TOC1

1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that “I would have thought in election year as usual Government departments would bend over backwards to make sure that nothing they did could possibly be construed as electioneering.”, and what advice, if any, has she received about the effect of the Electoral Finance Bill on election-year advertising by Government departments?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. My understanding is that the bill will shortly be back before the House, which will then enable some informed debate to occur.

John Key: Does she still think that the Ministry of Health is bending over backwards to avoid being seen as electioneering, when it is planning a significant advertising campaign to publicise the benefit of the Government’s Primary Health Care Strategy, and when that advertising campaign will begin in April 2008, 4 months into what the Electoral Finance Bill says is the regulated election period?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Any advertising by any Government department would be expected to be cleared by the Auditor-General in advance. I would assume that the cheaper doctors’ fees and pharmaceuticals would be regarded as even mildly political only if the National Party was promising to increase those doctors’ fees again. Perhaps the member might care to clarify that point now.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Prime Minister agree with New Zealand First that there is a long history of precedents for Government departments to follow in an election year, and that to stray from those precedents in the Electoral Finance Bill would be to do the very thing that John Key purports to rail against?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Clearly a great deal of advertising is carried out by Government departments as a matter of course. For example, the Inland Revenue Department always advertises things like the due dates for provisional taxation payments. But one would not expect the Inland Revenue Department to act in a manner that would reduce those payments just because it happens to be election year, when they would have to be paid at the end anyway.

John Key: Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain the reference to campaigning that he just used in his last answer, and is it similar to the one that is being told to Ministry of Health staff who man the 0800 number, when they are told to say: “Here are some achievements and milestones in health over the past 6 years. It then may help to tell callers about these.”, and then to list every strategy, plan, and guideline that Labour put out in 2001; and why does the Prime Minister not just admit that this is a taxpayer-funded campaign all right, for the Labour Party?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister advised that even the Deputy Prime Minister occasionally makes a slip of the tongue. The Prime Minister has further advised that unlike the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Prime Minister is not afraid to go on Agenda because he is scared in case he does make a slip of the tongue.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister’s policy that Government departments’ advertising should be exempt from the provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There is no change in relation to Government advertising. Those advertising campaigns have to be cleared through the Auditor-General if departments are all wise about how they approach those matters, particularly in an election year. That would be the expectation of the Government.

John Key: Does the Prime Minster stand by her statement yesterday that “Come election year, particularly as the months go by, government advertising becomes pretty sparse.”, and if she does, can she just explain this to the House: why was it that in 2005, an election year, Government-funded advertising totalled $69 million, an all-time high and much more than was spent in 2003, much more than was spent in 2004, much more than was spent in 2006, and much more than has been spent in 2007 so far?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: My understanding is that there were new entitlements in some areas in 2005, which, of course, the National Party members believe people should not take up. Their idea is that one passes policies to help people but hopes they do not take advantage of them, because that might cost some money.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister frustrated that not only has the Deputy Prime Minister told Parliament this afternoon the truth, which is that Government departments are told in election year to just campaign on behalf of the Government and that the numbers stack up as they have spent more in election year than in any other year, or is the Prime Minister more frustrated by the fact the New Zealand Herald has pointed out to New Zealanders the truth that this Government is a disgrace, and that at the bottom of the page it says that all of this “will be Labour’s epitaph.”, which is being written as we speak?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That last bit certainly showed that the New Zealand Herald is a totally unbiased media organisation, does it not? It certainly makes that very, very clear! What I am surprised about is that the New Zealand Herald, unlike almost every member of the House, does know in detail what is in the Electoral Finance Bill as reported back. That is a remarkable achievement on its behalf.

John Key: Was the answer to that question not just typical of Labour members? In this case they are blaming the New Zealand Herald. Last week they were blaming Treasury. The week before that they were blaming some other bunch of officials. When will they look in the mirror and realise they are the problem?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We will stand by an unemployment rate that is the lowest ever recorded in New Zealand’s history. We will stand by 25 percent real household income growth. We will stand by cheaper doctors’ fees and cheaper pharmaceuticals. We will—

Madam SPEAKER: I will ask the Minister to please repeat that answer in silence. I could not hear a word of it.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We will stand by the achievements of this Labour-led Government against the complete inability of the National Party to have policy on anything. The man who is asking these questions has refused to go on Agenda because he is scared he will make a mistake when he goes on it.

Police—Recruitment

2. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Police: What progress can she report on meeting the current police recruitment target of 1,000 extra sworn police by 30 June 2009?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): I am very pleased to be able to tell the House that we have now reached the 500 mark in recruiting the extra 1,000 sworn police promised under a Labour-led Government’s confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First. We have reached this target on schedule, despite a tight labour market, and despite the continued attempts by the National Party to ridicule, undermine, and destabilise the recruitment campaign.

Martin Gallagher: What other progress can she report on the recruitment campaign?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I can report that the same National Party, according to John Key, now supports the campaign to add the 1,000 additional police. Of course, this is the “me too” party—the same party that was going to prune police officers by 500 when it was last in office. But, hey, it is good news: it has done another U-turn! It now does not need to have a police policy. All it needs to do is to copy ours, and that is exactly what it is doing.

Ron Mark: Has she seen any reports commenting on the agreement between New Zealand First and Labour not only to budget for police numbers to be increased to provide another 1,000 police staff over the next three Budgets but to achieve ratios comparable with those in Australia by 2010; and, if she cannot find any other reports supporting that proposal, would she conclude, as most New Zealanders do, that the greatest risk to that policy being carried through is the election of a National Government that does not support it?

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister can address the first part.

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member is absolutely right. The new-found commitment to 1,000 extra police by the National Party is real johnny-come-lately stuff, because it opposed this policy every step of the way until John Key had to front up to the Police Association. He had to have something to say, so he grabbed Labour’s policy and turned it into his own. People are not fooled. They will remember the Martin report and National’s desire to cut 500 police out of the New Zealand Police service. That is what the public will remember.

Finance Minister—Confidence

3. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Finance?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

John Key: Has the Prime Minister seen the statement from her Minister of Finance that “tax cuts are largely offered as a political bribe, not because of beneficial economic or social effects.”; if so, how enthusiastic does she really think Michael Cullen is to deliver tax cuts?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That statement was certainly made about the National Party in the past. It was certainly true about the National Party in the past. The Minister of Finance is very enthusiastic about delivering tax cuts, and these tax cuts will be responsible. We will not be borrowing to pay for them; National would. They will not result in cutting social services; under National they would. They will not result in extra pressure on inflation; under National they would. And they will be constructed in a fair fashion; under National they would not.

John Key: If the Minister of Finance is so enthusiastic about tax cuts and not just following the script he promised his Prime Minister he would follow simply because he was told to otherwise he would lose his job, why did he go on Agenda on Sunday morning and just kneecap the Prime Minister by undercutting every possible argument that could argue the merits of tax cuts; and is it not the truth that he does not want to deliver tax cuts, that he is doing what he is told, and that he is doing it very badly?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: My understanding is that the Minister of Finance went on Agenda because Mr John Key refused to do so because he was too scared, and that left the opportunity open for the Minister of Finance to appear. He availed himself of the chance to point out that the economy has grown very substantially. As a consequence of that it is possible to pay out a dividend to all Kiwis by way of tax reductions. But he did point out that the notion that the economy is suddenly going to go into hyper-drive in terms of economic growth because of modest tax cuts is nonsense.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister agree with her Minister of Finance’s statement on personal tax cuts, when he said: “there will be something for everybody. But that means individual amounts are not likely to be large …”, and is she still confident he will deliver them, given that last time he faced that choice in 2007 he said that his previous promise about small, across-the-board tax cuts and his decision to get rid of them was “not a difficult one”, because a “small tax cut now would be spent and then gone.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think one could be quite clear from the Minister of Finance’s comments that the tax cuts would be bigger than was talked about previously, in that particular respect. But they will be tax cuts that will be couched in a way that is fair to people across the board. The Minister was asked a very interesting question on Agenda: if the tax cuts were spread across the board, would that mean they would be smaller? That question showed a view from the top, because obviously the answer is that tax cuts would be bigger for people on low to middle incomes if they were spread across the board, and smaller for those on high incomes.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister think that the reported applause at the Labour Party conference in response to her statement that personal tax cuts “will happen under Michael Cullen” was (a) a reflection of utter and sheer relief from the delegates who have waited for 8 years for a tax cut, or (b) a recognition that every New Zealander knows that Michael Cullen does not want to deliver tax cuts and will not deliver tax cuts, and therefore they will not be worth the paper they are printed on in the taxpayer-funded Labour pledge card?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If some of the paper they were printed on was signed by a former leader of the National Party, that could well be true, I suppose, if I were looking at the notes that might be used. I am afraid that the member, like some in the press gallery, shows a misunderstanding of the Labour Party. When the Prime Minister announced tax cuts, there was not immediate applause. When the Prime Minister announced that the Minister of Finance was going to deliver tax cuts, there was applause. That was the significant difference. I will give one guarantee to this House. The Minister of Finance will deliver tax cuts before that member has the courage to go back on Agenda, given his performance last time he was on.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister recall her recent statement on personal tax cuts: “I’d have liked to have done it much earlier … but we never had advice that made that possible.”; if so, how does that fit with her statement from the 2005 election campaign, when she said: “We don’t ask Treasury for permission for our policies.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Absolutely clearly and easily. Unlike that member, we do not ignore Treasury projections and make up our own just so we can promise $4 billion a year of tax cuts—which were actually impossible in terms of the Treasury forecast at the time.

Treasury—Advice on Risks to Economy

4. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he have confidence in the advice he has received from Treasury over the past 4 years on emerging risks to New Zealand’s economy, and in any economic modelling underpinning that advice; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I am sure that that advice has always been prepared in a professional manner and on the basis of Treasury’s best estimates of the data to hand. Sometimes that advice will be correct; sometimes it will not. The essence of economic crystal balls is that they are opaque.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister asked Treasury for an explanation as to why its forecasts of oil prices have been so wildly wrong for the last 4 years, with successive predictions that oil prices would by now have fallen to $26, to $43, to $51, to $68, and now, with a prediction just 8 weeks ago, to $66, when last week oil prices spiked at $98, and the average for November so far is $95?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Treasury’s measure of oil price is based on the West Texas Intermediate price of oil, and its forecasts of those are based on prices in the future market for oil. In other words, of course, to the extent to which Treasury has underestimated the increase in prices for oil, so indeed will have all those people who are betting their money on prices for oil, as well.

Charles Chauvel: What is the best way a Government can protect the economy against emerging risks and unexpected shocks?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: By running a strong fiscal position and maintaining a constant focus on the long term—exactly what this Government has done. The main Opposition party is promising to borrow more, which is exactly the wrong response in a time of economic uncertainty of this sort.

Heather Roy: Why has the Minister ignored Treasury’s advice given to him in the 2005 briefing to the incoming Government to reduce the higher marginal rates of 33 percent and 39 percent on personal income, to reduce the high effective marginal tax rates of low to medium incomes—in particular, for secondary earners—and to consider tax reductions alongside potential new spending; and when will he stop blaming Treasury when it is Labour’s ideological blinkers that have left Kiwis paying much higher taxes than have been needed to fund Government services since 1999?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That last part is certainly untrue. The surplus has grown very substantially only over the last 3 years, or so. On the first part, the member should read the 2005 briefing to incoming Minister more carefully. It actually told us that Treasury’s view was that if the growth in spending was cut back by $500 million each year—in other words, by $500 million, $1 billion, $1.5 billion, $2 billion, and so on—then that money could have been put into tax cuts. Treasury was not proposing additional revenue reduction over and above what the reductions in spending should be according to its forecast. The member, therefore, needs to specify what the $500 million, $1 billion, and $1.5 billion in cuts were going to be, over that period of time.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister have any greater confidence in the oil price predictions of the Reserve Bank, whose predictions for the day’s oil price were successively underestimated by 120 percent in September 2005, by 48 percent in September last year, and still by 30 percent just 8 weeks ago—and here we are, now?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think there is a very, very high probability that any forecasts are likely to be wrong in this area; it is the nature of the high level of volatility of oil prices over both the short term and the long term. What is equally true is that our economy, and that of most developed economies, have shown much more resilience in the face of these kinds of oil price rises than previously had been thought likely—compared, say, with the events in the 1970s, in that respect. So, in other words, of itself it is not a disaster if it leads to more fuel-efficient cars or the development of alternative fuels; it might actually be helpful for causes that the member and I have a shared interest in.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What impact does the Minister believe that the Reserve Bank’s consistent underestimating of oil prices has had on its difficulties in controlling inflation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: To the extent that that flows through to the bank’s view of general price rises—and the Reserve Bank, of course, can look through the one-off effects of a commodity price increase such as oil—that would tend to have led it to a somewhat looser monetary policy than might otherwise have been the case. But I think that probably most would agree that the overall impact has not been huge, in that regard.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Minister concerned that all the Government’s transport demand assumptions and all its transport investment planning are based on totally flawed projections of oil prices, or has the Government just given up on this in view of the answer to a written question received today from his colleague Annette King: “Oil price is one factor that may affect the forecast for traffic demand. It is difficult, however, to accurately assess future oil prices or to model the impact of prices on the level of traffic demand.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the last statement is a statement of fact. Looking over the last 40 years we have seen, in real terms, very large fluctuations in oil prices—and it is worth reminding ourselves that oil prices now are not that much more in real terms than they were when they last peaked at a very high level—and they have not affected, actually, the rate of growth in demand for transport. That in part is a consequence of a stronger economy, people’s leisure preferences, and a range of other factors, particularly as both alternative fuels and alternative vehicles are developed. One thing I do not share with the member, I suspect, is a view that higher oil prices will lead to an abandonment of the private motorcar.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave to table, first of all, the graph of Treasury projections against reality.

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

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Secondly, I seek leave to table the graph of the Reserve Bank’s projections.

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

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Thirdly, I seek leave to table the Monetary Policy Statement of December 2005.

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

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave, finally, to table the Monetary Policy Statement of September 2007.

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

Electoral Finance Bill—Election Advertisements

5. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Is it Government policy that the definition of an election advertisement should include any form of words or graphics that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued; if so, why?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice): Yes; because clause 5(1)(a)(ii) of the Electoral Finance Bill is a simple extension of the existing definition in the Electoral Act 1993. It extends the definition to include references to types of parties, because in the past some advertisers have tried to get around the Act by avoiding specifically naming the party they do or do not support.

Hon Bill English: How does that definition compare with the definition of election advertising proposed for MPs spending public money and leaders’ office budgets, as set out in the appropriation bill introduced last week, bearing in mind that her predecessor as the Minister of Justice said: “The Electoral Finance Bill needs to align with the review of parliamentary expenditure”?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The definition for MPs is around enabling them to do the work they are required to do as members of Parliament.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the definition of electioneering for MPs spending public money is much broader than the definition for the public, which means one law for the citizens who vote in elections and another, much more relaxed law for the MPs who are campaigning in those elections?

Hon ANNETTE KING: As that member knows, MPs have a job to do, whether or not it is election year. They have a job to do to communicate with their constituents, and the legislation enables them to communicate with their constituents. Can I say that it has been drafted in the same way as the interpretation for MPs in the Electoral Act was in the past. We know that secretly the National Party supports what is in the appropriation bill. Just because they do not want to say it publicly does not mean they are not double-dealing behind the scenes.

Hon Bill English: Given that the definition of electoral advertising in the Electoral Finance Bill means anything that might encourage a voter to vote for any party or candidate, is she satisfied that Government departments that are, as we speak, taking tenders for multimillion-dollar advertising contracts for next year, are clear on whether those Government advertising programmes will be caught by the very broad definition of election advertising in her Government’s bill?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, Government departments will not be caught, because they will go to the Auditor-General to have their advertising cleared.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with the Green Party proposals to protect the freedom of speech of non-governmental organisations and other groups by narrowing the definition of third-party election activities, so that it includes only genuine attempts to change the way that people vote; and, in addition, our proposals to promote democratic participation in the election by controlling the big-money spenders, such as the Brethren’s 2005 pro-National campaign, which drown out the voices of other non-governmental organisations and organisations that are legitimate campaigners and have real issues in the election?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I know there are some parties in this House that do not want the voices of third parties to be heard—

Madam SPEAKER: Would members remove those newspapers. I will ask the Minister to give her answer in silence. Members will be asked to leave the Chamber if they interrupt. It is impossible to hear when members barrack.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I know that some political parties in this House do not want small parties like New Zealand First, the Greens, and so on to have their voices heard when it comes to a bill like this. However, I support the right of any party to put up amendments, and also the right of the public to put up amendments. The place for decisions on that to be made is the select committee. If one were to listen to National Party members, one would believe that this bill was done and dusted, that no changes could be made, and that the select committee was a useless body anyway, because it does not believe in it. That is not where this Government comes from, and I know that it is not where the Green Party comes from.

Madam SPEAKER: Dr Nick Smith, I heard you interject, even when I said the question would be heard in silence. There were others, however. They were also mumbling away, getting louder and louder. Next time, I will be asking you or anyone else to leave the Chamber.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is reasonable for you to call for the House to be in silence, but there is a quid pro quo, which is that you will reinforce the Standing Orders and prevent a Minister from simply making things up about National’s position. She has no responsibility for that. If you are going to insist on silence, then you cannot expect members to be silent when you are not enforcing the Standing Orders to prevent Ministers from straying into territory for which they do not have responsibility.

Madam SPEAKER: I listened very carefully, Dr Smith. Those were matters of debate. There are supplementary questions to be heard.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm what she demonstrated in a previous answer to me, that she does not understand how the law will work, even though she is the Minister of Justice—namely, that Government departments running advertising campaigns will either be covered by this law or not, and if there is no exemption then they are covered by it and it does not matter what the Auditor-General says?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I will not confirm what the member said.

Hon Bill English: Can the Government make up its mind about this issue, when it was proposed a few days ago, apparently, that there will be an exemption for Government departments doing advertising—meaning they can do what they like and are not covered by the law—but then yesterday it said that Government departments will not be covered; what is the situation for departments that right now are writing contracts with advertising agencies for multimillion-dollar campaigns on sustainability, cheap doctors’ visits, and other Labour policies?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Government departments cannot do what they like. They cannot be engaged in electioneering.

Hon Bill English: What advice have the Ministry of Justice officials or the Minister given to Government departments regarding the legality under the Electoral Finance Bill of the multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns that they are planning to run during the regulated period, which now covers all of election year—what advice have they been given?

Hon ANNETTE KING: To my knowledge as Minister of Justice, I have given no advice yet. I think I have had the job for 5 minutes, so give us time.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that these circumstances currently apply: Government departments are writing multimillion-dollar contracts for advertising campaigns to run next year, during election year, and they have had no legal advice about the significance of the changes in the Electoral Finance Bill and whether those advertising campaigns will be caught and counted as election advertising?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I cannot confirm that Government departments are busy sending out tenders or planning to run big advertising campaigns in election year, but I do know that since I have been in this House, Government departments, under a National Government and under a Labour Government, have always had advertising campaigns about Government projects. I believe that what the Minister of Finance said today is absolutely right: under a National Government, Ministers never wanted people to know about their entitlements, so they never told them. That way, people never accessed any additional assistance. We do not believe in doing that. We believe that people are entitled to Government help and we make sure they know about it—and they will know about it.

Canterbury District Health Board—Acute Surgery

6. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Why has there been an “unprecedented drop” in demand for acute surgery at Canterbury District Health Board?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health): During the last quarter there has been some reduction in caseloads of acute surgery at the Canterbury District Health Board. I am advised that it is not possible to say at this stage whether it is a trend or a statistical blip.

Hon Tony Ryall: Where were the resources saved used?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Firstly, it will depend upon the causes and nature of the reduction, and, secondly, that will be a matter for the district health board to decide.

Tim Barnett: Why is it difficult to predict demand for acute surgery?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Acute surgery is required in response to unplanned events—for example, traffic and other accidents, heart attacks, and hernias. The numbers of these fluctuate considerably, especially over short time periods. When data that is discontinuous first arises, it is important to assess the extent and causes of the variation.

Barbara Stewart: Is the Minister aware that a former employee of the Canterbury District Health Board is using inside knowledge for financial gain by helping people queue-jump surgery waiting lists; if so, what steps is his ministry taking to prevent such activity occurring elsewhere?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I can confirm that that is the case, but I can also confirm that the Canterbury District Health Board’s own elective referral centre is free of charge and provides, I am advised, the same information as, or better information than, that provided by the former employee.

Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister explain the total contradiction whereby the Government says that pressure from emergency surgery pulls resources away from elective surgery, but when there have been 5 months of less emergency surgery, the Canterbury District Health Board cannot organise itself to fill the gaps with more elective surgery?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am advised that in the last 12-month period the Canterbury District Health Board was able to increase its elective surgery by around 5 percent, and we expect to see more.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is it not a fact that the Canterbury District Health Board has not responded with more surgery over this period because, according to its own surgeons, the hospital is in a constant state of gridlock, with staff shortages and full wards; and what will the Minister do about it on behalf of the people of Canterbury, now that he is running the show?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Canterbury District Health Board advised that it does not have any current workforce issues. Of course, it is for the board to manage the tension between service demand and carrying surplus capacity. We are very pleased to see that it is doing that, and are gratified to know that the cost of general practitioners is less than if that member were running the show.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister having the House believe him when he says there is no crisis, even though senior surgeons like Mr Bagshaw have talked about shortages of staff and the inability to get services done, and other surgeons are quoted as talking about shortages of staff throughout the hospital system, and the gridlock at Christchurch Hospital?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: May I reiterate for the member that the advice I have received from the Ministry of Health is that the Canterbury District Health Board advises that it does not have any current workforce issues. The Canterbury District Health Board is in the process of managing workflow through Project RED—Rejuvenating the Emergency Department—which is assisting patient flow through the care journey.

Jo Goodhew: Can the Minister confirm that, now that he is running the show, he will explain to the people of Canterbury why less elective surgery was performed in the last financial year than in Labour’s first year of office, and why the numbers are likely to be even worse this year because idle theatres were not utilised over that 5-month period?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I cannot confirm what is unlikely to occur.

Youth Skills—Government Initiatives

7. Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What Government initiatives are helping our young people to become better skilled and better placed to participate in our thriving economy?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Tertiary Education): So far, 13,838 young New Zealanders are undertaking, or have completed already, a Modern Apprenticeship. That is a remarkable turn-round from 10 years ago—10 years ago there were no Modern Apprenticeships. There were none; apprenticeships had been abolished by National—an act of arrant stupidity.

Hon Marian Hobbs: Will the Government meet the target of having 14,000 Modern Apprentices by December 2008?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Clearly we will. We do not know when, but it is probably going to be closer to December 2007 than to the target date. The Government does not mind exceeding its promises. We always meet them, and sometimes we do even better than that.

Sexual Abuse Allegations—Ministry of Education Procedures

8. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: What specific procedure does his ministry follow when approached by a board of trustees with sexual abuse allegations against a school principal?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education): The Ministry of Education seeks an immediate assurance that the students of the school are safe. All boards of trustees are required to have an appropriate complaints process in place, and these are vetted by the Education Review Office. The Ministry of Education is responsible for providing advice to boards about the proper conduct of investigations and the policies and procedures they have in place. Schools may also seek assistance from the New Zealand School Trustees Association, which is contracted by the ministry to provide boards of trustees with administrative advice. School principals are employed by boards of trustees. All employment-related matters, including the handling of complaints, are the responsibility of the board of trustees in the first instance.

