funds are for.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank Mr Brownlee. This matter, of course, as you are aware, should be within the control of the committees, so it should be raised with the committees. If they are not satisfied, then they will reflect that in their examination. If there is a general issue, though, relating to that, then may I suggest that the matter be taken up with the Standing Orders Committee, which at the moment is considering a variety of matters. That would be the appropriate place.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With all due respect, I think you have missed the point. Parliament has voted funding for these Government departments. The appropriations have been made based on the estimates. The estimates surely should have been made before the appropriations were granted. I do not think it is unreasonable that Parliament should have a view about the behaviour of Government departments in this regard. It is extremely disrespectful of the process. Further, Madam Speaker, you know that there is a natural process that Parliament goes through whereby select committees are expected to complete their estimates examination and report to Parliament. If there is absolutely no sanction on Government departments, other than the threat that they might have to come back to the select committees and give their usual blurb for a longer period of time, then we start to lose the control that Parliament should have on the expenditure of the Treasury of this country.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): First of all, the member is factually incorrect: Parliament has not voted the appropriations for individual departments. That is why we debated the Imprest Supply Bill yesterday. Until the main Appropriation Bill is passed—sometime before the end of August—the appropriations have not actually been voted by this House. They are voted in the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill.

Gerry Brownlee: What is one word’s difference?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The one word is “not”, which is a very important word in almost any sentence in the English language. It is not that they have been appropriated; they have not been appropriated at this point in time. The select committees are there to examine the proposed appropriations, and they do not need the output agreements for that to be possible. They need the actual volume of estimates, and can examine the departments on those estimates. There will, of course, be some elements within line items that have not been fully developed in detail, because money is held in broader contingencies within departments. So the member will get the chance to debate this matter when we debate the actual appropriations.

Madam SPEAKER: I remind members that points of order are heard in silence. I have been tolerant of the exchanges that have just taken place, but no longer.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Madam Speaker, when you are addressing the issue that has been put to you by the spokesperson for the National Party, perhaps you could judge whether it is a serious request by the fact that the foreign affairs estimates examination by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was treated to a total boycott by the National Party of the hearing. That might tell you whether that member is being sincere in that request, or otherwise.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for that contribution, but the essential point being made is that the estimates are, in fact, the appropriation process. The appropriations have not actually been made; that is the process that is before the select committees. But I also just repeat, for the information of the member, that if there is a particular issue, then it is initially for the committee itself to address it; if there is a more general issue, the Standing Orders Committee can look at it.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Mortgages—Interest Rate Levy

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that a mortgage interest rate levy is a “dead duck” and “unlikely to see the light of day again”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement of 29 April in respect of a capital gains tax on housing investment that “It’s not been considered. We’ve had the door firmly closed on that.”, and given that she ruled out both of those proposals, will she also rule out the recent proposal to ring-fence losses on investment in housing, for tax purposes?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member is correct that I also ruled out the issue of the capital gains tax as not being Labour Party policy. I am aware that there is a select committee inquiry; I am not aware of whether the National Party will actually be participating in it. But before that inquiry takes place, no doubt all manner of ideas will be canvassed, including the idea of ring-fencing losses on investment properties.

Darren Hughes: Has she received any reports indicating a willingness to discuss issues around mortgage interest rates?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is certainly my understanding that the Leader of the Opposition has expressed interest in discussing instruments that might reinforce monetary policy, but he has consistently been overruled by his deputy, Mr English.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister confirm that she has overruled the Minister of Finance on three occasions when he has floated proposals to attack housing investment; and does this mean that no one should listen to Dr Cullen, because in this area he does not have the backing of the Prime Minister for what he says?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, I cannot confirm any such thing.

Hon Bill English: Given that the Prime Minister has had to overrule the Minister of Finance on three separate proposals he has made in respect of tax policy, which Minister of Finance does she back on personal tax—Dr Cullen, who said he would make announcements on the future of personal tax reductions in the next Budget, or Trevor Mallard, who told an Australian newspaper that Labour would cut personal taxes in the next Budget?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I said in reply to the previous supplementary question that I could not confirm any such thing. Therefore, the “given” that started this question was, of course, not a given at all. Secondly, having subjected the latter two statements to which the member refers to close textual analysis, I did not see any contradiction.

Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister support Trevor Mallard’s proposal to cut personal taxes in the next Budget by increasing the thresholds or Dr Cullen’s opposition to tax cuts under almost any circumstances, including his proposal today that any extra money should go to top-ups for KiwiSaver, not personal tax cuts?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: There are so many misquotes in that question that it is scarcely worth even responding to. I will repeat what I said in my answer to the previous question. Having looked very closely at both the statements concerned, I was hard-pressed to find a contradiction.

Hon Bill English: Will the Prime Minister now tell the House whether she intends to overrule Dr Cullen’s proposal that tax losses on investment in housing be ring-fenced, or does she back that proposal; if so, why, when she ruled out the previous two proposals?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I understand it, it is a proposal made by the Reserve Bank that has gone to a select committee, which the National Party may or may not participate in.

Hon Bill English: Is it now the Prime Minister’s position that Dr Cullen has never said anything about ring-fencing tax losses on investment housing; and why does she not just front up and admit to Parliament that she has had to overrule him twice, and that she will have to overrule him again, because she does not support his attacks on investment in housing?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member must be completely deaf. Dr Cullen has advised this House that it is not Government policy, and he has not said that it is Government policy.

National Land Transport Programme—Passenger Transport Funding

2. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Transport: How does a 12.6 percent decline next year in national spending on passenger transport, included in the 2007-08 National Land Transport Programme, help achieve the Prime Minister’s goal of carbon neutrality?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): I believe that the member has misunderstood the funding for passenger transport. Rather than a decline, there will an overall increase in Government investment in passenger transport during the coming year. That is because not all of the Government’s investment in public transport is allocated through the National Land Transport Programme. A sizable investment also goes into rail. The total Government investment in passenger transport is expected to be $506 million in 2007-08, which is an increase of $75 million from last year. This year’s investment includes $263 million through the National Land Transport Programme and $243 million provided directly to ONTRACK and the regions for upgrades of the Auckland and Wellington urban rail networks.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Minister saying that the National Land Transport Programme is wrong when it shows public transport funding declining from $301 million this year to $263 million next year—and is the New Zealand Herald also wrong—and how can she claim to be putting new money into Auckland rail electrification when Auckland has to pay all the servicing charges on the long-term Crown loan?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I am not saying that the National Land Transport Programme is wrong, but I think it is rather difficult when talking about passenger transport to talk only about buses and not about trains, because trains, as the member knows, make up a major and growing part of passenger transport. So to isolate one part out, and to say that it is not enough to achieve the Prime Minister’s goal of carbon neutrality, I think is being too cute.

Hon Mark Gosche: What importance does the Government place on passenger transport?

Hon ANNETTE KING: This $506 million investment reflects the importance that the Government does place on improving passenger transport as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while also providing better transport choices. This Government has enabled a major step change in the funding provision for passenger transport. I just remind members that in 1999 the investment in passenger transport was around $45 million.

Hon Mark Gosche: What is the National Land Transport Programme funding allocated to Auckland, New Zealand’s largest city, which was starved of funding under the National Government?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That is a very good question. The Government is allocating nearly $780 million to land transport in Auckland through the programme. That is a $221 million increase from last year and does not even include any of the rail announcements made in Budget 2007. This year Auckland is receiving a major boost with the opening of the northern busway, which will provide dedicated and high-occupancy vehicle transit lanes and facilities between the Auckland Harbour Bridge and Albany. Further, in the past year Government funding has enabled the successful completion of the central motorway junction, Panmure Station, and the Esmonde Road interchange, just to name three projects. I remind the House that in 1999 the National Government was investing around $18 million in public transport in Auckland.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: How will she explain to the thousands of ordinary New Zealanders who are trying to reduce their carbon footprint that next year the Government’s National Land Transport Programme will spend $113 million more on roads and $38 million less on public transport, despite the fact that the National Land Transport Programme makes it quite clear that the Land Transport Fund can, and does, spend on rail?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I do not think people in New Zealand will be confused at all about this Government’s commitment to passenger transport. In fact, in the National Land Transport Programme announced last night, predictions under this Government’s agenda are that passenger transport services funding will increase by 75 percent over the next 10 years. I would put that record against that of any other party in this House that has had the opportunity to be in Government.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why does a State highway that is mostly used by local people to get from one side of a city to another get funded 100 percent by central government, whereas a rail line or a busway that does exactly the same thing must be paid for half out of local rates; and is that not a reason that we do not get very many public transport projects applying for funding from the Land Transport Fund—because the locals have to find half the money?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I think that most New Zealanders want to be fair about this. Most New Zealanders who use their cars or drive trucks pay the petrol excise duty. They pay the road-user charges, and that is the funding that goes into the National Land Transport Fund. So they put the money in, and I believe that most New Zealanders believe they should also get benefits out of it. But they do not mind—most of them—also putting some money into passenger transport for those who do not pay the petrol excise duty directly, or who do not drive cars. So there has to be fairness in terms of allocating money to roads and to passenger transport. This Government is committed to increasing the allocation to passenger transport, and I welcome the support we receive from the Greens, particularly on the announcement today about the major investment that will go into trains—for example, here in Wellington.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister confirm, in relation to her answer about motorists’ funding, that analysis in Auckland shows that 44 percent of the benefit of upgrading the rail system in Auckland goes to motorists and only 28 percent to passengers on trains; and is that not a reason for motorists to fund more of the public transport system?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Increasingly, New Zealanders who drive cars will pay for more passenger transport, because, for example, the use of the train in Auckland when it is electrified comes from a fuel tax. That is paid for by people who drive their cars and trucks. So they increasingly do pay for passenger transport, and I do not think they resent that. But they would resent it if there were not an ability for them also to have roads on which they, too, can move around. I do agree with the member in one respect—that is, if we can get people off the roads and into passenger transport, it will be easier for those who are on the roads to move around. So there is definitely an advantage. But the member constantly tries to play one group off against another, and I do not think it is helpful, when we are trying to encourage people to accept their duty to pay to help fund passenger transport, if people cannot see a benefit coming from it for themselves.

District Health Boards—House Officer Vacancies

3. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by the Acting Minister of Health’s answer in the House of 15 May 2007, “I am informed that the three Auckland district health boards have house officer vacancies … estimated at less than 2 percent … I am also advised that it is not expected that the overall shortage will worsen in the next quarter.”; if so, what is the latest information he has on the next quarter?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes I do. I was advised this morning that the gaps in the rosters—that is, positions not filled by permanent house officers or by locums—whilst they vary across shifts, are still about 2 percent.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why is the Government being so evasive about the true level of the junior doctor vacancies in New Zealand, when this leaked memo to all chief executives of district health boards in New Zealand says: “New Zealand is currently facing a huge shortage of junior doctors, which has been gradually increasing over the last 7 years. As at the 2^nd of May the Auckland hospitals had vacancy rates of 18 to 23 percent for house officers in the third quarter, predictions for the fourth quarter vacancies approach 40 to 50 percent, and these numbers are mirrored in some other hospitals throughout New Zealand.”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The fact of the matter is that the number of doctors employed by Waitemata District Health Board, and by other Auckland district health boards—Waitemata is where the problem is thought by some to be most acute—has been rising steadily every year this Government has been in Government, and will continue to rise, including from next Sunday when that district hospital board’s funding increases by 8 percent.

Ann Hartley: Have there been any increases in doctor numbers in New Zealand hospitals over recent years; if so, what are the details?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, there have been. There has been an increase of 1,400 doctors in the last 6 years. That is a significant increase by anyone’s standards. For Waitemata District Health Board, supposedly the problem district health board, the increase in the number of doctors has been more than significant; it has been dramatic. By trawling through Waitemata’s recent history and making adjustments for methodology, the number of doctors employed by Waitemata has increased from 320, 6 years ago, to 570 doctors today—from 320 doctors to 570 doctors. That is a 78 percent increase in doctors in that district health board in 6 years. Of course there is a 2 percent vacancy rate now, but that needs to be measured against a 78 percent increase in the last 6 years. This is the sort of improvement that can happen when a Government decides to invest in health and invest in health professionals.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why is the Minister saying that the vacancy rate is only 2 percent, when this document prepared for every chief executive of a district health board in New Zealand shows that the junior doctor vacancy rate is, at the moment, 10 times what he is saying, and it is predicted to be 50 percent in the next few months; and is that why representatives of his district health boards are about to fly over to Britain to try to recruit 30 doctors to try to fix this problem?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Indeed I can confirm that New Zealand district health boards are very interested in the fact that medical unemployment is now arising in Britain. If we can secure the services of well-trained British doctors as a result, well and good, I say. In respect of this business about a 20 percent vacancy rate, the member is talking about something different from what I am talking about. In fact, the member may care to reflect that those who are doing locums are the same junior doctors who would be permanently employed if they wished to be. What those junior doctors are doing is trading less job security for more money.

Heather Roy: In respect of hospitals, just how important is Labour’s employment law when Hutt District Health Board house surgeons have been told they cannot take any leave, contrary to employment law, because of the house surgeon shortage, and house surgeons at Capital and Coast District Health Board are allowed to take leave but management then directs senior doctors to pressure the house surgeons, again against the law, to cover gaps above and beyond their normal working hours?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Assertions are made easily in the health sector and they come from the opposite side of the House each day, apparently. We now have an assertion of a crisis in one district health board from the National Party, when the facts show that there has been a 78 percent increase in doctors in the last 6 years. It is hard to manufacture a crisis out of that. The member has made a couple of assertions, unsupported by evidence, which may or may not be true. How would I know? All I have to say to the member is that district health boards obey New Zealand law, including New Zealand employment law.

Hon Tony Ryall: Who should New Zealanders believe—

Madam SPEAKER: The level of intervention is rising again in the House. Would members please keep it at an acceptable level.

Hon Tony Ryall: Who should New Zealanders believe: the management of district health boards, who are the people who run our hospitals and who are saying that the workforce crisis in New Zealand is deepening and that health care services will be affected by a 50 percent vacancy amongst junior doctors in the next quarter, or the Minister of Health, who has been so evasive in trying to admit that there is a major problem facing hospital services in New Zealand?

Hon PETE HODGSON: District health boards in Auckland advised me about a month ago that they think they will walk into a problem of a shortage of doctors. Maybe that is—

Hon Tony Ryall: You’re going to look so stupid when you see this.

Hon PETE HODGSON: They, in fact, wrote me a letter about a month ago to tell me; presumably that is the letter the member has. The ministry’s response to the district health boards is: “Well, what are you going to do about it? What are your contingency plans?”. Those contingency plans have been received. They are regarded by the ministry as thoroughly satisfactory and in-depth, but the member continues to assert that we have a crisis when it is difficult to see what it might be.

Jo Goodhew: Can the Minister confirm that the likely cause of increasing numbers of doctors opting to be locums is the high degree of industrial unrest in the sector and those doctors being undervalued and not listened to by this Labour Government?

Hon PETE HODGSON: My guess is that there probably is a linkage between industrial unrest and assertions. It is quite interesting to look at what the assertions about a crisis are in this workforce and match them up against what is going on in the industrial relations scene at the time. For example, we had a report a couple of weeks ago that said there was a 40 percent turnover in nurses. When we take a little look, to get to 40 percent—it is nothing like 40 percent; it is not even half of 40 percent—we have to add in everything. For example, we have to add in the fact that nurses who are in their first year of training would move from one run to another to get themselves a little bit of experience, and every time those nurses change their run, it is called a resignation and a re-employment. If we are to do that, we can get ourselves bewilderingly large figures. Sometimes that happens in health. My interest is ensuring that we get to the truth.

Jo Goodhew: Does the Minister realise he could save heaps of the money that he is spending sending recruiters overseas to lure home New Zealand doctors just by posting to those doctors the press cuttings from Trevor Mallard’s announcement of tax cuts in 2008?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member draws a long bow, wastes a lot of parliamentary time, and gives me a question for which I have no responsibility.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Policy

4. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What recent reports has he received on the policy of 20 hours’ free early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I saw a report on Sunday from a person saying that the policy is “unworkable”, and that they “wouldn’t offer the scheme”, and “haven’t changed our policy from childcare tax deductions.” I have also seen a report today from the same person in today’s Dominion Post denying that she would scrap 20 hours’ free early childhood education, and stating that “childcare tax deductions are not what we are going to be fighting the election on.” In both cases this comes from National’s Paula Bennett. The shaking has begun, and the flip-flop is about to take place.

Darien Fenton: What other responses has the Minister seen to the policy of 20 hours’ free early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Linda Mitchell, a researcher from the New Zealand Council for Educational Research, calls the policy “a very important and visionary policy that acknowledges the real value of early childhood education for children and families”. The Wellington Region Free Kindergarten Association chair, Anne Hare, says: “This policy will be of huge benefit to New Zealand families.” Earlier this week a Taranaki parent who estimated saving $36 a week from 20 hours’ free education, told the Daily News: “I think it’s a great thing we can put a bit of money aside.” Therefore, it is no wonder that John Key, in full aspirational mode, has told us that he wants all young children in this country to have access to 20 hours’ free education.

Katherine Rich: Why would any party want to sign up to a policy called “20 hours’ free” when it is not free, and why is he spending precious parliamentary time boxing at shadows, when he cannot answer even the simplest questions about his policy, such as how many centres have opted in, and how many kids will actually receive 20 free hours next week?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member wants to know why we might spend parliamentary time—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I cannot hear the response. We will have it in silence.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member wants to know why we are spending parliamentary time on this. I say to her that it is because the country has become extremely interested in what the National—

Katherine Rich: How many? You can’t answer.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please be seated. I ask the member who intervened to please leave the Chamber. I said that we would have the answer in silence because we could not hear it. Members have continued to intervene. The member who intervened will please leave the Chamber.

Katherine Rich withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member was asking why we would want to spend parliamentary time on this question. I think it is because the country has become extremely interested in what the National Party campaign against 20 hours’ free education means. We need to tell the country that at the moment it means, we think, a childcare tax credit. However, that policy is now being refuted by the National Party spokesperson, Paula Bennett, and that kind of confusion is worth airing in the House so that the country knows what it might get if it dared to vote for a National Government.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The difficulty you have, Madam Speaker, is that the member asked a perfectly proper question. The question did not ask what National’s policy was, or anything like that. She asked how many children would get the service and how many centres have signed up. The interjection from my colleague whom you have tipped out was simply to try to get the Minister to answer that question. Now that you have kicked her out, perhaps we could get an answer from the Minister to the member’s question.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister was addressing the question. Members know what the rules are. It was impossible to hear. The level of intervention through barracking had become impossible. I had asked for that particular answer to be heard in silence so that members could hear, and in order that we could return to a regular exchange. The Minister did address the question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I listened very carefully to the Minister. He gave a long answer as to what National’s policy was—for which he has absolutely no responsibility—and at no time in his answer did he address the question in relation to how many centres and how many children, which is the question on the minds of every New Zealand family with preschool children.

Madam SPEAKER: I ask the Minister to repeat his answer and to address the question.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I point out that the convention in the House under the Standing Orders is that I have to reply to one out of many questions in a question. One of the member’s questions asked why we are focusing attention on this issue, and that was the question I answered.

Madam SPEAKER: I also note that Katherine Rich has a question. She should be allowed to return to ask that question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister received any reports whatsoever from any source whatsoever explaining what the beleaguered mothers and fathers of preschool children in New Zealand, or those whom John Key has described as the underclass, have done to deserve, of all people, as their mouthpiece, Paula Bennett?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That is a difficult question for me to answer, as the member would expect, but my understanding is that the portfolio is allocated by John Key, and I can only say he wanted people to have—

Madam SPEAKER: There is no ministerial responsibility for that. It is not a sensible question.

Foreign Nationals—False Documentation

5. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: How many foreign nationals have made it to New Zealand’s borders with falsified or fraudulent travel documents since 1 January 2004?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): In all likelihood many fewer than under the previous National administration, which for its first 7 years had not one fraud investigation officer in place, and which, by the time it ended, had just appointed its first. In contrast, as well as building a fraud investigations unit of 18 officers, this Government has focused on installing preventive measures at the top of the cliff, such as Advance Passenger Processing, which was set up in 2003; the immigration profiling group, set up in 2005; the Regional Movement Alert List, set up in 2006; the risk targeting programme, set up in 2006; and a range of offshore interdiction programmes.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I do not think the Minister did address the question. Would the Minister please address the question.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Speaking to the point of order, I would argue, with respect, that I did address the question. The question asked how many are likely to have occurred, and I said the likelihood is that there were more under the previous administration because the infrastructure was less well developed than it is now. I do think that addresses the question.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister has had this question on notice for some hours. The question does not ask about the likelihood. The Minister is misleading the House in that assertion. The question is quite plain. It asks how many foreign nationals have made it to New Zealand’s borders with falsified documents. It does not ask what is likely; it asks for the facts. This Minister should deliver the facts to this House.

Madam SPEAKER: I have heard enough. Certainly, as members know, they cannot demand a specific answer to the question. That normally comes with phrases such as: “Yes, no, how many, give a number.” The Minister did, I think, in that context, address the question, but I can understand that the way in which he gave his answer—he included a lot of detail that did not appear relevant—led to people thinking it was not specifically addressed. The answer may not have been a satisfactory one, but, as members know, Ministers do not have to give specific answers to questions. They merely have to address them, and under those circumstances, however unsatisfactory the answer may be, the Minister addressed the question.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is actually quite an important issue. A Minister was given a question on notice that is in the public interest. The Standing Orders are very specific. They require a Minister to answer the question—that is very clear in the Standing Orders. The Minister must answer the question in a manner that addresses it, and I suggest to you humbly that to put the addressing of the question ahead of answering it is not what the Standing Orders intend. The Standing Orders are very explicit. They say the Minister must answer the question if an answer can be given consistently with the public interest, and the answer that is given must address the question.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Indeed, the member just contradicted himself at the very end of his speech. The Standing Orders do say very clearly that an answer that seeks to address the question must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest. Clearly, in this case the Minister, having determined that it could be given, has to address the question—indeed seek to address the question. So the member cannot demand that a “how many” type of question must lead to a specific “273” or “186” type of answer. The Minister gave an answer, but, of course, the Speaker is able to make comments that I thought the member might have taken a hint from, in terms of the satisfactory or unsatisfactory nature of the answer.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Can the Minister give an absolute assurance that none of the 596 identity fraud case files referred to in the Auditor-General’s report pose any security risk to New Zealand; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have directed the department to apply additional resources to clear that backlog, and all of those case files have been allocated. It is impossible to give a number to the member when that analysis has not yet been completed, but by way of example let me give two statistics. Firstly, in the last year the Government’s prosecution efforts have had an 84 percent success rate. Secondly, in the last year the department has conducted 55 prosecutions. In the last year of the failed National administration, it managed only one.

Steve Chadwick: What successes have followed from the Labour Government’s preventive border security measures?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am advised that of the 5 million border crossings each year, 762 people have been denied the ability to board planes to New Zealand under Advance Passenger Processing, 1,214 people were refused entry at the border, over 100 people have been refused entry through the risk targeting programme, over 12,000 application decisions have been made by the immigration profiling group, with a decline rate of 20 percent since June 2005, and—sorry—an 86 percent, not an 84 percent, conviction rate has been achieved for all the fraud prosecutions undertaken by the department. Again, I contrast that to just one in the last year of the doomed National Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether he has read the Department of Labour’s 2002 briefing to the incoming Minister of Immigration, which states under the heading “Managing fraud is a major issue” that “The New Zealand Immigration Service is faced with increasingly sophisticated fraudulent documents. It is essential that the New Zealand Immigration Service has the tools to respond effectively to fraud.”; and can he explain why in the 5 years since that briefing his department has not put the personnel, the technology, or the resources in place to properly scrutinise the people who come into our country?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Let me answer that in two parts. Firstly, no, I did not read the 2002 incoming Minister’s briefing; I read the one to me in 2005. Secondly, on resources, National spent a mere $730,000 in 1998-99 on immigration risk profiling. Since taking office, Labour has spent consecutively $10 million, $8 million, $19 million, $66 million, $14 million, and $16 million of new funding on border security. I think the answer is plain: this Government has vastly upgraded the effort.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: If the Minister has such very good figures at his fingertips, will he tell us how many of the 596 fraud case files identified in the Auditor-General’s report on immigration identity fraud relate to people who are currently in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As I said, all of those case files have now been allocated, and I have directed that additional resource be put into conducting their analysis. It will be obvious, even to the Opposition, that one cannot logically answer that question until that analysis has been completed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether his department will review all recent refugee and migrant applications to ensure that no applicants have been able to enter the country by fraudulent means, especially in the light of the report that admits that the department’s fraud database was “corrupted” in 2005 and 4 months of information was lost; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Office of the Controller and Auditor-General found that overall, the department has “systems, processes, procedures, and relationships … in place to prevent, detect, and investigate immigration identity fraud.” I have directed the chief executive to put additional resource behind the analysis of the existing queue of cases, and to report monthly to me and on the department’s website as to the progress that is being made. I am also working with the department to ensure that all 15 of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General’s recommendations are implemented expeditiously.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Can the Minister confirm that he has told this House just now that he does not know how many of the 596 fraud case files identified in the Auditor-General’s report are for people who are actually in New Zealand right now?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have said to the member that I want to see the analysis done before I give him numbers.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What in the Auditor-General’s report suggests that the Minister’s department has learnt from the numerous cases that have been brought before this Parliament by New Zealand First, including the case of the former Minister of Agriculture in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq being on the streets of Auckland without this Minister’s department having any idea about that; what in the report suggests that he and his department have learnt anything from all the examples of a failed system happening in our country?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Again, I will give a two-part reply. As to the first part, with great respect to the member, I say that I can recall no evidence that indicates the case he referred to was actually a matter of immigration identity fraud; it may have been a failure of the border security admission system. But, second and more important, since becoming Minister I have championed the Immigration Change Programme, which as the member knows, in cooperation with his party, sets up a very widespread three-tier reform programme of legislation, policy, and operations that seeks a fundamental upgrade of the department’s systems.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When the Minister said yesterday that “there is a gap between where you want to be and where you currently are”, can he give an assurance that falling through that gap have not been any individuals gaining access to New Zealand who could pose a security, criminal, or even a public health, risk to New Zealand?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have given the assurance publicly—and I am happy to repeat to the member in the House—that every one of the recommendations of the Auditor-General will be implemented, and that that gap will be closed to my satisfaction.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the Department of Labour’s 2002 briefing to the incoming Minister.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table 49 written parliamentary questions, in reply to that briefing, that have been asked by New Zealand First since 2002 with regard to immigration corruption.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Eligibility

6. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: How many 3 and 4-year-olds currently attending kindergartens does he expect will receive 20 hours’ free early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): As I have noted previously, the data is being finalised. It is my intention to release full details, as I have said frequently, broken down by the type of service, how many centres are in the scheme, how many children are benefiting, and where they are.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Do you know anything?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, quite a lot.

Katherine Rich: When the Minister says that the data is being finalised, is he trying to tell the House that although this policy is going live on Monday, he has no idea how many kids will actually receive 20 free hours’ early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member has asked this question frequently, and on each occasion I have encouraged her just to relax. The policy is under good control. I think the Ministry of Education has done a very good job on the policy, and it has been processing the centres and the numbers. As I have said frequently, the policy is to be launched on 1 July. I know that the member is eager to see it, because I know that her leader is aspirational about it. I will make sure that those figures are made known to her, as well, at that time.

Moana Mackey: How many 3 and 4-year-olds currently attending kindergarten does he expect would qualify for a childcare tax deduction?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Very few. Many kindergartens are no longer asking parents for regular donations, because of the 20 free hours policy. If it were scrapped, kindergartens would have to go back to asking for donations, but donations would not qualify for a childcare tax deduction. Moreover, many parents in the situation where one parent stays at home with the kids would be disqualified. Based on a recent New Zealand Council for Educational Research survey, it appears that two-thirds of kindergarten households are in that situation, which would make a childcare tax deduction meaningless.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister confirm that when the ministry surveyed all early childhood education providers, it arrived at an average cost of provision of $6.40 per student hour, and that the actual subsidy being offered ranges between $11.10 per student hour for a fully qualified teacher service, down to $3.20 per student hour?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can confirm those figures. As the select committee was told—a meeting at which the Opposition spokesperson was present—the Ministry of Education surveyed all centres and got a 56 percent return. The peer reviewer of that research said that a 25 percent return would have been adequate to get an accurate picture. So the ministry gained a very, very good picture of the current costs being incurred by the sector, and those are the figures that it arrived at.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister confirm that, from next week, the bulk of the kids that he will be counting as receiving 20 free hours will be kindy kids who were technically receiving a free service anyway; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That is a very good point. I refer the member to the general manager of the Central North Island Kindergarten Association, who recently told the Waikato Times: “I must correct the impression … that the Government has always provided 20 hours of free hours to three- to four-year-olds at kindergarten. In fact parents have always had to meet the cost of day-to-day running of kindergartens by making donations, paying fees and fundraising.” And as the Lower Hutt Kindergarten Association has pointed out, the days of that happening are over because under this policy they now get stable funding 4 months in advance.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister still stand by his belief that this policy has been sold well; if he does, how does he explain the amount of angst that it has created?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have to say that the policy has had a few debates over the past few months, but they can be traceable to, essentially, three people. Two of them are in the House, and one of them is the chief executive of the Early Childhood Council. If anybody else was to be asked—Irene Cooper of the New Zealand Educational Institute, researchers like Linda Mitchell, people like Nancy Bell who run services, or the many people who run kindergarten associations around the country—such people would say they have simply gotten on with it.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister confirm that next week he will be counting 43,000 children who are already receiving free early childhood education through free kindergartens across the country as kids receiving 20 free hours, when the parents of those children either will receive no financial gain as a result of his policy, or, in some cases, will actually be paying more for early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I do feel that this member has never really understood this policy, so I take her back again to the general manager of the Central North Island Kindergarten Association, who said that 20 free hours have never been available to this category of young person. The parents have raised money, they have paid donations, and they have paid fees, all across the country. Right now, the Lower Hutt Kindergarten Association, for example, is charging nil to its parents, whereas before they fund-raised, paid fees, and made donations. I am looking across at Mr Simon Power, the father of a young child; he will be looking forward to not having to do that when he enrols that young child in a kindergarten association.