Katherine Rich: Why did not the Ministry of Education, after months of involvement, advise the board of Hato Pāora College that serious sex crime allegations made against the school’s principal should be put in the hands of the police for investigation?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am advised by the chair of the board of trustees that she has personally assured the member Katherine Rich that the school is satisfied with the assistance it received and continues to receive from the Ministry of Education. She has further advised her not to upset students and the rest of the school community by attempting to make political capital of this traumatic situation, just as the National Certificate of Educational Achievement examinations are about to begin. Frankly, I think it is a disgrace that a member of Parliament would attempt to get a cheap political headline out of these serious sexual abuse allegations.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What support does the Ministry of Education make available to schools that have experienced such significant incidents?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: When a school experiences a traumatic incident, the ministry’s traumatic incident team contacts the school and offers support. The first step is to seek an assurance from the school that all students are safe. Support is then focused on maintaining normal school activities to the fullest possible extent; providing culture-appropriate and age-appropriate responses; providing support in meeting immediate needs; providing an understanding of what happens next; and providing clear communication to parents, pupils, staff, and the community, where appropriate. Each district has a team of two to six staff who have been trained in this work. Traumatic incident support was independently reviewed in 2001, and schools and early childhood services spoke highly of the support. Support has been offered several times to Hato Pāora College since the first suggestions of difficulty, in August. At this stage, the school has not availed itself of the support offered by the traumatic incident team. The school is being supported by the ministry’s school performance team.

Katherine Rich: What does the Minister say to Kiwi parents who are horrified to find out that when a school board contacts the Ministry of Education to seek advice about how to deal with serious allegations of sexual abuse of students by a principal, the ministry is so out of touch with what parents think that it does not offer the logical advice that the allegations should be put in the hands of the police for them to investigate?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The ministry took every appropriate step it needed to in this situation to ensure that the students were safe, and to give the board of trustees as much support as possible. Once again, I remind the House that this member has jumped into a very serious situation, a very sensitive situation—a situation that affects parents, students, and teachers at a school—to try to get a cheap headline. She should be ashamed of herself.

Katherine Rich: When the Minister admits that this situation is serious for parents and for students, why cannot his ministry officials give basic advice to schools; are they so busy doing PC hand-wringing that they cannot look at the basic issue, which is that when serious allegations such as this come to the fore, the schools should go to the police to have them investigated?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I remind the House, again, that since these allegations appeared in August this school has received every appropriate support from the ministry. We have been working with the board of trustees, parents, and the school community to make sure that the students are safe and that this process is handled appropriately and fairly. I remind the House, again, that this is a very serious situation for this school community—the pupils, parents, and teachers involved. That member should be ashamed of herself for trying to get a cheap headline out of it.

Katherine Rich: If this issue is so serious, why was it not put in the hands of the police, who have the skills and knowledge to undertake this kind of investigation? When the board did its investigation it cleared the gentleman, and only after the media brought the issue to the attention of the police were the police briefed enough to go forward and actually investigate it properly.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Once again, the member is treading into the situation, and she is not giving the House a clear and accurate account of what happened. I do not want to go into the details of this case, because it is currently before the courts. But I can assure the House that the board followed the appropriate steps, including referring the case to Child, Youth and Family, which it is required by law to do. It is my understanding that the police have commented that the board carried out an entirely correct investigation. Subsequently, one of the people who had made the complaint went to the police, and the police got more evidence. But I am already beginning to get into the details of the case, and it is not appropriate for any of us to do that.

Sustainability Programme—Implementation

9. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: What steps is the Government taking to implement its sustainability programme?

Madam SPEAKER: If there is any further interchange across the House, the members indulging in it will all leave.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment): The Prime Minister today announced the first four New Zealand regions to trial recycling facilities in public places. They will be Wellington, the far north district, Christchurch City, and Kaikōura. The Government has allocated $4.6 million over 3 years to establish around 600 public recycling bins throughout New Zealand.

Moana Mackey: What other initiatives does he consider will contribute to New Zealand becoming environmentally sustainable?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There are six initiatives that the ministry is currently involved in, to lead New Zealand towards greater sustainability. They are the household sustainability awareness campaign, the Business Partnerships for Sustainability, the work on enhanced eco-verification, Sustainable Government Procurement, Towards a Sustainable New Zealand: Carbon Neutral Public Service, and Towards zero waste.

Nandor Tanczos: Is the Government committed to the sustainability goal of moving towards zero waste; if so, what initiatives and legislative changes does he support or propose?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member’s bill forms an important part of the Government’s goal of moving towards zero waste. We will be supporting it.

Primary Industries 2020 Summit—Paying Attendees

10. Hon DAVID CARTER (National) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he still expect 550 paying attendees at the Primary Industries 2020 Summit, as he stated in September 2007; if not, why not?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture): No; I have never expected 550 paying attendees to attend the summit, nor have I ever said so. In answer to a written question from the member on 19 September, I advised that I anticipated attendance to be between 200 and 400 paying attendees, and I am confident that this will be achieved. I imagine the member is referring to a figure contained in a forecast summit budget supplied to him as chair of the Primary Production Committee in confidence on 24 September—a confidence that he appears to have breached. Actually, 550 is the maximum capacity of the venue.

Hon David Carter: How many paying attendees are registered to attend the conference, and is he satisfied with the effectiveness of his $1 million Budget bid, which is in excess of a $5,000 subsidy of taxpayer money per attendee, on top of the $850 registration fee?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: This summit of primary industry leaders is long overdue and represents real value for money for the leaders of our most important industries. As we speak, around 200 paid registrations have been received. The primary industries, I remind the member—who should know this—contribute 17 percent of New Zealand’s GDP and 65 percent of our merchandise exports, so the sector is the engine room of the New Zealand economy and will drive growth into the future. I remind the House that this is the first opportunity since the Agricultural Development Conference in 1965 and the National Development Conference in 1968 for business leaders from all sectors of the primary sector value chain to look collectively to the future, overcome challenges, and maximise opportunities in the global market place. I would have thought the House would celebrate a get-together like this, particularly the National Party, which is supposed to represent these people and has done nothing about them for 30 years.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What reports has the Minister seen on the number of primary industry leaders who have attended previous gatherings of the most important industries?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I have seen reports quantifying the number of attendees, paid or otherwise, of primary sector business leaders who have previously attended events comparable to the Primary Industries 2020 Summit. Those reports confirm that the number of attendees under the National-led Government of 1990-99 was precisely zero. That was because National never did anything in its 9 years in Government to proactively support our most important industries, and as a result of that we lost a decade of opportunity.

Nathan Guy: Does the Minister stand by his answer to written question No. 16093 that negotiations are under way with major potential sponsors, and will he confirm that those negotiations have delivered only a pitiful $20,000 worth of sponsorship; what is this hopeless Minister doing?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The fact is that under a National Government one had to get sponsors, because that Government paid nothing for any of this. This Government has put up a million dollars to sponsor a conference for leaders who deliver $20,000 million to this economy, and that sounds to me like a pretty good investment—one that National never even got anywhere near to thinking about.

Hon David Carter: Does the Minister think it is acceptable that Dr Penn, a speaker at the summit, as well as having a return business class flight from Chicago, all meals, and 5 nights’ accommodation provided for the summit, will also receive a 4-day holiday in Queenstown paid for by the taxpayer; does he think that is an acceptable use of taxpayer money?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Of course, we could have got an eminent international speaker here and told him to pay for his own meals. If that is the way the National Party runs conferences like this, then God help us if it ever gets into Government. When we are getting an array of highly qualified international speakers to contribute to the future of New Zealand’s most important economic activity and we hear the drivel we are getting now about paying for meals or for a couple of days’ holiday for these sorts of people, well, I wonder whether the National Party may be reconsidering having David Carter as its spokesperson on agriculture.

Nathan Guy: Why did the Minister say in June this year that some hundreds of farmers will attend the summit, and is it not time to acknowledge that it is nothing more than a $1 million taxpayer-funded ministerial talkfest, subsidised by $5,000 for each attendee?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The key aim of this summit is to provide a forum that provides quality discussion among key business leaders on the primary sector’s economic, environmental, and social sustainability challenges and opportunities for the next 20 years. This is not a summit for every farmer in New Zealand; it is for the decisions makers of the primary sector industries, of which, of course, apart from farming others like forestry, fishing, and biosecurity are also involved. We have an impressive array of those who are attending, not only of those who have paid to attend but also of those who are addressing the conference internationally and from the domestic market place—something the National Party never ever even aspired to put together.

Police—Confidence

11. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Does she have confidence in the Police’s ability to act against illegal activity?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister of Police: Yes.

Ron Mark: Would the Minister of Police be concerned if police were unable or unwilling to act against a group whose members had made comments such as “I’m declaring war on New Zealand.” and “It’s good to kill a Pākehā.”; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Noting that the member has deliberately—and I think quite properly—posed the question hypothetically, the answer is quite clearly that there would be serious dismay in this House and in this country if the police were unwilling or unable to take action. And it is very good of the member to put the counter-factual in front of us: what would have happened had the police not responded?

Ron Mark: Would she be concerned if police were unable or unwilling to act against a group that had undertaken military-style training camp activity using both the IRA and al-Qaeda training manuals, had considered a bombing campaign, and had suggested assassinating a senior politician; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Same answer—and same hypothetically framed question, I need to stress. It is important for us to face the counter-factual—that in circumstances like this, we must have a police force that is able and willing to respond.

Dr Pita Sharples: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker; tēnā tātou katoa. What did the Minister of Police mean on Native Affairs on Sunday night when, talking about the impact of police actions on Tūhoe, she described the people of Tūhoe as “collateral damage”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am afraid I cannot give the member a direct answer to that question, but I can say that this side of the House does not draw a direct Māori connection with these events, or, indeed, a direct Tūhoe connection with these events. Here are the facts: 16 people have been charged; six of them are Māori and, of those six, three are Tūhoe.

Dr Pita Sharples: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was in reference to what the Minister said about the Tūhoe people.

Hon Member: He didn’t finish his answer.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please complete his answer, then we will be able to assess. But I think he had already addressed the question at the beginning.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I repeat the first few words of my answer: I am afraid I cannot give the member an answer to that question. However, it is fair to say that this side of the House does not draw a link between those events and Māoridom, or those events and Tūhoe. It is true that the alleged training camps were in the Tūhoe rohe, but had they been in the Southern Alps we would not have drawn a link with Ngāi Tahu. The fact of the matter is that three of the 16 people are Tūhoe and 13 are not. Nearly every member of Tūhoe is not involved in this.

Ron Mark: Has the Minister seen any reports that would indicate that killing Pākehā, waging war on our nation, sourcing an al-Qaeda manual, discussing a bombing campaign, and suggesting the assassination of a senior politician would constitute the average New Zealander’s definition of “peaceful intentions”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have seen no such reports. I have, however, seen two poll results: one from UMR Insight, in which 13 percent of New Zealanders did not support the police and the remainder either did not have a view or did support the police; and the other, a phone-in poll from last Friday, in which the figure had dropped to 12 percent of New Zealanders who did not support the police and 88 percent who did.

Dr Pita Sharples: What response does the Minister of Police have to Māori lawyer Moana Jackson, who last week resigned as patron of a wing of police recruits in protest at the raids, and who said that the police actions in the Urewera were not “a racially neutral act.”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I did not see that quote, I am sorry, and I have no comment to make on the gentleman’s decision. I will say, however, on behalf of the Minister of Police, that the Commissioner of Police will be amongst Tūhoe in due course. He will put his head, his mind, and his body in front of those people. He will take from them whatever it is they have to say to them, and he will make to them whatever explanations he feels may be of use. That, I think, is the sort of thing one would expect from a Commissioner of Police, and I wish him well.

Ron Mark: I seek leave to table the results of several opinion polls that show an overwhelming majority of support for the police—

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

Immigration Service—Confidence in Staff

12. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he have confidence that no New Zealand Immigration Service staff have been involved in the alleged “cash for jobs” scam claimed to involve hundreds of students, as well as employers and immigration staff?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Acting Minister of Immigration): I am assured by the Department of Labour that it is fully investigating these allegations, and will actively pursue anyone who is in breach of the Immigration Act. I await the outcome of that investigation.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How much confidence can the New Zealand public have in the Immigration Service investigating itself, given that the department found 33 cases of improper behaviour just last year, yet could not identify who was involved in at least 15 of those cases?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In the vast majority of cases, allegations against Immigration Service staff prove to be unfounded. Moreover, the rate of substantiated claims against Immigration Service officers has dropped by nearly 50 percent in the last 2 years.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that no senior persons of the Immigration Service are involved in the scam, given that the alleged mastermind, Alex Ho, names them by job title, and just last year investigators found three cases of corruption, as well as the 33 cases of improper behaviour, within the Immigration Service?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Government very clearly has a policy of zero tolerance of any form of corruption in the Immigration Service, but it follows that if one is holding an investigation, one waits to see the evidence that emerges.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister simply clarify that last answer: if an Immigration Service official is involved in this “cash for jobs” scam, will action be taken against him or her immediately, and will he or she be dispensed with?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is important not to prejudge the outcome of the investigation, but, hypothetically speaking, if an Immigration Service officer were to be seriously implicated in a matter of corruption, it is a fair bet that he or she would soon be a former Immigration Service officer.

Urgent Debates Declined

Terrorism Suppression Act—Solicitor-General’s Decision

Madam SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Dr Pita Sharples seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision on Thursday by the Solicitor-General not to authorise prosecutions under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. I have also received a similar application from Keith Locke. Mr Locke has given no authenticating information with his letter. This in itself is sufficient ground to decline the application—see Speaker’s ruling 160/5.

The announcement in question is a particular case of recent occurrence. However, it is merely an announcement that prosecutions are not to be authorised. It does not contain any substantive policy changes or require the immediate attention of the House. The Solicitor-General has invited the Attorney-General to consider referring the Act to the Law Commission to consider whether it should be under review, and this has now been done. Furthermore, members took the opportunity to comment on the Solicitor-General’s decision during the debate on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill later on Thursday afternoon. The bill remains on the Order Paper.

In these circumstances I am not persuaded that there should be a special debate on the subject today. It can be considered over a longer time frame than today. Both applications are therefore declined.

Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill

Procedure

KEITH LOCKE (Green): I move, That Government order of the day No 1 for the interrupted debate on the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill be postponed until 1 April 2008.

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

Ayes 13

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field.

Noes 108

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

Motion not agreed to.

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 8 November.

DIANNE YATES (Labour): I wish to continue from where I left off, in discussing the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. I point out to the House that we are discussing the amendment bill; we are not discussing the substantive Act, which was the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002. I thank those who made submissions on the amendment bill. There were 35 submissions. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee heard 14 of those submissions, and I thank the staff and all those who worked on this particular amending legislation.

However, I want to refer back to the 2002 Act and the report back to the House, because I recently heard it said on the radio that the committee that dealt with the 2002 Act was not a robust one. I point out that there was a 19-page report back to the House on that original Act. Unlike the report on the amendment bill, which has a minority view from the Green Party and a minority view from the National Party, that report had no minority view. The original substantive Act, when it came back to the House, had no minority views and no dissenting opinions. The original Act went through unanimously in its report back to the House. I just mention that in relation to some of the comments I have heard about the original Act—the substantive Act—in the media recently.

I point out that we are discussing the amendment bill, which is about financing terrorism. The bill is about the conventions around nuclear material and nuclear terrorism, and, more particularly, it is about the international aspect of the designations of United Nations - listed terrorist entities. The reason for this amendment bill is that it has to be passed by 1 December in order to deal with the large number of designations that will lapse at the end of that month. So we are dealing strictly with the amending legislation, although the debate has been robust and wide ranging.

I also point out that our select committee deals a great deal with United Nations treaties and international treaties, and the bringing of these into New Zealand law. It is very difficult to do that, and the committee goes to great lengths to examine the balance between what affects New Zealand citizens—and this is about New Zealand being an international citizen—and New Zealand sovereignty. I can say, from reading both report-backs to the House, that both select committees were robust—far from lazy—and that the reports are comprehensive, robust, and very informative.

I further point out that the select committee and members of all parties were very, very careful to make sure that on the one hand we dealt very carefully with the safety of New Zealand citizens and the security measures around that safety, and on the other hand we considered very, very carefully the preservation of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, democracy and transparency, and civil liberties. In reading the report-backs to the House, we find that those terms are mentioned in the reports, as is the consideration the committees gave to those issues and to the submissions that discussed those issues.

Nothing in these bills was treated lightly—I have heard a contrary view in some comments from the media—and the members from all parties on the committee, as I said especially in respect of the amending legislation, gave their opinions very carefully. In the amendment bill we are discussing today there were minority views from the National Party and the Green Party. So when I hear comments on the reports of the substantive Act in 2002 that the committee was lazy, I think those comments are unfounded because in the initial hearing there was a 19-page report with no minority views from any party; the report was unanimous.

Things have changed from then to now but I think we have to be very, very careful of what we say about former committees, former members of committees, and chairs of those committees. Members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee did a considerable job of work, examined the submitters carefully, and went to great pains to produce a report to the House that reflected the opinion of that committee and the various opinions within the committee. I think the report was a fair one.

In commenting as the chair of the committee on its work, I thank committee members for the work they have done, and for the consideration they gave to the issues. The issues were not considered without care and appreciation for the values of New Zealand citizens, the protection of New Zealand citizens, and the protection, as I have said, of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and civil liberties in New Zealand.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I want to take a brief call on the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, firstly, to indicate that United Future will be voting for this bill, and, secondly, to comment on some of the particular circumstances that apply to it.

It may seem somewhat perverse for the House to be proceeding with this legislation at this time, given the recent ruling by the Solicitor-General in respect of the primary Act, but if the provisions in this bill are not passed at this stage, there will be far more serious consequences for our ability to deal with international terrorism than the recent ruling of the Solicitor-General. For example, if the provisions in this bill relating to the designation of international organisations do not pass, a number of those designations will lapse, which will make those entities effectively legal operatives within New Zealand. This not only places us out of step with a number of other nations, but, more important, indicates that because we are out of step with those nations we may become a convenient haven for those prescribed organisations to establish and flourish in New Zealand. Frankly, no one would tolerate that situation or want it to happen. So it is important that this legislation is passed now to enable the rollover that is contained within it for a further 3 years to take effect, so that we do not find ourselves in a position of those designations lapsing and a far more serious situation applying.

As the member who has just spoken pointed out, a number of other provisions in the bill need to be put in place with regard to the prospect of international—and I underline that word “international”—terrorism occurring within this country. I think things have become a little confused in recent days because of the ruling of the Solicitor-General in respect of aspects of the principal Act being applied internally to organisations within New Zealand with a clearly New Zealand focus.

I go back to the point that the previous speaker, Dianne Yates, made. As a former chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee I know how thoroughly the committee on all sides worked on these matters when the review of the primary Act was undertaken during the term of the previous Parliament. I also know that in the examination that occurred of the submissions that were presented there was a considerable effort made by members of the committee to make sure that legitimate dissent, fair protest, and the sort of activity that we expect to be able to occur in a free society like New Zealand was not going to be compromised by the passage of these provisions. If anything, I think what happened is that the committee probably erred on the side of protecting those who would be involved in domestic protests, to ensure that their rights were not inhibited, rather than taking, perhaps, the stronger line that might have given the consistency that the Solicitor-General said he was seeking to no avail when making his ruling earlier in the week.

I do not regret the position that the select committee took. I think it was appropriate to take a cautious stand. I think it is equally appropriate now for there to be a wider review of the Terrorism Suppression Act to see what its application is to the domestic environment, whether amendments need to be made or other legislation altogether is required to deal with those situations that may well have a threat to our domestic security, but which are clearly not international terrorist situations in their nature or design. So I think that step is one that needs to be taken quite separately from this bill, but this bill does need to be passed at this point in time in order to give effect to provisions that have a much wider application than simply the domestic environment.

The chair of the select committee who preceded me spoke at some length about the process the select committee adopted in dealing with this bill. I will not go over that again. I concur with her that it was thorough, well organised, and proper.

I note, too, the minority reports from both the National Party and the Greens on this bill. I think the National Party minority report does raise some fair issues relating to the designation that need to be considered. I think the report from the member of the Green Party, as I said at an earlier stage, is something that—although I disagree with it—is a call to conscience that the House and the country should heed.

I think this bill is a useful step forward. I do not think it will be as controversial as those who oppose it fear. I think it is necessary to make the overall environment safer in respect of our ability to deal with international terrorism. But I do think, in light of the events of recent days, that the course of action of having the domestic situation more thoroughly reviewed by the Law Commission, and issues along the lines of how we promote national security considered, may well be a fairer way to go at this point. So I support this legislation but—

John Hayes: This House is elected to make law.

Hon PETER DUNNE: Obviously this House is elected to make law, and this House will make law, but I think having an independent review by the Law Commission, which would then come back to the Parliament as legislation and then be considered by the member’s select committee, is the appropriate way to go. I cannot see how one can oppose that course of action. That course of action really suggests that if there are errors in this law that have been determined by the Solicitor-General as making it impossible for him to act in this situation, we should at the very least take every opportunity to make sure that we get it right next time around. The member seems to be suggesting that we should not do that, that we should simply pass some sort of remedial law at this stage—

John Hayes: We should do the work.

Hon PETER DUNNE: Well, ultimately the House will do the work—that is the point. But I think we need to be guided in that by an independent review from the Law Commission, and I certainly support that occurring.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I begin by taking issue with one thing that my colleague the Hon Peter Dunne said about the fact that if we did not pass this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, there would be a problem with terrorist designations lapsing. I do not think that is correct, because section 35(2) of the current law allows for the High Court to extend those designations for another 3 years. So I think it is not correct that we need to be rushing off to pass this bill, and I thank my colleague Mr Keith Locke for drawing my attention to that.

I heard Mr John Hayes call out that it is Parliament’s job to make the law. Well, it is Parliament’s job to pass the law, but I do not think that Mr Hayes is putting himself up to be writing it, to be doing the analysis, to be preparing it—

John Hayes: We can cope.

RODNEY HIDE: He says he can cope, but I think that quite often for Parliament it is not bad to get the help of the officials and, indeed, of the commissions. I just want to draw Mr Hayes’ attention to what the Solicitor-General said. He said the law Parliament passed, with the help of Mr John Hayes’ officials—

John Hayes: I wasn’t here in 2002.

RODNEY HIDE: The law was passed with the help of officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Solicitor-General said that the law is “unnecessarily complex, incoherent and as a result almost impossible to apply to the domestic circumstances observed by the Police in this case.” We have to ask ourselves why we are pouring more law on top of that mess. Why are we not taking immediate action and sending what we have now to the Law Commission, and getting that fixed?

I have to say that I was very, very disturbed to hear the Minister of Justice say that the majority of New Zealanders think it is OK to round up some people running wild in the Ureweras and lock them up. Since when has justice and the question of who should be locked up been decided without evidence, without facts, without charges being laid, and without a case going to court, but instead by a public opinion poll? When was that ever the case? That statement alone has to give us pause for thought about the way we are promoting the so-called suppression of terrorism. If the majority of parties in this House say: “Let’s just round up those who are suspected, without knowing the evidence or the facts, and lock ’em up without a trial, without a proper charge being laid, and without knowing the case against them.”, and if the Minister of Justice says: “Oh, it’s OK because the majority of people say it’s OK.”, then I have to say that I fear for the ACT party, because under this law anyone could be rounded up. I say to the people of New Zealand that if it is the Tūhoe people this week, who will it be next week under this legislation.

I am amazed that we are debating in this House an amendment bill that will give unparalleled powers to the Prime Minister of New Zealand. The very idea that a Prime Minister of New Zealand can declare a person guilty of a crime without the person knowing even what the charge is, and without that person knowing the facts, and the very fact that that person’s assets can be seized as a consequence—

John Hayes: She can’t do that. Read the law.

RODNEY HIDE: I say to Mr Hayes that I have read the law. I have also read the Solicitor-General’s report, and I have to say that I am not sitting here feeling very proud about the legislation Mr Hayes supports.

I say this to the House: what would Sir Robert Muldoon have done with this legislation in 1981? Surely he would have declared the protest organisations to be terrorists. Surely he would have declared that their assets be seized. I ask Mr Hayes where the rule of law is in that. Does Mr Hayes not believe that we should live in a society where we know what the laws are and where we know what the charge is if we break the law? Should we not get to hear the evidence against us before we are punished and declared guilty? Should we not get to have our day in court? If Mr Hayes believes that, then he cannot vote for this bill. This bill does away with the fundamental rights of every New Zealander, does away with the rule of law, and puts arbitrary power in the hands of the Prime Minister. Why we would do this in this House, in this country, which professes itself to be free, I cannot imagine.

If we are going to fight terror, we have to do it on the basis of civilised values, because that is what the terrorists oppose. They oppose the rule of law. They oppose civil society. The very act of passing this law allows the terrorists to win, because it means that New Zealanders are surrendering their freedoms and the opportunity they should have to live their lives as they choose without arbitrary arrest. [Interruption]

I know that Mr Ron Mark thinks we should arrest anyone who disagrees with him, that we should arrest people and then say who can be let loose, and that anything that gives the police and the State more power is a good thing, but that is not what the ACT party is saying. Yes, we have to fight terrorism but we also have to watch the State. We have to watch the abuse of State power. And we have to watch for the abuse of that power by politicians. That is what the rule of law means.

This amendment bill overturns all of that. The day this bill is passed is a day when, in a rather large way, we surrender our freedoms to the terrorists by adopting a law that is unnecessary. Every New Zealander is entitled to know what the law is. Every New Zealander is entitled—if he or she is supposed by the authorities to have done something wrong—to know what the charge is. Every New Zealander is entitled to hear the facts of the case against him or her. And every New Zealander is entitled to have his or her day in court and to have the case heard before an independent judiciary.

This law goes absolutely against that. It is actually a fascist law—a law that puts the power in the hands of politicians to decide who should be guilty and who should be free. On that basis, the ACT party proudly opposes the bill, and has to say that it is very disappointed in the House for supporting such abysmal and abhorrent legislation.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays): There are some who see irony and others who see something more sinister about the fact that this Parliament is debating at this time the final stage of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, which is designed to amend the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.

The first question that must be answered today is whether it is necessary—and, indeed, whether it is appropriate—that we should give final approval to this legislation, in light of the significant events of the last few weeks. I have asked myself two questions: whether the contents of this bill bear in any way upon the issues recently under consideration by the Solicitor-General, and whether we have seen anything in the last few weeks that would cause us to doubt the need for the general framework of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.

I have given this matter considerable thought, and I am satisfied that this bill should receive its third reading. I am pleased that colleagues on this side of the House agree with me. First, none of the events of recent weeks touch upon the matters that are contained in this bill. This is a bill that is focused upon streamlining the process by which terrorist designations are rolled over. No designations were involved in recent events in the Bay of Plenty. With a number of senior colleagues I have reviewed this question with the Solicitor-General today. I thank the Attorney-General for facilitating that discussion. It is clear that the events that have been so widely publicised in recent weeks are very far removed from the contents of this particular bill. Second, none of the events of recent weeks cast any doubt in my mind about the need for the terrorism suppression legislation that was passed in this House back in 2002. Whether that legislation requires further amendment is a matter that I shall return to shortly.

I am satisfied that we should continue to support this bill becoming law now, in light of all the circumstances as they are known to us. But that does not mean that having passed this amendment into law there are not serious matters indeed that this House must attend to. Having passed this legislation, this House will have some unfinished business to attend to. The events of the past few weeks will, at best, have caused serious doubts about, but, at worst, caused some loss of confidence in, the institutions and processes by which this county is protected from serious disorder. On the strength of what we have seen in the media, there is room for doubt about the actions of the police and their legal advisers, the Crown Law Office, the Government that introduced the 2002 legislation and its advisers, and of course this Parliament, its select committee, its respective advisers, and the legislation that now sits on our statute book. One thing is clear to me in these circumstances: we cannot leave matters where they stand. New Zealanders are entitled to expect that such an important issue as this would see Parliament take all the appropriate steps to ensure that the public can have confidence in the law, in those who make it, and in those who enforce it.

Like almost all other New Zealanders I am handicapped by a serious lack of facts in understanding where the shortcomings might be, and what remedies might be required. But I take this opportunity to share with the House my broad thinking about what has happened here and about what should happen next. First, I am convinced that when the Solicitor-General, who has seen the evidence, asserts that some activities of a very worrying kind were being engaged in in the Ureweras, and that the public interest has been well served by their curtailment, then we should believe him.

It is also clear to me that the Solicitor-General gave the police at a suitably early stage of their investigation a very clear picture of the weight and strength of the material they would need to produce in order to secure his approval to proceed under the terrorism suppression legislation. The fact that the police chose to proceed down that path but failed to meet the test the Solicitor-General had signalled raises serious concerns in two areas. First, it raises serious concerns about the decision making of the police and the legal advisers to the police. It was a big call to invoke the Terrorism Suppression Act rather than to simply proceed under the Crimes Act and the Arms Act. That decision raised the stakes very considerably indeed. This Parliament passed special legislation with special powers for the authorities—powers that override the civil liberties of those involved—to deal with the most barbaric form of human behaviour, which is terrorism. Those special powers should never be lightly invoked. The fact that the police action under this legislation fell at the first hurdle invites very close inspection of the competence of the decision-making process, once such material as will now eventually emerge is produced before the courts. For my own part, I would be extremely concerned if it emerges that dangerous individuals who should have faced serious charges under the Crimes Act will instead face a slap across the wrist with a wet Arms Act bus ticket because of a misguided police excursion under the terrorism legislation that was never entirely intended for this purpose.

Second, questions will be asked about the law and about whether Parliament made a mess of its attempt to put suitable counter-terrorism machinery in place back in 2002. If, as the Solicitor-General has implied, there are deficiencies in the Act, then those shortcomings will have been clearly signalled by him to the police in indicating to them the standard they would need to meet in order to gain his approval for a prosecution. The Solicitor-General has used the word “incoherent” to describe some provisions of the Act, and at least implied that if Parliament was attempting to legislate against domestic terrorism then it failed.

I do not feel particularly defensive about the latter proposition. Although, like other members, I voted for the bill because I thought it a worthy, even essential, initiative at the time, I was not involved in its drafting, in the select committee, or in the debate in the Chamber. But I have gone back to inspect Hansard. It is very clear to me that, back in 2002, the House was attempting in the wake of the September 11 attacks to provide a framework to deal with international terrorism, and in doing so to comply with UN Resolutions 1267 and 1373. So I am not particularly concerned that the 2002 legislation might now be judged to have failed to achieve something that was never on Parliament’s mind in the first place.

If the threat of domestic terrorism was not on Parliament’s mind back in 2002, the question that now arises is whether recent events should cause this Parliament to have such a threat on its mind today. That is a question that we cannot properly answer without knowing a good deal more than we know today about the activities of certain individuals currently before our courts. But I suggest that in appraising such material that comes forward into the public arena over the next few weeks, we must be prepared as a Parliament to consider new legislative initiatives if it appears that there are gaps in the laws that protect members of the public from those who would do them harm.

Members on this side of the House will support this third reading of the bill today, but in doing so we equally signal our strong determination that as the relevant facts emerge we will play a full and active part in achieving the necessary changes that will enable the public to have full confidence in the laws that are designed to protect them, to have full confidence in those who make the laws, and, of course, to have equal confidence in those who are charged with the enforcement of the laws.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): I will take a relatively brief call. First of all, I commend members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and the chair, Dianne Yates, for their work on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the contribution of previous speakers, and I acknowledge that there is a genuine variety of points of view. With due respect, I do not agree with Mr Hide’s description of this legislation. However, it is wonderful that we live in a democracy and have a Parliament where members can use very strong language to discuss this legislation because they have very strong views about it. But those views are something I do not share.

A number of columns have been written in recent days on events that have occurred in recent times, which we are all aware of. They have formed something of a backdrop to the third reading of this bill, which was being considered by the select committee long before certain activities in New Zealand came into the public arena. Obviously the members of the select committee had no way whatsoever of knowing what was pending in terms of police actions being taken against certain individuals and organisations. I would take this opportunity to note a recent column by Chris Trotter in, I think, the Sunday Star-Times, which was quite clear and concise. Basically in the end he stated that in a democracy, arms and free speech never ever go together. It is quite an obvious statement, but it is good to have it restated. I think we need to refrain, if you like, from making some romantic, historical interpretation of the recent activities until all the facts are able to be tabled in a court. We should suspend judgment until that time.

To put this bill into perspective, I say it will bring New Zealand law into line with that of other countries with which we share and enjoy the stability and security of a fair and respected legal system. There are not many countries in the world that can genuinely say that. In my view, there are many countries where that is not the case. The select committee’s review of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 identified a number of issues around whether the Act was meeting New Zealand’s international obligations. As I understand it, after studying the select committee’s report, the Government concluded that those issues needed a legislative response. Once again I commend all members of that select committee, from across the political spectrum—which they are, on that select committee—for their work. I acknowledge, with respect, that there are differences of view, to which I and other members listen very closely, on that committee.

The bill contains amendments to bring the 2002 Act up to date with our current obligations and with further international developments and treaties, and sadly, as I noted, the actual substance of the bill has been overshadowed by recent events. I think that that fact is quite unfortunate—and I stress this point for the record and to those who are listening to this debate today. I think a degree of suspension of judgment is in order in terms of our having the full facts come out in subsequent court hearings. It is really unfortunate that the bill has been overshadowed by recent events, because the bill is the product of several years’ work by the select committee and officials.

I stress again that the bill amends the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 in order to meet New Zealand’s international obligations. That is what it attempts to do. It will bring our legislation up to date with international developments and treaties on terrorism suppression. That is what it attempts to do—pure and simple. This is not some kind of knee-jerk reaction or response to the events that have emerged in the public arena in our nation in the last few weeks. The bill is aimed at amending the 2002 legislation, to conform to New Zealand’s obligations under United Nations charters and to make the provisions in the current legislation workable as well. It removes the designation process for UN-listed terrorist entities in order to better reflect the mandatory nature of New Zealand’s UN obligations, and to remove any risk of inconsistency. Noting the provisions on the freezing of terrorists’ assets and the offences involving nuclear material, I say the legislation will further ratify New Zealand’s international obligations on terrorism and tries to sort out loopholes and inconsistencies in the 2002 legislation on terrorist offending that needed to be addressed.

There is a lot of luxury in terms of the media comment and comment by others. One does one’s best on the basis of the evidence that one has at the time, and it is my considered view that that is what the select committee has attempted to do, from across the political spectrum. Having said that, I acknowledge the deeply held views of a number of members of this House. I respect them. I do not happen to agree with those members who oppose this bill. Without further ado I compliment the select committee on its work. I believe that every member of this House is trying to come to a considered view, and I do not think we should underestimate the importance of this legislation. We should not underestimate the importance of having continued dialogue in our community and the importance of talking with each other.

But, dare I say it—and I quote from writers who have made this very obvious point—we should never ever forget. That is why we had the peace process in places like Northern Ireland, Cyprus, and other countries. We—thank goodness—are not anywhere near to going down that road at all, nor will we ever do so if there is constant dialogue. But caches of arms and political movements do not equal democracy. They do not equal everything that we stand for fundamentally. The notion of rigorous debate—even diverse debate, with deeply held views and the rigorous demonstrations that I witnessed in recent times even at a Labour Party conference—is part of a democratic process. We can agree strongly with some of the demonstrators and their behaviour, but the notion that we should turn a blind eye and say it is OK for any organisation in this country whatsoever to somehow have a notional cache of arms, if that is the case, and to be a legitimate political movement within our democratic society is not correct. Just as that was clearly not the case in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, and other jurisdictions, that definitely should not be the case in New Zealand. I certainly join with previous speakers in terms of their views on this issue.

I commend this bill to the House in a considered way, and I commend the work of the select committee.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Last week the Māori Party, along with the Greens, put an application to the Speaker in respect of attempting to have a discussion about the activities in the Tūhoe nation, and indeed the country, as an urgent debate topic for today, and obviously it was turned down. I seek leave of the House to see whether it will allow one more speaker—namely, myself—to speak to some of those issues, bearing in mind that it was at 4.30 or so on Thursday of last week when the Solicitor-General’s statement was made, and maybe other parties, like ourselves, have not had an opportunity to put those issues fully out on the table. So I seek leave to do that.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 108

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

Noes 13

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field.

Bill read a third time.

Building Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction): I move, That the Building Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I think, firstly, that the Social Services Committee and, in particular, the chairman, Mr Russell Fairbrother, ought to be handed a bouquet and a vote of thanks for the very expeditious manner in which they have returned the committee’s report and the Building Amendment Bill 2007 to the House. The bill contains some minor adjustments to improve the workability of the Building Act 2004. I take this opportunity to remind the House briefly of how this bill came about and what it contains, and to mention some of the select committee’s recommended amendments to it.

A major suite of reforms is being rolled out over the next few years under the 2004 Act, including: the licensing of building practitioners from 1 November 2007 to recognise existing competencies and raise skills and experience across the sector; an accreditation scheme for councils to improve the performance and accountability of building consent inspection and approval processes; and a new product certification scheme that will be tied into international standards of quality and accountability from next year. The Act is large and contains a lot of detail in these schemes that increases the performance and accountability of councils, builders, and building products. Like any large Act that introduces significant new schemes, this one needs some minor tinkering to get the details right. In developing the Act’s new systems to regulate building products, builders and councils who approve the plans for buildings were consulted widely. Input from industry representatives was valuable in identifying some minor tweaks to the Act that are contained in this bill.

The next step was to introduce this bill to Parliament on 18 July this year, and it was subsequently referred to the Social Services Committee for consideration. My predecessor, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, set an accelerated time frame for the passage of the bill, requesting that the committee report back to the House before 5 November 2007 in order to allow the legislation to be passed this year. That will allow for the speedy implementation of the new product certification scheme and a clearer framework for the restricted building work regime that is being developed. I would like to acknowledge the work done by my predecessor in introducing this bill, and by the select committee in expediting the passage of the bill through the public submissions process, to make the resultant legislation more accessible.

The submissions made on the introduced bill represented a range of organisations in the building, disability, network utility, and local government sectors. Thirty submissions were received on the bill, and of those, 12 submitters also presented oral submissions. There was general support for the bill’s proposed changes. Apart from the dissenting view from the National Party members there was majority support from the committee for the bill, with some recommended changes to the bill as introduced. Those include redrafting the definition of “restricted building work” in order to clarify that the policy has not changed and to make Parliament’s intent clearer. Restricted building work must be carried out or supervised by a licensed building practitioner. Restricted building work will be defined in detail in a future Order in Council and will be building work that is critical to the integrity of a building. The recommended changes also include redrafting the building consent exemption clause to better deal with issues of normal maintenance durability, including weathertightness and hot water cylinders.

Some additional drafting issues that were not part of the bill came up during the committee’s deliberations and were incorporated into the reported-back bill. For example, the bill now refers more accurately to dam failure rather than to collapse, and the bill gives the Registrar of Licensed Building Practitioners a wider discretion to restrict access to the register. That will allow the registrar to limit access to information about practitioners, such as their date of birth or residential address, in order to protect their privacy.

The Government agrees with all of the select committee recommendations. The National Party, in its minority report, opposes the bill on the grounds of wider concerns about the existing Act in the areas of compliance costs, restricted building work, and accreditation fees.

To conclude, this bill, as reported back from the select committee, proposes a number of positive changes to the legislative framework that underpins the building and construction sector. This bill will ensure that the Act is a robust instrument to regulate for a safe and quality building and construction industry into the future. I thank again the select committee and the officials for their work, and I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The Building Amendment Bill says everything about how out of touch the current Government is with ordinary New Zealanders. It is a bill that increases the costs of rates for councils all over New Zealand at a time when ratepayers are in revolt.

Hon Shane Jones: How does it do that?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We have just had the 10^th Minister for building issues under this Government—10 Ministers in just 8 years—ask me how this bill increases the cost for the ratepayer. If he bothered to read the bill, rather than simply read the speech that his department gave him to read, he would note that the costs of accreditation are a substantive bill for ratepayers. I will tell the member just how significant it is. Yesterday, the Dunedin City Council announced that it would have to employ another 16 staff in the building consent department at a cost to that council of $1.8 million a year, and the Minister opposite has the cheek to ask where the increased cost is.

Sue Moroney: It was because National screwed up on weathertight homes.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I ask the member opposite whether she supports an extra $1.8 million a year for the Dunedin City Council.

Sue Moroney: What was the cost of the weathertight homes screw-up by National?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member opposite does not want to answer the question. Let me tell members how stupid that $1.8 million is. Do members know how many leaky homes we have before the tribunal in Dunedin?

Nathan Guy: How many?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Three; and we are going to impose, with this bill, a cost of an extra $1.8 million every year. It will be cheaper to write out a cheque for the three homeowners in Dunedin who are affected, than have this mad bill that simply adds more and more costs.

The second part of the bill that National objects to is that it is another round of petty over-regulation by this Labour Government. You see, it does not matter what part of our lives it is, Helen Clark and her cronies know best. They want to tell us how to live every little element of our lives. Let me give members an example. The Institution of Professional Engineers, of which I am proud to be a member, told the committee—

Russell Fairbrother: Do they reciprocate?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Sorry?

Russell Fairbrother: Do they reciprocate their pride?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am very proud to be a member, but let me tell—

Russell Fairbrother: Are they proud of you?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They gave me an award last year, so I assume they are. But I ask the lawyer opposite why we have a stupid law before the House that is now going to require, according to the Institution of Professional Engineers, a building consent for people to putty their windows. A building consent to putty their windows—is that the loopiness that we now have from the Labour Government in its nonsense regulation? We heard earlier from Paula Bennett how we cannot have our kids at Sunday schools without an early childhood licence. Now we have this bill requiring us to go to our council to get a building consent to be able to putty our windows. The institute goes on to say that because this bill says that anything that changes the overall building systems of a house will require a consent, if anyone wants to get out with the paintbrush and paint his or her house, that person will also have to roll down to the council and get a building consent. National says that is nuts.

Labour is so out of touch, not just with New Zealanders but with its own heritage. I remind members opposite of the celebrated Norm Kirk, who built his own home in Kaiapoi. There was a time when the Labour Party celebrated that independence and do-it-yourself spirit of ordinary New Zealanders trying to get ahead in life and better themselves. Norm Kirk, that former Labour Prime Minister, would be rolling in his grave today to know that Shane Jones, one who only sits, but aspires to be leader of the Labour Party, is today passing a law that would have made it illegal for Norm Kirk to build his own house in Kaiapoi, as he did those many years ago. National says that that is wrong.

Hon Judith Tizard: If you can’t tell the truth, tell something that’s lies!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Judith Tizard, the snobby end of the Labour Party, who never had any respect for the struggling workers—the Kiwi battlers, who want to be able to build their own homes—is today part of the dying Labour Government that is making it illegal for New Zealanders to be able to get themselves ahead in that sort of way.

Hon Judith Tizard: That’s rubbish.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, let me give the member the numbers. Let me just remind the member of Labour’s appalling record around home affordability. Since Labour has been the Government, the cost of the average home has gone up from $173,000 to over $380,000. That is more than a doubling. Let us look at interest rates. When Labour became the Government, interest rates came down, from during National’s period in Government—

Sue Moroney: Look what happened, under the tax cuts, to interest rates. Tell us about that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I know the member opposite. Those members do not give a hoot about interest rates, because they do not understand the struggle for ordinary New Zealand families out there who are trying to afford to pay their mortgages. Labour’s record on interest rates is this. Interest rates were 6.7 percent when Labour became the Government. Today they are 10.4 percent. What those figures mean is that whereas in 1999 the average New Zealander spent 41 percent of his or her income to pay the mortgage on the average home, today the figure is 83 percent. It is little wonder that the decline in home ownership has occurred every single year that Labour has been in Government.

Hon Judith Tizard: This has nothing to do with your speculators!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Judith Tizard says that it is all the speculators’ fault. Well, let us ask the Registered Master Builders Federation of New Zealand. I wonder what it would say. I ask the member opposite to justify this. The Wellington City Council says that a typical house plan 4 years ago required three A3 plans and 30 supplementary pages of information. With these building laws, which this busybody Labour Government is passing, the Wellington City Council now says that 12 A3 plans and 300 supplementary pages of documentation are required. This is for a standard house.

Hon Judith Tizard: Absolute rubbish.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Judith Tizard would know a lot about building would she not? Well, this is a statement from the Wellington City Council. Let me tell the House what the Registered Master Builders Federation said. It tells us that the increased cost of unnecessary red tape is an extra $30,000 on the average home. I say to Shane Jones, Helen Clark, and the screeching Judith Tizard that that extra $30,000 of your red tape is making it harder for Kiwi battlers in this country to be able to afford their own homes. National says that is wrong. What members opposite do not understand is that when they pass these dopey red-tape laws, all they do is add extra costs. What National wants is a system that will provide for good quality building without this sort of petty regulation, which is only adding costs. I ask members opposite why home affordability has reduced to the second-lowest level in the Western world. That is their record.

Russell Fairbrother: Because of speculation by your mates!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Listen to it! Those members say that they are in Government but that it is those nasty speculators’ fault. Well, that is what members opposite said when they increased the development levies. That increase was meant to go on to speculators but it went straight on to the price of a new home. That is why these figures are so awful. Members on this side of the House say that New Zealanders are sick of Labour messing up our building laws. It is a disgrace that there have been 10 Ministers for building issues in just 8 years. Can anybody in the House tell me how as many Ministers as that will provide any sort of leadership for this important—

Darien Fenton: How many leaders has National had in that time?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A lot fewer than that. I have to also say to the member opposite that when John Key is Prime Minister of New Zealand he will be more interested in home affordability and supporting Kiwi battlers, than in cheap political shots. What those members opposite do not understand is that they have become so out of touch and desperate to hang on to power that they cannot see the wood for the trees. Legislation like this continues to undermine that Kiwi dream of being able to own one’s own home. Thank goodness National will soon be in Government to give people a fair chance and to get rid of stupid, petty red tape, which this bill represents.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour): One can see why that man was deputy leader of the National Party for 3 whole days! That is how reliable his colleagues believed him to be—3 whole days!

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Weeks.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: Oh, the member says it was 3 weeks. Wow, that is expansionary—3 whole weeks! That is why the engineers’ association gave him a certificate—it was fearful he would come back to practise as an engineer. The association wanted to give him encouragement to remain in the House so that the crowds would be safe. It thought he would be a safer man in the House, where he can be minded by his own party, rather than out at large in the community, giving certificates to people who are undertaking building construction. The association does not want Nick Smith to go near a building site. It does not want Nick Smith to go near a bridge. It does not want Nick Smith to go near a dam. The association would sooner have him tucked up in the caucus of the National Party, where he lasted all of 3 weeks, he says—I thought it was 3 days—as deputy leader.

And now Nick Smith bangs on about leaky homes. He forgets to tell the people who are listening to him that there will be no additional costs for this regime. The proposed amendments will result in no additional costs. Building consents are an existing process for the 85 territorial and regional authorities around New Zealand. The associated administrative costs will be passed on through building consent application fees. There will be no additional bureaucracy.

Let us just talk about this bureaucracy. It was in 1991 that National, at a time when I think Nick Smith was close to being Minister of Housing, brought in the Building Act that gave us the provision in section 28. Section 28 imposed upon territorial local authorities a responsibility to ensure that homeowners got what they had bargained on receiving. When the rains came pouring down, seeping through the walls and on to people’s carpets, on to Gib board, and on to people’s furniture, when the mould developed and illnesses developed, and when people had nervous breakdowns, did the National members front up to say it was their badly designed regime that gave cheap builders the chance to make a profit? No. Where did the cheap builders go? They disappeared. Where did the politicians go? They disappeared.

In 2002-03 this House held an inquiry into the failures of Nick Smith’s conception of what constituted sound building practices. The inquiry held that the leaky building syndrome, which so many householders in New Zealand are suffering from to this day, had been brought about by the politics of the former National Government, which wanted to have a freeloading style for builders. In fact, the only rules were that a builder had to have a ute, a radio, and a dog. He or she could be a builder—a dog of a builder, like the dog of a politician that is the member across the Chamber.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did Labour vote for it?

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: People did not vote for renewal of that, I tell the member. They put the National Party out of Government because of the leaky buildings.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the speech made by George Hawkins, who said in 1991, when the Building Act was passed, that National had no right to claim the credit for it; it was all Labour’s work. This is in contradiction to the statement made by the newer member of the House.