Paula Bennett: How does the Minister respond to those parents currently receiving a Work and Income childcare subsidy who have now discovered that they will be worse off, and will end up paying more under something that is supposedly free?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Parents whose children go to early childhood centres and get a Work and Income subsidy will, of course, benefit. If they get 20 free hours, they benefit. But the one thing they must fear is a childcare tax credit, which would mean they would lose heavily. A beneficiary, for example, would get nothing. But they should also fear the sheer confusion that surrounds all of the policies from the National Party, and, of course, they should expect that a flip-flop is about to arrive.

Paula Bennett: How does he respond to one mother who receives a Work and Income subsidy who describes as bizarre the fact that under the 20 free hours policy she will be $15 per week worse off; and another who states: “I work part-time and am a solo mum who currently pays $30 per week. If I opt in for 20 hours free scheme, I end up paying double, which I can’t afford.”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: All I can say is that the member has turned up in the House with a number of hypothetical cases. If she would care to give us any of those kinds of situations, we would look at them. But usually we find out she is wrong.

National Land Transport Programme—Key Features

7. DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) to the Minister of Transport: What are the key features of the 2007-08 National Land Transport Programme announced last evening?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): The National Land Transport Programme allocates a record $2.4 billion across 12 activity classes. This is a record level of expenditure. A key feature of the programme is that it clearly demonstrates this Government’s commitment to transport infrastructure. We are investing over 145 percent more in transport than a National Government did in 1998-99. Furthermore, in the coming year the Government expects to invest over $500 million in public transport. There is also increased funding for walking and cycling, road safety, and much more.

Darren Hughes: Has the Minister received any comments about this large increase in funding for the National Land Transport Programme?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I have. I have seen many comments praising the Government for its commitment to New Zealand’s infrastructure. However, I am rather bemused by the comments from Maurice Williamson. He admitted that there has been underspending for decades, that there was a huge amount of catch-up to do, but he dismissed the increases in funding as something that just goes up every year, anyway. Well, let us see whether it does. This graph, which my colleague is holding up, shows the level of under-investment by a National Government in the 1990s. It shows, in fact, that this present Government is serious about addressing under-investment. Have a look at the figures for National, then at the figures for Labour, and then look at the predicted increase. What a lousy increase we had under a National Government. The other thing is, poor old Mr Williamson said he had difficulty getting money out of the then Minister of Finance. Well, that was his Minister of Finance, and I know that our Minister of Finance understands the need to invest into New Zealand.

Housing New Zealand—Confidence

8. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Housing: Does he have confidence in Housing New Zealand Corporation; if so, why?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): Yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Phil Heatley: How is it that a person can be allocated a State house in Māngere, and, at the same time, own a holiday home in Russell?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I would welcome further information about that case.

Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to judge whether that is a fair answer, given that the Minister gave me that information yesterday with a cover letter.

Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows, that is not a point of order.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister tell the House what reports he has seen on Housing New Zealand Corporation’s efforts to improve insulation and energy efficiency in State houses?

Madam SPEAKER: Members do want questions to be addressed. I would remind members that we want to hear the answers, please.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: We have completed 14,000 energy retrofits since 2001. This is a subject that members of this House are very interested in. Last Friday, for example, a resident of McGehan Close in Mount Roskill told the corporation that she had been contacted by members of the National Party in Wellington who were interested in the insulation of her house. Previously she had been given a thermometer by National list MP Jackie Blue, who asked her to measure the temperature of her house. As all maintenance issues at this resident’s property are being addressed, she has informed the corporation that she will not respond to Jackie Blue’s request. I guess this is a vote of confidence in the corporation from one of our tenants.

Phil Heatley: How is it that a person not only can get away with owning a holiday home in Russell while having a State house but also can get away with not living in the State house, instead renting it out for a tidy profit to an unwitting family?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am astonished to learn that that member claims he received a letter from me about this subject yesterday. I would like to sit down with him after question time, be shown this letter, and find out a bit more information about this case. It is really astonishing.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the letter.

Document not tabled.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the Official Information Act request explaining these details.

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

Phil Heatley: What action has the Minister taken to investigate Housing New Zealand Corporation over this scam, given that one of the neighbours has formally testified to the corporation that the tenant “gloated he knew someone in Housing; that is how he got the place.”?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Such alleged behaviour by a tenant would be totally inappropriate. I will be investigating it very carefully after question time.

Phil Heatley: Was the State house tenant ever prosecuted, and was an official investigation ever made into allegations that to pull off this scam the tenant had insider help from a Housing New Zealand Corporation mate?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: All sorts of allegations can be made by all sorts of people. I can assure this House that I will be looking into this case very carefully, very quickly.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. What response has the Minister made to the 2006 report called Māori Housing Experiences: Emerging Trends and Issues, carried out under contract to Housing New Zealand Corporation and Te Puni Kōkiri, which recommended that: “Māori capability in the housing sector should be better resourced so as to support the development of Māori collective initiatives.”?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I have been concerned for some time that progress on Māori housing has not been as rapid as it could have been. Some very significant announcements to speed this up will be made in the next few weeks.

Health Services—Primary Health Subsidies

9. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Health: Has he received any reports on the security of primary health subsidies?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes, I have. The National Party said in September 2005, just prior to the last election, that in effect, under National, doctors’ fees for 25 to 64-year-olds would double, and prescription charges would rise from $3 to $15. However, I then read in the Bay of Plenty Times earlier this month that National’s health spokesperson, Tony Ryall, is now not sure what National’s policy will be. So we have certainty and security of low doctor fees and low prescription fees under Labour, and uncertainty and insecurity if ever there were to be a National Government.

Martin Gallagher: Given the disturbing answer from the Minister with reference to my primary question in terms of the information contained therein—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That member may well be disturbed, but the word “given” at the start of his question is not appropriate.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I agree.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I think it is absolutely inappropriate. You may recall that in question of the day No. 1 Mr English started off his—I think—second supplementary question with a “given”. I think it would be very good to enforce that ruling in every case.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I was aware of the first transgression of using the word “given”. If members could remove the word “given” from their vocabularies when they are asking questions, that would be helpful.

Martin Gallagher: In the light of the Minister’s answer—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member just ask the question. This is his last opportunity.

Martin Gallagher: What is the effect on the average New Zealand family of the Labour-led Government’s policy to lower the cost of going to the doctor?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The last phase of the roll-out starts this Sunday. From that point all New Zealanders will have cheaper doctors’ fees and cheaper prescriptions. For an average family the cost of going to a general practitioner has fallen from about $940 a year to about $440 a year. This is what the National Party Opposition is placing at risk with its indecision. National used to be indecisive, but now it is not so sure.

Child, Youth and Family—Confidence

10. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Does she have confidence in Child, Youth and Family Services; if not, why not?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): Yes, I do; because it delivers its difficult statutory role in both care and protection and youth justice matters in a hard-working and conscientious manner.

Anne Tolley: Does the Minister stand by her statement in this House yesterday that last weekend’s incident, when two 14-year-olds escaped from a closely supervised Child, Youth and Family camp to go on a crime rampage across the Bay of Plenty, culminating in the attempted shooting of a police officer, “does not, in my view, lead to the assumption that there is some systemic failure in the youth justice system”?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes.

Anne Tolley: How can the Minister say there is no systemic failure in youth justice at Child, Youth and Family, when in March the Principal Youth Court Judge, Andrew Becroft, condemned Child, Youth and Family for its handling of a young offender, calling its treatment of a 16-year-old boy who committed serious crimes while supposedly being monitored by a social worker he had never met as “grossly unacceptable”, and saying that nothing had changed at the coalface?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I agree that breaching court-imposed conditions is grossly unacceptable behaviour on the part of any youth justice employees. But I do not agree with the conclusion that the member has leaped to—which was also leaped to by another member yesterday—that there is systemic failure in the youth justice system.

Sue Moroney: What significant pieces of work is Child, Youth and Family engaged in that contribute to the well-being of New Zealand children?

Hon RUTH DYSON: A great deal of work is under way. There is too much to list it all here, but it includes helping to raise awareness in the community of caring for our children and preventing abuse; implementing the differential response model, to ensure that all families receive the right support from the right agency; responding to increasing numbers of notifications faster, and completing investigations in a timely way; increasing the workforce, training, and capacity of youth justice services; and increasing the number of social workers—in particular, the number of registered social workers. I might add in conclusion that the percentage of social workers with a level 6 or higher qualification has increased from 45 percent in 2001 to 76 percent today.

Anne Tolley: How can the Minister say there is no systemic failure in youth justice at Child, Youth and Family, when in April Mataroa Barton, a dangerous sex offender in Napier, was so badly supervised by Child, Youth and Family that he was able to escape from his 24-hour-a-day minders at least eight times to jump over a fence and peer into his neighbour’s windows; and when just last weekend the media revealed that a P-addicted 16-year-old had his escaping charge thrown out by the Youth Court after the judge said that Child, Youth and Family had done nothing to ensure that the boy was effectively detained?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I agree that, in the case of the Napier youth justice offender, which has been discussed on many occasions in this House, that was not acceptable. I said that both to this House and to the chief executive of the department. To leap to a conclusion that there are systemic failures is just shallow, and the member should acknowledge that.

Anne Tolley: What is being done to address the serious concerns of Judge Becroft and other youth justice professionals that Child, Youth and Family is doing an appalling job of managing young offenders; and why should we trust this Minister when 7 years ago this Government promised to do better, but, after producing report after review after report, to quote Judge Becroft, nothing has changed at the coalface?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I would be very happy to produce again for the member the department’s implementation of the youth justice strategy. I would also be happy to table in the House letters of commendation from Judge Becroft about the performance of the department in the youth justice area. The member should get a little more up to date.

Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister in the House yesterday whether she would publicly release a report from the Wairaka Kokiri Trust, which was subject to a review. The Minister said in her answer that she would make it public. Could I ask that that report be tabled in the House today?

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. That is a matter the member can take up with the Minister.

Securities Commission—Insider Trading, Tranz Rail

11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: What recent reports has she received regarding the Securities Commission’s insider trading case involving David Richwhite and Sir Michael Fay?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I have seen a number of reports advising that the Securities Commission has successfully reached a financial settlement in this matter.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has she received any other reports regarding political figures supporting the innocence of Sir Michael Fay and David Richwhite, as claimed by them; if so, who would these people be, and why would they have some understanding of merchant banking?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I did indeed see a report that said that Fay Richwhite had “settled with no wrongdoing”, and that “they’ve taken the course they felt they needed to take, and that is the end of the matter.” That came from the leader of the National Party, who, not surprisingly—and consistently with The Hollow Men—appears to have a closed mind on the issue.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has she received reports explaining why someone with merchant bank experience would argue against what was clearly catalogued in the Weekend Herald last week, concerning $438 million being profited to Fay and Richwhite, they having purloined $271 million from the New Zealand taxpayers and shareholders; who on earth would excuse that sort of behaviour?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I indicated in my earlier answer, excuses for such behaviour may well be proffered by those in The Hollow Men.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is she aware of the circumstances around the purchase by Capital Markets of BNZ interests, which were then sold off to Fay Richwhite, the private company of Michael Fay and David Richwhite, which were then sold at three times the value the same day, thereby advancing them to the tune of $100 million, and who has inquired into that?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am aware that the incoming National Government in 1991 did indeed effect a very large bail-out of the Bank of New Zealand, which I understand at the time was 30 percent owned by Fay Richwhite.

Question No. 8 to Minister

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): I seek leave to table a very extensive document, which was supplied to Mr Phil Heatley on 22 June 2007, under the Official Information Act, which indicates that the matters he referred to in question No. 8 were referred to the Crown solicitor for prosecution.

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

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may need to point out to the Minister that he cannot table a document that has already been tabled. The National Party has put that document in the public arena.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, as the member well knows.

Diabetes—“Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa Programme

12. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Health: What has been the total funding for the diabetes “Get Checked” programme since its implementation?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): My answer must be an estimate, because the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme is funded through district health boards. The annual cost is estimated to be a bit over $4 million a year this year, or about $18 million over the 6 years since the programme’s inception. The cost per person per year is a little under $50.

Dr Jackie Blue: What does the Minister think it says about his competence when he is not able to provide an accurate figure, only an estimate, of the amount of money spent on “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa, and when it is also clear from the Auditor-General’s report that he cannot be sure how many people have enrolled, how well they are doing, and whether the right people are being identified?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member needs to be aware that the New Zealand health system—and I thought she was aware of this—is operated somewhat at a distance from this Government. It has 21 boards, elected and appointed, between it and myself. That is how it has been for some years, and that is how it will be for some years more. I have given the member my best estimate. It is likely to be accurate. She is shaking her head. I have given the member my best estimate. There is not a pure estimate. [Interruption] What do I do? Give her a thermometer! I just say to the member that the number of people in “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa has increased very significantly in recent times—30 percent in the last 2 or 3 years. There are now 80,000 New Zealanders in the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme. It is a very good programme and one that she should support, I hope.

Dr Jackie Blue: Why did the Government not act in 2004, when it became clear that the number of people enrolled in the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme was remaining static in some district health boards and decreasing in others—a clear signal that the programme was struggling and going backwards?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member’s assertions simply do not stack up with the facts. Here is the 2004 and 2006 data for a few district health boards: for Northland, 2,200 people have become 2,600; for Auckland, 4,500 people have become 8,000; for Waitematā 6,500 people have become over 7,000; and so on. The number of people going into “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa is going up, not down as the member would assert. I would enjoin her to surround herself with a few facts.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā nō koe, Madam Speaker. Can the Minister give any possible explanations as to why only 40 percent of Māori who are expected to have diabetes are enrolled in the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme, compared with 60 percent of those of all other ethnicities, and does he have any plans to address that, bearing in mind the disproportionate number of Māori who are affected by diabetes?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member raises a good point. The number of Māori going into the programme is increasing at about the pace that the number of people going into the programme in total is. For example, if we were to look at the 2001 figures, we would see there were fewer than 4,000 Māori in the programme. There are now more than 10,000 Māori in the programme. I think that is good progress. But, on the other hand, progress in Pasifika communities has been even stronger than that. Accordingly, if it can be as good as that in Pasifika communities, we should test ourselves to see whether we can improve still further the Māori numbers.

Dr Jackie Blue: When Māori are known to have prevalence rates for diabetes that are nearly three times higher than those for Europeans, was he at all concerned early on after the programme started that many district health boards showed a trend of static or falling numbers of Māori being checked, and why did he not ask the question: is this programme working?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am surprised and a little bewildered that the National Party now requires the Government to better target Māori, when those members spend most of their time abusing us for targeting Māori at all. I will give the member some facts. In 2001, 3,788 Māori were enrolled in “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa. Every year, without fail, that has gone up—6,100, 8,900, 10,600, etc. This Government is pretty keen to address disparities, and one of the ways to do that is to target at-risk populations. We are doing so, with some success. I think the member would be entitled to ask whether we assert that even more success would be good. We certainly think it would be; we do not lack ambition.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Is not the recurrent theme of Labour’s health policy that the Government throws money at a problem, but the Minister has no way of measuring what difference that money is actually making, and is not “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa a case in point?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member certainly does take the cigar with that question! I would say to him very straightforwardly that we do measure how good this programme is, and we actually measure ourselves internationally as well. Let me give the member some international data. The New Zealand “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme ranks as about as good as, but no better than, the Swedish programme, ranks as being slightly better than the UK programme, and ranks as being usefully better than what is arguably the best programme in the United States, which is run by Kaiser Permanente—and I see the member continues to permanently interrupt me, as though he can speak and listen at the same time. In other words, in each case we are doing either as well as or better than the few countries that do pay as much attention to diabetes as we do. What is more, we know the number of people whose status has stayed the same or is much better. This is a chronic disease that was characterised by an inexorable decline. We have stabilised or improved the diabetes status of most of those 80,000 New Zealanders. That is not a bad result.

Dr Jackie Blue: I seek leave to table a report that shows the number of district health board enrolments in “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa since 2000.

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

General Debate

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. One knows one is on the way out if one is ever given the transport portfolio by the National Party leadership, because it has become a geriatric holding pen for either the clapped out or the soon to be chucked out members opposite. Poor old hapless Maurice Williamson. His political career was once a stellar one—he was Parliament’s techno whiz-kid, he was a political insider, and he was a mover and a shaker full of vim and vigour. He has been reduced to a token seat on the front bench of the Opposition with responsibility for transport, which he has to share with the junior MP for Hamilton East, whose enthusiasm for the portfolio makes Maurice look like he is actually waiting for God. He has been told that in a National Government transport will have no priority; it will have piles of platitudes and heaps of hypocrisy, and Bill English, as the Minister of Finance, would not give him any money anyway. So what a future to look forward to! It is no wonder poor old Maurice Williamson has lost his mojo. He has thrown in the towel. He is defeated. He is demoralised. He is downcast. Someone said to me today that his tarseal is cracked and he now has a hole in his pot.

Well, I have to say that this is a problem for the wannabe National Government-in-waiting, because Maurice Williamson does not have that problem on his own. With 16 months to an election, I think it is time that we had a look at the alternative Cabinet. It is time to put the blowtorch on the wannabe Ministers sitting opposite. If the media does not want to scrutinise them yet, then I think everybody else in this House should.

Today I want to give members the first instalment of what will be many instalments in the months ahead. Let us start with the Deputy Prime Minister in waiting, Bill English. Well, Mr English is a very angry man because he has spent the best years of his political career fighting with his colleagues to stay at the top of the greasy pole. He reminds me of a crocodile—just watching, just waiting, ready to pounce. It is only a matter of time. His prey dangles just there in front of him; a little, slight stumble and he will devour the affable Mr Key. Mr English has some scores to settle. In fact, a leadership role in Government would divide the National Party; it would not unite it.

Then let us turn to Tony Ryall. Unfortunately, this is a man riddled with bitterness. He went from being an affable, friendly Minister when he was in Government to a festering member on the Opposition benches. Now he is full of hatred and he wants revenge. I am reliably informed that half National’s caucus dislike his political tactics and the other half are scared of his acid tongue and his snitchy behaviour. I have to say that his stewardship of health would be a disaster, and the sector is already ridiculing his lack of health knowledge and bad manners. Dr Paul Hutchison is the real deal. But he would not even become an Associate Minister in a National Government, if it ever got to power.

Then we have Nick Smith. He is increasingly operating at the margins. He follows funny causes. He makes wild claims. He frenetically scurries around New Zealand. He would be a real risk in Government.

Then we have Gerry Brownlee. Gerry Brownlee, I have to tell this House, is very able. He worked hard as the deputy leader of the Opposition, and I believe he was badly treated. He was a good deputy leader in a deeply divided caucus, and changing his position has only deepened and shifted the division within the National Party. Gerry Brownlee has an enduring dislike for Bill English. He can see no light at the end of the tunnel for his career. All he can see coming is the one great big train heading straight for him.

Then we have Murray McCully, the Tony Soprano of the National Party. He arranges the political assassinations, but he has never successfully carried a portfolio load in Government.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): That speech was one of the saddest things one will ever see in Parliament, because it was made by a senior Minister—someone who has given 12 years of ministerial service to successive Labour Governments—who is fighting to get off the managed exit list. That Minister, Annette King, was hauled in by the Prime Minister and given the bad news yesterday. Along with numerous others, she was told that she was on her way. Did any members here notice that her comments were that Bill English was the Deputy Prime Minister in waiting, that John Key was the Prime Minister in waiting, and that National is the Government-in-waiting? We thank her for that admission.

Who else is on the managed exit list?

Chris Auchinvole: Who else?

GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, it is a long one: Di Yates, Russell Fairbrother, Ann Hartley, Rick Barker, Dover Samuels, Jill Pettis—no, Jill Pettis is not on it. That is the surprise for the Cabinet reshuffle. We know about it; we have heard. The list continues: Mita Ririnui, Lesley Soper, Darien Fenton, Dave Hereora, Moana Mackey, and one Judith Tizard. I had to read the list because I have never met most of them. We now know that yesterday the Prime Minister hauled a few people in and gave them the bad news, then last night, at a swanky Wellington restaurant, they sat down to have what might be called the last supper for that group.

How does a Government that goes out with a cornerstone of its election promise—20 hours’ free early childhood education—and says: “Here is something for free.”, get itself into so much trouble trying to give something away? It is pretty simple; it is because it is not free. New Zealanders are sick and tired of the diet of garbage they are being fed by the current Government. If everybody were to take a good look at the situation, they would see no political parallel anywhere in the world. The Government says it is 20 hours’ free, and no one wants to believe it. That is why it is in trouble.

Then, of course, Government members are out there saying: “We can do better for you in a range of areas. We can tell you all sorts of things that you must do—you have to do—and when you should do them. You can’t eat pies at the school tuck shop, but, by the way, you can vote.” They talk about all that sort of stuff. It is total control. In the meantime, Government spending is wildly out of control. Wasteful spending is wildly out of control. And who pays? It is the mortgage-holders of this country, the people who are trying to get a roof over their head for their families, and the young people who are trying to get into homeownership. They pay because this Government does not trust New Zealanders to do more for themselves. This Government is hell-bent on control at any particular point.

When we see the Government in a tight spot, what does it do? It reverts to kind by going out and saying there will be more legislation that is about the Government poking itself into people’s lives. That is where the free early childhood education policy has got the Government into so much trouble. People who are making a choice are saying: “Yes, we’d like to have a subsidy. We’d like to have some assistance. We’d like to have some tax rebate. But we don’t want to be told: ‘That’s the place you go because they’re the ones that have the tick. That’s the place you go because Steve Maharey has decided that’s the early childhood education you should have for your child.’ It’s all about control.” That is why this Government is in trouble. That is why a sad Minister like Annette King has had to come down to the House today to make a speech that supposedly gets her off the managed exit list. It is why Mike Williams says there are 10 others to go very, very shortly. I acknowledge the contribution made by Annette King, and that is the reason why John Key is the Prime Minister in waiting and National is the Government-in-waiting.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Michael Fay and David Richwhite are bullies armed with money that rightfully belongs to the people of New Zealand. For more than a decade they have been able to buy the silence of those in power in New Zealand. That is why we now need a wide-ranging inquiry to set the matters right, once and for all. In 2003 the Securities Commission faced intimidation. The head of that commission may say that the threats were inconsequential and not a matter for the police, but I say that a threat of this nature is serious. We also had the campaign by the National Business Review to denigrate Jane Diplock and others on the Securities Commission. Has anyone bothered to ask why this was so? Whose errand was that paper on?

We even have John Key shamefully backing those two crooks. What is it with the National Party of New Zealand? We all heard the Jamie Mackay interview of John Key on Thursday last week. He was as apologetic as ever, like his former National Party mates before him. Why is John Key backing these two crooks? What does he know that we do not, or is it just that merchant banking has a form of solidarity? Does John Key really believe that we would receive $20 million from Fay and Richwhite if they had done nothing wrong? People have been waiting for John Key to make his first big mistake, and he has just made it. By siding with Fay and Richwhite over ordinary New Zealanders he has shown his true colours—once a banker, always a banker.

But there is much more to this case. Threats were made against those who stood up. Threats were made to their careers. Some of those involved will not come forward; they do not want to place themselves at further risk. This type of intimidation is not new. Some of it has been documented over the years and some of it has not. For example, at the time that I first revealed that I had the wine-box documents, phone calls were made to a broker, Stephen Lunn, threatening the life of his children, and much worse than that happened, as well.

The Weekend Herald last week catalogued their $438 million profit from having stolen $271 million from the New Zealand taxpayer and investors. But it is far worse than that. The real story of the wine box shows further very serious frauds on the investing public of New Zealand. The most recent episode is part of a long-running saga that has never been truly addressed. Before anyone trots out the disgraced report of the former Chief Justice, let us listen to a few facts. We sought funding to call Tony Molloy QC as an expert. Sir Ron said no, because, he told my counsel, the transactions were “grand larceny”. We went to the High Court, then to the Court of Appeal to win the right to review the drivel that Sir Ron had produced over 3 years of investigation. We won at the Court of Appeal. We then had a trial at the High Court. The wine-box report on the key Magnum transactions was quashed. Why? It was because the transactions are grand larceny. So why did Sir Ron change his mind? It is simple. Someone got to him.

National members stood in this House, and day after day, week after week, crowed about this. The full story is in the submissions filed by my lawyers in the wine box. One counsel assisting Sir Ron quit, calling him, to his face, corrupt. The Court of Appeal described the Magnum transactions as prima facie fraud. Sir Ron knew that. He told my barrister Brian Henry that it was grand larceny—his own words. He then ignored page after page of evidence. This is the indictment: they never thought we could work out what had gone on.

Capital Markets is a classic transaction. The wine-box transactions cooked the BNZ’s books by $40 million. Fay Richwhite used the BNZ’s falsified profit to justify and pay a dividend to its listed company, Capital Markets. Capital Markets was propped up by the fraudulent BNZ dividend. Capital Markets then sold a group of assets to Fay Richwhite, a private company—their company—using a profit to earnings ratio of 2.5. Then Fay and Richwhite sold part of the same assets back using a profit to earnings ratio of 7.5 on the same day, less the valuable assets, but, incredibly, they were worth over three times the value they had in the morning. It was a $100 million gain to Fay Richwhite. Tony Frankham, their puppet accountant, told us that this was all OK. It was not. It was simple theft, and I say that we need a full inquiry into these matters. There is no statute of limitations, and now is the time to act and to tell those who are protecting those crooks that the day has finally come when New Zealand will stand up to financial thuggery. That is why so many of us were so delighted with the Securities Commission finally being the first and only agency in this country to do its public duty.

Those who have aided the cover-up for the last decade must also be prosecuted, for they are as bad as those they protected. We need a full-scale, independent inquiry if this country is ever going to clear its name and have a financial market that we can respect.

I seek leave to table the relevant submissions on this matter in respect of the Capital Markets deal.

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I seek leave to table the Weekend Herald article listing Fay and Richwhite’s financial dealings, written by Brian Gaynor.

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I seek leave to table an interview with John Key on Gore radio last week, backing Fay and Richwhite.

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

Gerry Brownlee: It doesn’t exist.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Is there an objection? No.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Brownlee said it does not exist. I am holding a copy of it right here.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): There is no objection. It can be tabled.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Just for the sake of the leader of New Zealand First’s historical record, I point out that on 29 June 1990 Sir Michael Fay was knighted by the then Labour Government. The question I ask is: why the hell, after all these years, would that member back a Labour Government? Why would he back a Labour Government, when it was the one that gave Michael Fay his knighthood?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You don’t know a darned thing about it. Sit down.

Hon TAU HENARE: He tells me to sit down, but never mind that—it is called déjà vu. We have been there, we have done that, we have bought the T-shirt, and let us move on. Twenty million dollars—well, we got that from Michael Fay and David Richwhite, as well.

I will talk about interest rates for a moment—

Jill Pettis: Oh, how generous.

Hon TAU HENARE: —while she parks the broom where it should be parked. Very shortly hard-working New Zealanders will be hit by their new mortgage payments, which will go through the roof. This Government is responsible for hurting those in “Strugglers’ Gully”—those on “Battle Street”. What has made interest rates rise as quickly and as high as they have done? Darren Hughes laughs. I was at a dinner the other night with his friend John Tamihere—yes, that one—who mentioned a little name, “tug-muscle”, regarding Darren Hughes, Clayton Cosgrove, and all sorts of people from the Labour Party. It is no wonder he is not in the House today, and he most probably will not be ever again.