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

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: The correct point is that the Building Amendment Bill makes minor amendments to the Building Act 2004 to make it more efficient, as was always intended to be the case. Building construction in New Zealand is a complex trade, and giving effect to what people expect to buy when they contract to have a building built is not a matter for overnight legislation. When the 2004 Act became law, it was always envisaged there would be refinements. This amendment bill is entirely about refinements. It does not build a whole new regime.

In fact, National Party members conceded their obdurate approach when, in the Social Services Committee’s report, they filed a minority report and refused to accept the advice they had received from the officials that putting putty in a window and doing other necessary repairs would not require the approval of the building inspector. They conceded that point, but they were not going to back off from the people to whom they are answerable. In the minority report the National members added: “In our opinion, the 2004 Act prohibited DIY work.” Of course, they were then faced with officials who said that they were clearly wrong. But they wanted to have that statement in their minority report so that they could go out and mislead the public about this amendment bill, by suggesting it is onerous, complicated, and expensive.

This bill makes clear that which was not clear in the 2004 Act. The very diligent Minister, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, worked upon the legislation and watched its progress over the passage of time, and came up with the refining improvements that this simple bill reflects. It is not required that a building inspector look at home improvements. Do-it-yourself is not bad. We now have a sophisticated system of licensed building inspectors, and a regulation regime that will exempt buildings below a certain size or design from the threshold at which a licensed building practitioner is required to oversee the work. That sensible and simple threshold will be controlled by regulation, so that licensed building practitioners can concentrate on the complex work that modern buildings demand.

Under the Act that was passed by National in 1991 we had a growth in style and a growth in building materials that had not previously been envisaged, and that Act was woefully deficient in its ability to protect the ordinary people of New Zealand who, in good faith, recruited a builder to build, often also in good faith, a home that failed to live up to its promise. The fearmongering by the last speaker rings hollow with people in this city who, to this day, intelligent though they are, are traumatised by the huge losses they have suffered from owning buildings that simply were not up to the purpose. Those people had buildings built in good faith, only to find afterwards that they were totally unsuitable for living in, and unsuitable for an investment. Those people, to this day, in trying to remedy losses of $100,000, are being repaid at the rate of $10 a week by builders who are now out of existence. That is the enormity of the problem.

When we look at this bill and the criticisms levelled by the last speaker, we see we must weigh them against the remedy that we are attempting to offer. That remedy is a fine line between do-it-yourself work, involving minimal repair costs and maintenance costs that do not require supervision, and more complex work on building structures. This bill will identify those who do the do-it-yourself work that does not require supervision, and it will also make clear the work that does need supervision. The whole building inspector regime is simplified. The associated costs will not be a cost to the bureaucracy but will be a cost to the applicant. But, of course, the ultimate saving to people who build houses is that they know they will have a house that will remain a sound investment. People who spend money, whether it be $100,000 or $1 million, on their new home want it to last significantly into the future. They want to know that the money they put in will be there when they come to sell the home. That is what this bill develops—not a bureaucracy, not a regime of expense, but a simple improvement to the Act so that people who buy a house know that what they expect to get is what they do get.

A lick of paint does not cover a whole raft of defects. A lick of paint is just a lick of paint, and a building can be taken at face value. The only way to avoid defects is to have the amendments in this bill, so that the licensed building practitioner regime becomes effective and the regulations can weed out those buildings that do not require the attention of a practitioner and those buildings that do. For example, one of the simple changes here relates to towers, which were a concern of some of the commercial submitters. If a tower is a stand-alone tower, it does not come within this amendment. If the tower is part of a building, it does. If we look at dams, we see that some dams are called large dams, and they will require a licensed building practitioner. Others are known as small dams, and they will be the responsibility of the territorial local authority to administer. So this simple bill provides simple amendments like those, whereby we are adjusting the process and fixing up the legislation.

It is a tragedy, and it is a hallmark of the fearmongering of National Party members, to make a speech like the one the previous speaker made, amping up people’s concerns and vulnerabilities on a bill that National had no real criticism of. If we read National’s minority report, we see the National members could not get rid of the cant and could not impose any facts into it at all. In fact, the select committee report extends to all of just 2 pages, which demonstrates the simplicity of this bill. The fearmongering that we hear from members opposite should be left at home. It should not have any place in this debating chamber.

This is a worthy amendment. It is a tribute to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. It is legislation that the new Minister, Shane Jones, will be able to administer with considerable ease and in a relaxed frame of mind.

BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga): Let us start on the restricted building work. It was explained in the Social Services Committee that a simple building could be built by a DIY builder. That builder would not have to be licensed and would not need a permit to build that building. It was mentioned in the preamble that a hay barn was listed as a simple type of building. Just to give an example, a hay barn built in Matamata needs footings that are 1,800 millimetres deep because of the high wind loading on the Matamata side of the Kaimais. These are the sorts of mistakes they are making. There should be a simple permit, and at least one inspection for that sort of building. So there is the first mistake. Let us move on to the building of houses. If someone builds a house using the 3604 standards, the house will be built in all timber framing and with timber floor beams. If there are no steel beams, for example, a design engineer is not needed to tick off the plans. The 3604 standards are considered to be simple standards. To meet a simple construction, I asked the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing in the select committee whether a 3604 standard was a simple standard for a simple building, and she said that, yes, it was. She agreed that 3604 was a simple explanation of how to build a house. I am now confused. If those standards are simple, that means a DIY builder can build a house, because it is a simple building. So we have got more damn confusion. This is good news, I think, actually, but however.

This is the problem we get when someone wakes up in the morning with a warm fuzzy feeling and decides to change the rules. Practical people should get together and work out what is going to happen when we change these rules. It appears that the previous Minister did not get good advice from the right people. I say that practical people are the ones we should get advice from.

I am sorry for the new Minister, who will have to sort out this mess. The Labour Government has had four chances at getting the rules sorted out. It looks like there is going to be a mess again. I will give the Labour Government one credit: it is consistent in getting it wrong.

I will now deal with the licensing carpenter section. Why are we doing this? At this stage, only 3 percent of people are DIY builders in New Zealand. In most cases DIY builders do a good job. They read the 3604 standards and they follow the rules. When Australia brought in its licensing rules, the number of DIY builders rose from 3 percent to 30 percent, because the builders dodged joining the licensing system. We will end up with the same result in New Zealand. I thought a carpenter did a trade training course so that he or she would end up as a tradesman carpenter, and effectively end up with a licence to build a house.

Why do we need to make this system more bureaucratic? It will cost carpenters $600 a year minimum, and they also have to do 20 hours of training each year. For example, carpenters did not cause leaky homes, so licensing carpenters will not solve leaky home problems. Forty-five percent of the leaks in leaky homes are around mitre joints and windows. That was not the carpenters’ problem. The type of cladding and timber used was recommended by the Building Industry Authority. That was not the carpenters’ fault. I say it again: licensing builders will not fix the problem.

Ninety percent of the amendments have faults. Let us go back to practical people and sort this mess out. It is very easy to build a house that does not leak. The previous Minister for Building and Construction was attacking carpenter tradesmen. I say to that member that that is rubbish. I say it again: we do not need to license carpenters. I think anybody should be allowed to build a house. What we need is licensed building inspectors. The building inspector should be qualified, or better qualified than any carpenter or builder on the site. Bad inspectors do poor inspections, or, in some cases, no inspections, which is one of the major causes of leaky homes. Let us get some practical rules and let us get rid of all this bureaucratic crap. We are going to end up with a massive bureaucratic problem—

Eric Roy: Oh!

BOB CLARKSON: Who is talking here? I say to that member that I am talking, not him. We were hoping this bill would make it better. The bill also does nothing to improve home affordability. In fact, it will drive up prices. Despite the Government’s argument that the original bill did not restrict DIY, this bill further restricts those who could be considered DIY builders. I go back to our old friend Norman Kirk, who built his own house. He would turn in his grave if he knew what those members over there were doing, that is for sure. I look forward to sorting out this problem with the National Party. Nick Smith and myself will get it all sorted out, and we will change the laws—

Hon Parekura Horomia: You sold all those State houses, Bob!

BOB CLARKSON: I ask that member to keep quiet, because I cannot think. I do not want carpenters to end up lying awake at night, worrying about some new law that is coming in. I think the building industry is going through its darkest hour. There is light at the end of the tunnel.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Engari, i mua i te haere tonu o waku kōrero, e hiahia ana au kia mihi atu ki wā tātou Minita, a Shane nā te mea, ko tēnei tana pire tuatahi i hakauru mai ki roto i te Whare nei. Tua atu i tēnā, ka mihi ahau ki a ia tana taenga atu hei Minita a te Karauna. Nā reira, i hoki mahara tētahi o ngā kōrero mai a aku mātua o te hau kāinga. Nāna te wikitōria engari, kei ngāi tātou te iwi Māori te korōria.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Before I continue with my address, I want to acknowledge our Minister— particularly Shane, as this is his first bill to come into this House. Further to that, I acknowledge his becoming a Minister of the Crown. A saying of my elders back home comes back to me: “The victory is his, but the glory is ours, the Māori people.”]

I have just taken the opportunity to congratulate the new Minister for Building and Construction on his appointment as a Minister of the Crown and his elevation to a member of Cabinet. In extending those greetings and best wishes, I make the comment that is often said by my old people from home when someone achieves: while his is the victory, ours is the glory. Nā reira, e kara e Shane, ngā mihi hoki ki a koe.

[And so to you, Shane, elder figure, greetings indeed.]

The importance of this bill is really for the future quality of building in New Zealand, and whatever opponents or people who speak against the bill say, I think we all must agree that it is intended to improve the quality of construction here in New Zealand. The bill gives recognition to the need to ensure that any work is undertaken by qualified people. I am sure that it is like driving a car—if people do not have the qualifications to drive a car, there is the possibility that an accident or some catastrophe will befall us. I am sure the previous speaker, Bob Clarkson, would agree that we need to ensure there is some quality from those who undertake such work.

As the Minister Shane Jones has already mentioned, this bill clarifies points made in the earlier bill. Although we might be critical of the fact that we have to revisit the concerns that were expressed during the passing of the earlier bill, I think it is important that we do actually address the concerns that have been raised. We in New Zealand First feel that this bill does that. It may not do it to the satisfaction of a number of members in this house, but the important part is that it does do it.

The bill regulates safety and quality in our building construction. Although we would like to have safety and quality for little expense, I want to say that I, as a ratepayer, am prepared to pay extra to ensure that quality and safety. I am mindful of a song that was put out in the late 1960s or early 1970s by a group called Hogsnort Rupert. The song was “Everybody Wants to Go to Heaven, But Nobody Wants to Die”. I allude to the title of that song because everybody wants safety and quality, but nobody wants to pay for it. Unfortunately for those who do not want to pay for it, this bill will ensure that there is quality and a high level of safety ensured in the building and construction area.

I do not have to go on and say too much more about this bill, other than to say that if we do have further concerns, I hope that they will be raised during the select committee stage, and, if those concerns are such, that people will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to ensure further discussion.

So, in concluding this short and brief contribution to this debate, I say that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): The Green Party continues to support this Building Amendment Bill as reported back to the House. We heard a number of submissions at the Social Services Committee from a range of groups including councils, professionals and tradespeople in the building industry, and the proprietors of large dams, all of whom are particularly impacted by this legislation. The bill makes a number of often technical adjustments to the Building Act 2004, particularly around exemptions from needing a building consent in some situations, the safety of dams, and making the accreditation and audit fee system more flexible as part of the establishment of the new product certification scheme.

We were told that in 2006 a large number of stakeholders had been consulted on a confidential basis in the preparation of the bill, including 12 local government bodies, 11 design and practitioner groups, and nine accreditation organisations and other relevant organisations. People from the industry were talked with about how this bill was put together. Since the bill went to select committee I have heard several complaints about a lack of broader consultation, but given the technical nature of the bill and the fact that a number of groups could and did make submissions to the select committee I think we probably did hear a fair representation of views.

Alongside input on the building consent and fees issues already mentioned, we also heard from organisations like the New Zealand Assembly of People with Disabilities and the Human Rights Commission, both of which particularly endorsed the strengthening of project information memorandum requirements. This reinforced the imperative to comply with access provisions right from the early stages of building design, rather than as an add-on at a later stage—even when it is a historic place that is in question. Some local authorities were less than happy with this, as they believe, among other things, that the project information memorandum process should not be a tool to improve accessibility design, and that this new amendment was unnecessary and will add to compliance costs. Given the story that we heard at the select committee from a local disability group in Gisborne, about problems it had had with disability access to its own building—which, because it was a designated historic place, the council decided in the first instance did not even need to meet access regulations—I am glad that the select committee has chosen to stick to its guns in this particular section.

In relation to the changes the bill makes to the way dams are dealt with, the Green Party welcomes the new distinction between small dams and large. It is something that I am sure farmers around the country will be really pleased about. A large dam is now defined as “a dam that retains 3 or more metres depth, and holds 20 000 or more cubic metres volume, of water or other fluid”. The changes being made here will have the effect of ensuring that small dams, which are the vast majority of dams on our farms, cannot be regulated by territorial authorities as buildings and that their owners will not be subject to building consent requirements, thus removing associated compliance costs. The Green Party will continue to support this bill through to its third reading, and commends it to the House accordingly.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Tautoko ana au i ngā mihi o taku whanaunga a Pita Paraone ki tērā o ō tātou whanaunga nō roto i Ngāi Takoto kua tae atu ki roto i te whare o Karaka. Nō reira, mihi atu ki a ia, ā, ki a koe anō hoki e Pita e mihi tuatahi atu ki a ia.

[I endorse the acknowledgments of my relative Pita Paraone to that relative of ours from Ngāi Takoto who has arrived in the Clark household. So greetings to him, and to you as well, Pita, for acknowledging him first.]

I was just standing to tautoko, to support, congratulations from my colleague Mr Pita Paraone to our whanaunga Shane Jones, and to remind everybody in the House whom Shane has not already told that on 30 November in the afternoon at Mahimaru marae all of our whanaungas and Ngāi Takoto will be getting together to give him a good hiding—no, to have a bit of a hākari to honour his elevation to Cabinet!

There are many whakataukī throughout Te Ao Māori that refer to the strength of the whare as a metaphor to this topic under debate—references to the sons of Tāne and references to the trees from the forests of Tāne that provide a strong foundation to withstand all challenges: Ko ngā tama whakatamatama Tāne motu i te nganahau.]

[Sons of Tāne, and trees from the forests of Tāne.]

We would hope that this Building Amendment Bill will ensure that building design and construction will improve the general strength of New Zealand buildings. We remember that this Act came out of a decade of major building faults from 1990 to 2000, and we look to this bill to ensure that regulations are clear and workable. If we look to the 30 public submissions received on the bill, we see that there is pretty strong support for the bill from all the key industry groups. We welcome the terms of the bill to ensure that buildings comply with the disability access provisions of the New Zealand Building Code. We note that the select committee processes added a few technical amendments, fine-tuned the licensing scheme for buildings, and introduced a new whole-of-building concept for significant building projects.

But things are not all sweet, because if we go back to the metaphor of the house and look at the main ridgepole, the tāhuhu, we see other stories that the Social Services Committee did not say much about in its report to the House. These stories include the concerns of the Registered Master Builders Federation of New Zealand that the definitions of “restricted building” are so weak that the building licensing scheme is compromised, and the concern of the New Zealand Society on Large Dams, part of the Institution of Professional Engineers in New Zealand, that the local definitions are out of step with internationally accepted meanings. Federated Farmers in particular are concerned, because some farmers will be caught unnecessarily by the regulations. They will also be up for some rather excessive compliance costs, and it seems that a recommendation they made to change the definitions was ignored, with no explanation given as to why. It makes the whole select committee process a bit of a farce if well-meaning, well-intentioned submissions are ignored, because when a bill comes to the House from a select committee we want our debate to be full, frank, and well informed.

In other areas there was the amendment to schedule 1, which deals with extending building work that is exempt from the requirement to obtain building consents. Some of the submitters, such as Alan Light, registered building surveyor and inspector, said that this bill would impose restrictions on maintenance work, and actually discourage people from undertaking prudent repairs. Rodney District Council also said that extending the definition of building work that is exempt from requiring consents would result in future owners inheriting costly problems. It seems that although both of these theories have merit, neither were given any value in the select committee report, which recommended changes to the amendment to schedule 1 but gave no clear commentary as to any substantive changes or the impact of those changes.

But the bigger problem for us is that this bill will do nothing to address the shoddy state of housing in my electorate—a situation the Minister Shane Jones himself is well aware of. Nor will it do anything to address the neglect and poor state of repair and maintenance of houses in Porirua, which is an issue that has been raised by my party co-leader, Tariana Turia, over the past few weeks. The Building Act of 2004 focuses only on houses built after that time; it does nothing to deal with the massive problems with existing housing that are having such a devastating effect on the health, well-being, and safety of whānau all around the country. The amendments to this bill do nothing to address the state of housing disrepair that too many homes in this country have fallen into. The housing crisis, as the Salvation Army has suggested, is best remedied by creating a New Zealand housing fund to finance affordable housing and affordable homeownership through an annual allocation of up to $1 billion a year for the next 10 years to address the demands for affordable housing. We know that this bill was always limited by not being able to deal properly with existing housing without retrospective provisions to the Act, but we are disappointed that positive solutions from industry groups and other agencies have not been given proper consideration.

The Māori Party will support this bill in support of all those who took the time to present the ideas to the select committee, and we look forward to suggestions by the Minister as to how those solutions can best be dealt with. Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): I rise to speak to the Building Amendment Bill today. The National Party opposes this bill and put a National Party minority view into the report.

The history of the building industry is actually quite interesting, in terms of the number of Acts and the number of Ministers who have held the relevant portfolio in the last 8 years. A quick look at what has happened in the building industry, and at the lack of understanding the Government has about the industry, is quite enlightening.

I should start back in 2002, when we looked at the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill, which was brought in to stop leaky homes. From there, in 2004, the Government brought in the Building Act. That was to improve the workability of building legislation. Then, in 2006, what did we have? We had the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006. And why was that? That was because the Government rushed through the 2002 legislation. It was rushed through, no submissions were heard on it, the Government did not listen to what the people of New Zealand were saying, and, of course, the Government got it slightly wrong.

Then in 2007, this year, what happened? The Government brought in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Bill—

Bob Clarkson: That’s four.

KATRINA SHANKS: That is absolutely right, I say to Bob Clarkson from Tauranga, who is sitting to my left. Why, in 2007, did the Government bring in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Bill? The reason was that the last two pieces of legislation going back to 2002 did not quite cut it. Why was that? Once again, it was because those pieces of legislation were rushed through.

So what happened in this Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Bill? Gosh, there were no submissions, were there? The legislation was rushed through, again. Not only that but the Standing Orders were put on hold, I do believe, because the Government wanted to avoid the legislative process that we have in place. The Government put through Supplementary Order Paper 133, then Supplementary Order Paper 134, which split the bill into two bills. Then what did we have at the end of that? We had a Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill that had not been through the select committee and had no submissions. Is this truly listening to what the industry is saying? Did the industry even understand what these bills were about?

Now, again this year, we have another building bill—another bill that hits this industry. The industry has had so much change already. The bill is the Building Amendment Bill, and that is what we are looking at again. So that is one, two, three, four, five—

Bob Clarkson: Six.

KATRINA SHANKS: The member is right. There have been six bills since 2002 to do with the building industry. No wonder the building industry is frustrated with this Government, and no wonder it does not understand the regulations. The regulations are changed so fast, so quickly, and without consultation.

We can say the Labour Government does not understand the building industry—really, it does not. We should look at Ministers that Labour has had in this portfolio since 1999. They are: Mark Burton, 1999; George Hawkins, 2000; Rick Barker, 2001; Lianne Dalziel, 2002; John Tamihere, 2003; Margaret Wilson, 2004; Chris Carter, 2005; Clayton Cosgrove, 2006; Mark Burton, 2007; and now we have another Minister in 2007. And who would that be? That would be Shane Jones. We have had 11 Ministers working on the building industry since 1999. And how many bills have we had? Eleven Ministers have presided over six bills—

Bob Clarkson: We’ve had more Ministers than bills. That’s good!

KATRINA SHANKS: Bob is absolutely right. We have had more Ministers than bills in this industry. This industry deserves to be taken seriously and to be listened to. If it had been listened to the first time, we would not be repealing and amending these bills like they were going out of fashion.

The Social Services Committee did not have much to do with this bill, actually. A few submitters came forward, but not very many. We asked whether the public were aware that this process was in place, and they were. There was quite a lot of confusion with the submitters in terms of what they thought this bill was doing. It is doing just a few things; it is actually quite a small, technical bill. Basically, it is about making technical changes in order to make the bill more effective—certification of builders, the clearer role of central government, licensing schemes, dam safety, accessibility, the connection to the Australian scheme, exemptions, and LBPs or licensing building practitioners.

The Minister assured the select committee that the bill would not affect DIYers—people who work on their own houses. He said his intention was not to limit DIY people themselves. At the very beginning of this select committee process we heard about “cowboy builders”—unqualified builders who do not produce high-quality houses. How will this bill help homeowners who have had tradesman come in who were not qualified to do the job and who built houses that were not quite adequate? This bill does nothing to protect those people, because they are still considered to be DIYers. There is nothing wrong with DIYers; they build their own homes.

Then a submitter came in who thought the interpretation of the law meant that if someone was going to change the putty in his or her windows, he or she would have to get a consent to do that. So the select committee had quite a big discussion over whether one could change the putty in one’s windows without needing a building consent under this legislation. Then we had another discussion, and it was quite an interesting—

Hon Mark Gosche: You’re putting your members to sleep!

KATRINA SHANKS: Well, the member should have been on the select committee, because these people were quite passionate. The National Party members sitting on that select committee actually listened to the submitters, and that is why we have a minority report in the commentary on the bill. Obviously, those who voted for the bill—the Labour members on the select committee—did not listen, once again.

So how many Ministers have we had? We have had 11 Ministers and seven changes of law since 1999.

Hon Mark Gosche: How long has this member been here—three weeks?

KATRINA SHANKS: I do not think so—a little bit longer than that. Even I know what happens in select committees, and even I know what happens to the building industry when one suspends the Standing Orders, as happened in respect of this legislation.

What did the submitters talk about when they came in? We had the New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors, the New Zealand Institute of Architects, the Rodney District Council, the Certified Builders Association, Meridian Energy, and someone called Alan Light. What was their big concern? Well, they were quite varied in their concerns, but the big thing was really about licensed building practitioners and whether, if people are building their homes and need to be supervised because certain criteria requires it, those licensed building practitioners would then be liable if that building was leaky or faulty and they had signed off on it. So there was big concern and confusion in that industry as to who would be liable if a building was signed off on.

One of the good submissions that came through was from the New Zealand Institute of Architects. The institute had a lot to say about licensed building practitioners, it brought forward really good points that were quite detailed, and it went into clause 63 a lot in respect of whether the Building Act should be amended to recognise that licensed design practitioners and registered or chartered design professionals are separately empowered by their own legislation. That was really interesting, because it was something that had not been raised at all in our discussions in the select committee. It will be interesting to look at this legislation when it comes back into the House again at the next stage, and to have another discussion about it and talk more about some of these submitters.

I say to all those travelling in Auckland who are stuck in their cars and waiting for the traffic to clear a little bit more, and who are expecting to get home at 7 o’clock, that they should listen on, because there is more to come.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to.

Ayes 70

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 51

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland.

Question agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Building Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 70

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 51

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland.

Bill read a second time.

Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a second time. As I said last Thursday, this is actually a very simple bill. The current legislative framework governing spending by parliamentary parties expires on 31 December this year, and this bill extends that expiry date until 30 June 2009. The extension is required because we are unable to reach agreement across parties on a new permanent regime.

It has been interesting to hear some of the arguments put forward by National to oppose this bill—arguments that are unusually weak, even for National. The reality, of course, is that this is one of those bills that National really hopes will pass, even though it will vote against it. The last thing that National really wants to happen is to have no funding for the activities it has been engaged in over the last year or so to be available in 2008. Mr Heatley is smiling wisely, as he knows the truth of that particular reason.

We know for two reasons what National’s real hopes are. The first way we know that National does not really oppose the bill is that the central proposal to extend the expiry date of the current legislation came from National itself. Mr Brownlee actually confirmed this in the House a week ago when he said National was happy for a rollover provided it would lead to a much shorter election period. In other words, as long as we were prepared to allow lots and lots of National Party money to be spent in the last few months before the election—the vast treasure chest that National has available, particularly the money it has available from Macquarie Bank—to purchase public-private partnerships post the election it would be quite happy to have a rollover of the current legislation in relation to parliamentary spending. Perhaps this explains why National sent into the House Bill English, Nick Smith, and Anne Tolley to oppose the bill—because Mr Brownlee could not possibly speak against it, because he knew that National’s position was a quite different one. Perhaps that is why Mr Brownlee has been unable to speak on this issue any more, because it might reveal more of the strategy in that regard.

So we know that National does not really oppose this bill, as the bill does nothing more than implement its own proposal. The second reason, and the much better reason, why we know that National really does not oppose this bill is that it keeps spending the money that comes from Parliamentary Service for communications. National has thrown around some absolutely outrageous claims around the use of parliamentary resources. It has accused other parties of corruption. It has likened New Zealand to some of the worst non-democratic regimes in history. Compared with us, Pakistan is a beacon of light in a democratic world, or at least one would sometimes think that from the speeches we have heard. Despite all of this, National keeps spending parliamentary resources on the very things it says they should not be able to be spent upon.

What is lacking here is some consistency. If it is corrupt to produce material such as John Key’s “10 Budget Pledges”, published in May this year, then where are the calls from Bill English and Gerry Brownlee for John Key to resign? If it is corrupt to produce material such as John Key’s “Join the Conversation” postcards, published this year, then where are the calls from Mr English and Mr Brownlee for John Key to resign? If it is corrupt to produce material such as John Key’s letter to a Wellington community group sent out in June this year, then where are the calls from Bill English and Gerry Brownlee for John Key to resign? We all know that Bill English would really like John Key to resign, but it is simply not credible for National to try to claim some high moral ground while still collecting the lion’s share of parliamentary funding—by far the largest amount goes to National—and spending it on exactly the things it claims it should not be spent upon.

After all, the person who sits opposite, just over there, squawking during every question time, muttering his little “Oh!”s, yelling out, and going completely berserk almost every day, sent out this year on parliamentary letterhead a publication headed Nick Smith MP for Nelson. This sometime deputy leader of the National Party sent out this publication, with the parliamentary crest, outlining why New Zealand needs a new Government. The publication was paid for by the taxpayers, paid for out of Parliamentary Service, paid for out of the communications vote, on Parliamentary Service letterhead, and was from Nick Smith. It is all about tax and bureaucracy, home affordability, Crown environment, and migration.

Then there was what I thought was an extremely bold, bold question from Dr Smith: “Want to meet your MP?”. One wonders what answer came back from the masses in Nelson at that point. Probably not a single person turned up at the Nelson market from 9 a.m. to 12 noon outside Rebel Sport and the pet shop. Probably not a single person went to the Nelson AMP show from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and one doubts whether anyone went to the Nelson electorate office, because the risk was that person might have met Dr Nick Smith spending the money from Parliamentary Service.

Nick Smith comes into this House and sits over there saying it is corrupt to spend money from Parliamentary Service on communications out to the electorate. There is a word for that and it is one of those many, many words in Parliament’s dictionary of words that we cannot use, which is almost bigger in number than the amount of words we can use in Parliament. This is one of those words that describes this particular letter from Dr Nick Smith, as it does, of course, most things that came out from Mr Key.

On the topic of lack of credibility, if there is any person who lacks credibility on this issue, it is Mr English. Mr English does the deepest moral outrage of anybody on the National Party front bench. But it was Mr English, when leader of the National Party, who put out into the public arena in the 2002 election campaign a pledge advertisement carrying the parliamentary crest, paid for out of taxpayers’ money, and on the parliamentary communications vote. It was a pledge advertisement in the newspapers—National Party’s pledge. Do those words “pledge” and “parliamentary spending” ring a bell? The bit that is different is the National Party. That spending was all right at that point, was it not? After all, National was desperately trying to get above 20 percent of the vote, so presumably it was OK. Was it corrupt for Mr English to spend that money in 2002? Will he pay back the taxpayer for that spending in 2002? Or is it the case that previous convictions should not be taken into account in that particular regard? The fact is that National does not follow the same standards as what it says it does in this respect.

This bill grows out of genuine multiparty engagement. I put on record my appreciation for the good faith shown during those negotiations by all parties other than National, which at the end of the day made it quite clear that it wanted to link this to the Electoral Finance Bill, that it could not give away the political advantage, and that it could not actually front up to what it was doing, but that it hopes like hell that the majority holds together to pass this bill so that it can carry on doing next year what it has been doing this year, the year before, the year before that, and every other year that I can remember during my time in this House.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty): It was not until the end of the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech that it became clear that he is absolutely aware of why the National Party opposes the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill, and it is because of its link with the Electoral Finance Bill. At the beginning of his speech Dr Cullen revealed the Government’s true agenda with this legislation and the Electoral Finance Bill. It is all about the suppression of Opposition parties’ ability to talk to other voters in election year. If one couples this bill with the Electoral Finance Bill, then one has a marriage of an onslaught on the taxpayers’ purse to advantage the Labour Party in the run-up to the next election.

One would not have thought from Dr Cullen’s speech that this is the party that stole $800,000 of taxpayers’ money at the last election, a party that knowingly breached the spending limits in the electoral system, and a party that was warned by the Chief Electoral Officer that its pledge card, paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer, would have to be included in election spending. It did not do this, because it knew that it would then have to report a breach of the spending limit. This party is standing on its high horse in other places in this building and saying that parties should not be allowed to spend more than the spending cap in an election period, and that is the party that spent $800,000 more than it was allowed to spend! It stole the 2005 general election, because if it had not spent that $800,000 it would not be the Government today.

So let us not have the Minister of Finance pro tempore coming forward and saying that the National Party is not serious about this bill. He knows that the exact reason why we oppose this legislation is that it is in a marriage of political convenience with the Electoral Finance Bill in order to continue to rort the New Zealand taxpayer and to give the New Zealand Labour Party an advantage at the next election.

Here is how the bill works. It expressly provides for members of Parliament to undertake their efforts and responsibilities as members of Parliament. That is fine. It puts in place rules that are a checklist, a checklist that would allow, for example, a party to distribute a pledge card to all households in New Zealand with that party’s commitments on it. That is allowed under this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. Also allowed under this legislation is a poster that might say that the Labour Party will do x, y, and z. That is allowed under this legislation, and a full page ad stating that only the Labour Party cares for the environment, and paid for by Parliamentary Service, will be allowed under this bill. “So what?”, members may say. “Why is that a problem?” Well, maybe that would not be a problem if it were not done during the 3-month election period. As the Auditor-General and Chief Electoral Officer said, those sorts of adverts during the 3-month election period are electioneering and they must be included in a party’s spending limit.

What happened? The Labour Party members stole $800,000. They did not include that figure in their spending return, and that is appalling. What did the police do? They investigated the case on the last possible day they could possibly investigate it. What that tells us is that this bill allows the pledge card to go ahead, and what makes it worse is that if we marry this bill with the Electoral Finance Bill, we see that those bills provide a blanket exemption for any spending by members of Parliament in their responsibilities as members of Parliament, and that spending does not have to be included as an election expense. It does not have to be included as an election expense. So it just allows Labour to do the pledge card rort again. I hope the Labour Party does the pledge card again, because it will remind New Zealanders of how Labour stole the 2005 election and how it spent $800,000 of taxpayers’ money that it was not allowed to spend.

What is worse, the Chief Electoral Officer told the Labour Party that the pledge card should be incorporated in Labour’s election return, and it did not do it. Labour members did not do it, because they knew it would push them over the limit and it would be an illegal offence. But did the Labour Party members listen to the Chief Electoral Officer? No. They continued to spend taxpayers’ money in excess of the legal limit for any party to spend during an election. If the National Party had had the opportunity to spend $3.2 million on the election as the Labour Party did, the election result would have been very different, and those sad members opposite would not have had the opportunity to inflict themselves on the people of New Zealand for another 3 years. That is why we oppose this legislation.

This legislation has to be seen in concert with the Electoral Finance Bill, because the Electoral Finance Bill will legalise Labour’s pledge card for the 2008 general election. It will legalise Labour putting billboards up and down the country saying Labour will do this and Labour will do that.

Hon Darren Hughes: Who did that?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Labour Party did that at the last election, to the tune of $800,000. What is worse is that the Chief Electoral Officer told the Labour Party that what it was doing would have to be included in its spending return. Labour members must have known that that would push them over the spending limit. David Henry wrote to them 2 or 3 weeks before the last election and warned them that the money spent on the pledge card would have to be considered as part of their spending return, but they carried on and wilfully broke the law by spending over the limit for the election, and they used taxpayers’ money to do it. New Zealanders will not forget how Labour stole the 2005 election by spending $800,000 over the spending limit.

What makes it worse, as Mr Finlayson says, is that Labour was warned 3 weeks before the election that that money would have to be counted in the spending limit, but Labour ignored that advice and wilfully broke the law to try—successfully—to win the 2005 election. We will never let the Labour Party forget that it stole the election by breaking the law wilfully. It was only the fact that the police never got around to investigating in time that meant that senior members in that party were not facing criminal charges before the courts for a breach of the Electoral Act.

The National Party says this bill is very serious when we consider it along with the Electoral Finance Bill. There is no justification for having one rule for spending by members of Parliament and another rule for the rest of the country. Allowing parliamentary funds to be used in this way, as the Government is proposing to do by allowing the legalising of another pledge card, is not only de facto State funding of political parties on a scale we have not seen before but it gives a huge advantage to the Government and to existing members of Parliament, and it makes a mockery of the election spending cap. Under the election rules a political party cannot spend more than $2.4 million on election advertising—except for the Labour Party in the 2005 general election, which spent $3.2 million. That is what Labour did. It knowingly broke the election spending limit to the tune of $800,000.

Under the Electoral Finance Bill, parties in Parliament will be able to use their leaders’ office funding as an additional source for election advertising. It is not outside the 3-month or regulated period that parties in Parliament will be able to spend taxpayers’ money for an election purpose and get away with it; it is right up until election day. That is absolutely appalling, because it is a complete contradiction of what the country expected when the Labour Party was revealed as having broken the law at the last election.

Get this dead right, I say to members—parties were allowed to spend $2.4 million during the 3 months before the last election; Labour spent $3.2 million. Labour spent over a million and a half dollars in the last month of the election. It spent $800,000 knowing that this would count against its spending limit, but it went ahead and did it anyway. That is the reason why the people of New Zealand join with the New Zealand Herald in saying that there is an attack on democracy in this country, and that the attack on democracy comes in the concert of this bill and the Electoral Finance Bill. The people of New Zealand agree with the New Zealand Herald that this Government is attacking democracy in New Zealand, and that will be its failed epitaph.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House): The mock outrage from the National Opposition continues unabated today, just as it did on Thursday. After listening to Tony Ryall’s speech just now, one would not think he was a front-bench member of the 2002 Bill English leadership team, which funded most of National’s election campaign that year off the back of Parliamentary Service funding because it could not get anybody to donate money to National while Bill English was the leader. One would not think that Tony Ryall was a member of the National Party leadership team then. If we listened to him speak just now, we would not think he had ever heard of an organisation called the Exclusive Brethren Church, which cosied up to the National Party during the last election campaign and was involved in a complicated routine of siphoning money to the National Party at electorate level right across the country, peddling its mistruths about Labour and the Greens. If we listened to Tony Ryall just now, we would not think he was a front-bench member of a party that failed to recognise the GST component of its advertising at the last election and therefore gained an unfair advantage in the amount of television and radio advertising it was entitled to at that election.

So let us not get the moral outrage from the National Party. Let us debate the facts about what this bill tries to do for members of Parliament and for our parliamentary democracy. We have to try to engage in a rational attempt to get a proper definition around the issue of what the interim funding measure means. As the Leader of the House has already said to Parliament this afternoon, we know that the National Party does not really oppose extending that definition. We know that, basically, for two reasons. The first is that Gerry Brownlee has already told us, by mistake during question time about a week ago, that the National Party wants to have a roll over of the interim definition of funding for parliamentary purposes. He confirmed that to us. The second reason we know that the National Party is in support of this bill and wants to see it passed is that National members keep spending the money they are allocated as members of Parliament to communicate to their constituents and to the country.

If the National members really thought that spending Parliamentary Service money on communicating with the public was so morally reprehensible—as the outraged Mr Ryall has just shown us, and as Mr English and Dr Smith showed us last week—they would stop spending it right now. If it is so terrible, so Third World, so corrupt, and such a rort, as Dr Smith keeps telling us as he calls out, much to his colleagues’ embarrassment, every question time, they would not be spending the money. They would stop now. There would be no more advertising. The Southland Times would not carry advertisements that tell people where to go to see Eric Roy MP at a constituency clinic, because that would be so corrupt he would put his hand into his own pocket to pay for it himself and would not want to have Parliamentary Service money anywhere around him. But I bet that if I ask the Parliamentary Library for a copy of next week’s Southland Times, there will be a beautiful smiling photo of Mr Roy with the parliamentary crest right by him.

If the National members were so opposed to this measure, they would stop publishing Mr Key’s “10 Budget Pledges”. Of course, members can make a Budget pledge only if they think they will win an election, and they can win an election only if they get votes. So we could argue that by putting those kinds of publications out, members are trying solicit votes, which is outside the rules that Labour and the other parties in Parliament are proposing in this debate. The National members certainly would not be sending out taxpayer-funded pamphlets that invite people to “Join the conversation with John Key.”, which is very like what Hillary Clinton would do in that regard.

We know that National is not opposing this legislation. We have seen that through Nick Smith’s own leaflet that he has put around the Nelson constituency, promoting himself quite heavily. The most revealing part is probably the fact that with every single person whom Nick Smith helps—not being satisfied with the great joys of helping people as the local member of Parliament and of having that as the reward—Nick Smith obviously cannot wait for that person to go and write down how grateful he or she is to him, so he can go and put it out in a pamphlet. That is an ironic kind of twist on public service. There are about 10 quotes in the pamphlet about how wonderful Nick Smith is, then on the back there is the very interesting phrase “Why New Zealand needs a new Government.” I would have thought that that phrase is directly related to a general election, and I would have thought that it directly tries to encourage people to cast their vote in a certain way in order to ensure that that could happen.

Then there is the website address—www.nick4nelson.co.nz. What could “nick4nelson” mean? It presumably asks people to vote for Nick Smith to be their member of Parliament in that area.

Hon Mark Gosche: I wonder what the New Zealand Herald thinks about that.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: I wonder what the New Zealand Herald would think if it received that pamphlet. I will be charitable and assume that Nelson is outside the catchment zone of the New Zealand Herald and that it has not seen this outrage.

Hon Mark Gosche: It should have a front-page story on it.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: A front-page story about Nick Smith? I think we will spare the country that, I say to Mr Gosche, although I am sure that the Hon Maryan Street will be working hard to draw Nick Smith’s failings to the attention of the public. But the thing that is revealing—there we have it—is the use of the House of Representatives crest on Nick Smith’s leaflet, which he has put out in his electorate of Nelson and which is funded by the taxpayer.

I wonder whether we will hear any National MP who is publicising himself or herself and who is explaining the work he or she is doing in a constituency get up in this debate and say he or she is outraged by the definition of what “communications” means. Parliament has operated under that definition for decades. I wonder whether any National MP is so outraged by that definition that he or she will not publish anything next year—election year—that is funded by the taxpayer, if it is in terms of communications, and that the MP will fund it all himself or herself or through his or her own fund-raising, so strong is the member’s principle on this issue. I guarantee we will not hear a single speaker from the National Party side say that, which is why we in the Labour Party and in other parties in Parliament believe that we are just seeing the National members playing very petty politics.

If the National members were concerned about this issue, then they would give us arguments about whether the extension was too long or too short. They would tell us what the reasonable, rational opposition to the bill would be and what they propose in order to see a different interim definition come along out of this legislation. They would engage with us on the substance of it. But they want to talk about everything apart from the interim definition for parliamentary purposes of communicating with the public. They do not want to talk about that; they want to run the line that this funding will be used by parliamentary parties to pay for their electioneering material. That is not true. If any member on the opposite side of the House were to read clause 3 of this bill, he or she would see that it specifically prohibits that taking place. When National MPs claim that the bill will provide for electioneering, they are simply misleading the public. This bill continues the clear legislative prohibition on using parliamentary funds for electioneering. That legislative prohibition did not actually exist until Parliament passed a law on it last year. Who voted against it? National voted against it when it had the chance last year, as well.

Although the National members claim that this bill somehow changes the rules on what MPs can spend their resources on, they know it does not. Until October last year, it was the understanding of all MPs that we could communicate with our constituents on policy, as long as we did not explicitly solicit votes. The evidence that that understanding was universal can be seen from Bill English’s 2002 pledge pamphlets and from John Key’s 2007 Budget pledges. When that understanding was thrown into confusion last year, the House had to legislate in order to make it clear that the rules under which we had always worked would be the ones we would continue to follow. All that this bill does is to continue those clear rules for another 18 months. That is why National members want to avoid talking about the substance of the bill. They know they actually cannot oppose it. Their every activity every week in Parliament reinforces their need for this legislation.

Another thing the National members want to talk about is the idea that this bill will somehow give an unfair advantage to MPs to be able to spend money on electioneering that other candidates will not be able to spend. That is untrue as well, because the Electoral Act 1993, which was passed by a National Government—indeed, I think Mr Ryall had a lot to with that at the time—provides quite clearly that any activity undertaken in a member’s capacity as a member of Parliament does not count towards election spending, provided it does not solicit votes.

Although National tries to avoid talking about the bill, we are actually happy to talk about what it does. It provides clear rules under which MPs can carry out their obligations to communicate with their constituents. National MPs may not take that obligation very seriously, but MPs from across many parties in this House do take it seriously. In fact, it is one of the fundamental elements that have become lost in this debate. As MPs, we are obliged to communicate with those whom we have been elected to represent. We are obliged to inform them of our views, of the policy positions we are adopting, and of the legislative issues we are grappling with. To fail to communicate with one’s constituents is to fail to serve as their representative.

The bill is a simple one. It extends the expiry date of the interim meaning of funding for parliamentary purposes from 31 December this year to 30 June 2009. In doing so, it provides clear, transparent, and fair rules so that all MPs can do their job—nothing else. That is why this bill deserves the consideration of the House. I hope the National Party can do so without the mock moral outrage we have been subjected to so far.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): The Minister is not going to get mock moral outrage from me. The Minister does not want high moral outrage; he wants a rational debate, although I did not see much evidence of his participating in that this afternoon. I will give him a rational debate this afternoon. I am going quietly to analyse the facts. This is not a debate about the Exclusive Brethren. It is not a debate about National’s award-winning billboards, which we paid for by ourselves. It is all about Labour’s laying the foundations for another display of pledge card rorts in 2008.

Let us recap; let us look at the history of the pledge card in 2005. It was a disgraceful episode in New Zealand’s democracy. Labour—knowing what the rules were and knowing what the spirit of the rules was—shamelessly ignored the rules, prepared the pledge card with the airbrushed photo of the Prime Minister, and distributed it throughout New Zealand. It did so at the expense of the taxpayer. The Chief Electoral Officer warned the Labour Party. He wrote to the Labour Party and to Mike Smith, its general secretary, and told them about the risks of incurring that kind of expense. Mr Smith then wrote back to the Chief Electoral Officer before the 2005 election—I think it was in early September—and made it quite clear that Labour would include the expenditure of the pledge card in its return of expenses. But then, surprisingly, after the election—like Paul on the road to Damascus—Mr Smith had some kind of sudden conversion. Essentially, he wrote to the Chief Electoral Officer, withdrew his offer, and told the Chief Electoral Officer to go to see a taxidermist.

A complaint was made to the police, which the police failed to investigate. The Auditor-General was then brought in on the act. He wrote a very comprehensive report that made it quite clear that that kind of expenditure was unauthorised and that, in fact, the Labour Party had overspent by $800,000. Then last year there was rushed legislation to validate that spending to get this Government off the hook. Admittedly, the Government paid back the $800,000, but one thing it did not pay was interest.

It is a great shame that the Supplementary Order Paper I put forward to the predecessor of this legislation last year did not pass. It is very interesting that if someone is pursued by the Inland Revenue Department, for example, for taxes that have not been paid on time, then a miscreant will have to pay large sums of default interest. But this lousy Labour Party had to pay back only the principal, because it ensured that there was no legislation to deal with the payment of interest.

The Minister of Statistics wants a rational debate about the facts. Those are the facts that need to be addressed—that with this legislation we have a continuation of this disgraceful assault on New Zealand’s democracy. This is not the fruit of genuine cross-party arrangements. This Government does not know what genuine cross-party arrangements are. This Government consults only to the extent that it is necessary to secure its majority, and then it steamrollers legislation through, including legislation of a quasi-constitutional character like this legislation. The phrase “genuine cross-party negotiations” contains two key descriptors. First, the consultation must be genuine, not sham. Secondly, there has to be proper cross-party negotiation. But we in the National Party find that this Government freezes us out of every kind of discussion, as long as the Government has its majority.

This bill is not the product of genuine cross-party negotiation. It is being steamrollered through by a Government that has cobbled together the smallest possible majority, and it is being cobbled together to ensure that it is passed into law to allow a 2008 version of the pledge card to go ahead. This bill permits unlimited advertising by members of Parliament, but what is worse than last election year, it goes hand in hand with the Electoral Finance Bill, which will impose huge constraints on the free speech of the public and will constrain what political parties can do in the context of a campaign. This is legislation that promotes incumbency, that protects a Government and discriminates against Opposition parties and those who seek to become involved in the political process outside this place. It has to be seen in the context of the Electoral Finance Bill, and to do otherwise is to turn a Nelsonian eye to reality.

They are the facts. What I will do now is to look closely at the phrase “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes”, as Mr Hughes asked me to, because the rules are not clear. The rules are very general and very elastic. It can be seen when one looks at clause 3(1)(a), for example, which states that parliamentary funding may be used for “the performance by a member of Parliament of his or her role and functions as a member of Parliament:”. No one is denying that from time to time, as Mr Hughes said, a diligent member of Parliament will want to communicate with his or her constituents, or with people within a district if it is a list MP, over issues of the moment—for example, to send out a survey to inquire about the response of the public to a particular issue, of whatever kind. That is genuine communication and that is necessary communication if a member of Parliament is to do his or her job properly. But it is not necessary communication to publish a pledge card using the parliamentary crest. That is not a fundamental task necessary for the performance by a member of Parliament of his or her role and functions as a member of Parliament. That is stretching the rules, that is driving a horse and buggy through the rules, and it is unacceptable and inappropriate.

The same thing applies when one looks at clause 3(1)(b): “the performance by a recognised party … of its roles and functions as a recognised party:”. People who are genuine and honest know what those rules are and will act according to them, but the language that has been used is so vague and elastic that it allows other parties that perhaps do not like living according to the rules to get away with it. Members should look at clause 3(2), which is extremely unsatisfactory. It defines “electioneering” as “any communication that explicitly” does one or more of four things. But the phrase really should be “directly or indirectly” seeks, for example, support for the election of a particular person, persons, or party. The word “explicitly” enables members of Parliament who do not want to obey rules to avoid the rules, and it enables parties that do not want to face up to their responsibilities to avoid the rules. So this legislation is wholly unsatisfactory.

I would say in closing that this a particularly bad way to legislate, because it seeks to extend the lifetime of legislation that is due to expire on 31 December 2007. I have a feeling we were told last year that there would be an opportunity this year to have a comprehensive review of the law, but that has not happened. In the usual slapdash and rushed way, we have another bill with a sunset clause seeking expiry on 30 June 2009. This is most unfortunate. National cannot and will not support this shabby legislation.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I have to say that that was an interesting speech, but it almost totally contravenes what National members on the Parliamentary Service Commission have said in terms of this sort of ruling. Some 5 years ago, just after the 2002 election, members of the Parliamentary Service Commission sat down together. There were two National members on the commission: Gerry Brownlee was one and John Carter was another, if I recall correctly.