Among the things that send interest rates skyrocketing is Government spending. The issue is not so much the actual spending; it is the quality of that spending. Let us look at some of the quality of the spending this Government has either earmarked in the Budget or made over the last 6 years. In Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Māori Development, millions of dollars have gone into contracts. But what do we find from the Auditor-General? He looked into that spending and found no monitoring whatsoever of any of the contracts. There was no monitoring whatsoever of millions and millions of dollars of Government money—taxpayers’ money, actually.

The Auditor-General made 16 recommendations to the Ministry of Māori Development, and so far only eight of them have been put in place. The other eight Te Puni Kōkiri is working on. How can it continue to work on recommendations from the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General? I will say this. It is a situation of poor management, poor decisions, poor spending choices, and poor leadership by the Minister of Māori Affairs, by the Prime Minister, and by those who continue to prop up a dying, stinking, rotting Government. They will go the way of that Government on the other side of the House.

I am talking about New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, Te Puni Kōkiri, and the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa health programme. There we have $12 billion of Government money going into the Ministry of Health, and still it does not know what the outcomes are. In terms of the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme for diabetes, no one on the Government side of this House can tell us, when we ask, how many people in this country suffer from that debilitating disease. Government members cannot tell us how many people are on that list. So how can the Government pour good money after bad in trying to fix a problem, when it does not even know how many people are on that list?

I could go on all day, and I am sure the House wants me to. Then there is “free for a fee” early childhood education. We got 20 hours free all right, but the poor mums and dads in “Strugglers’ Gully” were told it is free for a fee. It is the biggest hoax that has been perpetrated on parents, on mums and dads, since 1935 when Labour was first elected.

I say that there is a way out for the Government, and that is to feel the fear. Government members have to feel the fear, and they have to embrace that fear, because what they will do then is to wave ta-ta to the Treasury benches.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): What an absolute insult that speech was, not just to this House and not just to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who spoke immediately prior to him, but, more than anyone else, to Georgina te Heuheu. What has Georgina te Heuheu ever done to deserve being treated as that member’s deputy? How insulting it is to a longstanding, highly respected member of this House to be a deputy to that member!

Tau Henare made an accusation against the Rt Hon Winston Peters of his moving from party to party and supporting different parties. I have just about run out of fingers on this hand to count how many parties that member has been a member of. The first one was the Alliance, as a member of the Mana Motuhake o Aotearoa party.

Hon Tau Henare: Liar.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Then he came into Parliament as a member of New Zealand First—

Hon Tau Henare: What a liar.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows he cannot use that term. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Tau Henare: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Then he came into Parliament as the very loyal and doting deputy of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Talk about a jilted lover’s resentment! It just oozes from him every time he takes the call.

Then he left that party. I cannot remember which party he was supporting at the time, because it is very hard to keep track. Then he started his own party, Mauri Pacific, so he could be a leader. Then he came back as a National member of Parliament. I know that the front-bench members, particularly the Hon Maurice Williamson, took great pleasure in the addition to their caucus of the Hon Tau Henare.

Following his political career is like picking up mercury with chopsticks. It is just extraordinary. But his was a better contribution than the very sad, although dignified, contribution of Gerry Brownlee. He is attracting more and more sympathy from this side of the House as his demotion is becoming less and less deserved. Every day in the House, as we see the contribution that Gerry Brownlee makes, we realise how unfair that demotion was. But he does put on a very brave front.

This Sunday is 1 July, and not only will we see the start of a new month but we will see another package of roll-outs of the Labour-led Government’s policies. Of course, one of the biggest and most significant is mark II of KiwiSaver. KiwiSaver will give future generations financial security, it will promote a savings habit, and it will help New Zealanders better save for their retirement. Those are three very critical, very important areas. I pay tribute to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen for his work and his huge contribution, not just to the present but to the future of our society. It will mean that we have a larger pool of domestic capital with which to promote New Zealand investment in our own country. It will reduce demand. It will take pressure off interest rates accordingly, and it will help our companies to attract and retain the skilled workers we need. That is a huge contribution to New Zealand and New Zealanders, and the National Party opposes it. National has said it does not support the extension to KiwiSaver—

Hon Paul Swain: What’s their policy?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Well, it is very hard to tell what National’s policy is. It shifts about as often as Tau Henare’s party political membership. It depends on whether we are talking to the numbers man, the programmes man, or the spokesperson on whatever the policy issue is.

It is exactly the same in early childhood education. What does the National Party have against free early childhood education? Quite a lot. Its members have opposed it from its very instigation. They have tried to drive its price up, particularly for the private providers, by undermining it. They know if they are ever elected to lead the Government of New Zealand, that policy will go. So not one single family would benefit from free early childhood education under National, because it does not support the policy.

Free early childhood education is the biggest contribution to education since the first Labour Government introduced free secondary education, and I am very proud of it. We can do a huge amount for the future opportunities of young New Zealanders by helping them to get access to quality early childhood education.

On Sunday we also see the final stage of the roll-out of the primary health care affordability strategy. I commend Pete Hodgson and his predecessor, Annette King, for that work. We know that the most important thing for people’s health is to ensure they can get access to a primary health specialist as early as they need it. This strategy helps to deliver that policy.

PAULA BENNETT (National): That Minister, Ruth Dyson, stands up and she has a genuinely perplexed look on her face as she wonders why the public of New Zealand do not believe in Labour’s 20 hours free policy. It is quite simple. You are out of touch; you are utterly and completely out of touch with the public of New Zealand. They are turning around and they are telling you that now. You are out of touch—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, no. I let it go the first three or four times, but the member knows that she cannot bring the Speaker into the debate.

PAULA BENNETT: I am sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker; I did not mean to do that. This Minister will simply hear those voices saying this Labour Government is out of touch.

This Minister herself stood up yesterday in the House and questioned how I could question that there was a blowout of 288 extra staff in the Department of Labour in the last financial year, that 118 temps were used in the department, and that over $8 million was spent on consultants. This Labour Government has forgotten that that is taxpayers’ money. This Labour Government has forgotten that every time it overspends, every time it does not look at every dollar it wastes within its departments and on itself, it is costing New Zealanders. This is costing New Zealanders. This is costing taxpayers as their mortgage rates increase, and it is costing them as they struggle day to day to actually pay those interest rates.

I am pleased that that Minister and Steve Maharey stood up today. They kept talking about National and its policy on 20 hours’ free education, and if I can be so bold I would like to paraphrase the Minister. The Minister is constantly telling my colleague Katherine Rich that when it comes to how many children are actually going to receive 20 hours’ free education, and when it comes to how many centres will have it, perhaps she should “just relax”. So when it comes to National’s policy, I say to the Minister: “I know that you are looking forward to it. I know that you are anxious. I know that you are worried.” In fact, I know that the Minister is optimistic for us. I know that the Minister is quite excited about what National might be doing in early childhood education. But, believe it or not, National will bring its policy out on its own agenda and not on the Labour Party’s.

The National Party will take the time to talk to and listen to New Zealanders; not doing so is a fatal, fatal mistake that the Labour Government has made. As this Government moves, it is out of touch and does not recognise the daily struggles of New Zealanders as they face interest rates that are just increasing and increasing, which means that week by week they have less money in their pockets. This Labour Government continues to spend recklessly, and has made no acknowledgement of that actual week-by-week spending that is costing New Zealanders so much. The mistake that this Government makes daily is that it is treating people as if they are stupid. It is treating people as if they do not know what is best for their families and for themselves in their own lives, and this Government will be punished for that.

In the House today we touched briefly on beneficiaries and those who receive a Work and Income subsidy. That is perhaps an example of how out of touch this Government really is. Those very people, whom this Government keeps on trying to tell us it is looking after the most, are the very ones who, yet again, are going to miss out under this Government’s policy. If they opt in to 20 hours’—supposedly—free education they will be worse off; it will cost them more on a weekly basis, because they will get no assistance when it comes to optional charges. They will get no assistance when it comes to those optional charges that are going to cost them extra, and that they are currently not having to pay. So their Work and Income subsidy will not pay for their childcare costs. Parents have written to me, and in one case someone has said it will cost an extra $30 a week for this “20 hours’ free”. Another is saying it will cost $15 a week, thanks to this 20 hours’, supposedly, free education.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa. In 1972, Stanley Cohen created a term to describe the media coverage of the mods and rockers in Britain of the 1960s. That concept—moral panic—is most frequently seen in the way in which crime statistics are manipulated and misconstrued in a peculiar blend of media hype and political opportunism. In Aotearoa in the last few months, the gang culture has been targeted in the latest moral panic. Rather than creating space for a discussion about how we care for our alienated and our ostracised, the nation has been embroiled in a fierce debate over how dangerously deviant and socially threatening they are, and, indeed, the intolerable presence of gangs in our community has been condemned.

This is not a new debate. Indeed, nearly three decades ago Jane Kelsey and Warren Young described 1979 as the “year of the gangs” in their analysis The Gangs: Moral Panic as Social Control. It was a year that galvanised a string of subsequent strategies and reports: the 1979 report of the parliamentary committee on violent offending; the report of the 1981 inquiry into gangs, known as the Comber report; and the 1987 commission chaired by Justice Sir Clinton Roper. And here we go again, except there is a difference. Out of the Comber report grew the Group Employment Liaison Scheme. That was a scheme that the now Minister of Māori Affairs is still remembered for in terms of the influence and commitment that he had in pioneering a community development approach, whereas now the consistent response to the challenge of the gangs is focused on the sharp end of social control, the promulgation of a public relations campaign promoting authoritarian regimes, and an approach of retribution and vengeance—ban the patch, banish gangsters from the central business district, and kick them out of town.

Yesterday the Māori Party was honoured to host and welcome Professor Angela Davis, who is renowned for her scholarship as presidential chairperson for the African-American and feminist studies department at the University of California, Santa Cruz. One of her leading statements is that we have to talk about liberating minds as well as liberating society. Indeed, if we are truly seeking a revolution of the heart, a movement for change, and the liberation of communities, we must respond to the call that is coming from gangs themselves to find their own solutions. What the moral panic creates is a perception reinforced by the media, the police, the judiciary, politicians, and Government departments that gangs are completely out of control. It becomes the key distraction from—say—rocketing interest rates, bureaucratic bumbling, or insider trading. Instead, the energies of the community become focused on singling out gangs for censure. All that such tactics do is to incite more resentment and rage from those who already feel positioned on the outskirts of society. Any suggestions that gangs themselves may come up with are rejected, and are tarred with the brush that comes from the tactics of suppression—suppressing their own initiative, creating new walls, and refusing to talk about it.

We have to be open to the ideas of others outside our own environment. The advice from Professor Davis to talk about liberating minds as well as liberating society would be reflected in our being prepared to listen to the ideas of gangs about how they can change intergenerational habits. What are the ideas they are thinking about when they consider the future for their children, and what is their purpose for change? The key lies in getting people engaged. Parekura Horomia knew that, when he worked with the guys in the Group Employment Liaison Scheme. Rob Muldoon knew that, when he looked for accommodation for gang members or encouraged gangs to contract through work trusts. With the advice of key leaders such as Dame Whina Cooper and Sir Graham Latimer, he gave particular priority to working with Māori gang leaders, and supported initiatives to give them alternatives in order to turn their lives around.

Those are but a few of the politicians and the political strategies that have been adopted in the past to overcome the moral panic of those times, and we can do it again. We can liberate minds and we can liberate communities; all it takes is the political will to make a difference in the lives of those people. Kia ora.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): We have heard from prior Labour speakers who have listed some of the important initiatives that will be rolled out as of 1 July this year, and I will recount those briefly before I move to what I see as the big threat to those highly valued programmes. But before I list those, I think we should reflect on the other important things this Government has already delivered, including very substantial tax cuts to families with children—very, very substantial tax cuts for those families. In addition, we have seen the restoration of the rate of superannuation for superannuitants, which was cut by the previous Government. That has now been further increased, pursuant to the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First, for a married couple to 66 percent of the average full-time wage. In the last year that was an increase to superannuitants of approximately $20 a week for those in that situation.

On 1 July we are seeing the roll-out of KiwiSaver and the very significant tax credits that will flow through to employees in addition to their own contributions, in order to encourage New Zealanders to save so as to provide additional funds for the New Zealand business community to grow our economy and, as well as that, to ensure a better level of income in retirement for those who do save. The early childhood sector’s 20 free hours of education for 3 and 4-year-olds is being rolled out, and of course there is the completion of the roll-out of primary health organisation subsidies, making doctors’ visits cheaper now for New Zealanders—all New Zealanders. The latest cohort to be added is that of 25 to 44-year-olds, so now all New Zealanders will have cheaper doctors’ visits and prescription fees.

Of course, there will also be extensions to paid parental leave, and also important extensions to the thresholds that will be free from asset-testing for people who are in long-term care. All of these things have been achieved by a Government that has reduced gross Government debt to 20 percent of GDP—a very prudent figure.

But I would like to focus on the reality that that would change if there were to be a change of Government. Then there is no doubt that National could fund its main policy only, which is substantial—and, I would say, unaffordable—tax cuts. How would National fund it? A National Government would be no different from any other Government. It cannot turn water into wine; it cannot turn one loaf and one fish into loaves and fishes for multitudes. Somehow it would have to get the money to fund tax cuts. Of course, there are only three ways in which that could essentially be funded, and I think that a combination of all three would be required. Firstly, National would have to substantially cut services. You cannot cut services in a minor way to achieve the level of tax cuts that the National Party proposes; you have to cut core votes. We in New Zealand have only three very large votes—that is, the money voted by this Parliament to spend on health, education, and superannuation. I think you have to look beyond the rhetoric and look at history to find—

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, because I was actually listening pretty closely to what he was saying. But for the point of consistency you may want to note, Madam Assistant Speaker, that the Minister has used the word “you” three times in the last 30 seconds. You did not intervene on him but were quick to do so on Paula Bennett. I just ask that we get the same ruling across the House, thanks.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): OK. The member is correct, and I will just remind the Minister.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I take the point.

The only votes that would give rise to substantial savings, through significant cuts, would be education, health, or superannuation, but National would go further. National would have to go further, and it would have to either raise debt or flog off State-owned enterprises. I think that National would do a combination of both. It would raise debt above its sustainable level of 20 percent of GDP, and it would, effectively, borrow to fund tax cuts. Further, I think we would find that National would flog off some of the State-owned enterprises—probably the electricity companies. Maybe that would not be a hundred percent of those electricity companies, but it would flog off part of them—

Hon Paul Swain: And the next generation pays.

Hon DAVID PARKER:—and the next generation would pay. National would be selling New Zealand’s silver in order to fund tax cuts today. Of course, it would be doing that in an environment where that would push up interest rates. We know that New Zealanders know that that would not be a wise way to go. I think that by the time we get to the election, this will be a central issue for the campaign. How will National fund the substantial, unaffordable tax cuts it proposes? Here, I think, we should look past rhetoric and look at conduct. Why do I say that? Well, in the last week we have seen what Dr Nick Smith has been saying in his local paper, the Nelson Mail. He is on record as stating in that paper, in a letter to the editor published on 13 June—I will read it out because it is very short—“Sir, Last Saturday your correspondent, Boris Leegwater, claimed ‘Nick Smith stated that we should pull out of Kyoto.’ This is grossly untrue. I have never stated this.” Of course, we in this Parliament know that Dr Smith has said just that repeatedly—not once but hundreds of times in this Parliament, and to the media. It is interesting, of course, that he made those very comments to the Nelson Mail. That paper had a headline at one stage stating: “Smith: National would opt out of Kyoto”. Now, here he is in the paper saying the opposite. He is not to be believed.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): As I look across the House I see—and it is there for all to see—the remnants of failed socialism. There are a dozen members with bull’s-eyes on their foreheads, waiting for their leader to come and say goodbye. And that group represents itself as a Government worthy of governing this country.

Jill Pettis: Listen, sunshine, that socialism kept you in jobs for years.

ALLAN PEACHEY: I invite the former member for Whanganui to perhaps listen and screech a little less, because one of the foreheads that has a bull’s-eye on it is clearly hers. You know, when those members are over there amongst themselves they talk in highfalutin terms about being democratic socialists. Do they not realise that in many quarters the term “democratic socialist” is actually a euphemism for Stalinist? I myself prefer to call it stupidity. Let me tell the House about the impact of the stupidity of that Government, of the behaviour of Labour members and of their ideology, on the lives of ordinary New Zealand families. The impact of the policies of that Government has brought home to New Zealanders the reality of the relationship that exists between low-level, poor-quality, excessive Government expenditure and rising interest rates.

New Zealand family after New Zealand family is paying a double price because of the behaviour of that Government. Firstly, families are paying far higher taxes than they need to pay and, secondly, their after-tax income is being ripped apart by high mortgage interest rates, which are the direct result of low-quality, low-level, excessive Government spending. I say to the families of New Zealand, like my own family, who have mortgages and who are experiencing rising interest rates, that the next time that letter comes from the bank they should not bad-mouth the bank. They should look at how much their interest rate has gone up, and say to themselves that that has happened because of the behaviour of those socialist politicians in Wellington who think that all they have to do is to tax and spend without responsibility and everything will be all right in the world. That is why people’s interest rates are going up.

Is it right—can it ever be right—that an increasing number of New Zealanders are being excluded from homeownership as a result of the wasteful expenditure of a Government? Is that right? It is there for everybody to see. The Reserve Bank and Treasury are both warning the Government of the consequences of increasing low-quality spending. But those Government members over there would rather see ordinary New Zealanders be punished, while they spend needlessly and endlessly instead of applying a little bit of common sense. Over 8 years, hundreds of millions of dollars have been squandered in what the Prime Minister calls “improving the capability of the public sector”. The only impact of that wasteful expenditure has been to enable the State to frustrate and strangle the individual initiative and sense of self-responsibility of decent, hard-working New Zealanders.

Darren Hughes: All those wasteful nurses.

ALLAN PEACHEY: I suggest that the junior Government whip—after the next election, when he has been defeated by Nathan Guy—sits back and reflects on some of the stupid things he has been saying in this House.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour): I want to talk about the Government’s policy roll-out on 1 July, but I just want to make a comment in relation to two of the previous speakers. Firstly I respond to Mr Tau Henare, and just place on record his comments surrounding the situation of monitoring in Te Puni Kōkiri and the reports and recommendations from the Audit Office. The Māori Affairs Committee was concerned about the level of monitoring in Te Puni Kōkiri, and we have decided to foster a better relationship with the agency and therefore invite Te Puni Kōkiri officials on a regular basis back to the committee for that purpose. So it is about the committee getting involved and also making sure that we are nurturing the process through in order to live up to the recommendations that the Audit Office has indicated.

Secondly, I just want to talk about the comments from Paula Bennett in relation to the 20 hours’ free early childhood education, and her comments about the Government being out of touch. I have a copy of the latest New Zealand Educational Institute magazine, and I want to quote a few comments made in this magazine. “ ‘We’re really excited about it!’ says Kay Harland, supervisor of the Otatara Children’s Centre in Taradale, summing up the overwhelmingly positive response NZEI Rourou has found to the introduction of the 20 hours free early childhood education on July 1.” So I cannot work out how Paula Bennett thinks we are out of touch, because that magazine represents over 40,000 members and they are endorsing the policy.

Furthermore, the article states: “It surprised me when we worked out how much the average family would save!”. Families are able to save under this policy, and I am really not quite sure why those members are not supporting it. Finally, the article states: “Families who could only afford to pay for one day for their child before will be able to afford three days now.” Well, is that not better? Pray tell me, who is out of touch here? Is it us or yous? I am of the opinion that it is probably yous.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I just want to remind the member that this afternoon we have been pulling everyone up for bringing the Speaker into the conversation, so just watch the—

DAVE HEREORA: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I just want to add to that previous comment a comment about Māori participation rates in early childhood education. The most recent statistics show that the number of children reported to have participated in early childhood education, on entry to school, was 90 percent for Māori, up from 84.8 percent. That is great. Finally, we have a good participation rate for Māori, so the policy must be working. How out of touch can that be? I want to move on—

Anne Tolley: It hasn’t started yet.

DAVE HEREORA: Well that is right; it has not. It is going to, and it is going to work.

I want to move on to 1 July, when workers from all income brackets will be better off with KiwiSaver, as opposed to National’s proposed tax cuts. Low-income earners stand to gain the most once the scheme comes into full effect—members should listen to this—with minimum wage earners capable of being five times better off under KiwiSaver than they would have been with a tax cut. We know that that area, particularly, is represented by mostly Māori and Pacific Islanders.

Anne Tolley: How do they get it?

DAVE HEREORA: How do they get it? They get it through tax credits that match individuals’ contributions into KiwiSaver, up to a maximum of $20 per week. That will be paid into members’ accounts after the end of July each year from July 2008. So there is a lot of enthusiasm out there, particularly from workers, to finally have the opportunity to get in and share in what a lot of people in this country have been able to share in—getting into a long-term savings scheme. It can only be good for us and it can only be good for the country. I reiterate that KiwiSaver will give future generations security by promoting savings habits, helping Kiwis to save for their retirement, and developing a larger pool of domestic capital to promote New Zealand’s investment in New Zealand. It will reduce demand, taking pressure off interest rates, and it will help New Zealand companies to retain skilled workers.

The other area of change that happens on 1 July relates to paid parental leave. Paid parental leave is a policy that I understand the National Party opposed and continues to oppose. So I am wondering what is behind that. Why is the National Party opposing it? It is good for families.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): We have just heard from one of Labour’s bright young things. It is great to see Dave Hereora, who is actually—to be fair—one of the nice people in Labour. Dave is a nice enough bloke. He has never offended anyone, because he has never done anything. One of the great things about Dave is that he is one of the bright young stars of Labour. We do in fact support paid parental leave, as long as it is fair, and that is why we did not like it the first time. It excluded self-employed women, and we did not think that was fair. It was not fair, and now Labour has seen the error of its ways.

It has been great today to hear from some of the people in Labour in particular. There is not much that I agree with Helen Clark on, except, maybe, that it really is time for rejuvenation in Labour’s ranks. We heard from my colleague Gerry Brownlee today about the last supper that was held last night for the Labour people who have been told that, frankly, there is not a lot of point in having them around. Let us look at some of those people. Marian Hobbs—what was Marian Hobbs’ crime? Well, Marian Hobbs just could not stand the thought of years and years of Opposition. She just could not stand it. So, as she is a smart woman, she decided to go off and do a bit of retraining, and leave the country. But she is still here, by the way, being paid by the taxpayer. [Interruption] Yes, I say to Mrs Tolley, she is still here.

Dianne Yates—what is wrong with her? What has she done wrong? Well, she lost to David Bennett—and why would she not lose? David Bennett is a bright young man. He is coming through, he did well, and he took Hamilton East.

Jill Pettis—her crime is that she lost Whanganui, and to Chester Borrows, who has been absolutely fantastic with his section 59 of the Crimes Act work and his police work. Of course, she just lost to a better person. Poor Mrs Pettis used to be the senior Government whip. She is the only senior Government whip never to have become a Cabinet Minister—the only person. For goodness’ sake, Labour promoted Benson-Pope, so its standards are not very high.

Anne Tolley: And Rick Barker!

JUDITH COLLINS: And Rick Barker, as Mrs Tolley says.

Russell Fairbrother—what has he done wrong? Well, he has now been sent to Timor-Leste. I think it is because he is checking out what the accommodation will be like in the ambassador’s residence. It is very important that he do that, because we are being told that another smart young thing—Stuart Nash, apparently his name is—is coming down from Auckland to take Napier away from Russell Fairbrother. But, of course, Russell Fairbrother was yet again beaten by, guess what, a better man—Chris Tremain.

What has Dover Samuels done? Well, we know what Dover Samuels has done, so we will not go there! Frankly, it is not good enough for good company. What about George Hawkins? He has done nothing wrong, actually, apart from being the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs over the agent orange issue, and denying the existence of the map that showed exactly that there had been agent orange sprayed on our troops. But, at the end of the day, George is a survivor, and my pick is he is going to stay in Manurewa, because he is a pretty smart old boy when it comes to things like boundary changes, and I reckon he has got it sussed. No matter what Helen Clark thinks, George is going to stay. I do not mind that, because currently he is one of my constituents, and I always like to look after my constituents.

Paul Swain—well he has got a life, and one has to congratulate him on that. I say “Good on you, Paul.” He is leaving. What about Rick Barker? Well, what can we say about Rick Barker? This is a man who stood up in the House and said he had faith in Veterans Affairs New Zealand. He is absolutely confident it is doing well. The trouble is, he forgot about the little report that the Defence Force did into Veterans Affairs New Zealand—in fact, in March this year. Apparently, Rick is waiting to be given a copy. All he has to do is to ring my office. I will send him a copy, because, frankly, one fell into my lap, and I have made sure that people know about it. What we know about Rick being in charge is that he does not know how many veterans there are, and he does not know who gets a veterans card. He does not know anything. He is the most useless Minister, even in a useless Labour Government.

What about Mark Burton? We have heard a lot from Mark today, calling out from the sidelines. What has he done? Well, he has almost lost Taupo. We know he is being undermined day in, day out on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I tell him that right now he is being undermined by his own people, and, unfortunately, there is someone who has him in their sights. I tell him right now, his days are numbered in justice.

As to Mita Ririnui, people ask: “Who is that?”, and I too say: “Who is that?”. Apparently, his days are numbered. But what about Steve Chadwick? That poor woman; she had Health Committee meetings going day in, day out just to suck up to the Prime Minister, but she has been thrown back to the backbenches where she belongs.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): I have sat and listened to that speech from Judith Collins. I have not heard one word about National Party policy. Not one word! She has just denigrated our hard-working and conscientious caucus. There was not one word about National Party policy. Where do we find anything about National Party policy? The only place we see anything is in The Hollow Men. I have never seen any policy anywhere else.

But I am not going to waste my time by denigrating that rather sad party. I am going to talk about what is good about being in this Labour-led Government. I am going to talk about the roll-out of policies on 1 July, which complement all the other policies that we have been proud to introduce. I shall start with KiwiSaver. That will come into effect on 1 July, and will be fabulous for hard-working Kiwis. They will get $1,000 in their accounts to kickstart KiwiSaver, a $20-a-week tax credit, and employer contributions phased in over 4 years. That means all Kiwis will have the opportunity to have superannuation savings that will complement their Government superannuation, which is guaranteed under this Labour Government.

Then we have the 20 hours’ free early childhood education per week. I cannot understand why members on the other side bleat, whine, grizzle, and criticise, because we are putting a bucket of money into early childhood education for our children. In primary health care we have the final roll-out of cheaper fees, for 25 to 44-year-olds. Now, every age group of New Zealand is covered. I say to those bright young things on the other side that this roll-out will not affect people in the National Party, because most of them are in the 45 to 65-year group. That is the average age of most of its members.

Also we now have changes to paid parental leave. The National Party opposed that policy. That subsidy goes up to $390 a week, from 1 July, for every mother or father who wants to stay at home with a new baby for the first 14 weeks. Also, funding for asset testing goes up again, and superannuitants can keep $170,000 before they lose anything. The previous National Government brought in asset testing, but the National Party voted against this increase. Our rates rebate gets rolled out again this year, and many of our superannuitants will benefit.

All of these things are good; they are all good for hard-working Kiwis. But members on the other side know nothing about those people. They are very out of touch. What did National do for hard-working Kiwis? National cut benefits; it introduced the Employment Contracts Act, which cut working conditions; and it cut superannuation rates. Now those members bang on about how they care about Kiwis in this country. They are trying to make their perception a reality, and it is just simply not cutting it. They should tell us just one National policy: one that National would put up that would help Kiwis in this country. Save your famous tax cut policy, because all that will achieve is to push up inflation and cut public spending. But, of course, you would be able to give tax cuts, because you would cut, presumably—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): We are going to be consistent this afternoon. We are stopping the use of the word “you” and the Speaker being brought into the debate.

LYNNE PILLAY: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I apologise for that. National, and I should use that reference far more, probably would have more to spend on tax cuts. Why? Because it would probably cut everything brought in by this Government that National has voted against. It would cut things like paid parental leave; Working for Families; no-interest student loans; the Employment Relations Act, which brought in fairer labour laws; improved health and safety laws; the removal of asset testing; and guaranteed superannuation.

We read in The Hollow Men, which is where we read about National Party policy, that the main policy is to push out the age of eligibility for superannuation. That is the plan, but, as the spin merchants say: “Play it down. Don’t say too much about that. Play it down.” Those things are not being talked about in the public arena, but we know they are on the National Party’s agenda.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill

Second Reading

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa): I move, That the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill be now read a second time. I think this bill has come to this Parliament because of the frustration of the Manukau City Council, and other city councils, at the damage done by graffiti in their community. I want to acknowledge the support that Ross Robertson has given to Manukau City over this issue, as well.

The bill was drafted and initiated by the Manukau City Council in response to what is acknowledged as a very costly and an ongoing problem. Manukau City spends over a million dollars a year on fighting graffiti. The community itself probably spends closer to $5 million a year. Its neighbour, Papakura District Council, spends 1 percent of its rates on battling graffiti. It is rather interesting that a council has brought a bill to Parliament to try to get some changes.