We discussed the Speaker’s directions as they appertained to MPs going into the 3-month period before an election, which is what is currently in the legislation. It was agreed that electioneering embraced members going out and asking for a vote, embraced members going out and asking for financial assistance, and embraced members going out and seeking support in many ways. That is reflected in this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill.

It was also agreed that any literature that the member or the party put out that was paid for by the member, by the party from the party leader’s fund, or by the individual’s fund would have displayed on the back, or somewhere prominent, the parliamentary crest, in order to show that it had been paid for by taxpayers’ money. It would also include contact numbers.

The Auditor-General came up with a report in June 2005, in which he intimated that there could be some concerns about the methodology, if you like, that had been adopted. Obviously, I cannot read out the whole report, but he made some relevant points. One of them was when he spoke about MMP: “The nature of MMP politics also makes it essential for parties to differentiate themselves from each other, both in Parliament and when in government, and visibly to take ownership of particular policies and initiatives.” One could conclude from that statement that it is OK for MPs to go out and tell the public at large what they stand for.

The Auditor-General went on to state in another part of the report: “The autonomy of Ministers and MPs in their relationship with the public must be preserved. Ministers and MPs are elected officers, not employees. They have a right to freely interact with the public as their elected representatives, without restriction.” Those are the Auditor-General’s words in his June report.

Further, he went on to state, under the heading “Complementary rules and standards should apply”: “Each set of rules and standards should”—and this is one of the bullet points—“identify clear and workable procedures for the approval of publicity before publication takes place;”. There were a number of other points, but the points I have read out are very, very relevant.

When it came to the 2005 election, New Zealand First went along to the Parliamentary Service and asked for approval to publish the document Your choice for change. The document outlines what the Auditor-General in his June report said was allowed. That is all it does. It does not ask for a vote, it does not ask for members, and it does not ask for money. It has the crest on it and it has the contact numbers. Not only did we go to the Parliamentary Service but we went to the Chief Electoral Officer, and he approved the document.

Rodney Hide: We did the same.

PETER BROWN: ACT’s Rodney Hide has just said that he did the same. I know United Future did the same. But the Auditor-General came along and said that it was all wrong. We went to the referees and they said we had complied with the rules as written, and as understood in the Speaker’s directions, but the Auditor-General said that it was all wrong.

As a result, New Zealand First has a bill for some $159,000 or thereabouts. We are still using this brochure. We used it before the 3-month period of the last election, we used it during the 3-month period of the last election, and we are using it now—and it complies with the rules now.

The Speaker’s directions have been formulated in the last year or so. The MPs sitting on the Parliamentary Service Commission who have worked long and extensive hours reading, debating, and getting rules in place, would agree to the man and the woman that what is in this document complies with the rules. The document complies with the rules now, it complied with the Speaker’s directions in 2005, and it would have complied with the rules had it been in existence in 2002, 1999, 1996, and going back before that. But the Auditor-General said that it does not comply.

This bill strengthens the Speaker’s directions in this regard and that is why we need it. We need this bill to protect us from the Auditor-General’s wisdom. That might be a tough call. I see Rodney Hide there frowning. [Interruption] I think Parliamentary Service would agree with us.

R Doug Woolerton: They would?

PETER BROWN: Yes, it would agree with us that we got it right. Parliamentary Service approved the document before, and it would approve it—I am almost certain—again now, under the current rules. The current rules, the Speaker’s directions, are set out so that members can follow them bullet point by bullet point. This brochure would get a clean tick-off, yet it is going to cost our party, in large measure, $159,000. I say “in large measure” because I admit there were probably a few things—a few, relatively minor things—that did not get ticked off and did not comply. We recognise that we should be upfront about them. They have not been investigated as thoroughly as this brochure, so I am not in a position to say categorically that we have offended the rules or broken the rules. I am suggesting that some of the material we produced may have done, but in large measure it was this brochure that was deemed to be the offending document.

We need this legislation. The Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill is meant to come to an end—the sunset clause states—in, I think, December this year, but we have not been able to replace it adequately with suitable legislation. This bill fits. This afternoon we are rolling the legislation over until after the next election, to a period of time when the heat will be taken out of this whole issue and we—or the new MPs who might be around the table after the next election—can sit and work out what rules are needed to govern MPs during an election process.

This bill is only three pages long. There is nothing sinister in it whatsoever. It is as clear as day what MPs can spend their taxpayer entitlements on, and it is very simple and straightforward. For people to go out and tell the public that there is some underhand trickery behind this bill—

R Doug Woolerton: Outrageous!

PETER BROWN: —is, as my colleague has just said, outrageous. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill all the way.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Every year on 9 August the International Day of the World’s Indigenous People is celebrated. It is a day that provides the world with an opportunity to focus on indigenous peoples—to address the issues of exclusion, discrimination, poverty, and marginalisation that are still very much part of the daily reality for many indigenous peoples.

This year 9 August was marked by another significant event, referred to as “credit-crunch Thursday”, which is the day the world banking community took fright. It was a day when, simply, all international banks, on the brink of a complete financial meltdown, stopped lending to each other. So here we are, just 3 months later, throwing caution to the wind and allowing the liberal use of taxpayer funds for political party spending. The Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill extends the interim, and narrow, definition of electioneering in order to validate the range of spending allowed under the auspices of taxpayer funding.

So where does 9 August fit in the greater scale of things? How does the credit crisis, the disparate economic outlook of Māori New Zealanders, feature within the argument over election funding? The answer is nowhere. And this is one of the most serious issues we have regarding the funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes. The payment of funding entitlements does not occur in a vacuum, so when we look at the context of estimated spending for this appropriation bill, we cannot ignore other realities, such as the fact that bankruptcy levels in New Zealand are now at an all-time record high. New Zealand households now owe some $78 billion—a $5 billion increase in this financial year.

Having established that this appropriation bill has nothing to do with financial reality, it only remains to be seen what the funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes really stand for. In this bill, the provision will apply to the close of 30 June 2009 for funding to be used by the performance of individual members of Parliament or political parties in meeting their roles and functions. We in the Māori Party have supported the pursuit of tikanga, such as accountability, transparency, and integrity, in association with the funding of political parties and election campaigns. But this is where the challenge of this legislation is so apparent, because of course its origins are anything but in line with tikanga. Its origins are based firmly and squarely in legislation that invalidated the invalid spending for purposes deemed improper by the Auditor-General after the 2005 elections. We know that the confidence and trust of te iwi Māori is essential towards enhancing democratic political participation.

The question we must ask is: when we look at this bill, what is the record of honesty that we know of the parties sponsoring this bill? Can we really trust any party that can support retrospective legislation to condone past illegalities? Can we trust any party that can call for strict rules of sub judice to be applied in debates in this Chamber but then go outside and suddenly, it is open season on matters before the court? Integrity and honesty are hardly the image, however, that we associate with parties that have variously interpreted the rules regarding the broadcasting spend or parliamentary funding to serve their own needs. There is no way to entertain corruption, illegalities, invalid spending, or abuse of power in the running of democracy.

And so we look towards this bill, as with any bill, to ascertain how it can guarantee the active exercise of responsibility. If one was to believe yesterday’s editorial on the front page of the New Zealand Herald, that active exercise of responsibility being debated in this bill is being potentially undermined by backroom deals being struck by Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First in the secret election spending laws being dreamt up outside of this Chamber. So while all other political parties are being lulled into a false sense of innocence that basically this bill is nothing more than a temporary stop-gap to continue interim definitions of funding for parliamentary purposes, some other players are merrily reforming electoral spending laws. What presumably is going on behind closed doors is laws to favour the political parties that are putting the bill together. And this, hilariously, is supposed to be a bill about how to enhance participation in the democratic process!

In the interest of supporting transparency, good governance, and ethical practices in our Parliament, we in the Māori Party want to share four important concepts that could be helpful in the legislative process. The concepts that we believe complement transparency are: rangatiratanga, which is chieftainship or leadership; kaitiakitanga, which is sustainability and protection of taonga; kotahitanga, which is unity of purpose; and manaakitanga, which is mana enhancement. We believe that these four concepts are central to the pursuit of a healthy political democracy.

The bill before the House today is merely an exercise to adjust the time frame that was due to expire on 31 December 2007. But, although this bill is just to stretch out the time boundaries, at the same time the Electoral Finance Bill is spinning along regardless. The question that we are, of course, curious to know the answer to is whether the Justice and Electoral Committee will keep to the original time frame anticipated for the Electoral Finance Bill of reporting back by 25 January 2008, or whether, miraculously, there will suddenly be sufficient agreement behind closed doors for the process to be sped up before Parliament breaks up this year.

We return again to the central concept of democracy and enhanced political participation. Remembering that this appropriation bill is based on the premise set up by the Auditor-General, Kevin Brady, that there needed to be fairness in matters of parliamentary expenditure, we cannot help but be influenced by the power of messages put forward from groups, such as the Law Society or the Human Rights Commission, regarding electoral law reform. The Law Society stated in its submission on the Electoral Finance Bill that it would “make participation in our parliamentary democracy an arduous and perhaps even legally dangerous undertaking for ordinary New Zealanders,”. The Human Rights Commission has famously described the restrictions on election activity as a “dramatic assault” on the fundamental rights “which undermines the legitimacy of political processes”.

Just as the Government could carelessly, callously disregard the priorities and world views of indigenous peoples by voting against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it would appear that it is also seemingly oblivious to the fact that democracy is generally considered to be about sanctioning a system of decision-making processes that promote free and equal rights of participation—not three parties in; all other parties out.

It is perhaps useful to conclude with the wisdom of Aristotle, who said: “If liberty and quality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the Government to the utmost.” It is because these factors are not found on this legislation that the Māori Party has no alternative but to vote in protest against the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): Parliament, the media, and the public are caught up in a phoney debate about democracy and fairness. The media and some MPs have exploited the public’s general hatred of MPs to argue that any money we spend at all doing our jobs as MPs is electioneering and should not be allowed. I know I have been told that I should not fly to Wellington and that I should catch the train—never mind that it would take 24 hours to get here and 24 hours to get home again. There are members of the public who think that every penny that an MP spends is money ill spent, and, therefore, they are hostile whenever the subject comes up. At the same time, we have an argument that is raging publicly about so-called freedom of speech under the electoral finance legislation. Certainly, when we look at the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill as introduced, we see that there is some reason for concern around that.

But what is really behind this phoney debate is the old and important issue of whether democracy is about one person, one vote or one dollar, one vote. We know that unlimited money to spend on election campaigns tends to win those campaigns. It is not that people are too stupid to see through saturation advertising; it is more that saturation crowds out those messages that are infrequent because they are not so well funded. In particular, attack campaigns can sow doubt in voters’ minds, which those who are being attacked have no money or time to counter. This is why we have laws putting a cap on election expenditure. These were circumvented last election by wealthy third parties campaigning on behalf of political parties, but that expenditure was not caught in the spending cap rules. That is why we now have the Electoral Finance Bill, which this debate is not about but which is part of the overall picture that I am describing.

That is the context in which we now have a debate about how parliamentary parties should spend their parliamentary funding, which is voted to them to enable them to do their parliamentary work but is not supposed to be used for electioneering. This bill rolls over the current legal definitions of what is parliamentary work and what is electioneering. The nub of the issue is what it is that MPs are elected to Parliament to do, and what is legitimate use of publicity and advertising to do that job.

In my view, we are elected to represent a policy programme on behalf of our constituents—a set of ideas that the public has voted for. We are elected to communicate with the public—with those who put us here to represent them. We are elected to have the policy debate in here, and to explain and argue those policies, both in here and out amongst the public. The Auditor-General agreed when he reviewed our spending after the last election that it was part of our parliamentary purpose to communicate policies to the public, yet he knocked out virtually every action we had taken to do that during the campaign period. It left us with massive uncertainty.

The Auditor-General’s rulings were hugely inconsistent. He would say on the one hand that the principle of doing something was fine. Then, on the other hand, he would look at what we had done, which came within those rules, and say no, it was not fine. I spent hours and days studying what he did and I could not follow it. I gather that just about everybody else was in the same situation. It was a Kafkaesque kind of situation, where we were being prosecuted under rules that had been determined arbitrarily, that were internally inconsistent, and where we did not even know the rules under which we were being prosecuted. So when the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act was passed last year there was a sigh of relief that it provided some clarity and certainty. It was not so much whether the rules it came up with were right but rather that they gave us some certainty.

I find, as the person responsible for the leader’s budget for the Greens, that it is a huge burden to determine what I can and cannot legitimately spend money on if there are no rules or if the rules keep changing on me. So that legislation was a relief. It gave us the certainty to do our jobs. It defines electioneering, and it defines parliamentary purposes. In our view, the definitions of parliamentary purposes are a bit too wide. Electioneering is defined only as a person or party asking people for their votes or their money. There are lots of ways of electioneering that do not actually use those words. In my view, we needed to sit down with all parties to draw up some slightly tighter rules that we could have now been legislating into force. But the National Party would not play.

Short of having agreement across this House by all parties as to how to clarify the rules further, Parliament is now left with no option but to continue the current rules. They are not, in my view, entirely satisfactory but we cannot go back to the situation we had last time where there was huge inconsistency between what we could use our staff, our telephones, and our travel for, and what we could use our advertising budget for, and where only part of the leader’s budget was ever looked at by the Auditor-General—where the rules were completely and totally unclear. I believe we have no option but to extend the existing legislation through the next election period, so we know where we stand.

The one thing that can clarify the situation further for us is the use of Speakers’ rulings. In fact, the legislation makes it clear that Speakers’ rulings have, effectively, the force of law as a result of this legislation. We have asked the Speaker for clarification about websites, for example, that are shared between the party and the parliamentary office. We look forward to her bringing down some rulings on that. There are other issues too. We do take some comfort in the fact that it is possible now to submit advertising to the Speaker’s office and get a ruling, before we publish it, as to whether it is deemed to be within the rules. I would very much encourage the Speaker to bring down further rulings at the request of any party that wants greater clarification so that we know where we stand and any loopholes remaining in the law as it is written now are closed.

This legislation will get us through the next election, despite the clamour from some members of the House who nevertheless are quite happy to spend their parliamentary appropriations fully when they get them. But I do not think this will get us through in the long term. What we need is a thorough scrutiny of both the Electoral Finance Act, as it will be, and the Parliamentary Service rules by the people of New Zealand. It is not good enough to send this off to some specially chosen commission that will come up with the answers it is asked to come up with. We need a process that is trusted by the people of New Zealand because it is representative of the people of New Zealand.

The Greens are strongly promoting and recommending the process that I have seen used in Canada recently, called a Citizens Assembly, where a person is chosen at random, off the electoral roll, from each electorate to form the assembly. That would give us some 69 people. We screen it for people who are not of sound mind, or a few things like that. We bring members of the assembly together regularly over a period of several months, and have staff to do investigations, and they study the questions that are put in front of them. They come up, in the end, with recommendations to Parliament. The Ontario Citizens Assembly did a brilliant job of looking at the electoral system. It was led by a judge who chaired the process. It was fair and democratic. The assembly did its homework really thoroughly, and came up with a considered view of how democracy should proceed. I strongly recommend that process to this House.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): The ACT party rises reluctantly to support this bill. We are reluctant to support it because I do not think anyone in this House finds the present rules satisfactory. We did not vote for this bill originally because our view then was that it was an attempt to legalise spending retrospectively that the Auditor-General had found to be outside the rules. It is now the case that every party has committed to paying back that money. Certainly New Zealand First will pay it back, once it has collected all the interest that it can gather.

The difficulty I have with this bill is that we have not yet fixed the rules. I do not know how any party in this House can, in good conscience, vote against it. The situation is that the Auditor-General said that the rules we were operating under were not good enough. In fact, I think he said that he would freeze our funding if we did not work to fix up the rules. I have to congratulate Speaker Margaret Wilson, who has been working assiduously with the Parliamentary Service Commission to try to come up with a decent set of rules that are workable and that get the big tick from the Auditor-General. I have to say that there have been some parties, and I am thinking of National in particular, that want to keep the rules as they were in 2005. That has been the big constraint in getting a decent set of rules through with the Speaker.

If we do not accept that there was a problem, and the problem is that the Auditor-General said there was a problem, then it is very hard to set about fixing it. The National Party’s position has been “Oh, we just want to stay with the rules as they were.” Well, sorry, the Auditor-General’s report ruled that out of court.

We then had a situation where we were to come up with new legislation. It was actually the National Party that suggested it be rolled over. I can remember National members approaching me and asking me whether I would be comfortable with this bill, which I originally opposed, being rolled over. The idea was that they would roll it over until we had seen what the Electoral Finance Bill would do. My position then was that I was trying to get a decent set of rules for everyone. We failed to do that. So our situation is that unless we pass this bill we cannot be funded into next year unless we stick with the old rules. If we stick with the old rules, there is no doubt about it that the Auditor-General will ping us and probably freeze our funding. I do not know how we are supposed to operate as MPs. It seems to me that it is unfortunate, because it would be nice to have had a proper set of rules, ideally with bulk funding, proper transparency, and some accountability, with clear rules about what to do in the election period. But sadly that was not the case.

I ask those parties that are voting against this bill to reflect on this: what rules are going to apply to their spending from now until next year’s election? It seems to me that if they vote against this bill, they are saying they are happy to operate under the rules that the Auditor-General slammed. It is not only that the Auditor-General slammed the rules but also that those of us who followed the rules, who got it all certified and ticked off that we were within the rules, got pinged. It seems to me that the ACT party reluctantly has no option but to support this bill. It is a second-best option. We have worked assiduously with the other parties to try to come up with a decent set of rules. Unfortunately, agreement has not been achieved around this Parliament. I make the point that it was the National Party that suggested we roll this bill over, until the Electoral Finance Bill is passed. It was the National Party’s suggestion, so I do not want to hear any criticism from those members. Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 53

New Zealand National 48; Māori Party 4; Independent: Copeland.

Bill read a second time.

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

Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon MARYAN STREET (Associate Minister for Tertiary Education) on behalf of the Minister for Tertiary Education: I move, That the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The bill as reported back now includes a number of important changes, and I commend the Education and Science Committee for the thoroughness and efficiency with which it has considered this bill. I agree with and support the changes it has suggested, and I believe that these will improve the bill.

A high-performing tertiary education sector is critical to the future of our country. This bill implements the Government’s reforms of the system for planning, funding, and monitoring the provision of tertiary education. It puts mechanisms in place to ensure that the Government can have confidence that the tertiary education system is making a valuable contribution to the social, economic, and environmental interests of New Zealand.

One of the main components of the bill is the establishment of a streamlined set of steering instruments. This will significantly reduce compliance costs for tertiary education organisations, and will also reduce the administrative workload on the Minister and the Tertiary Education Commission. The Minister will publish a single tertiary education strategy that sets out the long-term strategy and the current to medium term priorities for tertiary education. This will replace the current strategy and statement of tertiary education priorities. The Minister will also determine the design of funding mechanisms, and will specify the total amount of funding available to organisations.

The Tertiary Education Commission will publish guidance on how organisations in different parts of the sector can give effect to Government priorities in a single plan that will replace the current system of charters and profiles. Tertiary education organisations will be required to prepare their plans in consultation with their stakeholders. The commission will approve those parts of the plan for which Government funding is sought, with a focus on investing in priority areas identified at both national and local levels. These arrangements simplify the lines of accountability between organisations and central government.

It is important to note first that, in general, submitters supported the aims of the bill and of the reforms. In particular, they supported the move to a more streamlined system, a more strategic focus, and the stronger emphasis on stakeholder involvement.

The Education and Science Committee has recommended several changes in response to concerns that were raised. The committee has recommended that academic freedom now be made explicit in the purpose statement of the bill.

Dr Paul Hutchison: It took a lot; it had to be dragged into the bill.

Hon MARYAN STREET: Although, of course, it was never the intention of the bill to compromise academic freedom, as a former academic I understand the importance of restating this principle.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Yeah, right!

Hon MARYAN STREET: The amendments set out in the bill are all subject to sections 160 and 161 of the Education Act 1989. However, this was worth clarifying and I support the change. Some of the members opposite are querying my interest in and knowledge of this sector, and I just remind them that I spent 9 years as an academic in the tertiary sector and have followed these reforms with great interest.

All along, the bill has given the Tertiary Education Commission power of approval only over those programmes and activities for which organisations are seeking Government funding. Programmes or activities funded entirely by philanthropy and/or private sources will not be subject to approval by the commission. The select committee has recommended changes to the bill to make this explicit and clear, in response to concerns expressed by submitters. Tertiary education organisations will identify what “stakeholder” means in their particular contexts. They will consult relevant stakeholders, and show how they intend to meet stakeholder needs in their plans. The Tertiary Education Commission will take into account whether the needs of stakeholders have been adequately considered and addressed in an organisation’s plan when determining funding.

The bill as reported back by the select committee now gives public tertiary institution councils the functional role of undertaking long-term planning. This addresses the concerns of some submitters that in streamlining charters and profiles into plans, the ability of organisations to plan for the long term could be compromised. So let us be clear about what these changes mean for the tertiary education system and for the country. These reforms aim to make this key national asset deliver real benefits for New Zealand and New Zealanders. They aim to encourage excellence by rewarding quality, and this is quite a shift from a funding system based on quantity. The funding system needs to change so that tertiary education organisations can shift their focus from participation and funding to achievement and the long-term needs of stakeholders.

Government expenditure will no longer be driven by demand but will be set as a 3-year funding path that takes account of inflation pressures, expected demographic change, student demand, and competing priorities within and outside the education sector. The new investment-based approach will expect and reward high performance. Along with greater funding and planning certainty, there will be greater responsibility on organisations to deliver the outcomes the Government is seeking. The new system will be based on high accountability, high trust, and low compliance.

The reforms set out with greater clarity what the Government expects of tertiary education organisations. The Government will define national priorities, and organisations themselves will determine regional and local needs in consultation with stakeholders, which may include businesses, local bodies, communities, and iwi, among others. The system will recognise the key strengths of, and the differences between, tertiary education organisations. This is to ensure a diversity of education provision, develop a critical mass and expertise, assist decision making, and minimise undesirable duplication. This will allow organisations to work together in ways that complement each other’s contributions.

I commend the select committee again for contributing to the smooth passage of the bill. This has helped to ensure that the necessary legal framework is in place to allow these changes to take place from 1 January 2008. The Tertiary Education Commission has been working closely with the sector to ensure that it is ready for the change. The Government has made new funding available to ensure that tertiary education organisations are able to make the necessary shifts. I am sure that organisations will be relieved to move away from competing with each other in order to attract students and Government funding. That is a very significant difference from the past. In my time as an academic in the 1990s, teaching industrial relations, labour history, organisation and management, and things of that sort, the competition the university was forced into because of the funding regime at that time did nothing to enhance the education outcomes, and these changes will now allow commitment to excellence, which has always existed in our tertiary institutions, to be the primary driver.

The bill is good for the tertiary sector. It clarifies the powers of the Tertiary Education Commission, and it provides for collaborative long-term planning. It is good for taxpayers, in ensuring value for money on our investment in education, and it is good for New Zealand, by cementing the reforms that create a quality tertiary education system relevant to New Zealand and to the current and future needs of our society. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): I rise to speak on the so-called Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill. This really would be an important bill but, sadly, because of its huge myriad of defects, we are not going to support it. Tertiary education is pivotal to New Zealand’s future economic growth and productivity, which is something that has been sadly lacking under the last 7 years of the Labour Government. I must say that the select committee process did work well, and it was just as well that it did, because the initial draft of this bill demonstrated just how out of touch this tired old Labour Government had become. The vice-chancellors of New Zealand said in their submission that “none of the world’s leading universities are subject to the degree of control proposed in this bill.” [Interruption] Would the member like me to say it again?