I must say at the outset that the bill is flawed. There are mistakes in it. There are things that cannot happen. However, the council has looked at some of the problems and how to deal with them. The council believes that quick removal of a graffiti mark within 24 hours of being reported is important. It believes in community education and empowerment schemes. It also believes that town planning can help to overcome graffiti, by better lighting and by making sure the design of council-owned properties does not lend them to graffiti being applied.

It is rather interesting that in New Zealand we do not prohibit the sale of substances to be used for graffiti and we do not put any age restrictions on them. That causes a bit of a problem for Manukau. However, Manukau has really looked to see what it can do about it. The council has looked at overseas case studies. In particular, the South Australian Graffiti Control Act of 2001 and the city of Phoenix graffiti prevention encoded enforcement policy have been closely examined. In other words, Manukau City has worked on this for many years.

I was first invited to a meeting with the Mayor of Manukau City when I was Mayor of Papakura, and graffiti was a problem all those years ago, going back to the 1980s. The council has advocated changes. In 2003, Sir Barry Curtis took the problem to the Local Government New Zealand conference and advocated that the local government body support the councils in getting something done about graffiti. Although the remit was accepted, not a lot of progress has been made so far. In the end what has happened is that graffiti keeps appearing on the streets each night. One sees it in the morning on someone’s fence, quite often on a fence that belongs to someone who cannot afford to paint it out. I have to congratulate Manukau City on its Manukau beautification programme, which does get rid of the graffiti.

Some people say that some graffiti is art. Well, I have to say “Rubbish!” to that. Having been an art teacher for many years, I do not see any artistic merit in defacing someone’s fence or other property, or in defacing public facilities. I believe that anyone who calls graffiti art is really not helping the cause, at all.

It is interesting to note that various groups get in behind and try to help on this. We have church groups in Manukau who get out on Saturday morning and start trying to clean up the graffiti. We have people who cannot really afford very much joining groups to try to make their city look good. There is nothing worse for people coming into Auckland at Māngere than to leave the airport and see graffiti everywhere. Those who travel on the Auckland suburban rail network, which I do, see it all along the rail corridor. Of course, that sends a very bad message to the whole community.

Yes, the bill has problems. There are New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues that have to be addressed; one cannot just ignore them. We have to make sure that the people who cause the graffiti to blot our landscape are the ones who clean it up. I am pleased that the Government is making substantial progress in getting legislation to this Parliament that will perhaps minimise or get rid of the need for Manukau City to have its bill passed.

However, I can say that I am, and my Labour caucus colleagues are, supporting the second reading of this bill. I think that is really an acknowledgement that Manukau City is leading the way. Manukau City is putting its hand up. Members should look at other territorial authorities in Auckland. Waitakere and Auckland also have big graffiti problems. It is not as though there is, surrounded by a fence, a place called Manukau where graffiti goes on. Graffiti goes on all over the place. It is worse in the Auckland area. It is bad in other areas; it is bad in some of the provincial towns.

When the Local Government and Environment Committee looked at the issue, it thought this bill would not do much good for the provincial cities. It will not do much good for Papakura, Manukau’s next-door neighbour, or for Auckland when graffiti is in Ōtāhuhu. But, in the end, we have to make sure that we win the war against the graffiti perpetrators. I want to say how pleased I am that the Labour caucus has discussed this thoroughly and decided to support this second reading, but at the same time to develop legislation that will give protection to places like Manukau, its neighbours, and the provincial cities around New Zealand.

I conclude by thanking Sir Barry Curtis and his council for the work they have done. I think that Sir Barry will acknowledge that people like Ross Robertson, myself, the Minister of Local Government, and Phil Goff in particular have done a great job in supporting them and making sure that this Parliament will pass legislation that will help all the councils in New Zealand.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): It is great to be able to follow that concession speech. It was a concession speech, because this Labour Government did not want to support the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill, even though it was being brought to the House by George Hawkins.

Hon Mark Burton: The member always gets it wrong.

JUDITH COLLINS: Unfortunately, all we need for some proof about that, Mr Burton, is to look through the report from the Local Government and Environment Committee. The Minister of Justice has said that we do not need to have this bill, that we cannot have this bill, and that this bill is a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—it is this, this, and this. But then, at the end of the commentary, we see what the real issue is. The real issue is that the National Party supported the bill, New Zealand First supported the bill—and United Future, I would say, are supporting it—and suddenly the numbers were there. I would not be at all surprised if Taito Phillip Field is not supporting it, too. The numbers are there, and that is what this is all about—it is the numbers game.

I noticed that Mr Hawkins said that it is a shame Manukau has had to put forward this bill and that the legislation will help only Manukau, but that it has done a good job—well, it has. But Manukau had to do this only because this Labour-led Government had not done it for the rest of the country. The Government had not put in legislation that councils could sign up to. It did not allow councils to make that decision. Mr Hawkins has said, rightly, that other parts of South Auckland and other parts of the country will not be covered, but when this bill goes through—even though, as he has just described it, the legislation is flawed—other councils will say: “And what about us?”. We will have to have national legislation right the way through the country, and that is what there should have been.

Instead, this Government has done what it has always done—pushed more cost on to local government. I think that is a real shame. Local council rates keep going up, although I have to say that Manukau City Council has been pretty good in trying to keep its increases under some level of control. But the council has said that it is sick of having all the costs put on it without it having any of the power. That is one of the good things about this bill: it gives Manukau City Council a little bit of power to do something about the graffiti that destroys and ruins neighbourhoods.

I would like to put a plug in here for the people who have to live with graffiti. These people are often poor or elderly, and without a lot of extra money. They are people who do not have someone they can call up to come and remove graffiti. These people are the ones who suffer the most, and it is their neighbourhoods that get attacked by graffiti more than any other neighbourhoods. I think it is incredibly important that this bill go through, because graffiti people, taggers—or whatever these people call themselves; and I agree with the previous speaker that they are definitely not artists—absolutely destroy people’s property and environment. Of course, it is only a little step from there to destroying peoples’ houses and cars, burgling their property, and ruining their chances of actually getting something a little extra in their houses. These graffiti people need to be stopped, and I congratulate Manukau City Council on putting this bill forward.

The bill is also an example of MMP working, because the Government did not want the bill. It fought against it. In the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee, the Government is completely against it. Its Ministers’ reports on the bill are completely against it. We have this very, very interesting situation, because the last time the previous speaker, Mr Hawkins, spoke on the bill, it was not going anywhere except to a select committee, and nobody expected it to come out of the select committee to anywhere other than to be consigned to the dustbin. When Mr Hawkins last spoke on the bill, it was not going anywhere; Labour was not going to support it further. Now, suddenly, it is a great bill. It may have flaws, but it is a great bill and the Government loves it. That is what is called the numbers game.

I know Mr Hawkins is pleased, because he does not like his bills being put up, then thrown out. He likes doing the right thing by the local council, and he likes to be able to take some credit for it. But, really, if Mr Hawkins is going to be absolutely straight about it, then it is always best for him to acknowledge that it is actually a numbers game. And we won on this one—we who think we should be standing up against these graffiti taggers, these people who abuse property, and the people who go with that. We are pleased we are able to work with other parties and to say we have helped to make this happen. And if Mr Hawkins wants to take a bit of credit for it, then good on him, because we think it is a good thing, as long as Manukau City Council gets the rules it needs.

We just hope that the bill will not be gutted in the Committee of the whole House. We just hope that the Government will not try to pull the wool over the eyes of New Zealand First and other parties, in order to gut the bill of any of its strength—[Interruption]—which is what happens all the time. I agree with Mrs Tolley; she is completely right. We want to make sure that the bill does what it states it will do, because if it works—and we believe it will work—then we should be rolling out its provisions throughout the country.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): That was the typically negative, whingeing, unconstructive set of comments that we have come to expect from Judith Collins. Judith Collins is so “worried” about the problem and so “worried” about her constituents that I get constant complaints from them that she is never there—

Judith Collins: Where? In Mount Roskill?

Hon PHIL GOFF: No, in Clevedon—the electorate she advertises for but never appears in, because she is not interested in doing work on the ground. People ring her and ask for her help, but she is not there to help. She is neither serious nor genuine about the job. But enough of that member, because—

Judith Collins: That’s a personal insult.

Hon PHIL GOFF: It is not an insult; it is a statement of fact. That member does nothing for her electorate, and she has done nothing in the area of graffiti control.

Let me come to the bill. I want to congratulate George Hawkins on his commitment to this issue. I have worked with George on the issue of tagging over a long period of time. I know how seriously he takes it, I know the effort he has put into it, and I know that he works closely with the Manukau City Council. That council regards him as an excellent local member, unlike the member for the Clevedon electorate. I also want to congratulate Barry Curtis and the Manukau City Council, because they have recognised a problem that is of concern to their residents and ratepayers.

I have to say, as the member representing the electorate of Mt Roskill, that the problem is also a real concern to my residents and ratepayers. In fact, last Friday I was on the side of State Highway 20 in my electorate, working with some of the local people in trying to clean off the graffiti. We have had a gutsful of these young people who think they can use the rest of the city as their blackboard, scrawling over private, public, and commercial property and thinking they can get away with it. Well, they cannot get away with it, and we are determined to do more about that problem.

I want to recognise what is already happening. I want to recognise what Manukau City Council is doing with regard to its rapid removal of graffiti. It is spending $1 million a year—as are the Waitakere City Council and the Auckland City Council—in cleaning graffiti off property. If we look at the wider effort, we see that the cost runs into millions of dollars. But Manukau City Council is very effective in what it is doing. It is working on preventing graffiti, through education and in a partnership scheme with the community. It is working on getting volunteers out on the beautification scheme it is running and on anti-graffiti design. That council is known in Mount Roskill for its pioneering anti-graffiti design and environmental management initiatives. If only the member for Clevedon would stop her whingeing and negativism, and actually get out and do something and work with the council, then that might make it better.

I would also like to pay tribute to an anti-graffiti programme that is operating in Auckland, and in particular to the man in charge of it, Rob Shields, who works out of my electorate. A free-of-charge eradication service is run for street frontage private property. The programme involves a database, and when tags are photographed the database is used for evidential purposes, to prosecute in court. Closed-circuit television cameras are in operation, and we have done stings on some of the areas that have been most affected. People have been prosecuted as a result. Some of them have been fined very large sums of money; others have been ordered into community work. I will give members an example. Over the last couple of years nearly 500 arrests and apprehensions of graffiti vandals have been made, and that is good. The council is getting on and doing something about the problem.

Just two months ago, in Auckland, the Auckland Region Graffiti Free Project was set up, bringing together the council and the police, and there is a new commitment on the part of the police to do something about this problem. So things are happening, and I applaud that. I am working with my local council and with other people—just as George Hawkins and Ross Robertson are working with their mayor—and we are making some progress on it. But it is not enough.

I want to come to the bill, because I think that it contains some very good things we need to address. The bill addresses five different areas. One is the sale of spray-paints. The council’s answer is that it thinks it can require retailers to secure spray cans and prohibit the sales of spray-paint to those under the age of 18. I think we have to do something from the retail aspect. A lot of these cans are being stolen because of not being properly secured. They should be behind the counter or in a cupboard, not stacked up in rows by the door of the retail outlet, from where they can be readily stolen. But there are New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues in terms of some of the provisions in the bill. Obviously, those have to be addressed, and seriously.

The bill creates a graffiti offence and also creates an offence of carrying a graffiti implement. The problem with that is not that the council is not trying hard to find a solution but that we need a solution that runs across the whole city—in fact, across the whole country. It is no good banning spray cans from being where they can be stolen in Manukau if people can steal them from outlets in places such as Ōtāhuhu and Papakura by walking across the boundary, because, strangely enough, taggers do not respect city lines. They will not regard those places as no-go areas if this legislation goes through. So we in this House have to look at how we can universalise some of these solutions. I am in favour of creating a specific graffiti offence, and I think we can do that.

I am also in favour of increasing the penalties for making graffiti. That is no problem; it is part of both the Labour Party’s manifesto and the Minister of Justice’s design in this area. Most of all, I am in favour of seeing those young people who are scrawling over the property of my constituents, over public property, over Transit land, and over ONTRACK land being required to get out there and clean their damage up as the punishment. The punishment for tagging that is most effective is to get those young people out there cleaning the tagging off. I was out there in a set of white overalls—

Judith Collins: You’re the Minister—why don’t you stop it?

Hon PHIL GOFF: That member screeches and yells across the House like a harridan. She ought to get out and do something, instead of whingeing.

I am saying that the appropriate way to deal with these young taggers is, first, to make sure they are apprehended. We need to work with the police on that; we need more effort there. And second, when the taggers are apprehended, we have to make sure they pay for the damage, or, as is the case in many instances, if they cannot afford to pay for the damage, then they should have to get out there on their Saturdays and Sundays with a paintbrush and clean up the damage. I stood on the side of State Highway 20 in my white overalls—in my prison boiler suit—and my orange jacket, and I thought: “I’m not the one who put this up there. The people who should be out here in the white overalls, as in the south of the United States, ought to be the young people who actually created that damage to our environment.” That is going to be a critical way of creating a deterrent to people tagging. If they have to take off the graffiti—and it takes a lot longer to take it off than it does to put it on—they will soon tire of doing that if they know there is a reasonable chance of apprehension and that that sort of penalty will follow. That is what we need to do.

There are other powers in the bill. One is to provide people who are not police officers with the power to require those people whom they apprehend to name others. I think there are New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues in that. Even the National Party would agree with that; its members claim sometimes to be civil libertarians. Clearly, changes would be needed in this bill.

But the critical change we need is to have legislation not simply covering Manukau but covering the country as a whole. The critical problem with this bill is that it is localised only to the Manukau area. The changes that we need, need to be made across the board. I know that the Minister of Justice is working hard on them at the moment, and that things have happened already.

John Carter: Ha, ha!

Hon PHIL GOFF: Under 9 years of a National Government absolutely nothing was done. John Carter can sit there and laugh. Not a thing was done under 9 years of that failed Government. National failed to do anything useful, socially. It had a failed law and order policy, it had a failed economic policy, and now it pretends it has some answers. The thing about this bill is that we are not debating National Party answers, because it has none. There is not a policy that the National Party has put up in this House that the public can look at and say: “Here is something that the National Party would do if it came to office.” That party has no policy. That is why we judge it on its track record. If we judge that party on its track record, we can see that it has been appalling.

If we judge the National Party’s members on what they say, we know that that is pretty hopeless. Question time after question time we hear National Party members who say one thing in the paper one day, and 5 days later contradict themselves and say the opposite. John Key said that climate change was a hoax, and now he is saying that we are not doing enough about it. John Key and the National Party said that the nuclear-free policy would be gone by lunchtime. Don Brash was gone by lunchtime, but the National Party suddenly had a reversal of policy. [Interruption] It is no good that woman shrieking across the House.

Judith Collins: That woman! Woohoo!

Hon PHIL GOFF: There she goes. She absolutely makes a fool of herself—in her electorate and in Parliament.

I applaud Manukau City Council for its initiative. I think there is a lot in the bill that needs to be picked up and worked with, but it needs to be picked up and applied across the country. It is not only the legislation that is needed; I know that a series of initiatives is being worked on at the moment, and will be announced shortly, that will help free this country finally of tagging, which every citizen in this country will applaud.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): I have to say that that was one of the funnier speeches we on this side of the House have heard—not that that member is known for his humour. But when we analyse it, we find that that speech had some humorous moments because of the irony of some of the things he said.

Let me just address them. He criticised my colleague the very good representative from Clevedon about the fact that, according to him, she is not there. That is a bit ironic, is it not? I do not remember that member losing her seat. In fact, I seem to recall that her majority increased from 3,000 to 13,000. That member over there, because he was such an inadequate member, lost his seat. The fact is that whether or not he likes it, he was kicked out by the people he represented because he was not representing them properly. That is the first point.

Judith Collins: Who beat him?

JOHN CARTER: I think it was Gilbert Myles. That is even worse. I had forgotten about that.

But the other thing that is a bit ironic, I have to say, is that he says the Government is going to get the young kids to clean up the streets, and get them to do this and that. Well, was it not that member, when he was the Minister of Justice, and was it not the person taking this bill through, George Hawkins, as the former Minister of Police, who actually stopped that from happening? One was the Minister of Police and the other was the Minister of Justice, and they stopped that from happening under their watch. But here they are now saying it should be happening, and the Government should be doing it. Well, goodness gracious!

I have to say another thing that is really ironic. The report of the Local Government and Environment Committee says: “The Local Government and Environment Committee has examined the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill and recommends that it not be passed.” Let us have a count up. How many National people are on that committee? I think there are four. I think there is one from the Greens, which makes five, and there are four Labour members. Given that the National Party put in a minority report in support of the bill, what does that leave apart from the four members from National? Of course, the member from New Zealand First who was sitting in on the committee was also supportive but could not vote, or otherwise it would have been a tied vote. So does that not leave one Green member and four Labour members who voted against the bill? I think that at least the Greens were being consistent—they were sticking with their position—but, of course, Labour was rolled. That is what happened.

Let me give one other irony from that member’s speech. It is from Mr Goff, who says that the very good Minister of Local Government is out there; he has a lot of plans happening and he is going to deal with graffiti, because this bill is too narrow and it should be going right across the country. One of the reasons why—and the member for New Zealand First will remember this—the Labour Party voted against this legislation in the select committee is that members were told that the Minister of Local Government was about to bring down a system that would deal with graffiti across the country. Therefore, we would have a universal system of dealing with graffiti, and there was no need for us to have a local bill because the Government was right on top of it. Well, I think the paint must have fallen off that, somehow. Is that what has happened? Suddenly, is it not ironic that Mark Burton, the Minister of Local Government, is sitting there, while the Minister of whatever Phil Goff is Minister of these days—

Judith Collins: Travel.

JOHN CARTER: He is the “Minister of Travel”? While he made his speech, the Minister of Local Government sat mute and made no contribution at all, and did not defend the fact that the select committee was told that, yes, the Labour Government had got the answer: the Minister of Local Government was going to stride into the House and blow the graffiti away. Kids were going to have their hands tied behind their backs so they could not do any more graffiti, because Mark Burton had it all sorted out. And now he is not taking a call. I have to say that that, to me, seems a bit ironic as well.

When we really think about it, can we understand why the Government has changed its mind? Why were all the reasons that it was not good enough to support the bill in the select committee valid then, and why are they not valid now? Actually, it comes down to numbers. The fact is that the Government ain’t got the numbers to stop it, so now its members have the embarrassment of standing up here and supporting the bill, and speaking for it even though they do not believe in it.

Of course the member George Hawkins will say: “Well, of course, I’ve got the strength to carry the caucus with me.” He will stand there and say: “It’s because they weren’t going to go against me.” I have a funny feeling—did he not get a message from the Prime Minister yesterday? [Interruption] That is all right. Good on him, anyway.

So there are a few ironies about the bill. But the other thing I want to say on this bill is that it is another indication of systemic failure in our society. That is what is so important about this bill. It is not just about graffiti. We can start loading this bill in with things like the failure that we now see in our education system, the fact that our health system is not responding to the public of New Zealand, the failure we are seeing in our police recruits, and the fact that everywhere we look we see young people in the care of the Department of Child, Youth and Family who are not responding in the way they should, and who are not being dealt with. There is failure anywhere and everywhere we look in this society, and it has happened under this Government’s watch. This society is starting to seriously unravel, and this bill is just another example of that unravelling.

We need to take this issue seriously, not just because graffiti is a serious issue but because it is just another example of the attitude of people in this country. We now have a society that believes in and knows its rights, but that will not accept its responsibilities. This bill is just another example of kids thinking they can get away with anything and everything, and not have to be responsible for that.

So because the Government will not deal with graffiti, what happens? In this case, the local authority has decided that it has to take the responsibility for this issue, in its area. But actually the sad fact is that that is occurring right across this country. People, local authorities, and communities are crying out for leadership from the Labour Government and they are not hearing it, not seeing it, and not getting it. That is actually what, fundamentally, we need to understand about this bill. It is actually about a wider issue than just graffiti, and it is about a wider issue than just the matter of Manukau.

I say to this Government, to Helen Clark, to the Ministers who sit over on that side, and to the member taking this bill through this House, that they should think hard and long about why they finally got rolled on this issue. They should think long and hard about why they have done a turn-about and are supporting the bill. This country is actually giving those members a signal and telling them that it has had enough. The majority of the people in this House are now starting to say “We’ve had enough.”, and the majority of this country are telling those members “We’ve had enough.” People have waited 8 long years for leadership and have now decided they are not getting it. They are opposed to what the Government is doing.

One of the ironies is that finally the Government has been forced to make a decision and give some leadership, and the sad fact is that the Government has been rolled. It deserves to have been. This bill deserves to be passed. The shame of it is that it is so narrow, and that the Minister of Local Government and the Labour Government have not done their job on this issue.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Some interesting comments have been made from members on both sides of the House on this matter. First of all, I declare my vested interest, as I always do where I hold such an interest, and I do so in this case. Why? Because I am a resident of Manukau City and I pay rates. If I do have a criticism of the Manukau City Council, it is over the level of rates it is charging me.

Having gone through this process as a non-voting member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I can understand why the Manukau City Council is so concerned. I continue my contribution to this debate on behalf of New Zealand First by quoting from today’s editorial in the Timaru Herald: “Forget all the nonsense about hidden messages, artistic endeavour, or challenges to other groups of taggers. It is simply the human equivalent of what cats do when they spray their territory with foul-smelling urine, and just as primitive. It achieves nothing other than leaving a mess on a fence or building for the property owner to clean up, and because paint is used, the removal takes time, money and effort.”

We have heard from the Mayor of Manukau City, Sir Barry Curtis, about the amount of money it is costing that council to address this issue, and the amount has been alluded to by previous speakers. I would acknowledge the Manukau City Council for putting forward this bill. It is a major problem not only for Manukau City but for Christchurch, North Shore, and obviously for Timaru, and we know that it is also an issue and a problem for a whole lot of other metropolitan areas around our country.

As a resident MP in Manukau City I ought to remind the council that when it first brought this Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill to this House, it advised every MP living in the Auckland area of it except for the present speaker, and I do not know why. I hope the council finds some irony in all of this. Here I am, the one they failed to advise, putting in a pitch for the council and this bill.

Why is it so important that Manukau City addresses this issue? Manukau City, I say to all those who are listening, is the gateway to New Zealand. I do not believe that visitors to this country should be confronted with what taggers call art, graffiti, or whatever they like to call it. But quite clearly, if we are to present our country to the world, then it is important when visitors come through the front door that they are met by a city that is not covered in graffiti.

This bill is an attempt by a local body to address an issue that is a national problem. During the select committee process members had some sympathy for the bill, but at the end of the day the committee felt that it could not support it. Notwithstanding the comments made about numbers and the rolling of particular parties, at the end of the day this House needs to pass a bill that not only will be for the benefit of Manukau City but also will lead to positive effects for other local bodies that suffer from the same problem.

I reiterate that the purpose of this legislation is to minimise the graffiti problem in Manukau City, to deter and penalise graffiti offenders, and to provide the council and the police with additional powers to deal with graffiti associated problems. I know that although the bill is well intended, there are problems with it. Some previous speakers have alluded to that. For example, while the retailers who operate within the Manukau City boundary may be able to follow the intent of this bill if it is made into law, what of the retailers who live outside Manukau City boundaries? Because of where the Auckland metropolis area is, it would be quite simple for those who find some joy in tagging or in marking public property without the consent of the owners to acquire the tools that they require to carry out their antisocial behaviour.

New Zealand First supports the bill, which will make Manukau City one of the first places, if not the first place in New Zealand, to have strict anti-graffiti laws that could then also be considered for other local bodies throughout the country. We heard from previous speakers about what other local bodies are doing. I know that a press release from the North Shore City Council headed “Tagger Time Bomb” indicated what that council was doing to try to address this problem. It would seem to me that North Shore City Council has a process in place that is being carried out in association with the police. The Mayor, Mr Wood, is calling on Local Government New Zealand and the Minister of Justice to support the police-led, region-wide graffiti eradication programme. We heard during the select committee process what this Government is intending to do, and I refer to the report, particularly where it covers national developments.

The Minister advised us that the Government has adopted, and is implementing, a six-point plan to address graffiti issues. The specific issues in the plan include setting up an 0800 graffiti removal hot line, promoting environmental design to make it less practical for graffiti to be written, requiring offenders to participate in supervised graffiti clean-up crews, and promoting education programmes and the use of relevant role models in schools. We also heard that the first year of the graffiti strategy would end on 30 June 2007, which is just a few days away, and that it is intended to establish an effective basis for future projects. We also understand that the whole strategy will be rolled out over 4 years and will receive further funding as the initiative gains momentum.

So quite clearly the Government has something in place and it will certainly address this issue. But I again acknowledge the efforts of Mr Hawkins for bringing this matter to this House on behalf of Manukau City, the largest city in New Zealand. I look forward to discussing this bill in more detail, particularly during the Committee stage. Kia ora.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): Although the Green Party was on the Local Government and Environment Committee, which dealt with the bill, and I did attend the hearing of submissions, I take this opportunity to reconfirm our original position of opposition to this bill, which is the same conclusion that the select committee itself has reached. I am now astonished to find that the Labour Party is supporting the bill, and I have been very interested in the debate and comments about why Labour now supports this essentially flawed legislation.

The issue is not that the Green Party does not have great sympathy for the position that Manukau City finds itself in. Mayor Sir Barry Curtis, councillors, and staff reported to us at the hearings last year that graffiti vandalism in their city has increased by an estimated 500 percent over the last 5 years. At the time of their submission, staff were removing tags from 1,500 sites a month, roughly—up from 300 sites 5 years earlier. The council gave us an estimate that a tagger with just one $3 can of spray-paint can cause up to $7,000 worth of damage. The council reported that it has 30 people out every day painting out graffiti, and that it spends close to $1 million a year on that, yet still it feels that it is not keeping up with the blight on the landscape.

Businesses and residents throughout Manukau City are, understandably, totally fed up with the situation they find themselves in and are desperate for solutions. Thus they came to Parliament with this bill, which they saw as a way to control graffiti in their city through a number of discrete measures. Those measures include regulating the display and sale of spray-paint, creating new graffiti offences, empowering the local authority to go on to private property to remove graffiti, and providing additional powers to the police where they suspect a graffiti-related offence has been committed.

However, although all those measures may sound fine on the surface, there is an underlying problem with a local bill of this nature, in that it attempts to amend the criminal law in one territorial local authority area, when our criminal law actually applies on a national basis. We do not have a federal system like that in Australia or the United States, where it would be technically and legally a lot more feasible to create criminal laws that are applicable or specific to a particular locality. The Green Party agrees with the select committee’s observation that in a country like ours, with a unitary legal framework, it would be a mistake to amend or modify the criminal law on a localised or piecemeal basis.

We also note that because of the local nature of this bill, passing it could also lead to unfortunate and almost certainly unintended consequences, such as people moving over the borders into neighbouring areas to carry out their tagging activities—just intensifying the problem in the cities beside Manukau—and obliging taggers to use substances other than spray-paint because of the tighter regulations on the sale of spray-paint in that city only. Of course, people could go over the borders of Manukau City to buy or steal spray-paint, anyway.

A second area of concern the Green Party has with regard to this bill arises from the way that it infringes upon the rights of children and young people. For example, it proposes to stop the sale of spray-paint in Manukau City to people under the age of 18. In fact, the people who spray graffiti may be of any age at all. In addition, limiting sales in that way also discriminates on the grounds of age, without there being any particular reason why 18 should be used as the cut-off point. As the Children’s Commissioner told the select committee, she considers that the bill is “antagonistic toward children and young people and further contributing to negative stereotyping of youth in Aotearoa New Zealand.”

The Green Party also shares the anxiety of a number of submitters about the extension of police powers contained in this bill, and about the fact that it is inconsistent with at least two separate areas of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

On a more positive note, I acknowledge the comments made by the select committee about the various alternatives that local bodies around New Zealand have put in place to deal with graffiti vandalism. They include things like youth and community initiatives to beautify cities, including initiatives within Manukau itself, and the work done by the Christchurch City Council through its accessible reporting systems and its legal art programme, now called Project Legit, through which taggers—in some cases referred by the courts or by youth justice officials—are encouraged to use their artistic propensities in useful and legal ways. Mr Goff has also mentioned the initiatives now happening across Auckland to get local bodies working together on the graffiti problem, as well as working more closely with the police and other relevant organisations. Those are all good things.

The Green Party believes that further solutions and assistance are needed to help local bodies to deal with the graffiti issue, but that such solutions should not cut across the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or continue to demonise children and young people. We believe that solutions should come after genuine consultation with children and young people, particularly in the districts most affected by graffiti crime. Both the Government and local councils need to do more to implement programmes that address the reasons behind the graffiti epidemic—for example, through doing a lot more to provide activities that both challenge and entertain young people in culturally and socially appropriate ways. Heavy-handed legislation and increased police powers will only increase alienation and anger amongst young people who are already, in many cases, disenfranchised, bored, and cut off from the society whose buildings, fences, and walls they feel impelled to deface.

The Green Party supports the enforcement of existing legislation. We support increased Government and local government funding for appropriate activities for children and young people, as well as ongoing consultation with them to find solutions to the graffiti problem. However, we do not support this bill, despite the very real problems it attempts to address. We need to take a fresh approach to graffiti that understands the realities of taggers’ lives, that learns from successful overseas and local initiatives, and that takes a national overview.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātou e te Whare. I mua tata atu i te taenga mai o tēnei pire ki te Whare i te tau 2005, ka tae mai tētahi imēra mai i a Diva, he tohunga tuhi anuanu e mahi ana i āna mahi mō ngā tau e 5 i Tāmaki-ki-Raro.

E mea ana a ia: “E aroha ana mātou ki ngā rangatahi, ngā tai tamatāne, tai tamawāhine anō hoki e noho kuare ana i Tāmaki-ki-Raro. He pai kē atu kia tautoko i ngā mahi e hiahia ana e te rangatahi. Mā ngā mahi tuhi anuanu, ka uru ki roto i a rātou kia kai ngākau rātou ki wēnei tū momo mahi i te mea, ka taea e rātou te torotoro atu nā rātou hoki. Hākoa ngā kōrero tā tēnā, tā tēnā, ka tuhi anuanu ngā tamariki, engari mēnā ka piri atu ki a rātou, ka taea e mātou te whakaatu i tētahi ao āhua whānui ake kia whakatūtūtia e te kaupapa.”

Engari, he aha te whakautu a te Kaunihera o Manukau? Kua tuku pire kia whakakāhoretia i te tuhi anuanu noa iho. E mara, he anga whakamua tēnā? Kore, kore rawa atu. Nō reira, ka tirohia whānuitia e mātou kia kitea mēnā he whakaaro pai atu i te “rākau nui”. Pērā i Te Papa-i-oea, nā rātou i toha pūtea mō te hōtaka Highbury Hiphop, mō ngā momo kanikani, rangi waiata, pūrongo, whakatangi anō hoki mō ngā rangatahi, ko te nuinga o rātou, he Poronīhia.

Tā te hiahia o ngā kaitiaki toa, ka puta mai tēnei hōtaka, kia whakatika i ngā mahi tuhi kōkau. Kotahi rau ngā tamariki i tae atu, ia wiki, ia wiki. Mō ngā tau e whā, i hīpoki ngā rangatahi i nga tuhinga kōkau, tuhinga anuanu hoki, ā, nā rātou hoki i tuhi i ō rātou ake tuhinga anuanu pai. Nā te pai o ēnei mahi ka mīharo te Koro Matua o Papa-i-oea, he pai te kaupapa ki te tini o nga tamariki, pērā i a rātou kua taka ki te hē i te rohe o Highbury.

Tā Josh Wētere, tētahi o ngā kaituhi anuanu ki te pepa, arā, ko te Evening Standard, ko tana whakahīhī ki te kite i āna mahi i runga i ngā pātū o te tāone. “Mēnā i konei ēnei tuhinga i te wā o ōku tamariki he mea nui tērā. Inā, pātai mai rātou, ‘Matua nā wai wērā mahi?’. Ā, ko taku whakautu, ‘Nāku.’ ”

Ā, tērā pea, me waea atu a Barry Curtis ki te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Whāngarei, nā rātou i tautoko i te whakangahau hip-hop i Māunu i tērā tau, i tū ki te taha o te whakakitenga “Whakanuia a Hip Hop Aotearoa”. Kua kitea anō hoki i te kaha o te wairua Māori, me te wairua Pasifika i roto i tēnei whakataetae tuhi anuanu rongorau.

He pātai anāo tāku kia tirohia ki te rere kē o ērā ki ngā whakaaro o Manukau: kia whaina i ngā toa e hoko kēne peita ki ngā tamariki; kia rahi ake ngā whaina ki ngā tohunga tuhi anuanu—me te āhua kei a rātou te pūtea kia utungia; kia whakamana i te kaunihera kia uru atu ki to whenua, ūkui ai i te tuhi anuanu; kia whakanui ake te mana kia haere ngā pirihimana me ngā kaunihera te tirohia, te hopu me te whaina tangata.

Ko tā te pire nei he whakauru mai anō i tētahi atu rōpū, arā, ko ngā pirihimana. E mara—he nui tonu ā rātou mahi. Nā, i runga i tō mātou tautoko i te ture pai atu i ngā ture rorirori nei ka titiro mātou ki ngā āhua ka taea e ngā pirihimana te whakapā atu ki ngā kaituhi anuanu. Nā, i Heretaunga ka kite mātou i tētahi kaupapa, arā, ko Te Ao Mārama, i tīmatahia e te Pirihimana a Sue Guy, o te Rōpū Awhi Rangatahi ki Heretaunga, nā tōna hōhā, horekau he ara hei whāinga mā ngā tohunga tuhi anuanu. I whakarōpū ai ngā pirihimana o Heretaunga i wētahi rangatahi mai i ngā tiriti, ā, ka tuku atu ngā taputapu, papa, peita hoki kia tū ai ngā whakaaturanga e toru. I nāianei, ka whakairihia a rātou papa toi ki Poihākena, ki tō tātou ake Whare Pāremata anō hoki. Tino harikoa te katoa ngā rangatahi me ngā Pirihimana, ā, ka panuihia te Tari o Te Ture, he whakaaturanga tino rawe.

Engari me waihotia e au te kōrero whakamutunga ki te Pirihimana a Sue Guy me tana kī: “I te wā ka ea ō rātau wawata ka manawanui, ka noho pai te hinengaro, e kore taea te aukati i a rātou. I wakawātea e mātou i te wāhi kia taea ai rātou te wero i a rātou anō, kia taea e rātou te whai i tētahi ara kāhore anō kia kitea i tō ratou ao.”

Ko ēnei ngā mahi ka taea mēnā ka whakarewahia ngā painga, ka waihotia ngā whērutanga, ā, tērā pea me titiro a Manukau ki a Heretaunga. Ko Manukau hoki te tāone kua whakarewahia ngā pirihimana mō ā rātau mahi ringa kaha, patu rangatahi anā hoki.

I te pai a Tāmaki-ki-Raro, piki ake ngā takahi i te ture, ā, kei te noho ngoikore, ngākau kore hoki te rohe. Kei Tāmaki-ki-Raro taku rangatira a Tākuta Pita Sharples e mahi ana, ā, kei te whakaatu mai i ngā mahi kua mahia kia rewa ake te tū o ā rātou whānau, ā, he kōrero papai ōna mō ngā mahi a ngā pirihimana e ngākau nui ana ki te tautoko i ngā nōhonga whānau. Ā, koia rā anō tō mātou whakaaro—he pai kē atu te tautoko i ngā tūmanako, i te whiu.

Tini ana ngā mahi pai e mahia ana i ngā tōpito katoa o te motu, pērā i te Whakakitenga Tuhi Anuanu a ngā tohunga Māori, Pasifika hoki kei Ōtautahi. Nā wā rātou mahi ka kī tētahi: “Kua pakū mai ngā tikanga hip-hop ki tēnei whenua. Me aro ake tātou i te mea, koia nei ngā hiahia o tō tātou iwi, ā, nā rātou tonu i kimi. Kua tae ki te wā kia tuwherahia wā tātou hinengaro i te mea he tangi tēnei kia aro ake ki a rātou.”

Kei roto i aku kōrero he karanga kia titiro whānui tātou ki wētahi tikanga hōu, ā, koia rā hoki te karanga o wērā atu o ngā tāngata i Manukau i tēnei wā tonu. Kia titiro whānui, kia rapu i ngā painga, kia titiro ki tua atu o ngā otaota, kia kitea i ngā tino taonga, kia kitea i ngā tau otinga, kia waihotia ngā raruraru. E mārama ana au ki ngā hiahia o te kaunihera ki te whakapai i ngā tiriti engari, kāhore au e whakaae ko te utu ko wā tātou tamariki me ō rātou pūmanawa. E mea ana au nā tātou ēnei tamariki i te mea, e mōhio ana au, tātou katoa hoki, ko ngā tamariki ka ngaua e te pire nei, ko ā tātou rangatahi o te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa.

Tautoko ana te Pāti Māori i te whakahau a te komiti kia kaua te pire nei e whai mana, ā, tautoko anō i ngā whakahau mā te wā kāinga e hanga ngā tikanga whakatikatika, ā, tautoko hoki i te whakaaro kia tau tōtika te mahi. He pai ake tērā i te mahi poka noa i te ture. Kāhore mātou e kite i te pai o te rākau nui, ā ko tā mātou īnoi ki a Manukau kia tau ake te piri ki ngā painga kei ngā tiriti o Tāmaki-ki-Raro. Pai atu tēnei i te hāmene, i te whakaiti, i te whaina, i te mauhere.

Hei kōrero whakamutunga ki ngā mema o te Whare nei, kia haere ki Manukau, kia kite i te tuhi anuanu, e whā mita te teitei, whā tekau mā rima mita te roa. I tuwheratia i tērā tau I te Whare o TelstraClear, ā, nā ngā tohunga tuhi anuanu, nā Otis Frizzell rāua ko Dan Tippett me ngā kaituhi e rima nō Manukau i hanga. E 9 tae atu ki te 36 te pakeke o ngā kaiāwhina. Ko ngā tāngata i whakamanangia, ko ngā toa o Manukau pērā i a Tā Edmund Hillary, David Lange, Hone Waaka, Yvette Corlett, Barbara Kendall, Possum Bourne, Tā Woolf Fisher, me te toa nāna i para te ara hip-hop, arā, ko Phil Fuemana rātou anō kua rere ki tua atu o te mata-hau-ariki. He whakanui i te kaha me te wairua auaha o te iwi o Manukau, ā, he whakaatu i ngā wawata o te tohunga tuhi anuanu a Diva me āna kōrero mō ngā rangatahi o Manukau: “Mēnā ka taea e mātou te whakapiri atu ki a rātou, te whakaatu i tētahi ao āhua whānui ake, āe rā, ka tutuki te kaupapa.”

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare, tēnā koe, Pita Paraone.

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

[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us, the House. Just before this bill last came before the House back in 2005, we got an email from a professional graffiti artist known as Diva, who had been doing her graffiti thing legally around South Auckland for the past 5 years.

She said: “Our hearts are for the young people, young men and women of South Auckland who truly have no positive influence, no direction and no vision in life. Rather than putting down everything the youth are interested in, we want to use graffiti as a tool to impart life skills, responsibility and respect in a form they can relate to and be interested in. Kids are going to tag no matter what anyone says but if we can get alongside them, into their lives, and let them see beyond that horizon, then we will achieve something.”

But what does the Manukau City Council do? Put in a bill to ban graffiti! Yeah, man, forward thinking! Not! So we thought we would look around ourselves, to see whether there were better ideas than the “big stick”—like in Palmerston North, for instance, which funded the Highbury Hiphop programme, combining break-dancing, music, rapping, and graffiti art for mainly Polynesian youth.

The programme grew out of a meeting with local owners to deal with tagging, and attracted nearly 100 kids every week. Over the next 4 weeks a team of young people painted over random tagging and graffiti, and created murals with their graffiti art. The programme was so successful that even the mayor was moved to say that the programme had been extremely popular and helped heaps of at-risk kids in Highbury.

One budding graffiti artist, Josh Wētere, told the Evening Standard of his pride in seeing his work on the walls of the town: “It’d be great if it was still here when my kids are around. They’d say, ‘Who did that, dad?’. And I’d say: ‘I did.’ ”

Or maybe Barry Curtis could call the Whāngarei District Council, which sponsored a hip-hop festival last year in Māunu. The festival combined with a travelling exhibition called “Respect Aotearoa: HipHop”, again had a really strong Māori and Pasifika influence and a multimedia graffiti art competition.

Again I ask members to contrast these with Manukau’s intentions: fining shopkeepers for selling spray-cans to kids; massive fines for graffiti artists—like they would have the money to pay; giving council the power to enter private property and remove graffiti; and increased police and council intrusion, surveillance, arrests, and fines.

This bill also introduces another group to the mix: the police. Man, have they not got enough to do already? So because our aim is to try to always promote positive alternatives to what is often seriously dumb legislation, we decided to look around for positive ways in which police can engage with graffiti artists. And down Hastings way, we came across Te Ao Mārama, an initiative pioneered by Constable Sue Guy of Hastings Police Youth Aid, who was frustrated that there was nothing for young talented graffiti artists. Hastings police and some community youth workers got together a group of street kids, got the necessary gear, let them loose with paints and boards, did three big exhibitions, and now some of that artwork is hanging up in Sydney, and in our House of Parliament as well. The kids were stoked, the police were chuffed, and the Ministry of Justice promoted it as a successful youth aid initiative.

But I leave the final word to Constable Sue Guy, who said: “Once the young people realize their potential, gain confidence and self esteem, there is no stopping them. We provide a place for young people to challenge themselves, and give young people a chance to do things that they would not normally experience.”

This is what is possible if you accentuate the positive, instead of always trying to eliminate the negative, and in a city like Manukau, where over-zealous policing has led to an inquiry into the excessive use of force, bringing to light many other cases of police assault on young people, the Hastings experience is certainly worthy of consideration.

Things in South Auckland do not look good, with rising crime, despair, and despondency pervading the community. My leader Dr Pita Sharples has been working behind the scenes in South Auckland, and keeps us updated about the incredible commitment that people are making to improve things for their families. He speaks highly, too, of those officers dedicated to community support. And again, that is what we want to focus on—restoring hope, rather than inflicting penalty.

There are heaps of good things going on all round the country, like the Urbanised Generation Graffiti Art Exhibition in Christchurch, featuring celebrated Māori and Pacific Island artists and their work, about which one person said: “The hip-hop culture has exploded in this country. We must take notice. It’s where our people are at—by choice. It’s time for us to open our minds to it and accept that the exhibition is a cry for attention.”

The various examples I have talked about highlight the motivation provided by fresh eyes, and that is what the people of Manukau are calling out for right now—fresh eyes to look past the pain and search out the potential, gaze past the litter, and see the treasure, and see the solutions rather than the problems. I understand the impulse of the city council to want to clean up the streets, but it should not be at the expense of our kids and their talent, and I say “our” kids because I know, we all know, that it will be Māori and Pasifika youth who will get banged by this bill.

The Māori Party supports the recommendation from the select committee not to pass this bill. We support the recommendation for local solutions, and urge a more positive approach, rather than ad hoc legislation. We see no value in using the big stick, and we urge Manukau City to engage positively with the terrific array of talent in the streets of South Auckland, rather than penalise them with labels, fines, and lock-ups.

Finally, I would encourage all members of this House to go and have a look at Manukau City’s awesome 3-metre-high and 45-metre-long graffiti mural launched last year in the TelestraClear Pacific Centre, designed by graffiti legends Otis Frizzell and Dan Tippet, and painted in collaboration with five local artists aged from 9 to 36. It features the champions of Manukau like Sir Edmund Hillary, David Lange, John Walker, Yvette Corlett, Barbara Kendall, Possum Bourne, Sir Woolf Fisher, and hip-hop pioneer Phil Fuemana— those who soared beyond the horizon. It is a celebration of the talent and creativity of the people of Manukau, and represents the aspirations of Diva, the graffiti artist who says of the youth of Manukau City: “If we can get alongside them, into their lives, and let them see beyond that horizon, then we will achieve something”.

Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to all of us of the House, and to you, Pita Paraone.].

DAVE HEREORA (Labour): I take this opportunity to take just a short call in this debate. I stand in support of this Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill going through its second reading. I start by using those famous words by Sir Barry Curtis: “I represent New Zealand’s most progressive city, Manukau.” For all of us who have been in his presence and have heard his speeches, those words have a familiar ring.

As a resident of Manurewa, within Manukau City, I know that the Manukau area is often faced with the problem of graffiti. I attended a public meeting at Papakura about it not long after the last election. I can tell members that even politicians cannot escape graffiti; my election signs were affected in such a manner.

I think it is important to place on record that I stand in support of our trying to get rid of, to find a way through, or to minimise this problem. It is a problem, and one that we should all, together, try to resolve with the right solution. I have a few concerns surrounding issues related to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, particularly relating to section 23(4), which states that any person detained for an offence or a suspected offence has a right to refrain from making a statement. I think a particular part of the bill may have a detrimental effect, in that it will result in unnecessary arrests of our young people who may not be involved in that activity. Having said that, I support the idea that those who are caught in the act should be disciplined in some way, and should be primarily responsible for clearing up the problem.

I did say I would take a very short call. I wanted to take the opportunity to place on record my support for those trying to deal with this problem, and to offer every assistance we can in the process. Kia ora.

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

Ayes 108

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

Noes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Bill read a second time.

Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill

First Reading

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) on behalf of Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban (Labour—Mana): I move, That the Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is with pleasure that I move this motion today on behalf of my good friend and colleague the Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban, MP for Mana and member in charge of this local bill on behalf of the Porirua City Council. I wish to acknowledge before this House the descendants of the Stace family and the supporters of this bill who are following proceedings in Parliament today—kia ora, talofa lava, and, in the enduring words of Winnie Laban, “warm Pacific greetings”.

This bill confirms the vesting in the Porirua City Council of the Pauatahanui Burial Ground. It also provides for the status, control, and management of the burial ground into the future. This bill tidies up the legal arrangements relating to one of the more historically significant burial sites in New Zealand. For the benefit of the House and those following the debate, I note that the Pauatahanui Burial Ground is located between Paekakariki Hill Road and St Alban’s Anglican Church.

The burial ground is an important part of the early European history of Pāuatahanui and the wider Porirua district. It was also an important rohe for tangata whenua, and I am grateful to Ngāti Toa for providing some of the history of this site. The site next to the burial ground was where an old Ngāti Ira pā was located. The pā was called Pāuatahanui, and it was the point of refuge for those living around the harbour inlet in undefended kāinga. The pā was attacked on a number of occasions by various invading bands. One large battle occurred when a force of Muaūpoko from the Horowhenua district and Rangitāne attacked and overran the pā, which at the time was occupied by Ngāti Ira and Ngāti Kaitangata. Survivors fled to Matiu Island within Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara.

Pāuatahanui Pā was also a strong pā of the Ngāti Awa people before the arrival of Toa Rangatira. Pāuatahanui was vacant in the 1820s until Te Rangihaeata built a fortified gunfighting pā called Mātaitauā in 1845. One account details how Te Rangihaeata was chased back from the Hutt Valley to Mātai-tauā Pā by the 58^th and 99^th regiments of the British imperial forces in 1846. Te Rangihaeata was forced to abandon his pā on 1 August 1846, and he retreated up the Horokiwi valley, where the skirmish at that place now known as Battle Hill took place on 6 August.

As Te Rangihaeata fled north, British soldiers moved into his pā. Thomas Hollis Stace and his family arrived from Tasmania in 1853 and purchased 113 acres of land at the head of the Pāuahatanui inlet from the New Zealand Company. The site of the burial ground was given to him by a deed of trust, dated 6 December 1856, with the first interment taking place in 1860. Plots in it were used for burials of members of many of the pioneer families, from the period when Pāuatahanui was a bustling township and a significant staging post for the journey north. Early settlers planted roses on the grounds, from cuttings brought over from Britain and other parts of Europe. Many of these roses are still blooming, thanks to the efforts of a wonderful group of Pauatahanui Burial Ground volunteers.

The trust permitted a chapel to be built on the land, and for this chapel to be used as a schoolhouse for the education of children of the neighbourhood, and for the land to be used as a public burial ground. The deed of trust also reserved for Thomas Hollis Stace and his heirs the right to use part of the burial ground as a family plot. A certificate of title was issued for the burial ground under the Torrens system of land registration in 1936, subject to a caveat that protected the interests of the Stace family plot. Later, the Minister of Health appointed managers of the burial ground, under the Burial and Cremation Act of 1964, however legal ownership was not vested in those managers. The persons recorded on the certificate of title are now all deceased, and the land has not been conveyed to new trustees. The deed of trust does not contain the power to dispose of the land in any other way.

The Pauatahanui Burial Ground is now full, apart from the plots acquired but in which no burials were made, and areas where burials are thought to have occurred but for which there are no headstones or written records. The burial ground was closed at the end of 2004 and, by way of section 53 of the Burial and Cremation Act, its control and management has been vested with the Porirua City Council.

So why is this legislation necessary? There are a number of reasons. Despite the vesting of the burial ground in the council in 2004, it remains subject to the trusts, and the certificate of title remains subject to a caveat. The burial ground currently has no legal access. The entrance from Paekakariki Hill Road was closed several years ago. A right-of-way access arrangement is not possible without the formal vesting of ownership in the council. Legislation is the most efficient way to confirm the council’s ownership of the burial ground, dissolve the trusts, and extinguish the interests that are protected by the caveat.

Finally, the Pāuatahanui residents, descendents, and living relatives of people who have been buried there would like to see the burial ground cared for and maintained, in perpetuity. The bill will reserve the right of those who purchased plots before the closure in 2004. The Porirua City Council has conducted a thorough round of consultation on this bill, including consultation with the Stace family and local iwi. Both have indicated that they are happy with the intent and objects of this bill.

To Māori, the appropriate and respectful burial of those in our community who have passed on is, of course, of immense importance. It is important that the tapu of the mourning, tangi, and burial process is recognised, and that the mana of the person who has passed away is observed. These things are also important to me as a New Zealander of Scottish descent. That is why I am pleased that this bill will protect the burial ground, and the memory of those who lie in it and rest there, forever.

I would like to thank all the people, the volunteers, and the groups who have assisted with getting the bill to this point. It will be appropriate to further acknowledge all parties at a later stage in the proceedings of this bill. It is with pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I join the member for Otaki in praising those who have been involved in the preparation of this legislation, and I can indicate that National will support this legislation in, hopefully, going through its Committee stage very quickly so that it can become law in the shortest possible time.

I begin my brief contribution—I say brief, because the member for Otaki has very comprehensively covered the history—by saying to the member for Mana how grateful I was, as a National list MP working in the area, that she was prepared to give me a briefing on the legislation, and give me some relevant papers on the background. I thank her for her courtesy.

This is a beautiful burial ground, which is just over 150 years old. As Mr Hughes said, it is situated in Pāuatahanui, not far from the roundabout. It has a beautiful site, adjoining St Alban’s Anglican Church and churchyard. Essentially, the current situation could be summarised as follows: the burial ground is now full for burials, although there are a number of plots, which have been acquired by persons, in which no burial has yet been made. Importantly, given the development of the road near the roundabout, the burial ground now has no legal access, and the entrance from Paekakariki Hill Road was closed, for very obvious reasons of road safety, several years ago. So if people want to get to the graveyard, they have to go into the St Alban’s Church property and cross the St Alban’s graveyard.

Pāuatahanui residents and descendants of the people who are buried in the cemetery, the descendants of the original trustees, the Porirua City Council, and the general Pāuatahanui community would like to see the burial ground cared for and maintained in perpetuity. I too pay tribute to the dedicated team of local residents who have been looking after the cemetery property. I inspected the property and can endorse exactly what Mr Hughes said about the roses. Even in May they were truly beautiful.

So legislation is indeed the most efficient and effective way of dealing with this issue, and the explanatory note of the bill accurately summarises the reasons why legislation is necessary as a speedy and effective way to confirm the council’s ownership of the burial ground and dissolve the trusts. There are a number of other options that could have been taken, but I agree with the explanatory note that those would have been more convoluted and problematical—for example, applying to the High Court for the trusts to be modified or extinguished under the Charitable Trusts Act. That could have been possible, but it would have had numerous difficulties associated with it. Certainly, it would not have been possible to persuade the court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, to modify the trusts, and I agree with members that it is desirable to dissolve the trusts—because the burial ground is now closed—and vest management and control in the council.

So I commend the Porirua City Council for its initiative in working on this legislation and being prepared to take over the administration of the burial ground. I have read some of the background correspondence and can see that much of the work on this issue has been undertaken by one of my former partners, Duncan Laing, and that perhaps explains why the bill is well drafted and should pass through its Committee stage very quickly. As an irrelevant aside, I can say that when I was working as a solicitor for Duncan Laing many years ago, I used to do work for the Porirua City Council, and one job I had was to prosecute Sir Gerard Wall, a former Speaker of this place, because he would not demolish his builder’s shed.

So there we have it. It is a good piece of legislation, it should be able to pass through its stages very quickly, and the National Party is happy to support it going to the Local Government and Environment Committee, so that it can become law in the shortest possible time.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): Thomas Hollis Stace was one of the early settlers in the Pāuatahanui area, and the family is remembered through the continued existence not only of the burial ground but also of the Taylor-Stace cottage, not far from the burial grounds on the shores of the Porirua Harbour. Just as an aside, I say that the cottage is listed on the Register of Historic Places as the oldest in the Pāuatahanui district, an area that was settled as a staging post very early in post-Treaty New Zealand. But it was not Thomas Hollis Stace who first built this building; it was in fact William and Ann Taylor, who arrived with their six children in New Zealand in November 1840. They built the cottage before later moving to Tawa and selling it to William Stace. The Stace family took over the simple Georgian cottage, constructed with rough-sawn timber, and extended it. The timber and the family names have stood the test of time. Many of those names, the early European settlers of New Zealand, can be found on the gravestones of Pāuatahanui.

One of the descendants of the Taylors, their great-great-granddaughter Cathy, is the spouse of one Ernie Davis, a senior staff member of New Zealand First since 1994. He is someone who has made a huge contribution to the success of New Zealand First being able to achieve so very much since his time here. So, working on the thesis that behind every great man there is a great woman, it can be stated that William and Ann Taylor are still having an influence for the good of all New Zealanders. If the Taylors had not built that cottage, maybe Thomas Hollis Stace would never have settled in Pāuatahanui in the first place. Oh, what a tangled web our history is.

However, as outlined by the first speaker in this debate, Darren Hughes, the story of this bill begins when, on 6 December 1856, by deed of trust, Thomas Hollis Stace conveyed the land that is the burial ground to William Bromley, Edward Bolton, Thomas Hollis Stace, William Jones, and James Mitchell on specified trusts. The trusts included, as has been mentioned, to “permit a chapel to be built on the land for the religious worship by the Protestant denomination; and to permit the chapel to be used as a schoolhouse for the education of the children of the neighbourhood; and to permit land to be used as a public burial ground. The Deed of Trust also reserved for Thomas Hollis Stace and his heirs the exclusive right to use of part of the burial ground as a family plot.”

There were a series of transfers after the Torrens system of land registration was introduced into New Zealand by the Land Transfer Act 1870, and there were also the Cemeteries Acts of 1882 and 1908. As Darren Hughes has said, it was not until 11 May 1936 that the District Land Registrar for the Wellington Land Registration District issued for the burial ground a certificate of title 427/147. At the moment, as has been mentioned, the burial ground is full and there is no legal access to it. The control and management of the burial ground has been vested with the council since 4 June 2004, but, nevertheless, it remains subject to trusts, and the certificate of title remains subject to caveat. So revenue cannot be raised for maintenance of this particular graveyard, because there are no plots to sell. So this bill, which confirms the vesting in Porirua City Council and provides for the status, control, and management of the Pāuatahanui burial ground, is only common sense. It also makes sense to—as the bill does—dissolve certain trusts established by the 1856 deed relating to the burial ground, to extinguish certain interests of the Stace family in the burial ground, and to provide for the maintenance, inspection, and records of the burial ground.

However, just a word of alert—and I think it was referred to a little bit by the first speaker—it is claimed that the descendants of the original owners all support the purposes of this bill. Now by this it is presumed we are talking about the descendants of Thomas Hollis Stace. By the very first speech, it is quite clear that Thomas Hollis Stace was not the first owner. In fact, prior to him, Ngāti Awa, and Te Rangihaeata, the nephew of Te Rauparaha, obviously had some real interest in this particular land, and when I hear the New Zealand Company mentioned, I have to ask some questions about it.

Everything about this bill is common sense, but we are not told how the New Zealand Company acquired the land before it handed it on to Thomas Hollis Stace, and New Zealand First wants to be assured through the select committee process that it was by fair means rather than foul. New Zealand First does not believe that we, as a nation, can go into the future where there continues to be genuine grievance from any one party. We want to ensure that this particular legislation will not create further grievance, although I am not too certain that the tangata whenua would want the plot of land returned filled with Pākehā tūpāpaku. But if that concern is satisfied during the committee process, then New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation all the way through.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East): Kia ora tātou, nō reira te Whare, Whāea Hartley, tēnā koe. It is with a great deal of honour and privilege that I stand here this evening, because I have an interest in the Pāuatahanui cemetery. I am very, very pleased—[Interruption] I am not going there, colleagues. No, no, not yet; I am too young for that. But I certainly have an interest in the cemetery. I want to support the Porirua City Council in this bill, because the bill vests ownership, management, and control in the council.