Hon Maurice Williamson: Does this include “Vice-Chancellor” Steve Maharey?

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: No, no—he was not there at the time. He was opposing it.

The vice-chancellors went on: “In no other Western democracy has a state sought the degree of control over a university’s teaching and research.” When I asked Dr Cullen in this House about this loss of academic freedom and autonomy, he said: “No, I’ve been an academic for 40 years.”, and he indicated that the vice-chancellors were being overdramatic, and that in fact he and his academic colleagues on the Labour front bench knew better. I bet that the vice-chancellors of New Zealand have been getting at Dr Cullen in the last few months, and not only the vice-chancellors but also the New Zealand Law Society, the National Council of Women of New Zealand, and the Auckland City Council, to name just a few of the submitters who were deeply concerned by Labour’s trampling—trampling—over academic freedom and autonomy.

New Zealanders should know that their left-leaning finance Minister and their Government have been pushed into amending clause 3, the purpose clause, to “make it explicit that the new functions conferred on the responsible Minister and the Tertiary Education Commission are to be exercised in accordance with the principal Act, which makes provision for the preservation of academic freedom and institutional autonomy.” But it is very poignant and telling on this Government that we have Michael Cullen, Steve Maharey—who is gone now, of course—and Helen Clark, all on the Labour front bench, and all so self-righteous that they lack the insight to think they would get away with trampling over academic freedom. So this amendment to clause 3 is an absolute victory for freedom. It is an absolute victory for the select committee process, it is an absolute victory for National, and it is a damning indictment on this left-leaning Labour Government.

It is important to understand the circumstances that led to this so-called Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill, because this bill is the result of years of poor management and wastage under this Labour Government. As the OECD report of this year said, there have been reforms, on average, every 2 years under Labour. National has calculated that the bureaucratic costs of these reforms that Labour has undertaken over the last 4 years is about $490 million, and that does not include all the other things that have occurred—the soft courses like homeopathy for pets, etc.—which probably come to $1 billion. That is money that could have gone directly into tertiary education.

But members should listen to what Steve Maharey said back in 2002. He said: “These reforms”—this was back in 2002, when he thought he had sorted it all out—“represent the culmination of the government’s promise to overhaul our tertiary education and training systems.” But by 2005 the vice-chancellor of Victoria University had written to Minister Maharey to proclaim: “The system is haemorrhaging dollars right before your very eyes.” So Steve Maharey’s reforms were so bad that Dr Cullen was called in to bring this latest round of reforms. This is why we have yet another round of tertiary education reforms before us.

But Labour’s mismanagement does not stop there. The Prime Minister, as we know, has just rearranged the deck chairs. She has replaced Dr Cullen with someone else to solve her Government’s tertiary education woes.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Who?

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Well, it just happens to be none other than the man who could not figure out why $5 billion extra a year would not bring about any more operations—none other than the Hon Pete Hodgson. This is the man who has been brought in to solve the country’s tertiary education reforms. Dr Cullen says that the new era will be characterised by high trust and low compliance, by relevance, by quality, and by value for money. But our analysis is that the very opposite is happening.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Just stop telling jokes!

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Ha, ha! To add to the complexity of the Tertiary Education Commission—which now has 340 personnel; when Maurice Williamson was there it had only 17 but now it has 340—Dr Cullen brought in 13 stakeholder managers and 13 investment managers. The reports that we are getting back from right around the country is that these people are getting in the way, and we have heard reports of those managers threatening institutions that if they do not “play ball”, the managers will not sign off the investment plans.

In the first draft of this bill Dr Cullen did not even require the Tertiary Education Commission to act reasonably. I repeat: he did not even require the commission to act reasonably. The irony is that now the word “reasonable” has been placed back into the bill, under pressure from Her Majesty’s most loyal Opposition, but even before the bill has become an Act the managers are acting unreasonably. So much for “high trust”! This is the track record of the Labour Government in tertiary education.

One of the other great ironies of this bill is that in the name of simplification, profiles and charters were to be replaced by a single 3-year plan. Dr Cullen himself said in this House that “institutions are now saying they need ministerial approval for a long-term vision statement. If institutions want a long-term vision statement they are welcome to have one, but they do not require my little tick …”. But now, under huge pressure, Dr Cullen has reneged. Instead of simplification, we are going to have not only an investment plan but a requirement for a short-term, a medium-term, and a long-term plan. Each organisation will be required to have those plans.

So there is no question that the tertiary education system needs stabilising and simplifying. Labour has provided the opposite. As well, its recent history of personnel changes is appalling and unprecedented. What are they? Mr Maharey is off to Massey University, the chairman of the Tertiary Education Commission—none other than Russell Marshall—has gone and just the other day was replaced by David Shand, and the chief executive of the Tertiary Education Commission, Janice Shiner, is off next year. So there will not be anyone left with the institutional knowledge to actually be held to account. Dr Cullen has gone, and who has he left? It is none other than Pete Hodgson. He, too, will be gone in 11 months. Thank goodness there will be a National Government to take over and sort out the mess that this Labour Government is leaving.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central): I rise to support—

Katherine Rich: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I went for the call a number of times, quite audibly. You looked around and you looked around, and there was no movement on the other side. I had thought that under the Standing Orders the first person to stand and seek the call would get the nod.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is completely wrong. That is not what the Standing Orders say. The call was Labour’s.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I rise to support the—

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. What you have ruled is absolutely true, but it is nevertheless important, if those members on the Labour side have the right to take a call, that they take it. In this case the member was very, very slow in rising to her feet, and Katherine Rich had called a number of times before Marian Hobbs actually stood and took the call. Madam Assistant Speaker, it could well have been that you may have decided to give Katherine Rich the call. So it is important, if members are seeking the call, that they do so quickly.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is completely wrong.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on it.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker, I say that it may not have missed your attention, but the chairperson of the Education and Science Committee is in the Chamber, and I was waiting out of courtesy to see whether he was going to take a call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order.

Ron Mark: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on it.

Ron Mark: Just in case members of the Opposition had forgotten, I say that your ruling is absolutely correct. Those members might like to recall that last week a member from the Opposition side of the House was given the call even though that member was sitting in a seat and had made no attempt to stand and take it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That is not relevant, Mr Mark. We deal with the situation as it happens.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I rise to support the second reading of the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill. I respond in the first place to some of the arguments we have just heard. We were told by Dr Hutchison that there was a huge myriad of defects in the bill. The only one that I heard as valid has been rectified, and I still cannot understand why National is opposing the bill.

Let me take members through that defect. Dr Hutchison quoted from the vice-chancellors when they talked about how the State had a degree of control. The interesting thing was that in the debate that we heard and from the submissions that we heard—and I am sure that the member was in the same select committee that I was in—the vice-chancellors slipped from talk of academic freedom to that of financial autonomy. To talk about financial autonomy of universities, when they get 60 percent of their funding from the State, is a bit rich. That was the distinction that was being made and the game that was being played.

So what we did in clause 3 was reiterate for those who are a little slow—and that remark counts for some of the vice-chancellors, as well—that the new functions and powers must be exercised in accordance with the existing provisions. This bill is an amendment to an Act, so it goes back to the existing provisions in section 161 of that Act, which are to enhance academic freedom. That was said over and over again. We have clarified that there is no effect on academic freedom, and that there is a rightful responsibility of the State in terms of financial responsibility, given that taxpayers’ money is invested heavily in tertiary education.

The second comment that was made left me smiling very wryly, having lived through 5.1. It was not the Labour Government that lifted the lid on 5.1—and if members do not know what I am talking about, I tell them that these are the soft courses. When National was so interested in bums on seats and on tertiary success being counted in terms of numbers of bums on seats, it was not interested in the calibre of the courses that were being offered to attract those bums on seats. National lifted the cap so that any amount of money could be spent. So the spending went from $13 million to $78 million to over $120 million, and Labour has put that cap back on. It was the National Government, with its interest in bums on seats, that did not worry about the calibre or the quality of the courses. The quality of the courses is what this is all about.

The question I have to ask the National Party, when it gets to reply, is that if we have answered its concerns, if the whole myriad of defects is only one defect that has been rectified, and if the other defect was National’s and that has been rectified too, then why is National not voting for this bill? What is so wrong with it that National is not voting for it? I have heard about only two defects—one caused by National and one that was not a defect at all. It seems to me that National will say it will spend a lot of money repealing this legislation. If that is so, I would love to understand why.

The third thing that was said by the previous speaker from the National Party was that tertiary institutions are required by this bill to have long-term plans. That is not so. There are 3-year plans. If institutions want to have a charter as well, with 10-year plans, they are offered that opportunity, but it is not a legal requirement. The simple reason for it not being a legal requirement is that one could have a real difficulty between a 3-year plan and a 10-year plan that was approved by the Minister—one could set up really nice opportunities for lawyers.

New Zealand’s national development in all areas requires a tertiary education system that performs at the highest level. We have a strong tradition of providing a broad range of educational opportunities for adults, be that in the Rural Education Activities Programme, be that in schools—the old night schools and community education centres—or be that in the workplace. This is reflected in the fact that we do not differentiate, as many other countries do, between higher education and universities and other forms of tertiary education.

Our industry training system, for instance, is a unique partnership between education and industry, which delivers recognised qualifications for learning on the job. New Zealand does not experience the gap that other countries do between the industrial wing, if you like, and what industry requires, and the training organisations. They are meshed together and they work together. The National Party understands that it has members within its own group who have, as members of the shearing industry, been very much involved in the provision of industry training in that area.

The tertiary reforms are designed to build on those strengths and extend high quality across the system. In our diverse tertiary education system, however, one size does not fit all. So Government investment will take account of the distinctive roles that various types of tertiary education organisations play in the sector. A small rural polytech functions very differently from a large urban university or even from a large urban polytech.

Hon Maurice Williamson: How does the member know that?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Very well, and I will not go into that.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Tell us how you know that.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Because I have served on the select committee and I have served as a Minister in that particular ministry—OK?

The current funding system does not always recognise the diversity of tertiary education organisations. This bill allows a Minister to earmark funding for the different types of organisations, which is a flexibility that will help to give New Zealanders access to excellent tertiary education throughout the different organisations in the tertiary sector.

Many New Zealanders access adult and community education, and this plays a vital role in our society. For many it is a first step back into formal learning after leaving school without qualifications—and members know that we have had too many of those people. Every year we celebrate, on Adult and Community Education Day, the stories—and they often bring tears to the eyes—of people who have come back into learning in New Zealand because of our particular provision of adult and community education. The bill clarifies the current arrangements so that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority can ensure that providers of adult and community education meet the high standards that our communities require. That was not there before. We put money into those adult and community education providers so that they could actually design and build those quality assurance things. This was not done by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority coming over the top of them; it was a case of working with them, with funding provided by the Government.

Overall, the bill aims to provide greater certainty for all players in tertiary education. It clarifies the roles of the Minister, the Tertiary Education Commission, and the tertiary education organisations. It allows for a 3-year planning and funding cycle. It was quite extraordinary to listen to National speakers and not hear them repeat the joy that that was received with by the vice-chancellors. It is much, much better than the 1-year funding cycle that they had. This may sound like a minor detail, but its implications affect all players in tertiary education. Students will have greater confidence that the course they are studying will be available for the time they need to complete their qualification. Many tutors in tertiary organisations are currently employed part-time and on casual contracts, as changes in student numbers from year to year cannot be predicted and student numbers entirely determine funding levels.

As a result of agreed funding over years in the new system, organisations will be able to build up their capability, which is something that is desperately needed in order to deliver a certain type of course or qualification, be it in information technology or whatever. For example, a regional tertiary organisation may decide to deliver a world-class winemaking course. Under the old system the organisation would not have the certainty it would need to have in order to make the necessary investment decisions. In the new system that organisation will have that certainty.

The bill provides the backbone of a high-quality system. Making these changes requires participation from a range of stakeholders, and the bill reinforces the vital role that stakeholders will play in that system. There was a real problem about this in terms of commercially sensitive information. It was made quite clear by the Tertiary Education Commission that although an institution has to declare things to the commission in order to get the funding, it does not have to declare that which is privately funded. The institution mentions that it is getting funded, but it does not have to give over those commercial secrets or that commercial knowledge. We said that when applying that the commission had to comply with the Official Information Act, but the Act provides the commission with options to withhold information provided by those institutions. If the commission received an information request, it would likely seek the view of the institution when considering whether to withhold such information or transfer the information request to the institution.

If New Zealand is to become a high-income, knowledge-based economy, we need our tertiary education system to respond quickly and effectively. Together with existing legislation, which provides for academic freedom, this bill provides a framework for an innovative and creative system that can meet the needs of society and the needs of business, students, Government, taxpayers, and tertiary organisations themselves. I commend this bill to the House.

KATHERINE RICH (National): I think it is very nice for the member who has just resumed her seat, Marian Hobbs, to believe that. I think she wholeheartedly believes everything she has just said. But I can say that there are hundreds and hundreds of academics up and down the country who are totally at odds with her view. I think one of the most telling statements in that whole speech was the comment about academic freedom, which, I think, will send shivers down the spines of many people who work in academia up and down the country: “When 60 percent of funding comes from the State it is a bit rich to expect full academic freedom.”

Hon Marian Hobbs: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I just warn the member that this is a debate.

Hon Marian Hobbs: It is a debate, but I want to lay it on the cards. I was talking about financial autonomy, not academic freedom.

John Hayes: Come on, Booboo, you can do better!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Mr Hayes, I am on my feet ruling on a point of order. The member can stand, withdraw, and apologise.

John Hayes: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): As I was in the middle of ruling, that was not a point of order; it was a point of debate.

KATHERINE RICH: The member can stand and attempt to clarify the issue, but I think the impression that those of us on this side of the House were left with was that academic freedom was to be something that academics could not take for granted if they received their money from the State. In fact, this was one of the main issues that came up time and time again in many of the submissions. A number of people came along to the select committee and said that one of their major concerns is that this bill could have an impact on their ability to write what they want to write, and to offer courses that they want to offer in the event that their courses may be at odds with the Government of the day. To give some evidence of the fact that the National Party has always been a defender of academic freedom, I found out today that the Centre for Labour and Trade Union Studies was opened by none other than Maurice Williamson during his tenure in Cabinet. He opened that centre obviously disagreeing with much of the content of the course, but he was there as a defender of academic freedom, and he opened it.

The next thing that Marian Hobbs brought up was this debate about the “bums on seats” mentality in tertiary education funding. Well, I think it is ironic that that member would raise this as an issue. Which Government was it that put all those bums on seats to do homeopathy for pets? Which Government put all those bums on seats to do radio singalong courses? Thousands and thousands of people signed up for that course and did not complete—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): We just do not want interjections across the floor like that. The member can do it once within reason, but not constant like that.

KATHERINE RICH: Thousands and thousands of New Zealanders signed up to that course and did not even complete it. Which Government was it that put bums on seats to play golf? Well, actually one would not be on a seat; one would be standing on a golf course! What about the pendulum swinging for beginners? What about COOL IT, where the tertiary organisation in question handed out loads and loads of discs and vouchers and enrolled thousands of people who never completed the course? I suppose, in effect, that it was not a “bums on seat” mentality, but it was certainly a “get the numbers up and grab as much funding as we can” mentality. Not to mention the crochet jackets for small pets—I might have made that up, but given the types of courses this Government was funding—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That is just too much.

KATHERINE RICH: I suppose the quality of courses that this Government was funding at the time gave evidence of the fact that some tertiary reforms were needed. But I think it is important to put this bill into context. Here we are, after nearly 8 years of a Labour Government, which campaigned in 1998 and 1999 on reforming tertiary education, only now bringing in a bill. What we saw from Labour’s tenure was not just a number of glossy documents and brochures, which are currently stopping doors as we speak, but not a lot of progress. We saw the growth of the Tertiary Education Commission from a handful of staff to over 300 people. We saw the commission open offices up and down the country. We had an office in Dunedin that was designed to interact with stakeholders, whatever that means; it can mean everything or nothing depending on who uses the word. Then the Tertiary Education Commission decided that those offices and that structure was not “fit for purpose”, which is what it said when we asked about this. It went and closed them all down. So after spending well over $420 million, if one looks just at that cost alone, we were no further ahead.

A lot of tertiary providers bought into this new regime and went through a rather expensive process of writing charters and writing profiles. I remember talking to one university that said it would have spent $35,000 to $40,000 on writing its charter, only to get in a position where the Government said: “We don’t want you to do that any more, we want you to write another document, and we want you to do a plan.” Michael Cullen said in his first speech that this bill was aimed at reducing bureaucracy and at introducing a high-trust model with low compliance designed to protect academic freedom, which I have already covered, and that it would lead to better allocation of funding. The funny thing is that rather than reduce bureaucracy some tertiary providers will have to do more planning than they did before this plan will eventually be brought in. They will have to do not just their charter but a long-term plan, and some will have to do a short-term plan and a medium-term plan as well, which brings in more compliance and more writing. Frankly, why do we expect universities to plan 10 years out when a lot of Governments cannot do that? A lot of Governments cannot predict what will happen in 10 years. So it just adds to a lot more compliance and a lot more navel gazing. It is all money that is not spent on students and not spent on the provision of courses.

Hon Marian Hobbs: Point me to the clause in the bill that says that.

KATHERINE RICH: I will not do that, but I will point to the report that the member signed off. A little addition in the commentary to the bill under the heading of “Charters” says that the committee members had considered the arguments for charters, and that they believed “long-term planning is integral to the governance of an institution”. So one has to do not only these charters but additional planning documents—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, look, that really is the final warning to members.

John Hayes: Yes!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Well, that member is lucky too.

KATHERINE RICH: We really do appear to have hit a nerve tonight. I think that Marian Hobbs may not be as au fait with the bill as she thinks she might be.

The aim of this bill was to reduce compliance, and reduce the amount of reporting. The upshot is that it will require the production of more plans in terms of the process, and more accountability. I do not think we are any further ahead—let alone before we have the debate about the types of courses. The Tertiary Education Commission can dress things up as much as it likes, but really what it is bringing in is a blunt mechanism of determining the number of seats it will provide for limited funding. There is no fancy way of doing this. Although the member over there says that it is not a “bums on seats” mentality, someone still has to determine how many seats will be provided. We have some concerns about some of the decisions that have been made and that will be made in certain areas that we have been tracking in the education sector, particularly when there are long-term shortages for certain types of staff.

Tonight we have heard some interesting comments about competition. The previous speaker also said that this will get rid of competition and that competition is a bad thing. Well, I can report to that member that students are not thick. Students will still decide to go to certain universities because they have an interest in a certain subject and they know of a professor or a course that is held in high regard. They will determine to go to one university as opposed to another because there is an expectation that they will get an audience with people who are of a higher calibre, depending on what the perception might be. We will never get rid of competition between universities or other tertiary providers, because students will continue to make decisions based on the information they have, and so they should. That brings higher quality into the sector. It ensures that people are honest with their funding and are accountable to their communities.

I have already made a comment about “stakeholders”, which is the most overused word in this bill. What does it mean? It can mean everything; it can mean nothing. The stakeholder-negotiation investment people, I think, are basically a waste of money, and probably designed to have cups of tea with people rather than to make some decisions regarding the tertiary education sector.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): The select committee process that has seen this legislation, the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill, returned to the House—significantly amended, I might add—has provided me, as chair, with a great deal of satisfaction. I thank the officials who advised the committee. They came from the Tertiary Education Commission, the Ministry of Education, and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. They worked collaboratively. I believe, and I think the rest of the Education and Science Committee would agree, that they provided the committee with very clear advice.

Also I thank members of the committee. They had to get their heads around some complex issues, and they certainly took their task with responsibility and acted in a way that befits responsible members of Parliament. I have to say that that includes the National members of that committee, even though at the end they wrote a minority report expressing concern about the excessive complexity and increased bureaucracy that they suggest lies behind this bill. In terms of the actual treatment of the bill, they acted extremely responsibly, asked all the right questions, and made the right suggestions to make sure that it was as good as possible.

There is one question I would really like to ask, and I hope that one of the National members who is yet to take a call will answer it. I ask whether National members, if by any chance they should gain the Treasury benches next year, would repeal this bill and overturn these reforms. I would love to hear one of the National members tell the House one way or the other what the case would be in those circumstances.

There are a couple of parties in this House who constantly bemoan the good old days of tertiary education, when students were required to make very little financial contribution to their tertiary qualifications. Not only was that the case but also, on reaching the age of 21, anyone in New Zealand could access university education on those favourable terms. The only trouble with those so-called good old days was that New Zealand had the lowest tertiary participation rate of any country in the OECD with the exception of Turkey. That was in the late 1980s.

When the National administration came to power in 1990, it put in place policies aimed at addressing that situation, which was a dead weight around the neck of the New Zealand economy—the “bums on seats” policies. Participation rates increased dramatically over the 1990s, so that by the end of the 1990s New Zealand was, in fact, fifth on the OECD list. Unfortunately, there was not a good alignment between many of the courses offered by institutions and undertaken by students and the economic and social needs of the nation.

This legislation marks the second attempt by the Labour administration to create a better alignment. The first was made by the former Minister for Tertiary Education, Steve Maharey, but he left the old funding mechanisms in place and, inevitably, the institutions made full use of those. As a result we had situations such as the 5.1 funding debacle and the uncontrolled growth of wānanga and Te Wānanga o Aotearoa.

This legislation certainly provides for more heavy-handed control by the Tertiary Education Commission as to what it will and will not fund. At the same time it seeks to simplify the processes by replacing the 3-year profile with a plan. It also gets rid of the requirement for institutions to have 10-year charters signed off by the Minister, which gives us a good place to start a discussion on the specific issues the select committee had to address.

A number of submitters—most noticeably, representatives of the university sector—argued that ministerially approved charters were an essential tool for long-term planning and investment. The argument, however, seemed to contradict another strongly held position of the university sector that the bill did not adequately protect academic freedom and institutional autonomy. It is hard to understand how the requirement of ministerial approval for long-term planning documents sits comfortably with the joint concepts of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. The select committee agreed that long-term planning is an essential tool of institutional governance and, therefore, that it includes the requirement that tertiary institutions carry out such planning but not in any prescribed fashion. In doing so, I believe that the committee upheld the concept of institutional autonomy.

A concern was also expressed, not just by the university sector but also by others in the submitter group, that the bill did not directly mention the requirements for academic freedom and institutional autonomy. However, the bill amends the Education Act, which most assuredly states these requirements. In order to allay any unnecessary fears over this issue, the committee made an amendment to make it explicit that the functions conferred on the Minister and the Tertiary Education Commission by this legislation are to be exercised in accordance with the principal Act. So it has to take into consideration those twin concepts.

One of the committee’s challenges was to ensure the consistency of language. To this extent it was affirmed that a plan drawn up by an institution in order to initiate discussion with the Tertiary Education Commission will be consistently referred to as a “proposed plan”. Only when a plan has been ticked off for funding will it be referred to as a “plan”.

Considerable concern was expressed that the Tertiary Education Commission would be able to control the non-Government resources of an institution. The legislation was amended to make it clear that the commission’s power of approval applies only to those aspects of a plan for which Government funding is being sought. We believe that this amendment will allay fears that the Tertiary Education Commission will be able to control non - Government-funded programmes and activities.

However, the Tertiary Education Commission will have the power to seek information in order to access whether an organisation may be at risk. Clause 14 requires the chief executive to monitor and report to the Minister on institutional risk. When we think about it, we see that if there is to be prudence around the investment of taxpayers’ money in tertiary education, then there has to be a level of monitoring. Why would a responsible Government invest tens of millions of dollars into programmes in an institution that was about to go belly up? In the bill that was initially prepared and sent to the select committee, section 159KBA, in clause 14, required the chief executive of the Tertiary Education Commission to assess whether the operation of any institution represented a risk to “the financial or proprietary interests of the Crown;”. Anyone with any understanding of tertiary education would know that the use of the term “proprietary rights’’ would be a red rag to the bulls of the university sector. It was agreed that the wording went further than was necessary, and the section was rewritten.