The Pāuatahanui cemetery is of significant interest to the Robertsons, because one of our forebears was buried there in 1884. The family came out to New Zealand in the good ship Gairloch in 1881. My great-great-grandfather, whose name was Walter and who was married to Agnes, had three young children: Thomas, aged 6, Agnes, aged 4, and Elizabeth, who was less than 1 year old and ailing at the time. They decided they would leave Glasgow. They left the Broomielaw Wharf in 1881, and 6 months later, after rounding South America and travelling down through the Strait of Magellan in the barque Gairloch, they finally arrived in New Zealand. Walter and Agnes settled at Pāuatahanui, and for 18 months they must have had some exciting times putting their roots down in New Zealand soil. But the problem was that fate tossed my great-great-grandmother a blow when, in 1884, her husband, Walter, was tragically killed while on his horse and dray in the Ngauranga Gorge, between Wellington and Johnsonville. So my forebear Walter Robertson is now buried in that cemetery.

When I knew this bill was coming before the House, I approached my esteemed colleague the Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban and said that I would like to speak to it, because of the special interest the cemetery has for my family. She was only too happy to oblige, and I want to thank her publicly for the opportunity to put this on the record.

I visited the cemetery several years ago and tried to search for our patriarch, because he is buried there. His wife, Agnes, is buried in the Porirua Cemetery. But we could not find the grave site, because the cemetery was all overgrown. When I looked into the history of this bill, I found a paper that was drafted by Sharon Evans, who is a genealogist, and amateur historian. She has a section in her paper headed: “Who’s buried in the Pauatahanui Burial Ground?”. One of the points is: “There are more than a dozen mystery graves. All show signs of a burial long ago, but most have no headstone. Some early headstones would have been made of wood and when they eventually decayed, were not replaced.” That was the case with regard to my forebear Walter Robertson, because my uncle Gordon Massey Robertson remembers visiting the grave site with his father during the Second World War, when his two brothers were overseas doing service for New Zealand. He said to me that it was overgrown, that one could tell there were wooden plaques, but that they had all fallen over and had rotted away. So my great-great-grandfather is one of those in the mystery graves.

Interestingly, we found when we were digging all this sort of thing up that the records of the grave sites were destroyed back in the 1950s. Rumour had it at the time that the wife of the person looking after the cemetery was very unhappy about her husband’s extramarital affair, shall we say, and that as a result she burnt all the records that belonged to the parish. So those records are lost for eternity.

I just want again to put on the record my thanks to both Winnie Laban and the Porirua City Council, because they have enabled me to talk a little about my ancestry. I am sure the story is not very different from that of many other people who came out from Scotland as long ago as that. I say thank you again for having been given that opportunity. Tihei mauri ora! Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Kia ora, Mr Robertson, mo tērā kōrero i tēnei pō.

It is always good to have the opportunity to stand in this House to acknowledge the importance of our cultural heritage, and to consider ways in which we can demonstrate that. The Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill gives us such an opportunity.

The immediate history of this bill dates back some 15 years, when five local women became concerned about the dishevelled state of the burial ground at Pāuatahanui and set about clearing the overgrown land, as Mr Robertson referred to. As other speakers have also noted, the land gifted by Thomas Hollis Stace in the 1850s preserves the graves and the memories of some 190 pioneering ancestors of this region. The five local women set about a rose-planting project, connecting to the pioneers of yesteryear who had brought plants from England with them to remind them of home when they had first established themselves in the colony. When a family member died, a cutting, apparently, was often planted on the grave. There are now some 160 traditional blooms, I am told, of some 90 different varieties, which provide, apparently, a beautiful, tranquil space to literally take the time to smell the roses.

I was interested in reading one of the comments from a Pāuatahanui resident, Sharon Evans, a member of the Pauatahanui Burial Ground Committee, which has been advocating for the preservation and protection of this beautiful historic site. She said, and I quote: “Descendants from the Stace family, local residents, and the Council have all been concerned about the care and upkeep of the burial ground because of its historic significance. It would be one of the oldest non-Maori historic sites in the region.” The comment that interested me was the perception that Pāuatahanui could be considered a “non-Māori” historic site. It made me think too about a comment from Fidel Castro: “A revolution is not a bed of roses. A revolution is a struggle between the future and the past.”

So the Māori Party comes to the Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill acknowledging and recognising the brave efforts, the valiant efforts, of the local women towards ensuring these urupā are properly cared for. We recognise the commitment of the descendants of the Stace family, and the living relatives of other people buried in those grounds, to preserve the honour and protect the memorials of those buried there. Those women are caring for the future by preserving the past.

But we want to also place on record the not insignificant issue of the importance of this site, Pāuatahanui, to mana whenua, the people of Ngāti Toa Rangatira. Contrary to the view above, this site is actually very much a Māori historic site. Although we take nothing away from the significance of this site for the Stace family, the other residents of Pāuatahanui, and the descendants of loved ones buried on this land, we would, of course, raise the issue of those who were the kaitiaki of the land long before the deed of trust for the burial ground was signed in December 1856.

It could be that the Pauatahanui Burial Ground Committee in referring to this site as being “non-Maori” was, in fact, meaning it was a site that has a valuable context for European history. For, indeed, the location of the Pauatahanui Burial Ground is the location of the pā site of the well-known Ngāti Toa leader Te Rangihaeata, who was referred to earlier by other speakers. We know that through his father, Te Rā-ka-herea, he was a junior relative of the senior Ngāti Toa leaders of the time. His mother, Waitohi, was the elder sister of Te Rauparaha. So far from being a site that was not significant to Māori, this site is actually a very important place in the history of Ngāti Toa and, indeed, the iwi of my co-leader Tariana Turia—that of Ngāti Apa. Te Rangihaeata, in a celebrated peace accord, married Te Pikinga, who was the sister of the Ngāti Apa rangatira Te Arapata Hīria.

We know from our tribal histories that in 1846 Te Rangihaeata was building a new pā at Pāuatahanui, on the eastern inlet of Porirua Harbour. The site was ideal in providing inbuilt fortification, being protected from sea attack by mudflats. They named the pā Mātai-tauā, and it remains of central importance to the history of Ngāti Toa and to their future. Indeed, it is of such significance that it is listed in the Porirua City Council plan as a site of cultural significance, and is also registered with the Historic Places Trust.

But, importantly, the site is very significant in the context of the Treaty of Waitangi claim being advanced by Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Toa Rangatira. It was at this pā that Te Rangihaeata was forced to retreat against the onslaught of some 600 troops marshalled together by Governor Grey to attack Ngāti Toa. Governor Grey then proceeded to capture Te Rauparaha, and held him captive for a period of 18 months, applying pressure to the people of Ngāti Toa to sell their lands in Porirua and Wairau in return for their rangatira, their chief.

I refer again to the kōrero: “A revolution is a struggle between the future and the past.” In protecting the future anticipated by those early trustees of the burial ground and the Stace plot, we must struggle to ensure that we do not lose sight of the past, a past that leads us into the future, in the ongoing journeys of Ngāti Toa and the European residents alike. We understand that the residents of Pāuatahanui and the descendants of those early trustees would like to see the burial ground cared for and maintained in perpetuity. We also understand that the council consulted Ngāti Toa about this process, and that Ngāti Toa respect the principle of ensuring this sacred burial ground is managed and cared for.

But this is where the struggle of the revolution resides for me. As I understand the case, Ngāti Toa gave particular emphasis in their consultations with the council to the importance of this site. They advised the council that according to their knowledge none of their tūpuna are buried in the cemetery. But they stressed that the history of Pāuatahanui must be acknowledged in this bill, and that it is not just a “non-Māori” history; it is very much a Māori history, a history in which Te Rangihaeata and Mātai-tauā Pā are uppermost in tribal memories. Yet here we are again, debating a local bill where local Māori, unfortunately, do not even rate a mention.

In the struggle between the future and the past, we cannot simply obliterate the fact that there were people living on this site long before William Bromley, Edward Bolton, Thomas Hollis Stace, William Jones, and James Mitchell formed a trust. In the struggle between the future and the past, we cannot simply ignore the reality of Ngāti Toa and, indeed, a rich history of association recalled by Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Apa, Ngāti Kimihia, Whanganui, Muaūpoko, Rangitīkei, Ngāti Ira, Te Ātiawa, Ngāi Tahu, Waikato, Ngāti Rangitahi, Ngāti Tama, and, indeed, many others. These iwi all have interconnected stories that relate to Te Rangihaeata and to Mātai-tauā. We must not wipe out their stories by covering up the history of the land.

Inevitably, when history is involved, there will be different interpretations, varying perceptions of the roles of key people, and dynamic memories of significant events. That is not denied. That is the richness of history. Indeed, all of the different stories need to be told, the fullness explored, if we are to mature as a nation. All that Ngāti Toa Rangatira have asked is that this history is acknowledged in the bill before the House. We think it is not a big ask.

In the later years of his life Te Rangihaeata is reputed to have told Governor Grey “That the spirit of the times was for peace, and now men, like women, used their tongues for weapons.” We must invest in his aspiration, to retain the spirit of the times as a spirit for peace. The Māori Party will support this bill going to a select committee, to ensure that the full story can be told, and to make space for the beds of roses to sit alongside the struggle between the future and the past. In that way we will truly be doing something to honour, to preserve, and to protect the memories of all of the ancestors who gave life to the land immortalised in the Pauatahanui Burial Ground.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): It has been pleasing to move the first reading of the Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill on behalf of my friend the Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban this afternoon. I thank members for their comments. I thank Mr Finlayson for his very generous comments in support of the bill, and Mr Donnelly for quite a good, detailed history of the circumstances that have led to this bill being necessary and for pointing out to us the important point that whenever the words “the New Zealand Company” are mentioned around the purchasing of land, Parliament ought to take quite a detailed interest. I see the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Mita Ririnui, nodding his head at that point. I acknowledge Ross Robertson, our Assistant Speaker, who spoke of his own personal connection to the burial ground covered by the bill as his family’s ancestors are buried there.

Finally, I acknowledge the contribution from Mr Flavell, who I think made a very important point that the use of this land had a long history before it was a burial ground. I attempted to cover in my first reading remarks the fact that it was a site where there were enormous amounts of activity from Rangihaeata, and indeed before that time. So it is a piece of land that has been a part of Māori and Pākehā history for many, many years, right through until today. I am glad the bill will get the chance to go to the select committee for proper consideration. I thank members for their support of this legislation.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill

First Reading

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): I move, That the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. To begin, let me be clear, and I merely raise this as a matter of clarification, as it has been queried by some outside of this House who have tried to frame New Zealand First’s motives in terms of the personalities involved. They are wrong.

This bill was drawn from the ballot in October last year, and at the time I said that it presents an opportunity to remove what we in New Zealand First see as an inherent conflict of interest in the operation of the courts and special jurisdictions sphere of the Ministry of Justice. This bill is not intended to place into question the integrity of the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, and/or the chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal. New Zealand First does not care who fills the roles; we simply believe that they should not be filled by one and the same person, as is the current position. This bill has come about from the concern held by New Zealand First of the perception of a possible conflict of interest. New Zealand First has thought about it with reason and with logic, and has given the bill due consideration before bringing it to this House.

The bill removes the inherent conflict of interest that presently exists that allows serving judges of the High Court or Māori Land Court, including the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, to serve as members of the Waitangi Tribunal, and where the judge is either a serving or retired judge of the High Court or the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, to preside as chairperson of the tribunal. However, some may think that it may be fine for a judge of the Māori Land Court to continue to sit on the Waitangi Tribunal but not as its chairperson. We in New Zealand First would like to think that this possibility will be considered during the select committee process.

Serving judges of the High Court from time to time—and if they have not as yet, then they certainly have the capacity to do so—adjudicate on Treaty of Waitangi claims and in the Māori Land Court. As such, they have to adjudicate on decisions made by the Waitangi Tribunal, particularly in relation to land claims. It would seem highly dubious to us in New Zealand First to allow serving judges of either court to preside over matters on the Waitangi Tribunal when they may have presided over those matters in the High Court, or, indeed, the Māori Land Court. It seems also highly dubious to allow serving judges of either court to preside over matters on the tribunal when they may have presided over these matters in the High Court or the Māori Land Court. This bill removes the possibility of this occurring.

The bill removes the ability of serving judges of the High Court or the Māori Land Court to serve as members of the Waitangi Tribunal in any capacity. Instead, it provides for retired judges of the High Court or the Māori Land Court, including the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, to be members of the Waitangi Tribunal, and where that retired judge is either a retired judge of the High Court or a retired Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, to preside as chairperson of the tribunal. That is covered in clause 4.

This bill raises an important practical issue that ought to be addressed beyond the first reading debate. We in New Zealand First also believe that there are sufficient Māori with the talents and qualifications to fill these roles without keeping the roles to a very small pool of people. We simply cannot accept that there are not other Māori with sufficient qualifications and experience who can be appointed to one or other of the two roles that we are talking about in this bill.

As an aside, I note that earlier during this parliamentary term, under the auspices of the Māori Purposes Bill sponsored by the Minister of Māori Affairs, this House passed a measure allowing for an increase in the number of Māori Land Court judges to be appointed. Why was this? It was because it recognised the increase in the workload that judges of this court would have to deal with as a consequence of a particular Treaty settlement.

From that same bill, this House supported a clause that allowed for the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court to delegate his duties to his deputy. In my mind, I have regarded this as not only recognising the importance of ensuring the responsibilities of the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court are able to be maintained but as also recognising the fact that the workload of being Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court and being chair of the Waitangi Tribunal simultaneously is such that such a delegation was a necessity to ensure the smooth running of these two organisations. I am not suggesting that this in itself is sufficient reason for this House to adopt this bill, but it certainly gives rise for further consideration of the intent of this bill.

On behalf of New Zealand First, I ask that this House seriously consider sending this bill to a select committee to allow the people of New Zealand—not least, those who are involved in the judiciary—to express their views and to hear what they have to say on this matter. I support the referral of this bill to the select committee.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): National will support the first reading of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill and its reference to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

The explanatory note of the bill states that clause 4 addresses what is alleged to be the inherent conflict of interest that permits “serving Judges of the High Court or Māori Land Court (including the Chief Judge”—Joe Williams—“of the Māori Land Court) to serve as members of the Waitangi Tribunal.” I wonder whether this is, in fact, an inherent conflict of interest. That is what the select committee will need to examine.

Conflicts of interest can arise in a number of ways, and people in private and public life who are in certain positions need to take care lest they find themselves in one. For example, lawyers can find themselves in a conflict of interest when they act against a former client, when they act for more than one party in a transaction, or when they place their own business interests above their professional responsibilities. Indeed, the law reports are replete with cases where courts have found against lawyers in those sorts of situations.

The most recent report of the Auditor-General on the subject provides very good guidance for public officials and their need always to avoid a conflict of interest. But I am not sure that there is necessarily a conflict of interest as articulated by Mr Paraone in his speech. After all, it is not uncommon for a judge of one court to sit in another court. For example, judges of the High Court sometimes sit in the Court of Appeal on the criminal appeal or civil appeal divisions, and District Court judges sometimes serve on other courts, like the Environment Court. Sometimes they may even obtain a warrant to sit as a temporary judge of the High Court.

So I do not know that there is an inherent conflict of interest in a judge of either the Māori Land Court or the High Court sitting on the tribunal. But, because of the serious issues the bill raises, I think it can do no harm to have a good look at the issue, given the hugely important work of the tribunal, whose workload I am sure will increase when National gains office and treats the Treaty negotiations process as something into which energy and practical idealism should be injected after 8 years of negligence from this Labour Government.

When the New Zealand First member replies, I will be very grateful if he could address a rather sweeping proposition that judges of the High Court or Māori Land Court preside over matters on the tribunal when they may have presided over matters in the High Court or Māori Land Court, because I would venture to suggest that such a situation would never occur, for a number of reasons.

First, the jurisdiction of the courts in question and the tribunal are completely different. The tribunal’s jurisdiction is conferred by the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. As we know, the tribunal has all the powers of a commission of inquiry and is set up to investigate breaches of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Given that that issue is before the Justice and Electoral Committee tomorrow, I would note that if the member’s Principles of the Treaty Deletion Bill is passed, I cannot see what work the tribunal would have to do, because it is set up to examine breaches of the principles of the Treaty.

The jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court is derived mainly from section 18 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. The High Court was reconstituted by section 3 of the Judicature Act 1908 as a court of record for the administration of justice throughout New Zealand, and by virtue of section 16 continues to have all the jurisdiction that it had on the coming into operation of the Judicature Act 1908. It also has all judicial jurisdiction that may be necessary to administer the laws of New Zealand. In practical terms, its workload is completely different from the work of the tribunal.

The only time the work of the tribunal may be raised in the High Court would be if someone sought judicial review of a decision of the tribunal by applying under the Judicature Amendment Act of 1972, and that has happened on a number of occasions over the years. In jurisdictional terms, I cannot see how the different jurisdictions of the tribunal and the courts can intersect. If, however, there was an application for judicial review of the tribunal, then it would be unthinkable for a judge presiding over the Waitangi Tribunal that made the decision under review also to preside in the High Court. He or she would automatically recuse himself or herself. The example provided for in the explanatory note of the bill in my opinion does not have any merit.

From time to time, some people have raised the concern expressed by Pita Paraone in his bill, but for reasons other than those advanced tonight. It has been said, for example, that judges deal with legal questions, whereas tribunal members, by virtue of the jurisdiction of the tribunal, are actually advising Governments and are dealing with contemporary and also historical issues, and some say that this is not necessarily an ideal position for a judge.

For myself, I have a few difficulties with this argument. As I said earlier, a tribunal has all the powers of a commission of inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908. It is a semi-judicial body, although its procedures are not the same as those of a High Court. It is more inquisitorial than adjudicative, and the rules of evidence and procedure are somewhat more relaxed than those that apply in the High Court. In other words, it is not a court of record, which issues judgments. Its findings are recommendatory only, save in a few respects. But examination of this issue could be a useful one for the select committee to undertake.

The most meritorious argument in favour of preventing judges from sitting on the tribunal is that tribunal members could then be full-time, with tribunals almost sitting full-time. I know from my own experience at the Bar that nothing is more taxing than a hearing week in the tribunal. I well recall a hearing of the Wai 785 tribunal at Omaka Marae near Blenheim in late 2003. The tribunal had money to enable a week of hearings to take place, and Judge Isaac’s diary had a free week. Accordingly, the tribunal sat for 5 days but because of the time pressures the tribunal started at around 8.30 a.m. and went through until 6 p.m. That meant that the poor lawyers had to work late into the night having discussions with their clients and then either briefing evidence or preparing for the next day’s cross-examination.

If tribunals could be resourced so that they could sit more regular hours, without that kind of pressure, I think the interests of justice would be served and the work of the tribunals would be that much more effective. This is a very important issue that needs to be discussed for that reason, more than the reasons that Mr Paraone has mentioned, but none the less I think it is an important issue justifying the bill’s reference to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I feel confident that the select committee should be able to consider these issues, receive submissions, and determine whether the concerns raised by the bill are realistic, or not worthy of further consideration.

For these reasons, because of the importance of the issues, and because of the hugely important role that the Waitangi Tribunal plays in the justice system of our nation, National will support the first reading of the bill. I hear what the member says about its reference to the Justice and Electoral Committee. Perhaps—and it is for the member to decide, because it is none of my business—it could go to the Māori Affairs Committee. As my friend knows, that committee is not exactly overwhelmed with work at the moment so perhaps it could be in a position to give the matter more careful and detailed consideration than the very busy Justice and Electoral Committee. Given that I serve on both committees I am indifferent but, as I say, it is none of my business. Ultimately it is a question for the member whose bill this is.

In conclusion, National supports the first reading of the bill and its reference to the select committee so that these important issues can be properly canvassed.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Otirā, kei te Kaiwhakawā e noho nei i te tūru o te Whare nei, tēnā koe, otīrā, tēnā tātou. Tū noa iho tēnei ki te tautoko i te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire. Otirā, i mua atu i tēnā, he whakaaro kē tā mātou kei tēnei taha o te Whare. Nō reira, ko koe rā e Pita, nāu tonu i ārahi mai tēnei pire i runga i tōu ake whakaaro, kia whakatikatikangia ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki te taraipiunara, kia āhei hoki te hunga kei waho ki te kōrerohia ō rātou whakaaro e pā ana ki tēnei pire, nō reira, tēnā koe.

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

[Greetings to you, indeed, Madam Assistant Speaker, presiding in the Chair of this House, and greetings to us, as well. I rise in support of this bill’s first reading. Further to that, we on this side of the House have our own views about it. And to you, Pita, the leading figure of this bill, based on your thoughts to amend aspects relating to the tribunal, and to give the public a chance to express their views on this bill, greetings to you.]

I thank the interpreter for that interpretation of my kōrero. It was very accurate.

This is a very small bill when compared with many of the bills that come before the House. As I said earlier on, I stand to support the first reading of this bill. But having said that, and having listened to the speeches made by the member responsible for the bill and by the National member, Chris Finlayson, it is obvious that although this is only a small bill—a very succinct bill—it has far-reaching implications for many people. In fact, when I read through it—and I comment to the member himself—I would have been tempted to rename it the “Treaty of Waitangi (Sudden Death for Some) Bill” because it basically goes to the heart of what they see as the problem.

Every time we talk about the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and we talk about the Waitangi Tribunal a bit of history is conjured up in this House. It is important that we acknowledge the history of the tribunal and all those who have sat on the tribunal since its instigation. In particular I refer to those members of the then Labour Government who had the boldness and the courage to introduce to this Parliament a bill of this magnitude, knowing full well that there would be considerable resistance out there in the wider community. I also acknowledge their foresight in recommending that the tribunal be established to hear claims as from 1975. It was not the perfect situation, I am aware, for those members at that time, but it was a very, very good start.

As I stand here I am reminded of the great work of the then Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Mat Rata, who basically drove the legislation through. I will take a moment to acknowledge the chairman of the special select committee that was brought together at that time and who happens to be my uncle, Brown Rēwiti, the Labour member for Tai Rāwhiti. So it has quite a history.

In 1985 the jurisdiction of the tribunal was extended to hear claims dating back to 1840. I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the work of the then Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Koro Wētere; the many Māori members of Parliament at that time; and those who sat on the tribunal from that time up until today. None of us who have observed and who have been direct participants in the journey of our nation since 1985 could dispute the huge impact that the tribunal and its inquiries have had on our development—for instance, who we are, where we come from, and how we do things. I think in recent weeks we have been reminded of how we should do things.

When the tribunal was established in 1975, the Treaty of Waitangi Act provided that it consist of a chairperson who could only be the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, plus two other persons. Subsequent amendments increased the membership, and the Act now provides for up to 16 members. The Act also provided that the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court also be the chairperson of the tribunal. This requirement remained in position until 1998, when the longstanding chairperson of the Māori Land Court, Chief Judge Eddie Durie, was elevated to the High Court. Concurrent to this, the Act was amended so that the chairperson of the tribunal could be either a judge or a retired judge of the High Court, or the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court. This enabled Justice Durie to continue as chairperson of the tribunal, while also serving as a judge of the High Court. In recent years he has been succeeded as chairperson by the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, Joe Williams.

The Treaty of Waitangi Act enables the chairperson of the tribunal from time to time to appoint a judge, including the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, as the deputy chairperson of the tribunal. The Act also authorises the chairperson to appoint judges of the Māori Land Court as presiding officers of the tribunal. I think this is the area of conflict that my colleague Pita Paraone is referring to. The legislation therefore contemplates that serving judges will play a significant role in tribunal matters. The bill before us proposes the removal of the inherent conflict of interest of having a serving judge of the High Court or the Māori Land Court, including the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, sit on the Waitangi Tribunal. The bill proposes that serving judges not be eligible to sit on the tribunal, but that retired judges can be appointed. The argument appears to be that retired judges will not have the described inherent conflict. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I should have reminded members that after the first two speeches, the speeches are of 5-minutes duration.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tekau meneti Whāea; e rima i te reo Māori, e rima anō i te reo Pākehā.

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

[Ten minutes, Madam Assistant Speaker; 5 minutes in Māori, and 5 minutes in English.]

Kia ora.

Pita Paraone: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I just confirm that the 5 minutes in English will be an interpretation of the 5 minutes in Māori?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Yes, the member is quite correct. It has to be that.

HONE HARAWIRA: E te Kaihautū, whakamā ana au kia tū ki te kōrero ki tēnei pire. Hara i te mea anake ko te Māori te kaitautoko engari kē ko taku whanaunga o Te Tai Tokerau. E te kaihautū, kua wakatakoto a Pita Paraone i tētahi pire kia kore rawa atu e taea e te Māori te whakatau i ngā take whenua Māori, ā, kore taea e te Māori kia noho ki te Taraipiunara o Waitangi. Ki tōku whakaaro, ko tēnei he tono nā te kaituanui, nā te kakī whero, nā te kaikiri hoki. E mara, kore rawa au e whakaaro mēnā he koi te hinengaro, he piripono ki ngā tikanga Māori, mā tēnā momo Māori e tuku i tēnei tono kuare ki mua i a tātou.

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

[I am embarrassed to be even speaking to this bill, not just because it is a Māori who is sponsoring the bill, but rather because he happens to be a relation of mine from the north. Pita Paraone has tabled a bill that would make it nigh-on impossible for Māori to judge Māori land issues or, indeed, to sit on the Waitangi Tribunal itself—a proposal I would have credited to a bigot, to a redneck, to a racist, even. Man, such an idea I would never have thought could be proposed by a Māori with any modicum of intelligence or sense of values.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member cannot use that term, and he certainly cannot accuse another member of that. He must withdraw and apologise.

Metiria Turei: Point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, I have ruled on the matter of the member using the term “racist”. It is not a parliamentary term.

HONE HARAWIRA: Whāea—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, the member must address—

HONE HARAWIRA: Aroha mai. Kua tika. Aroha mai.

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

[My apologies, Madam Assistant Speaker; you are right.]

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to get it absolutely clear, because this has been raised in the House a number of times. The ruling, as I understand it, and as it has been applied to me, is that one may use that term when describing a statement or a position, but one may not use that term when describing a person. Is that correct?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That is correct. But he certainly cannot impute racism to another member, and I took that to be that situation.

HONE HARAWIRA: Whāea, anō rā. Me whakamārama ahau i wēnei kupu. Anei ngā kōrero: “Ko tēnei he tono nā te kaituanui, nā te kakī whero, nā te kaikiri hoki.” Engāri, ehara taku whakamārama, ko Pita Paraone tērā. Āe.

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

[Madam Assistant Speaker, I want to explain these words. Here they are again: “This is a proposal I would have credited to a bigot, to a redneck, to a racist, even.”, but my explanation does not make any reference to Pita Paraone. That is right.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I thank the member for the explanation. I accept that but certainly I was concerned about it.

HONE HARAWIRA: Atu i te whakaaro o te ao Māori, arā, kia panga atu i tēnei tono tinihanga. E hiahia ana au kia kōrero ki wētahi atu kaupapa a-ture nei kua kitea i roto i tēnei pire, arā, ko te kaupapa kia noho wehe te mana o tēnā, o tēnā, arā, ko te rere kētanga o ngā mahi o te Pāremata ki wērā o te Rūnanga o te Kāwanatanga, ki wērā anō hoki o te kooti, ā, kia kore tētahi e raweke ki tētahi atu. He tino kaupapa tērā, te tū motuhake o ngā kooti. E mōhio ana tātou ki te tū o te Tiriti o Waitangi hei kaupapa matua mō Aotearoa, ā, koia anō hoki te kaupapa tōkeke e whāia nei e te kooti.

Ā, he take anō tā tēnei kaupapa, arā, ko te mahi kai huanga. He aha pū tēnei ngāngara kei roto i te Kooti Whenua Māori me te Taraipiunara o Waitangi e whakaohorere ana i a Nū Tīreni Tuatahi me taku whanaunga anō a Pita Paraone. E mara, hara i te mea ko tāna e kī nei, he tino raru mēnā ka riro e te Māori i te Tiati Matua mō te Kooti Whenua Māori? Ā, ka raruraru anō, mēnā ka noho te Māori, ki te Taraipiunara o Waitangi? Koi nei taku pātai i te mea, kāhore anō hoki au i kite i te kiko o ngā whakapae mō te mahi kai huanga. Ā, kāre hoki te pire nei e whakatakoto i ngā whakaaturanga kai huanga me te mana, aha rānei, mō tēneki mahi.

Ko taku pātai i te mea, mēnā ko te mahi kai huanga te mate, kei te rōpū hanga ture te hē nā tōna whakahīhī, kia utaina tōna mana ki runga i te rōpū tiati mā ngā ture kuare pērā i te pire nei. Kua kite tātou i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei i wētahi mahi taurekareka, tukino anō hoki i te rōpū tiati i tīmata i te putanga mai o te pire whānako i te takutai moana i mua i te aroaro o te kooti me te Whare nei.

Kua rongo tātou i te whakapae o te Pirimia Tuarua i te Tiati Matua mō tana kōkiri i ngā ritenga whakaara ture me tana kōrero he “tuari toa” noa iho te Tiati Tumuaki. Kua whakapae a Stephen Franks, te mema tawhito mō ACT, ki runga i te Tiati Matua i te mea, i ngā tau 20 i mua i te wā i whakawā ia i te tono o Ngāti Apa, i āwhina a ia i te tono o Ngāti Te Ata mo te kerēme mō te Moana o Manukau. Kua kite tātou i te Pirimia e takahi ana i te mana o tā Tiati Caren Wikiriwhi me tana whakakāhore i te mahi a te kāwanatanga kia mutu ai ngā kerēme Takutai Moana o ngā iwi o Te Tai Rāwhiti i te mea, nō Ngāti Porou a Tiati Wikiriwhi, ā, ko te tono kei mua i a ia nō Ngāti Porou anō. Kāhore rā te Pirimia e amuamu mō ngā tiati pākehā e whakawā ana i ngā kēhi a ngā Pākehā. Ā, kua kite anō tātou i te Pirimia Tuarua e whakahē ana i ngā mahi a te Tumuaki o te Kooti Whenua Māori, a Joe Williams, e pānuitia ana i te tono a Whakatōhea i wā rātou tikanga tuku iho; he whakahē kua whakahokia ki runga i a ia anō. Nā te hōhonu o te riri nei kua kitea i nga tautohe o Te Rūnanga Whakahaere me te rōpū tiati te kōrero a te Tiati Matua, arā: “Ē, ka raru te mana o te rōpū tiati.”

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

[If I just step away from the Māori point of view, which is clearly to reject such a nonsense as this, I would like to point out a couple of key constitutional issues that arise from this bill, like the separation of powers: the principle that Parliament, Cabinet, and the courts are responsible for different functions, and should not interfere with one another’s business. The independence of the judiciary is an important issue; for, just as the public must be aware of the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi as our constitutional foundation, so too must they be assured of the impartiality of our courts.

Another matter, of course, is this conflict of interest, and what exactly it is in the Māori Land Court and the Waitangi Tribunal that New Zealand First, and in particular my relation Pita Paraone, is so worked up about. Man, surely he is not suggesting that there is any conflict in a Māori being the Chief Māori Land Court Judge, is he; or that there is a problem with Māori sitting on the Waitangi Tribunal? I ask because, apart from these areas, there is nothing else in the bill to justify the sweeping allegations of conflict of interest. Mind you, neither does the bill lay out any evidence of conflict of interest, or even the effects of possible conflict of interest.

I also ask because, if there is any conflict of interest, then it is with the legislature trying to impose its will on the judiciary through petty and domineering little bits of legislation like this one. Over the past few years, actually since the bill to steal the foreshore and seabed was in front of the courts and before this House, we have seen an unprecedented attack on the judiciary.

We have had the Deputy Prime Minister accusing the Chief Justice of judicial activism, even going so far as to call her a “shop steward”. We have had former ACT MP Stephen Franks accusing our country’s top judge of bias because 20 years before presiding over the Ngāti Apa case, she helped in Ngāti Te Ata’s Manukau Harbour claim to the Tribunal. We have had the Prime Minister questioning Judge Caren Wickliffe’s right to find against the Crown’s attempts to stop East Coast foreshore and seabed claimants from going to court—asking whether Judge Wickliffe should have presided over the hearings because she is Ngāti Porou and the case involved Ngāti Porou. It is not as if the Prime Minister complains about Pākehā judges presiding over cases involving Pākehā defendants. And we have had the Deputy Prime Minister criticising Chief Māori Land Court Judge Joe Williams for publicising Whakatōhea’s customary rights application—a criticism he was quickly forced to withdraw. In fact, the seething discontent evident in “Executive v Judiciary” led the Chief Justice to actually say:“Judicial independence is at risk.”]

E mōhio ana tātou, nā ngā whakaritenga o te Kooti Pīra ka tino whakamā te kāwanatanga, ā, mai i taua wā kua kite tātou i ngā mahi mōrikarika kua utaina e rātou ki runga i te rōpū tiati. E te Whare —e tika ana mā tātou e kī ki te kāwana—waihotia kia ū ki wāu nei mahi, arā, kia whakahīroki i a Aotearoa nei.

We know that the Appeal Court’s ruling on the foreshore and seabed legislation was a major embarrassment to this Government and we have witnessed this Government’s vicious attacks on the judiciary ever since, so we need to say to Government that it should leave the courts alone and stick to its own job of mismanaging the country.

Tēnā koutou. The Māori Party will not be supporting this bill today, tomorrow, or any time soon. Kia ora tātou katoa.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Greens will not be supporting this bill, either, for the reasons that have been outlined much more articulately than I can articulate them by my colleague Hone Harawira, who spoke just before me. We do not consider there is any problem that needs to be addressed. We cannot see the mischief that this bill is supposed to address, and we think that in large part this bill is about applying a double standard. It applies a separate standard to Māori judges, to Māori courts, and, therefore, to Māori people and their concerns, from the standard it applies to the rest of the population. That is not acceptable. This Parliament should not support any legislation that does that to the detriment of Māori people.

As far as we can tell—and we may be wrong about this—the only situation where there has been this combination is in relation to the current chair of the Waitangi Tribunal. So, again, where exactly is the mischief? This is not systemic to the process; it is simply one example. What this is really about—and I agree with the previous speaker on this—is an attack, particularly from New Zealand First, on the institutions that protect the ability of Māori to resolve their issues through the appropriate forums.

New Zealand First is well known for its attacks against what it calls the Treaty gravy train. In the time I have been in this House, which is nearly 5 years, at least two other members’ bills from New Zealand First about the removal of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi have been brought before the House. There have been perpetual attacks, particularly by Winston Peters, the leader, on Māori lawyers, on Māori claimants, on Māori judges, and on Māori who are trying to find ways to broker a better process for the settlement and who are dealing with the restoration of historical wrongs. It is a form of denial about what is really happening for Māori. It is a form of denial against the ability of Māori to reclaim our opportunities, to be independent, to be economically independent, and to have control over our own lives and our own people.

I guess for some—obviously for New Zealand First—it is a threat that Māori may have more control over the issues that concern them; that they may have more control over their own economic development and resources. Frankly, it is very difficult to see what else the point is. Why would this party attack these Māori institutions so strenuously unless it felt that there was some inherent threat to them? That is unfortunate, because it is not a real threat. I know that a number of New Zealand First members are deeply involved in Māori institutions that are progressing economically and doing very well, and that they are very committed to that. So why then continually attack the institutions that help to support that independence and that movement towards independence?

It is certainly true that since the foreshore and seabed legislation—and, actually, before that too—there have been significant attacks made on the Māori judiciary. It was most obvious and most vehement and vicious during the foreshore and seabed debates. I was here during that time, as many members will know, and I witnessed some of the comments made against the judiciary, which had been trying to find a reasonable process in law to deal with a very complex issue. The judiciary had found a very good process. It had used the current legal system and its rules to find in favour of Māori being able to continue to use that process, and it was attacked for doing so.

Since then we have had continual attacks on, in particular, the judges of the Waitangi Tribunal. I think though that those attacks have been going on for quite a long time. Even just the fact that the tribunal was stripped of its power—for example, the power to make mandatory recommendations, because it did actually exercise that power once, so the tribunal had that power taken from it immediately it had exercised it—was a clear example of that attack in previous years. We are seeing that exact same thing happen with the Government’s refusal to acknowledge the validity of the tribunal’s most recent claims because they attack the Government’s settlement process at heart and describe it as being unfair.

I think it is much better for this House to dispose of this legislation. It should not go any further. It should be thrown out of the House right now, today. Thank you.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State): Ā, e tū ana au ki te whakautu i ētahi o ngā pānui a taku whanaunga a Hone Harawira. E pēnei ana waku whakaaro. Mai rā anō, harakau te iwi tauiwi i haramai ki te kōrero mō ā rātou āwangawanga mō tēnei take engāri, te nuinga o ngā reo e haere mai ana ki te kōrero, ko te iwi Māori.

[I rise to respond to some of the statements made by my relation Hone Harawira. My thoughts are as follows. Since the bill’s gestation, non-Māori have never come to express their concerns about it. The majority have been Māori.]

Let me say—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member’s interpretation—are you interpreting this?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: I am translating this. Let me say that the response to this matter has not been because of tauiwi, or Pākehā, concern about perceived conflicts of interest, but because of concern from the enormous number of Māori people who see that sitting on the Māori Land Court and on the tribunal at the same time is clearly a conflict of interest in terms of jurisdiction.

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is clearly not what the member said in Māori. In his very first sentence he said: “I stand to respond to some of the issues raised by Hone Harawira.” He has not even mentioned that. He is now talking about a whole raft of other things that are not a direct translation of what he said in Māori.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I seek an assurance from the member. I thought that he had done his interpretation, then moved on with his speech. Can I have an assurance from the member about that?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: That is correct, Madam Assistant Speaker.

I want to make it clear that I support Pita Paraone’s bill before the House because, very clearly, many Māori organisations and iwi have expressed their concern. I am disappointed in the Māori Party’s position on this matter. If it were a Pākehā judge, with jurisdiction in the District Court, who was sitting on a similar tribunal in another court, the Māori Party would be jumping up and down, doing the haka, and talking about conflicts of interest. It has nothing to do with the colour of the skin of the judge or the tribunal member. It has nothing to do with whether the judge is Māori or Pākehā; it has something to do with perceived conflicts of interest. That is really at the heart of the issue, because it has been raised over many, many years, not by Pākehā but by Māori. Māori see this very clearly as a conflict of interest situation.

This bill removes that perceived conflict of interest, and I say that it is incumbent on this Parliament and this Government to do that, so that the people who are involved in terms of litigation and proceedings have confidence that there is impartiality, and that there are no conflicts of interest and dual jurisdiction. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the spokesperson on justice from the Green Party does not support this bill.

Let me say that many Māori have experiences of this—some of them fortunate, some of them unfortunate; some of them positive, some of them negative—with the proceedings of the Māori Land Court, and even with the existence of the Māori Land Court in terms of its jurisdiction and paternal attitude towards the administration of Māori land. Let me say that quite clearly. One of the reasons is that I think Māoridom has the responsibility and the maturity to be able to govern and administer their own land in just the same way as Pākehā do. So why do Māori need to get a permit from the Māori Land Court to build a whare paku, a toilet, on their land, or to make other developments on their land, whereas other owners of general land are not required to do so?

Then, of course, there is the matter of the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the speaker is getting a little outside the brief of this particular bill when he talks about permits to build toilets on the land. This is not about the workings of the Māori Land Court; this is about the conflict of interest of persons sitting on the Māori Land Court.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, no—I took it that the member was speaking quite relevantly to the bill.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: I do not want to take up any more time in the House, but I want to say that the majority of Māori people see the dual jurisdiction currently held by a Māori Land Court judge, who then sits on the tribunal to adjudicate a matter that may be on the same issues, clearly as a conflict of interest. I want to make it quite clear that this is not an issue that should be sheeted home in terms of how Pākehā see it. I say to this House that Māori people are concerned also about the perceived conflict of interests for judges of the Māori Land Court who may be appointed to the tribunal to adjudicate on an issue that may have begun at the Māori Land Court stage. Kia ora tātou.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I want to take just a very brief call to explain that United Future will support this first reading of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill. We believe that there are some issues that need to be discussed and that the select committee provides a good forum for that discussion. The issues that this bill seeks to address are ones we have heard talked about in the wider community and in other forums as well.

I signal that we have some concerns about this proposal. We believe that the Waitangi Tribunal needs the service of the people with the most expertise in order to execute its mandate. Our worry is that this bill would remove from service some of the most competent people available. So we are happy to have the discussion and we support the first reading, but we signal at this stage that we are looking for feedback from submitters and from the select committee deliberations on that type of issue. Unless we have those concerns satisfied we will not be able to support this bill any further.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): Firstly, I want to make it clear to my colleague from Tai Tokerau and my colleague from the Greens that there is absolutely no suggestion because of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill that there is any concern within New Zealand First about a Māori being chair of the Waitangi Tribunal or Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court. We have always believed in the best person for the job. The question here is whether those two positions should be held by the same person.

Secondly, I make the comment that New Zealand First has never made any public comment about Chief Judge Joe Williams or about any Māori Land Court judge, and I want that put on record. However, the genesis of this bill lies in the New Zealand First manifesto—that group of pledges we went to the public of New Zealand with, saying we would use whatever means we could to advance those policy platforms.

Our Treaty of Waitangi policy is a comprehensive, thoughtful, and cohesive set of steps that need to be carried through, and the first of these is to remove all references to the principles of the Treaty and associated terms from all legislation and regulations where they exist. I have to say that the bill to that effect, in the name of Doug Woolerton, has already passed its first reading and submissions on it are about to be heard by the Law and Order Committee.

New Zealand First’s second policy platform is to convert the Waitangi Tribunal to a Waitangi Commission. That would create an agency that could advance claims in a more timely way as well as provide the Minister of Finance and the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations with a greater oversight of the functioning of the agency designed to resolve historical grievances. That is how it should be. The Treaty was between the Crown and Māori. The grievances are with the Crown, and Ministers—not a pile of bureaucrats—represent the Crown. The Act would have to be amended to provide the new commission with specificity and focus.

The third part of the trifecta is a pledge to remove the inherent conflict of interest that exists within the Act with the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court also assuming the role of the chairman of the tribunal. Although there are obvious synergies in combining the two roles, they are clearly outweighed by the inherent, or potential, or maybe just perceived, conflict of interest that occurs between the roles of the Māori Land Court and the tribunal—which would be the commission if we had our way.

I reiterate the comments of my colleague Pita Paraone that this is not a criticism of the person currently in those positions. An independent chairperson will overcome any perception of conflict of interest. He or she will overcome any potential conflict of interest being acted out. It is to be noted that this conflict of interest, which is the subject of this bill, was clearly illustrated in the recent seabed and foreshore issue when the Waitangi Tribunal made recommendations—including recommendations on the role of the Māori Land Court in hearing claims. With one body so clearly impacting on the role of the other and the same individual leading both, a clear conflict of interest could, in fact, be perceived in this particular case.

The bill represents yet another example of New Zealand First keeping the faith with those who voted for us and for our policies. I finish by saying that some talk and some do. New Zealand First is in the latter category.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): I rise to speak to the first reading of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill. My colleague Chris Finlayson, who led our side of the debate, has already indicated that National will support this bill’s referral to a select committee. We do so not necessarily because we think it has merit but simply because New Zealand First has raised the issue of conflict of interest. New Zealand First calls it an inherent conflict, but we are yet to be convinced that there is an inherent conflict just because there may be a cross-over of people sitting on the tribunal and also chairing it. But we think there may be potential for it, and because we value so highly the unique role the Waitangi Tribunal plays in the settlement of historical injustice, we want to make sure that the integrity of the process is maintained as we go forward and that the integrity of the work the tribunal does is also maintained.

New Zealand First has raised a doubt, and we think it is worth the matter going to a select committee so that it can be debated and so we can see whether this issue is real or whether it is more political and suits the purposes of some to raise it at this time in the parliamentary term. So yes, we support the bill’s referral to the select committee, and that is as far as we go for the moment. We are yet to be convinced of the merit of the bill and we are also yet to be convinced that, as the United Future speaker seemed to say, people are talking about this. I have not heard people talking about this, quite frankly, in the 20 years I have been involved in this process. But anyway, as I say, it is worth debating for the moment.

If New Zealand First was truly concerned about the process, we think there is a greater issue to be addressed, and that is basically the ability of the tribunal to do its work in a timely manner. That is where we think a focus should be, because as it is the tribunal is totally crowded out with work. It does not have enough people to produce reports and it does not have enough people to hear claims. It is not able to sit regularly, and it sometimes has to cancel hearings. We think those are of greater moment to think about than whether there is a perceived, potential, or inherent conflict of interest. It is disappointing, in a way, that although we support this bill going to a select committee, time has to be given to exploring an issue that, in the end, may not turn out to be the issue that New Zealand First says it is.

The other thing is that this is not the only tribunal or judicial body in New Zealand where this kind of crossover occurs, and I hope Pita Paraone who proposes this bill is aware of that. My colleague Chris Finlayson said earlier that High Court judges sit on civil appeal divisions and they also sit on the Environment Court—they are sitting judges—so there is already a crossover, not just in this court and not just in this tribunal. It makes it look like we are picking a little bit on the Māori courts or the Māori-related tribunals. In that regard, I think Metiria Turei does make a point. I would hate for that to go to select committee. I am for open, informed debate on this before the select committee, but I would hate it if this was turned into a witch-hunt about the work of the tribunal and something that marred its undoubted worth to the Treaty settlement process.

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I will take a short call. I find myself in substantial agreement with much of what a number of members have said tonight. I am reassured by Pita Paraone and Brian Donnelly that there is no intention in any way to impugn the integrity of a particular incumbent, and it is good to have that reassurance on the record of the House. I accept unreservedly their assurance that this is a matter of principle and structure rather than any personal witch-hunt, and it is good to have that acknowledged.

Although I affirm the undertaking given that Labour members will support the passage of this bill to the select committee, I think it is equally fair to say that at this stage, like the member who has just resumed her seat, we are not convinced of the merit of the notion of inherent conflict of interest. Points have been made by other speakers this evening about the, I suppose, inevitability, at one level, of conflicts of interest that happen from time to time in a jurisdiction the size of New Zealand. Protocols exist, whether in courts, in tribunals or in other areas of commercial life, and these things are required, all the time, to be in place. So there needs to be an assurance that those protocols are being followed.

One of the things, I would say, that judges have to be particularly mindful of, whether they be on tribunals or in courts, is the perception of conflict of interest. In some ways, that is more difficult to deal with, because perception is one of those grey areas where the notion that someone might not be doing quite the right thing is often more difficult to deal with than a cut and dried case, and this is an issue that I think the select committee can usefully explore.

I think there have been occasions when a judge who presides over a hearing of the tribunal identifies a possible conflict of interest. I remind members, though, that the judge is one of several members of the tribunal who will hear a claim—there is not an individual judge sitting alone—and all members, whether or not they are judges, need to assess whether they have a conflict of interest that might arise in the course of the hearing. On occasions members, including judges, disclose conflicts that can allow parties to request an alternative presiding officer or ask a member to withdraw or file a memorandum, and I think that all these things are perfectly legitimate.

Perhaps a more common example of conflict of interest, especially for presiding officers, is that they may have acted as counsel to one or other of the parties involved in the proceeding at some earlier stage in their career. In these situations, again, the matter is usually resolved in the same way as for other court proceedings.

I say in summary that there is a fair issue here for the select committee to have a careful look at, but certainly the Labour Party is not persuaded that there is an inherent conflict of interest. I will finish as I started. I am reassured—and I think it is good that we have it clearly on the record of the House—by the fact that this bill seeks to explore the question of principle and in no way impugns the integrity of any individual official or judge holding office at this time.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): First of all, I want to reassure this House that the intent of this bill is not to impugn the integrity of anyone, particularly the person who is holding the two positions that this bill refers to. Secondly, I am quite saddened by the fact that the last three members—all of Māori descent—have made, as part of their argument, use of the ethnic background of those people that the Māori Land Court serves. As the House will be aware, when I introduced this bill I made no reference to people being of Māori descent. There was no intent to belittle or deride those people of Māori descent who were indeed clients of the Māori Land Court and the tribunal. I made reference to the word “Māori” only in describing the tribunal and the particular court that this bill is all about. I am really saddened to hear those members defend their arguments by using what we call the race card.

However, I ought to say that given that people obviously recognise that there is, or could be, an inherent conflict of interest, this bill is looking at the use of retired judges. When I say “retired judges”, I have before me information supplied to me by the Attorney-General that shows there is a total of 40—and I say 40—judges who have retired from the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, District Court, Family Court, Environment Court, Employment Court, and the Māori Land Court over the past 5 years. Quite clearly there is a supply of people who are well qualified to fill the positions that I talk about.

The last speaker from National indicated that National members thought it would be more appropriate to address the issue of the timeliness of settlements. I suggest that if the present chairman of the tribunal was divested of his duties as Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, then he would be able to provide more time to addressing issues before the tribunal. I heard the concerns expressed by the first speaker from National and I bow to his legal background. I think the questions he raised certainly warrant further investigation. I support his contention and I believe that the select committee I have recommended this bill be referred to would be the place where this matter should be discussed.

This bill does not aim, or intend, to do away with the Treaty of Waitangi as some members of the House who have already spoken are suggesting. This bill is intended to enhance the operation of both the tribunal and the Māori Land Court to ensure that the person who is in charge of these two respective jurisdictions is not confined or limited to the duties of the other position.

This bill is certainly aimed at removing any perception that people might have of any inherent conflict of interest. The last speaker from the Government, the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, made reference to the use of the word “perception”, and I believe that in the wider community, and even amongst Māori, there is a perception of a possible conflict of interest. In the lead up to the passing of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill a senior member of Government made reference to a judge of the Māori Land Court, and said that possibly that judge had had a conflict of interest when making her determination.

I thank those who have supported this bill, and I look forward to seeing it discussed by the appropriate select committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 110

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Regulatory Responsibility Bill

First Reading

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I move, That the Regulatory Responsibility Bill be now read a first time. This bill is addressing an issue, I think, that concerns the entire House, in that there is a concern about red tape, excessive compliance costs, and the often conflicting and contradictory rules we are placing on the citizens of New Zealand. I think where we would disagree in the House often is on just what is red tape and on particular legislation; one member’s red tape might be another member’s good law. So I am conscious of that, but I know that at the last election every political party, when asked, had a concern about red tape and expressed a desire to deal with it better. Indeed, the majority of political parties, in response to a query by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand, said they would certainly look at supporting a regulatory responsibility bill that would address it.

The ACT party, as members know, has just two MPs, but with a little bit of help we have been beavering away in relation to how we can address the issue of red tape, and indeed bring better lawmaking to this Parliament and to New Zealand. The response we have made is to come up with the Regulatory Responsibility Bill. I want to put the bill into a context: this is really the legislative equivalent of the Fiscal Responsibility Act or, indeed, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, which are legislative approaches to political decision-making that in and of themselves do not determine what politicians or what a Government can or cannot do, or indeed in any way undermine the sovereignty of Parliament. But they do provide a legislative process, if you like, that Parliament and Governments can follow, in order to get better political decision-making. So they are quasi-constitutional arrangements by which Governments and parliamentarians operate.

I think it is fair to say that those initiatives have served us well. An example would be the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act when we had had a generation of high inflation driven by political expedience. With that Act we have actually put ourselves into a decent framework. We can argue around the edges but the result has been a low inflation environment where we know from one year to the next what the dollar will be worth against a basket of goods here in New Zealand. Likewise, the Fiscal Responsibility Act was quite controversial when it was introduced in 1994, but its provisions are now hardly controversial. It survived the introduction of MMP, changes of Government, and several elections. Again, that legislation did not constrain a Government or a Minister of Finance in any way, but it required a transparency about the decision making of Cabinet and, therefore, an accountability that hitherto we had not seen.

Before the Fiscal Responsibility Act we had Governments in power making financial commitments, on behalf of the taxpayer, that no one knew about—or could know about—till after an election, which would always come as a surprise to an incoming Government. Indeed, we had a situation where it made sense for a Government, essentially, to borrow to fund consumption spending, to fund Government spending, in order to buy votes, and to leave the bill for future generations, which was the exact opposite of how we think now about good environmental policy. It certainly should be the exact opposite of how we think about good Government policy or good economic policy.

We had Governments borrowing endlessly to pay for their election promises—so much so, that by the 1980s one dollar in four of the income tax bill was spent entirely on servicing that debt, which was loading down future generations, future taxpayers, and of course voters who were not able to vote in the election; hence its purpose. With the introduction of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, Governments had to undertake to follow a process whereby every 6 months they advised the Treasurer of all spending decisions, and every 6 months the Treasurer was required to do a Budget, stretching out 4 years. So there was a transparency to decision making that Governments previously had not had. Also within that legislation a Government had to demonstrate or test its Budget against some key criteria, such as a surplus or a deficit. Again, there was no requirement that it ran a surplus or did not run a deficit. But that simple requirement of transparency has meant that since 1994 Governments have run a surplus, which I think has been a fantastic thing in the long run. Hitherto, for three generations Governments had run deficits.

The Regulatory Responsibility Bill attempts to do that for law. It is a bit harder, and I have to say that I am not clever enough to have done this on my own; I have had a great deal of help. The bill sets up a similar process, whereby Parliament and Governments have to be more transparent and more open about their lawmaking. Indeed, I have tried to set out some criteria of good lawmaking, against which proposed legislation would have to be assessed. Those criteria are set out in clause 6. Again, I hasten to add, I do not believe that I have got it all right or that this is the last word on the subject, but I think it is a good first cut at the issue of asking how we would provide, in a comprehensive way, in a systemic way—that is to say, across all legislation—a proper process whereby we have transparency, and therefore accountability, of a Government, of a Parliament, for the laws we are making.

I hasten to add that nothing in this bill undermines parliamentary sovereignty or a Government’s ability to pass law. That would be the wrong approach to this bill. There is nothing in this bill that attempts to tie up a Government in red tape; there is nothing in this bill to slow down the process by which a Government could pass law. All it does is require that a process be followed and information be supplied, which has to be a good thing.

I have to say that nothing has gladdened my heart more than the constructive engagement that I have had with all political parties in this House on the matter, and the constructive engagement that I have had with people who are concerned about this issue. I am pleased to say that we do have the numbers to put this bill to the select committee. The select committee that I will be recommending is the Commerce Committee, and I am hopeful, with the National Party’s support, to be subbed on to it to hear this bill. I have been to see and would like to thank the Law Commission and Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who has some criticism of this bill, particularly the ouster clause—he thought that would be more mischief than it is worth. Although he has some concerns, he does appreciate that this is an important issue. Getting the bill to a select committee for a proper debate will be a good first step, and I am sure we will be hearing from the Law Commission.

I should also say to my friends in the Māori Party, who obviously have a concern about collective rights and, in particular, the rights of tribal groups, which have often been trampled in the history of New Zealand, that I may not have expressed this well in the bill but, of course, collective rights all spring from individual rights. There is not an inherent conflict between recognising the rights of the individual and recognising the rights of a group. In fact, if we put group rights first, the rights of the individual are trampled, so I believe that this bill strengthens the Māori position in respect of, say, customary title, to the extent that it is recognised in our common law traditions very, very well. I certainly want to give a commitment to recognising existing rights and customary title, and with that, I look forward to the debate and the discussion.

MARYAN STREET (Labour): I find myself in the novel position of rising to speak in support of a bill in the name of Mr Rodney Hide. People may be surprised at how much Rodney Hide and I have in common. We both used to spend a lot more time than we do now with Richard Prebble and Roger Douglas, myself in the 1980s and Mr Hide more recently. We are both refugees from academia, although we have yet to establish a parliamentary alumni club.

Labour is prepared to support this bill going to a select committee. While we may not initially be very attracted to it, it should be seen in the context of a range of other work being done currently, and a member’s bill is a worthwhile mechanism to apply more light to the area of regulation than might already be being applied by the work currently being undertaken. So if we are to see this bill in the context of other work, there are two other pieces of work that the House needs to be aware of, and certainly that the Commerce Committee needs to take into account, in considering Mr Hide’s bill.

The first is the Quality Regulation Review that the Minister of Commerce, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, has been pushing through since last year, and I want to refer to some of the work that has been done in the context of that Quality Regulation Review. One of the very important aims of that review was in fact to do away with a substantial amount of red tape, where it was proven to be unnecessary and restrictive. Some of that work has clearly been done already, and has been released into the public arena, and the Quality Regulation Review is heading into its final stages and is on track for completion in July 2007.

Good progress has been made to address the regulatory concerns of business, with a number of initiatives having been achieved. Those solutions have varied in nature and in scope, and include, amongst many other things, some direct responses to individual businesses, some changes to administrative processes and procedures, some legislative enactments, some proposals for further legislative amendments, and some changes to Government mechanisms and processes for developing legislation and regulation. Relevant departments have been directed to undertake further work and report to the ministerial group overseeing the review on a number of other issues. Much of this has been outlined in the second milestone report that the Minister released at the beginning of May this year.

In amongst that work, there has been a range of work streams. One of them that has been completed has been the sector studies, which have involved interviews with businesses of four sectors, and regulatory issues pertaining to those four sectors have been passed to the relevant departments for their response. The final report on that is due in the middle of this year—in fact, next month, I think. Another area where there has been work on the issues of regulation has been the interface study, which concerns the interaction of building and resource consent processes, and the findings on that were released in February 2007. A number of other instruments and work streams have also been used to apply to this area of regulation.

It is important to note that new, strengthened regulatory impact analysis requirements were agreed by Cabinet at the end of last year, and came into force on 1 April this year. The standards and conformance infrastructure review will also be enacted, and has already been reported. I highlight these things because they are all important areas of activity, and, as I mentioned earlier, the member’s bill should be seen in the context of contributing to that ongoing discussion—which is across-party—that there should be as much regulation as necessary, and as little as required, across business in particular.

I want to mention one other piece of work, as well. It comes because I am also a member of the Regulations Review Committee. The Regulations Review Committee is currently undergoing a review of all regulation. Such a review was last done in 1993, I think, and that resulted in a whole lot of unnecessary regulations, which had long since been superseded by events, being taken off the books. That was a good thing, and it is clear, even from our preliminary investigation as a select committee into regulations, that a similar benefit could be gained, already, from the work we have done.

But the more important point—and this is one of the points that I think Rodney Hide’s bill may draw out and put into the public arena for discussion—is the relationship between legislation and regulation. We have a lot of delegated regulation, delegated from primary legislation, and that relationship is worth exploring again to see whether we are addressing it in the most efficient way, in the most useful way and, in fact, in a way that allows our statute book to be kept up to date and pertinent, and that allows for regulations needing to be applied to remain before those people who need to enact them, who need to respond to them, and, further than that, who need to report on them.

So I welcome a number of the issues that Rodney Hide’s bill raises, in the context of the work already being done on our regulatory environment. The Labour Party has no problem with this bill being referred to the select committee for further public discussion. I welcome dialogue on the measures contained in this bill, just as I welcome dialogue between the parties in this House on all matters, on a case by case basis. In that spirit, I am pleased to advise the House that the Labour Party will support this measure going to the select committee. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to this bill and to say that the National Party will be supporting it to the select committee. I want to say to the author of the bill—

R Doug Woolerton: Good to hear from you!

JOHN CARTER: The member will hear from me in a minute, all right. He should just sit there and be patient. I want to congratulate the author of the bill, Mr Rodney Hide. He is not a bad bloke, actually. He has a good sense of humour and is quite a good travelling companion. It is not a coincidence, I should say to Mr Hide, that I am speaking to this bill.

I want to refer to one particular issue, and set out some reasons why I draw the House’s attention to it. First, I refer to clause 6(3)(c), which states: “set out the view of the agency that is responsible for the administration of the Act or regulation on whether the Act or regulation is necessary for the achievement of an essential public interest:”. I am trying to find the clause that talks about costs. Also paragraph (a) of clause 6(3) states: “indicate whether there is a continuing need for the Act or regulation and, if so, identify in specific terms,”. Paragraph (b) states: “specify the national interest regulatory objective of the Act or regulation at a level of generality that does not prejudge the justification …”. I just cannot find the reference to costs. Mr Hide will have to direct me to the clause that talks about the costs of setting out regulations.

I draw to the House’s attention that the bill states that when the House is passing legislation, a costing has to be done of the impost that the legislation puts on to the agency that will be dealing with it. In that context I want to talk about local government, and the fact that if this bill had been an Act, then the Government would have had to tell local government 69 times the cost of the bills the Government was passing. This Government in its time has passed 69 pieces of legislation that have added costs on to the ratepayers of this country. Let me give an example of the sort of thing of which I speak.

Right at the moment the Government is talking about water quality, and about having a national standard across the country. Well, that is all very well for the big cities that may be able to afford to reach a very high standard of water, and no one is saying they should not. But the reality of dealing with water quality in a small community where there are 30-odd consumers, where 90 percent of the water is consumed by stock, and where the cost of upgrading is in excess of half a million dollars, means the cost to that community is just extraordinary. How can those 30 people face that bill? They cannot. Yet if a costing had been done, people would have seen the idiocy of it and, of course, it would not have been imposed on them.

Let us just have a look at the earthquake and war legislation. If this Regulatory Responsibility Bill had been law, then those people would have known the cost. In fact, the bureaucrats would have had to do some work to justify the cost of their bill. Let us have a look at the earthquake and war legislation and the impost that has put on Wellington City, for example. It is another classic example. The Government roared ahead and changed the legislation so that Wellington City had to put that huge regulation into effect, and what did that cost the citizens of Wellington? It cost in excess of a million dollars, and can the council recover the cost? No, the ratepayers have to cover that sort of cost.

This bill will stop an outrageous Government, like this Labour Government, transferring responsibilities from central government to local government, without at least having to tell the ratepayers of this country what the costs will be. The Government should have to do that. Mr Hide’s bill will tell people the cost of the rules and regulations that this House will impose on other agencies.

I congratulate Mr Hide on bringing this bill forward. It has been long overdue. It is time that it was before the House. The National Government will happily work with the select committee to smooth out any irregularities in the bill. I must say it will go down particularly well with the people in Mitimiti.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): New Zealand First will support the Regulatory Responsibility Bill, in Rodney Hide’s name, going to a select committee. We think that bills such as this stimulate thought and allow a select committee and Parliament to re-examine current law and lawmaking practices. But we can give no guarantee, and none is expected, I know, that we will support it any further. We will look to see what the select committee says about it, and we will hear what lawyers and those sorts of people say about it, as well. We know, and Rodney Hide has told us, that those people have some concerns already, and I have a report to that effect. So there are some deep concerns about this bill.

Sometimes with the best will in the world, bills such as this that try to improve transparency, improve good lawmaking, and try to make things easier as it were, in fact do quite the opposite. I suspect that might be correct, if the Law Society is to be believed, in the case of this bill. If that is so, we will not support it. If that is incorrect, we will have another look at the bill, and, hopefully, support it further.

In a select committee today we had such a situation. Mr Hide mentioned the fiscal responsibility legislation, where part of that is being looked at because things that were brought in during the late 1990s to make life easier and more transparent and to make Ministers more accountable have ballooned out to at least twice the size they were when they were originally mooted. They are not serving the purpose they were designed for. The ministries involved have said of their own volition that we need to relook at this, and that we need to make these things serve the purpose that was originally intended.

In many cases the modern way of reporting is no better than that in past years. It is different, it is sharper, it is flasher, and it is more colourful, but in many cases it is not necessarily better. It is up to us in this Parliament to re-examine these things from time to time, and that is why we support this bill. We believe that the select committee will be prodded to look at the way we do business. Hopefully, if this bill is not to go through, perhaps some good can come of it in another way. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I was reflecting while I was preparing my speech on this Regulatory Responsibility Bill on how times have changed since I came to this House in 1999. At that time, a member’s bill from the ACT party—or the Green Party, for that matter—would usually attract the response of: “Well, we kind of like the idea, but we are not going to support it, because it’s from them.” Today we have parties saying: “Well, we are not sure whether we like the idea, but let’s see if we can support it, because it’s from them.” I think that is a good thing, and I have to say that I think the Green Party has been part of promoting a different approach to cooperation across this House. It is our view that MMP parties should support members’ bills, at least for the first reading—especially of other MMP parties but also across the House, because members’ bills have made an important contribution to our democracy—except where there are good reasons not to. So we approached this bill looking for reasons to support it.

Mr Hide has done an excellent job of going around and talking to the parties, and I congratulate him on the wide degree of support he has for this bill—I think he has done a very good job in that. Mr Hide mentioned to the Greens that although the bill does not currently contain any provisions around green issues, nevertheless that is something we could look at and there might be opportunity to introduce some of those things. I am certainly very attracted to the idea of a kind of environmental vet on legislation and regulations, similar to a kind of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. In the context of a Parliament such as ours—a majoritarian, single-Chamber Parliament, with no single constitutional document—the idea that there would be some kind of environmental constraint on the executive is an attractive one.

In the way that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act recognises human rights and we recognise children’s rights, it would be something that would recognise environmental rights. Environmental rights are not just the rights of humans to enjoy a clean environment, but also the intrinsic rights of other species to inhabit the planet that they are a part of just as we are. So there are some things to attract us there.

We also looked at the bill in light of the fact that the Greens are suspicious of the power of the State. The libertarian tendency that we share with the ACT party is one of the things that has joined our two parties at various times.

Rodney Hide: At the hip!

NANDOR TANCZOS: At the hip, says Mr Hide! Certainly there have been occasions when the ACT party and the Greens have been the only parties in agreement on a particular issue. We are very aware of the danger of an unrestrained State, and consider it at least as dangerous as unrestrained global corporations. Some people have viewed the Greens in the past as being statist. I reject that notion. Just as we recognise there is a place for markets, we recognise there is a place for the State and appropriate regulation. Nevertheless, we are suspicious of both, and see the community as the primary locus of power and decision making. “Appropriate decision-making” means that that is not always the case, but the community is where we start from; and I say the community rather than individuals, because it is a collective notion of the power of ordinary people to make a better world.

We are especially concerned about the extension of regulations and the increasing use of delegated regulation by the executive to bypass parliamentary scrutiny. The Regulations Review Committee looks at process and issues of jurisdiction but does not look at the substance of regulations. We are concerned about these things.

As I say, we approached this bill looking for reasons to support it, but in the end we had to come to the conclusion that we could not, and that this bill would not do the things we wished.

Rodney Hide: We’ll improve it, Nandor.

NANDOR TANCZOS: I look forward to seeing that, and look forward to the possibility that it may be possible to support the legislation at a later stage, but it seems strange to us that in order to get rid of red tape the bill promulgates red tape. Despite Mr Hide’s assurances to the contrary, it appears to us on reading the bill that it feeds bureaucracy in order to slay it. It seems to be an inherently contradictory notion, and one that we have difficulty with. So the Green Party is opposing this bill at this stage, although we recognise Mr Hide’s quite genuine intentions to do something about a significant issue. We look forward to seeing whether we might be able to change that position at a later stage.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker; kia ora anō tātou katoa i te pō nei.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to all of us again tonight.]

The Māori Party welcomes the focus of responsible regulatory management as an opportunity to debate principles. We share an interest in the study of Acts and regulations, seeking to observe and preserve principles that will enhance the law in a way that is coherent and workable. Uppermost in our analysis of any bill will be whether the legislation aligns with kaupapa and tikanga Māori.

We do not have any argument as such with the rationale for this Regulatory Responsibility Bill to respond to the fact that too many Acts and regulations are a result of undue haste, poor quality processes, and inadequate scrutiny. Clause 6 of the bill, and subclause (2)(f) in particular, reinforces kotahitanga, the principles of unity of purpose and direction. We absolutely agree that Acts and regulations should be written in such a way as to avoid imprecision and complexity, thereby enhancing the likelihood of citizens being able to understand and comply with the law. Helping ordinary people to understand laws by moving away from legal jargon to plain English is to be applauded, and it is a move that the Māori Party, at least, fully supports. But we are not convinced that this bill is the only vehicle for achieving that change.

Clause 6 in particular has generated some concern for us; subclause (2)(f)(vi), to be precise. It states that one principle of regulatory management is that Acts and regulations: “respect the principle of equality under the law, to which end legislation is to be general and abstract and is not to confer rights or benefits on particular categories of persons per se whether on the basis of gender, race, creed, religion, time, place, or otherwise.”

We have a saying: “kia ngaki i te mate”, which, loosely interpreted, means “to make right that which is wrong”. The provision of affirmative action is consistent with such a principle. It is a means of balancing out an uneven playing field; a field in which one-half of New Zealand owns 95 percent of our total net worth. And the other half? Well, unsurprisingly, it is Pasifika peoples and Māori, the young, and the members of single-parent families, who are left to fight it out for the remaining 5 percent of our national wealth. As it stands, clause 6(2)(f)(vi) disallows legislation from conferring “rights or benefits” on particular categories of persons. We believe that this point needs some consideration.

You see, the clearest statement about the equality of New Zealanders is in article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi, where the Crown extends to Māori the Queen’s protection, affording to Māori “all the rights and privileges of British subjects”. The ideal that everybody is equal should, of course, translate into people being treated the same, but there are enough examples to demonstrate that this is not actually the reality for many, many people. Just this morning it was reported that there is a rate of pay for workers being dubbed “the South Auckland rate”, and guess what? The rate is less than that paid in any other part of the country where the firm concerned has outlets. Further, the workers are the working poor, many of whom are Māori and Pasifika.

Equality depends on that level playing field—the basis from which one assesses the right to equality. As any analysis of our nation today would confirm, all are not equal. Just as wealth is not evenly distributed, so too are many of the victims of crime. Unsurprisingly again, those most at risk from crime are Māori and Pasifika peoples, the young, the single, solo parents—those living in the most deprived deciles of our community.

What this nation really needs to engage in is a debate about how substantive equality is achieved in practice. Equity of outcomes may require differential treatment, because we know that justice is not served by a simple matter of equality of treatment.

We have considered seriously the bill presented by the ACT party, and we were certainly keen to cooperate in supporting different ideas and different views going to the policy table as a part of the formula of the MMP environment. But we need to say that any proposal that cuts across initiatives to support the poor, the brown, and the disadvantaged minority cultures is not a proposal that we believe to be in the best interests of a healthy nation. We will be looking at this matter very closely.

Finally, regarding the rights of people, there are already well-established principles, we think, that are meant to protect the individual rights and the collective rights of indigenous peoples, as recognised at common law. Unless this bill specifically recognises indigenous rights, experience shows that they will not be protected and indeed that they would be subordinated to the individual property rights of Pākehā, as happened in the foreshore and seabed legislation. Therefore, I say to Mr Hide that the question for the ACT party would be whether it is willing to acknowledge the distinct nature of indigenous rights, and thus acknowledge the broader notion of tino rangatiratanga.

The Māori Party has considered Mr Hide’s bill and will support the motion for it to go to a select committee in the hope that it opens up the debate, but we ask that the concerns we have expressed at this point in time be taken cognisance of. We, like Mr Tanczos, appreciate the efforts made by Mr Hide to consult us over this matter. Kia ora tātou.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I want to begin by congratulating Mr Hide on bringing the Regulatory Responsibility Bill to the House, and to say that we will certainly be supporting it enthusiastically. Only he could make the extraordinary achievement of representing a deregulatory party that brings a bill to the House to regulate responsibility, and of getting the support of virtually all parties in the House. It is a considerable achievement.

But, seriously, it is an important bill. I feel a little embarrassed standing here speaking in favour of it when I have a bill before the House, at the moment, that is 2,700 pages long—the Income Tax Bill—because I am sure that Mr Hide would say that there is a lot of unnecessary regulation in that. But, actually, as he well knows, it is a rewrite of the legislation in plain language. This bill is important, and I hope it receives more than a cursory consideration by a select committee, because some of the provisions it contains, particularly in clause 6, are relevant not just to the way in which entities of Government behave, but to the way in which we make law in this country.

I want to draw attention to a couple of the provisions in clause 6(3). One of the things we do in this country—and we have been known for it for years—is legislate whenever we are in doubt. We pass a law to make something legal or illegal, as the case may be, but we are not so rapid when it comes to deciding whether the use-by date of that law has been reached. I welcome the provision in this bill that the regulatory responsibility statement needs to indicate whether there is actually a continuing need for the Act or regulation that is under consideration, and, if so, to identify the purposes and the reasons why such a need is there. That is something we could regularly take on board and apply to all legislation in this country.

As I say, we pass a lot of laws, but we do not repeal very much of that legislation subsequently. Nor do we do much in terms of actually assessing what the national interest is, when it comes to the passage of legislation. The Minister will get up and make a speech saying why a bill is needed, and the select committee will be advised by officials as to why Government policy is being implemented, but we do not have a more thorough analysis of the national interest than that. It is ironic that we now have a more thorough national interest analysis for foreign treaties that we enter into than we do for legislation passed by this Parliament. So I think that if some of those principles could be considered as part of the normal Government legislative ebb and flow, that would be a positive step forward. It would also be a positive step forward to look at setting out the agency that will actually be responsible for the administration of the Act, or the regulation as the case may be. Again, we tend to make the assumption that this department or that department will have a general responsibility for administration, but in the normal course of events we are not particularly good at sheeting home where that responsibility lies.

I suspect that beyond the particular provisions of the bill, if it survives to make its way into law, its real impact will be attitudinal. Its real impact will be on bureaucrats and on Ministers, in terms of making them consider whether a law or a regulation is actually required to give effect to a particular policy choice, and whether a law or a regulation ought to be retained once that policy choice has been either implemented or exhausted. I suspect that is as much what Mr Hide is driving at as the need to have less legislation passed by Parliament each year. I think he is also looking at whether, in fact, we need to be going down, as we invariably do, the legislative route on just about every occasion.

There are good cases made for legislation at particular times, but I think that too often we adopt that as the way forward because it is the safe way forward. That then becomes the bureaucratic way forward, and what it then tends to do is create a climate and a culture around it that sees some very good ideas being perverted by the way in which they are interpreted. I will give the House one example. It is one I have some personal interest in, because I was responsible for its early preparation—that is, the Privacy Act. The notion of protecting people’s privacy is a very good one, but I have to say that the bureaucracy that has grown up around it is in many cases farcical, irrelevant, and far beyond what was intended by the original legislation. I think that had something like this bill been in place at the time that that legislation was passed, then, first, a number of those attitudes would have been curbed, and, secondly, maybe the legislation itself would have been much tighter in the way in which it was drafted.

I welcome the introduction of this bill, but I hope that it does more than just go to a select committee, get cursorily considered there, then be discharged by the House at a later date. I think this is important. The bill deserves to pass, and I congratulate Mr Hide on bringing it to our attention.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): I stand up very proudly to support the Regulatory Responsibility Bill in the name of my colleague Rodney Hide, and I am very pleased indeed that it will pass through this first reading tonight and go to a select committee for further hearing, investigation, and public submission, which is a very important part of the process that we value hugely. This bill will, in fact, change the political landscape in which we all operate and in which laws and regulations are passed.

What exactly does the bill do? The Regulatory Responsibility Bill means that each law and regulation will have to be measured against principles of responsible management. Those people who live in a business environment and those of us who take the passing of law and regulation very seriously will recognise the value of this. Important questions will have to be asked and answered before a new law or regulation is made. These would be questions like why this regulation is needed, what side effects it might have, and whether there any unintended consequences we have not thought of.

All laws and regulations will have to be reassessed every 5 years so that rules that are failing to meet their aims, and regulations that have passed their use-by dates—and we can all probably think of any number of those that are on our statute book at the moment—can be identified and removed. These assessments would be published, so that the public can see whether the Government is acting responsibly. Each and every one of us who sits in this House has a public duty to do just that.

Here are some of the questions that would be asked. Why is this bill needed? What will it achieve? What is likely to happen if it does not pass? Are there any unintended consequences or side effects of a particular piece of legislation? Are there any alternatives? What makes this the best option? If anyone’s legal rights or property rights are being infringed, whose are they? Do they consent, and are they being properly compensated? Does the regulation follow the principles of responsible regulatory management? When will the regulation next be reviewed? These are all very important questions, and questions that I think are very often overlooked or not given a moment’s thought when regulations and laws are put in place.

What if a regulation does not meet the principles? None of us, of course, can limit the things that future Parliaments might do or are able to do, but we can make sure that they explain why decisions are made, so that Kiwis can make up their own minds about whether the right actions are being taken. A law or regulation can still be passed that does not follow the principles of responsible regulatory management, but the Minister for Economic Development would need to publish an explanation of why it was passed in this instance.

Some of these matters may be approached in very different ways. Rodney Hide himself has said that this bill is not perfect, but it is very important that it goes to select committee so that those who may have greater expertise than we had when putting this bill together, and those who feel they have something to contribute—maybe an alternative to achieve the same aim—can come to the committee and have their concerns heard. In fact, those members around the select committee table can make changes if it is deemed that those changes are a better way of achieving our aim.

Something that ACT members have talked about ever since we have been in this Parliament is how to cut red tape. There is always a lot of talk from both sides of the House about this. So how will this bill cut red tape? We certainly believe that it will. The bill will not directly remove red tape but it allows new and existing rules to be measured against the principles of responsible regulatory management, making it easy for ineffective rules and those with high compliance costs to be identified. Letting the public find out which rules fail the test puts pressure on politicians, as is right and proper, to clean up bad laws and regulations from the past and encourages us all to think carefully about, and to pass, rules that are good for our future.

We thank those parties that have supported us in this measure. This is a very good bill; it considers very important measures and very important principles. It gives us great pleasure that it will pass through its first reading tonight and be referred to the select committee.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour): I take this opportunity to take a call and restate my colleagues’ comments surrounding Labour’s position—that is, that we will support this bill’s referral to the select committee. I do think it is important that we have that debate, and the select committee process will allow us to enjoy some of the advice that might come to us in relation to regulatory responsibilities. Having said that, it is good sense, I think, that we are monitoring, talking about, and debating good lawmaking systems and processes, because we do not necessarily want to find that there are unintended consequences, where the rights of people are compromised.

The possibility of a regulatory responsibility bill was considered, and not pursued, by both recent National and Labour-led Governments. Instead of setting high-level principles for public service legislation, the Government has focused on strengthening institutional measures to improve regulatory design.

The aim of this bill is to ensure that principles of responsible regulatory management are always in the minds of those responsible for legislation, and that is about ensuring we have good lawmaking systems and processes. Many of these principles are equivalent to those in a proposed regulatory responsibility bill from 1997 and 1998, with a few significant exceptions. They are also largely the same as the current requirements and processes set out in the Cabinet Manual, the Regulatory Impact Analysis requirements, the Code of Good Regulatory Practice, the Generic Policy Development Process, and the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines. So essentially this bill would be, in some way, a duplication.

During April and March of 1998 the Government considered introducing a regulatory responsibility bill. The proposal was canvassed with a group of experts. The group did not reach agreement on whether legislation was needed to catalyse cultural change in the public service or to reinforce institutional measures such as the Code of Good Regulatory Practice. The experts group also debated and came to no clear consensus on whether the problem of poor regulation at the time could instead be addressed by improving the capability of public servants to develop good regulation, contracting for good regulation through the employment contracts of chief executives, the further development of best practice and the greater provision of this throughout the public service, the private sector, interest groups, and the public review of regulations by analysis with regulatory oversight, and whether this review should be of the process or of the process and substance of regulation, and the creation of a ministerial portfolio that may have additional powers of review.

Other discussions concerned whether the legislating of high level principles would be a good way of signalling a cultural change in the public service or whether it would limit the future development of principles and good regularity practice, whether the legislation would need to be subject to judicial review to be effective, and whether that would leave the Government open to litigation and give courts an undue influence on policy. Many of the instrumental measures identified during discussions on the 1998 bill have since been implemented.

I want to make a note of future deliveries to 31 July 2007. A business-cost calculator that determines the compliance costs of proposed regulation on business will be ready for application within Government departments in the first half of 2007 for a 2-year trial, and Cabinet has agreed to a detailed work programme to be undertaken during 2007-08 by the Department of Building and Housing, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry for the Environment, and Local Government New Zealand to help resolve issues around the interface of the Resource Management Act and the Building Act, including possible legislative amendments.

So having said that, I reiterate that we are supporting the passage of this bill to the select committee. I also reiterate that it is good sense to have this debate and to seek advice to ensure that we are, indeed, setting the right systems and processes in place for good lawmaking.

MARK BLUMSKY (National): I am delighted to have this chance to stand and support this Regulatory Responsibility Bill, and good on Rodney.

Hon Brian Donnelly: You can never trust the Nats.

MARK BLUMSKY: That member did not move me up the batting order, so that is tough. I have pleasure in supporting this bill on behalf of the National Party. It is an excellent opportunity for the select committee to have a really good chat about this, and a really good tidy-up. Congratulations, as well, by the way, because I was reading the National Business Review report of 8 June and I noted in it that Lianne Dalziel was pretty adamant that the bill was not going to come through, and I see that she has changed her mind.

I am pleased to see that, because I suggest the logic behind putting this bill forward is very strong. There is no shortage of regulation. Business New Zealand stated about 2,000 pieces of regulation had been passed in New Zealand since 1999. That is 2,000 bits of regulation in the last 6 years or so, and I would suggest to members that that is a hell of a lot of regulation. Just for members to note: for small businesses—85 percent of all businesses in New Zealand—that worked out to a cost of about $53,000 to comply with that regulation. So one would want to think that regulation had a good reason to be there.

So we have no shortage of regulation, as I said. Already, a number of reviews in the last few years have indicated that quite a bit of the regulation in place is not worthy of being there, is not needed, and needs to be sorted out. One has to ask how the hell the regulation got there in the first place, if the review is saying now that it is not actually working or doing the job. I would suggest to members that the ACT bill before us will actually make a difference in sorting through what is going to be helping good and/or bad regulation, and cutting out the rubbish stuff.

I was reading the explanatory note of the bill and there are a couple of points that I took great heart from. It states: “Far too many Acts and regulations are a result of undue haste, poor quality processes and inadequate scrutiny.” Well, I have not been here very long, but already in the time I have been here I have seen a number of amendments to Acts, amendment bills, come forward to fix up hasty legislation, and I think one is going through the House right now that is a tidy-up of legislation that was done in haste or did not get adequate scrutiny. So I think it is important that this legislation will attend to that issue.

The other piece in the explanatory note that I took heart from was the question of whether there was a need for the legislation. Are there alternatives? What are the alternatives? Maybe we should consider alternatives before we bring in regulation. Could there be any unanticipated consequences? The extent to which legislation takes property or impairs other legal rights also needs to be discussed. So I say good thinking, Rodney, and well done on bringing the bill forward.

As I indicated earlier, I have an interest in small business—in business—and in the fact that such a lot of the regulation that comes before the House has a big impact on business in New Zealand. I took the opportunity a wee while ago to ask a number of Ministers whether they thought that the legislation, regulation, and stuff going through their ministries was, in fact, of use or would be reasonable for small business.

The question asked about the possibility of having a small-business advocate responsible for presenting a small-business and medium-business perspective on legislation, so that there could be a discussion as to whether the impact on small business would be good or bad. In the main, the answer from most ministries I wrote to was that, no, they did not believe there was any chance of a small-business advocate having a look at legislation, and they were relying on the Small Business Advisory Group, which is the wonderful group we have now had for a number of years. The ministries were relying on the work of that group to help guide them as to the quality of legislation. The most interesting thing about the Small Business Advisory Group is it has been going for 2 years now, and the Government just does not listen to it. Many of its recommendations, which would help small business and legislation, are totally ignored. So for Ministers to say to me that they rely on that group to give them guidance on legislation, then, it seems, to ignore 90 percent of its recommendations, just makes a farce of the Government saying that is how it figures out whether there is any impact.

In my mind it reinforces yet again the power of this bill. I certainly hope the select committee does justice to the issues when working through them, as it should, because it is an important bill. I wish the committee the best and I, again, congratulate the member Rodney Hide on bringing the bill forward. Small business says thank you.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank everyone who spoke on this Regulatory Responsibility Bill and the important issue that we need to address. In particular I thank John Carter and Mark Blumsky for their good words. I also thank Chris Finlayson who, when ACT went around speaking with the other parties, had some good ideas on how the bill could be even further improved. So I look forward to Mr Finlayson’s input.

I also thank Maryan Street and Dave Hereora for their kind words on the bill, and, in particular, Prime Minister Helen Clark for supporting the bill at least to select committee, realising that this is a serious issue. I think it is a great maturing of MMP, because the easiest thing for a Government to do when a bill comes up from an Opposition party—particularly from a small Opposition party—is just to kick it away. What we have seen is a Prime Minister and a Government that are prepared to look at an issue that is not necessarily their preferred or ideal solution and say: “Well, actually, let’s get it to a select committee and see what happens.” Thankfully these days no one thinks that that is a big disaster for the Government or a big win for the Opposition; it is just an MMP Parliament at work, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate the support of United Future and Peter Dunne—he has consistently been keen on a bill of this nature—and, indeed, New Zealand First for its support.

I say to the Green members that I am sorry they could not support the bill. I know what it is like. Sometimes we too have to sit outside and watch the rest of Parliament hold hands and vote for something. But I hope the Greens can come along to the select committee, because I do think that there are issues regarding the environment that could be treated, if Parliament was of a mind, within a framework whereby we give consideration to environmental issues. I do not have the answer on that front, but I think it would be interesting to have some good input from people who are expert on the matter as to how that might be done. I imagine a sort of environmental checklist on legislation, again, not constraining Parliament or a Government, but just ensuring good policy-making and good legislation.

I think the Māori Party raises an important issue, and it is this: we do not want to lock in the status quo. We do not want to be in a position whereby we are all fine and we do not worry about particular groups in our community or country. Where we have issues where people have historically been wronged or missed out, it is important that we address them and try to get everyone in New Zealand succeeding. So I take the Māori Party’s concerns to heart, and I think it is important that all legislation has particular regard to minority groups. I use the word “groups” carefully and well in the sense that it is very easy to be a member of the majority and think that everything is going OK and that this or that particular legislation is OK. But if one identifies with a particular group for whatever reason—sexual orientation, ethnicity, or tangata whenua status—then it is very easy in the whole legislative process to feel that one is shut out and that the majority does rule. So anything we can do within the bill to be more respectful of the many minority groups we have in New Zealand would, I think, be a good thing.

So I think there is work to do in the select committee. I think the bill can be improved, and I value every political party’s consideration of the bill, even the Greens’. Although they voted against it, I know that they considered it well. I believe that with good will we can come up with a better approach to making good law in this Parliament.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Regulatory Responsibility Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 114

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 6

Green Party 6.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Commerce Committee

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.