There was an issue as to which stakeholders the institutions should be required to consult. A number of submitters recommended certain groups of stakeholders that they believe should be written into the legislation, and they recommended that institutions should be required to consult them. The problem with that approach was about how long we should make the list and whom we should leave off. A more fundamental difficulty was the question of whether select committees or Parliament itself should prescribe such a list. In the end the committee believed that it should be left up to the institutions themselves to decide which groups are their significant stakeholders. However, as a check against possibly irresponsible behaviour, the Tertiary Education Commission will have the power to recommend any further groups to an institution if it believes that the institution has been remiss in the identification of its key stakeholder groups.

John Hayes: 6 weeks to go, and all’s well?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: The member did not hear me start this speech with “kia orana”, did he?

A number of concerns about the bill were expressed, such as that it provides the Tertiary Education Commission with unbridled powers. Certainly, the way the bill was originally written up left the Tertiary Education Commission with the ability to have almost arbitrary powers. Amendments were made by the select committee, which have certainly reduced the possibly of the perception of arbitrary usage of powers conferred by this legislation. No longer will the Tertiary Education Commission just purely and simply be able to come along and do it; it will have to pass over to the institution the reason why it is doing it. However, we did not go as far as to provide equal powers between the institutions and the Tertiary Education Commission, for one simple reason: the Tertiary Education Commission will be operating in an environment of capped funding. Therefore, it must have the final say if the system is not to be logjammed.

I just note a minor change that was made at the suggestion of the engineering industry training organisation Competenz. Its submission pointed out that students of industry training organisations do not attend the industry training organisations themselves, and the legislation refers to students attending the institutions and industry training organisations. However, those students are enrolled at the industry training organisations. The select committee recommended that the legislation be amended in such a way as to reflect that accurate and common-sense suggestion.

I reiterate once again that all of those involved during this particular select committee process acted commendably. They got the bill back in a form that I think is much, much better shaped, and they have removed some of the rough edges from the bill that came to us originally. That is what a select committee should be about. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): I want to take just a short call on the second reading of the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill. We are very pleased to support this bill at its second reading and in the remaining stages. I was able to participate in the Education and Science Committee for some of the submissions and for the consideration. As always, Brian Donnelly’s chairmanship of the committee was very skilful and well done. It is always a pleasure to be on that committee.

We have always been concerned about the tertiary sector being so focused on the market demands and on what is known as the “bums on seats” funding model. That model has tended in the past to disenfranchise those who have the greatest investment in seeing the tertiary sector be successful—the students who are enrolled, the staff who are employed, and the country as a whole, which is in need of the skills and the critical analysis that universities enable these students to have. We are very pleased that under the bill the funding model has been altered to some degree—not entirely, but to some degree—to be focused more on the longer term, with a greater emphasis on longer-term planning. It is good to hear Mr Donnelly make it clear that 10-year charters are no longer required under the bill, which some members of the House were unfortunately misinformed about. But there is still the process for long-term planning, which is crucial.

Under the previous model before this bill, the demand-driven nature of tertiary education and tertiary funding led to the closure of a number of very well-established humanities courses at the universities in Waikato and Christchurch—Canterbury University. The courses were closed not because they were not successful or because they were not making their contribution to the academic priorities of the institutions, and not because they were losing money either—people were going to those courses and enjoying them and were successful at them—but simply because they were not producing enough profit as required by the university at the time. It still remains a little unclear to me whether under this new regime those kinds of cuts in courses that are successful but not considered to be highly in demand or major money-spinners will be entirely prevented by the reforms. That is still a very serious concern, particularly when we are looking at cuts to courses like Islamic studies in Canterbury in particular, but also women’s studies courses and other humanities courses across the board.

This is where the free-market ideology from the past has had a huge impact on the tertiary sector. We see that reflected in the profit-driven approach of the universities—and the example, of course, is the cutting of these kinds of courses—and in the fierce competition between universities. Universities are spending millions and millions of dollars on advertising in competition with each other, wasting money on television advertisements, when students and staff are desperately in need of resources and good-quality courses to make sure that they are successful in their studies. Of course, the massive increase in fees and the student loans system, which although said to increase participation because people can go into debt to get their education now, in fact drive up the whole concept of a market-driven model for tertiary education. It is a model that has failed those students and the community as a whole.

Students are coming out of the tertiary sector with massive debts and unable to have an ordinary life that is expected in the New Zealand way—to buy a home, start a family, and all of those things—because they come out of university with $30,000 or $50,000 worth of debt. They then leave town and leave the country to go overseas so that they can pay off those debts. Do they return? Some do; many do not. The disadvantage to the country as a whole from that kind of funding model—the kind of market-driven model and that free-market ideology—has been very clear. It is about time something was done about it. I am not convinced that these reforms will completely fix it. Real issues relating to student support and allowances and student loans still exist. This bill does not fix all of the funding issues that need to be sorted, but it does go some way towards resolving some of them.

We were very pleased to be able to hear submissions during the select committee process from a number of the stakeholder groups, and very pleased with the decision of the committee to include an expressed comment about the retention of, or support for, academic freedom and institutional autonomy. That was a very serious concern raised by a number of submitters. It is important that they are able to retain that function as the critique of society in general and as a whole. So it is good that that was done.

We are pleased that the Government is choosing to take a strong overall view of the sector and of the strategic directions the sector is going in, and that this bill is making some of those changes. In effect, it is kind of fiddling around the edges to some extent, because of the major issues around things like student loans. Some options around the competition have been sorted but not all of them. The sector still needs major reform in order to deliver to the community and New Zealanders what it is supposed to. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou, i tēnei pō. A policy backflip, a reversal of position, or a change of heart in this House is usually some sort of occasion that we make great political capital of. Tonight I was eagerly looking forward to such an announcement and was fully intending to give my support for yet another flip-flop. The flip-flop I am talking about and that I was looking forward to hearing about tonight concerns Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I found out that remit 45 on the Labour Party conference floor about a fortnight ago was going to challenge the party hierarchy to put the Treaty into policy, into legislation, and to ensure its enshrinement in a written and supreme constitution of Aotearoa.

I was told that the party faithful were going to be heard, and that today would be the day on which Te Tiriti o Waitangi was truly honoured as our founding document. But I am sorry to say that unless the announcement is being saved up for the grand finale to the debate tonight, it appears that the Treaty being omitted from the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill is being continued regardless—regardless of the Association of University Staff’s submission that the goals and aspirations of Māori should be included as a Government responsibility to Māori under the Treaty; regardless of 400 or more submissions received relating to the omission of the Treaty from the latest tertiary education strategy and the statement of tertiary education priorities; regardless of the submission from the Council of Trade Unions that the bill gives scant recognition to Te Tiriti o Waitangi; regardless of the disappointment of the Association of Staff in Tertiary Education, Te Hau Takitini o Aotearoa, about the lack of reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi; and regardless of the specific recommendation from Te Tauihu o ngā Wānanga that the bill should be deferred until such time as there is specific reference to the principles of the Treaty for the Tertiary Education Commission and the Minister as there is for tertiary education institutions.

It would have been awesome if the Labour Government had listened to its own party membership and to key education agencies and stakeholder groups. I would ask whose interests are being served by failing to protect the unique relationship between the Crown and Māori as authorised by the Treaty. Who will be answerable for the fact that although section 181 of the Education Act requires recognition of the principles of the Treaty by institutional councils, there is no reciprocal requirement on the Tertiary Education Commission or on the Minister in this bill? As Te Tauihu o ngā Wānanga concluded: “The bill erodes genuine partnerships, a damning indictment on the status and functioning of tertiary education.”

Although I did ask questions about this particular matter in the select committee, I have now had time to reflect on the response and I still have a few concerns. According to some of the policy spin around this bill, the idea is that the previous Māori strategy chapter in the tertiary education strategy and the long and visible Māori tertiary education framework is improved upon by the sharper focus in Ka Hikitia by encompassing a few specific measurable things. Let us test the waters.

The tertiary education strategy 2002-07, in its Māori strategy chapter, Te Rautaki Mātauranga Māori, established six broad objectives for Māori tertiary education, with the first one being that tertiary education leadership is effectively accountable to Māori communities. Well, consultation with Māori is about as visible as the Treaty of Waitangi in this second reading—not! There is no requirement in this bill for the Minister, the Tertiary Education Commission, or tertiary education organisations to consult Māori in the plan of the tertiary education strategy. The Association of Staff in Tertiary Education, Te Hau Takitini o Aotearoa, recommended that this bill, along with the accompanying strategic documents, needs to confirm explicitly that both the Tertiary Education Commission and the tertiary education organisations must fulfil their commitments to Māori as tangata whenua under Te Tiriti. The Council of Trade Unions went even further and expressed its concern about how real consultation and engagement with tertiary education stakeholders in tertiary education could take place, without there being formalised provision for it in this bill.

One of the issues around this is the poor institutional performances that characterise most tertiary education sector consultation processes. Under the charters and profiles process there was a requirement to consult stakeholders on the development of them, but unfortunately this was not adequately monitored by the Tertiary Education Commission and sometimes it did not occur or it was very flawed. Why is this such an issue? At its heart the Treaty is about a relationship with Māori—a commitment to a constructive and mutually respectful relationship.

We have been given guidance from the courts as to how a constructive and mutually respectful relationship develops—namely, the relationship should be built on mutual cooperation and trust, there are basic principles of reasonableness and good faith, and the Crown has to make informed decisions. All aspects of the Treaty relationship, therefore, point to consultation.

In the process of preparing for this bill tonight, I came across a statement from the Vice-president Māori of the Council of Trade Unions, Te Kauae Kaimahi. Sharon Clair had this to say: “The Treaty, or more specifically Te Tiriti of Waitangi, is a living covenant to be proud of. What we did with it and what we want to do with it is where the shame or pride lies, not in the document.” That is the crunch issue in this bill. For although councils of tertiary education organisations are required to “acknowledge the principles of the Treaty”, as specified in section 181 of the Education Act, the challenge will lie in taking this out of the goodwill category and making it mean something—meaning something so that the Treaty relationship is given life in the work programme and the organisational structures of the organisation, so that the development aspirations of Māori are known and are identified, and so that targets are developed.

The disappointing feature of all the Treaty talk without action is seen in the fact that the goals and aspirations of Māori, specified in section 159, should be included as a Government responsibility under the Treaty, but in this bill Māori goals and aspirations are not connected to the Treaty. So when we come down to the vital issue of system compliance, it will be anyone’s guess as to how well the Tertiary Education Commission will act to ensure that tertiary education organisations do actually consult Māori in developing the plans.

What we have seen occur through the select committee process is that amendments to clauses 10 and 17 were introduced in order to provide that tertiary education organisations need to consult only such stakeholders as they deem appropriate. “Appropriate” is another one of those great buzzwords for doing nothing—in effect, enabling tertiary education organisations to determine who their stakeholders are. There is a risk involved that key groups such as iwi, hapū, and tangata whenua will be taken off the list to keep the numbers down.

What we know through the evidence reported from Te Mana Ākonga, the national Māori tertiary students association, is that in many instances tertiary education organisations are failing to adequately consult whānau, hapū, iwi, tangata whenua, staff, and students. In some instances consultation has consisted of a letter to Māori students, telling them what has already been decided. In other instances the concerns from submissions and hui have been inadequately reflected in charters and profiles, if at all. The Association of University Staff, in its submission, was clearly of the view that the requirements to consult do not go far enough. It describes the term “stakeholders” as indefinite, stating that it is problematic to not give it specific clarity in the bill and leaving it to the Minister and tertiary education organisations to decide.

Finally, we come to the view that there could be a way around what was otherwise appearing to be an impasse. The Association of Staff in Tertiary Education, Te Hau Takitini o Aotearoa, recommended that this bill, as well as the tertiary education strategy and the statement of tertiary education priorities, could include a statement that the Government, through the Tertiary Education Commission and the tertiary education organisations, could fulfil its commitments to tangata whenua under the Treaty. We would expect the Crown to be explicit in its capacity to express kāwanatanga, while at the same time making it possible for wānanga to express rangatiratanga and for Treaty principles to be given specific reference in respect of the Tertiary Education Commission and the Minister, as it does for institutional councils. The Māori Party will, therefore, support this bill at its second reading in the hope that during the Committee stage of proceedings the appropriate adjustments can be made to ensure that the Treaty actually means something.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to take a brief call in support of the second reading of the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill. United Future does not enjoy representation on the Education and Science Committee. However, we have tried to keep up with what has been happening, and we have been appreciative of some materials supplied by the select committee staff regarding summaries of some of the submissions that have been made on the bill. Certainly, the thing that occurred to me as I was perusing those this afternoon was the fact that, generally, most submitters seemed to support the reforms that this bill introduces, although they did take the opportunity to signal some issues of concern. They were important issues, and I think that the select committee needs to be commended for the way it has been very responsive to those concerns and for the amendments that it has sent back to the House.

The concern that I picked up on in particular was the fear that this legislation would result in some loss of academic freedom for universities, and that the amount of control that the Tertiary Education Commission would impose on them would be too restrictive. I note that one of the recommendations of the committee is an amendment to clause 3 to make it explicit that the new functions conferred on the responsible Minister and the Tertiary Education Commission are to be exercised in accordance with the principal Act, which makes provision for the preservation of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. I think it is a very wise move on the committee’s part to clarify that matter, in particular.

I think it is good that we have a single tertiary education strategy document now that sets out the Government’s long-term strategy and also shorter-term priorities. The thing that most interested me, when I met with some key stakeholders during the passage of this bill through the select committee process, was that they talked about the fact that they were thrilled that they could now develop much longer-term plans, thereby developing courses and a future for their institution.

I am glad to see that the Government has insisted that the plans include clear evidence that institutions have consulted with key stakeholders. I note that the member from the Māori Party has just mentioned its concerns about the lack of specific reference to who those key stakeholders are. I think we will need to monitor that issue over time. I heard the Hon Brian Donnelly talk about the fact that there were reasons why the committee did not want to get too specific about that, and I think we will need to see how that plays itself out over time. We could come to a place where we recognise that people who should be considered to be key stakeholders are not being consulted enough, and that courses are not being aligned enough with the needs of those sectors. That is something United Future would see as an issue for ongoing monitoring beyond the implementation of this legislation.

We are very happy to see there is also a greater requirement for organisations to collaborate more closely with the Tertiary Education Commission itself in the development of their plans. I have advocated to the Minister on a number of occasions on behalf of private tertiary providers when there was a bit of a logjam with the commission. They were waiting to get their documents approved for the new round of funding and there were some timing issues that were sensitive for them in terms of their business plans, and that was unhelpful to them. I think the fact that the commission will now be more proactively involved at the beginning, as those organisations develop their plans, means that that logjam should be stopped, and, at the end of the day, that consideration of, and approval for, courses and funding should be more streamlined.

United Future is very pleased to see this bill come before the House and is happy to support the second reading.

DIANNE YATES (Labour): I rise to speak at the report back of the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill. It was very interesting to hear some of the comments made tonight that I did not actually hear at the select committee. It was good to hear people offering opinions that I did not actually hear at the select committee hearing. I note that the member from the Māori Party was talking about the Treaty and recognise that the Treaty is referred to in the substantive Act. I also note that new section 159AA(2), substituted in clause 6, states: “The part of the tertiary education strategy that sets out the Government’s long-term strategic direction for tertiary education must address the following: (a) economic goals: (b) social goals: (c) environmental goals: (d) the development aspirations of Maori and other population groups.”

The other thing mentioned was the whole area around who a stakeholder is. I myself questioned that at the select committee and suggested that we might like to list the stakeholders. The difficulty is that once we start listing who they are, then we leave people out. It was decided amongst the committee members, after much discussion, that it was better for the institutions themselves to decide on the stakeholders rather than to put a list of stakeholders in the bill and then leave some out in practice. So that was something that was discussed at the select committee by its members.

I also want to refer to some of the opinions expressed by Dr Paul Hutchison in this debate. I ask him: what does he want? Some months ago we had a series of questions in the House from Bill English and a number of other people, who were slamming wānanga, slamming adult education, and slamming courses already running. I would have thought that the National Party members would support this bill and give it unqualified support, and would be happy to see the measures that are in this bill. I am actually surprised to see that they seem to be lions to the media and lambs in the House, and that they are not supporting this bill.

Then we come to the question of academic freedom. Academic freedom, I think, has no definition in this bill, but it has been spelt out that there should be due recognition of academic freedom. Should I decide to study Portuguese at my local university and it does not offer Portuguese, academic freedom does not mean I can go along and demand that the university teach Portuguese. It does not mean I can go along and ask that it teaches Kiswahili because I want to learn Kiswahili. Academic freedom is not about the courses; it is about people expressing their opinions when they are in courses. It is about teachers and students expressing opinions in courses and being able to speak their minds in institutions; it is not about the courses that are offered. There seems to be some misunderstanding about what academic freedom really means, but for the sake of those who are rather pedantic I can tell them that it was spelt out that this bill would not interfere with academic freedom as it has been traditionally known.

I ask Dr Paul Hutchison, a spokesperson for National who has been critical of this bill and has not supported it, where his policy is. All we can see on the National Party website is old stuff that seems to be yellowing with age—it has probably been there for about 20 years since Lockwood Smith jumped out the window. Where is the alternative policy and where are there any other ideas? There is complete academic freedom in this House to present ideas. Where are National’s alternatives, where are its ideas, and where is its policy? I ask National to please get in behind the Government and support this bill, because it is a very, very good bill.

When I worked at a university years and years ago there was such a thing as a quinquennium; that tells members my age. Universities used to get 5-year grants once upon a time. Then the grants were reduced to 1-year grants and everything was run on a very commercial basis under a National Government. So I am really, really pleased—as are the universities themselves—that we are now going to a 3-year grant, and that universities can have strategic plans. They can plan ahead. Students can plan their courses ahead, and universities can plan their recruitment of staff ahead so that they will have a much better basis for recruiting, especially of staff from overseas. There will be a much firmer foundation for universities and other educational institutions to go ahead.

I say, too, that I am really pleased with these reforms, because we have had a proliferation of educational institutions in this country, which has, I might say, led to a suspicion that there has been a reduction in standards, and we have had to work very hard to make sure there is no reduction in standards. There have been 35 teacher training institutions in New Zealand—in a country of 4 million people there have been 35 teacher training institutions. They were set up under National, but I know that people involved in standards have been monitoring very carefully to see that all those institutions have maintained standards, because some of the institutions have found that it has been very difficult for their graduates to find jobs in the New Zealand system. So I can see that all the reforms in this bill are very, very welcome. Reform means there will not be wasteful competition. It means there will not be unnecessary duplication, as I have just mentioned, and it will reduce the pressure on tertiary education organisations to maximise enrolments—bums on seats. There will also be a reduction in compliance costs.

We have talked about the whole idea of stakeholders being involved, and that is really important. When we talk to people in business we hear them say they are crying out for engineers, for qualified people, and for qualified apprentices. We know what happened to the apprenticeship training scheme under National, and that is why there is a dearth of people today. I admit that it is very, very difficult to predict the labour needs of the future. It is very, very difficult; it is not an exact science. I see Mr Hayes doing some peculiar dance over on the other side of the Chamber, but we are not talking about dance classes; we are talking about people who are being trained for the future and who are being trained for jobs. It is extremely difficult to predict labour needs, but we have to, to some extent. Institutions have to, to some extent. They have to plan ahead, and this bill gives greater capacity to consult with stakeholders to understand and anticipate the needs in the industrial, in the business, and in the working communities of New Zealand, and to plan and to provide for that.

I can say that there are very, very welcome changes in this Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill, not only for students but also for teachers and for the institutions themselves, and it is with great pleasure that I support the further progress of the bill. I thank fellow members of the committee. I thank those of the Opposition. I see Colin King over there. He has had a good deal of experience in adult education and I know that he asked many questions and welcomed the amendments in the bill around adult education and the informal sector. I thank, particularly, my colleague Marian Hobbs, because I think she was perhaps the most active person on the select committee in working through some of the issues with the officials, and in working through some of the changes. I think that she did a good deal of homework and a great deal of work on this bill. The work that has been done is a credit to the Minister and to Marian Hobbs.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura): I think it would be fair to say that of the things that the Labour Government has failed in, and failed to deliver, the tertiary education sector would be one. It has made an absolute shambles of it. In fact, using a word that is associated with “shambles”, the Labour Government has totally butchered the sector. Effectively, since 2000 we have had a process of restructuring, which has worn out and fatigued the whole industry somewhat. Maharey was the Minister at that time, and he was introducing things that were more to do with trying to connect with Labour’s policy intentions and its prospectus inside its stated policies of growing those numbers involved in tertiary education. So, effectively, over time from about the year 2000 we have seen a massive growth inside the tertiary education sector.

I am talking about this because it is what concerns me about the bill we have in front of us tonight. We have seen the Tertiary Education Commission grow to having some 400 employees. That, on the other side, means that every institution that has done business with the commission has had to grow likewise. So we have seen a tremendous growth in the bureaucracy. In my own situation, when we were delivering shearer training we actually had to employ twice as many people to deliver the same amount of training. We did not get another trainee out of it at the other end, but we had to employ people to tick boxes to interface with this massive bureaucracy, and try to interpret what was coming at us.

The intention, I am led to believe, is that the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill is meant to unravel all of that. I do not think so. On that basis, that is one of the reasons National will not be supporting this bill. We had in 2004 the charters and profiles. The interesting thing about the charters and profiles is that if they are not sorted out before this bill becomes law, we can actually carry on with our charters and profiles and treat them as if they were plans. When I heard that, it conjured up in my mind the image that the charters and profiles are just a plan combined.

The message I am hearing from a number of institutions is that they are just trying to get a steer on what managers are looking for, and that they are weaving those two things together. It is in that context, and after the last 8 years, that we have some strong reservations about the ability of the Labour Government to come anywhere near meeting the expectations of the taxpayer around tertiary education.

When we consider that all this restructuring and reviewing has cost some $400 million, we find it hugely concerning, because that is massive wastage. When we consider those other courses that were being funded by the Labour Government, wasting another $500 million - odd, we find that $1 billion has gone up in smoke. However, this is only one particular area—tertiary education. The Labour Government has also done it in health, and in law and order. The public of New Zealand generally expect a Government to be able to deliver in a meaningful fashion.

One thing I would really like to talk about as basically a good policy, butchered by Labour, is the Modern Apprenticeship scheme. It was something I was involved in. I was a Modern Apprenticeship coordinator. When we looked at it, we saw that there was $2,000 up for grabs. The Tertiary Education Commission was prepared to give that to the coordinators, so we just took it and carried on training. Unfortunately, after poor management and 7 years, we found some shocking results of wastage. For instance, we have the situation where Masterlink Ltd has had one Modern Apprentice complete training and it has been paid $165,000. That is $165,000 for one Modern Apprentice completion.

Now, that is only half the equation, because there is the student standard training measurement funding that also goes on top of that, which is some $3,200 a year. We are talking about one completion, and it has cost the taxpayer over $200,000. That is a good policy butchered by Labour. Labour picked up on the Modern Apprenticeship scheme in 1998 off the British. A scheme was started in Britain, and Labour picked up on it and ran with it. It has not been anywhere near as effective in New Zealand as it was in the UK. We are particularly suspicious of any of the rhetoric around Labour getting the tertiary education sector up and being productive.

On that basis, it really worries us. We look at the way the private training establishments have been treated under Labour—they have been really booted around. Then we look at the institutes of technology, which have had money poured into them to keep them afloat, and we see that excellence in education has been punished. We have seen cases like the Southern Institute of Technology—a high-performing polytech—losing $8 million of equivalent full-time students funding because it is actually too competitive against the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology. Now, you cannot tell me that in that particular environment some legislation—be it the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill—will change all that.

Let us have a look at the bill. In the commentary there is the subheading, “Minor amendments”. It was good to see the chairman of the committee, Brian Donnelly, allude to the fact that there were actually some major amendments. There was a lot of work. We had to draw heavily on the submissions. The submitters made some very, very fine points. On that basis, when it states in the commentary to the bill that the majority of us recommended a number of minor amendments to clarify the intent of the bill, I think that is a total understatement.

At the end of it all, it was up to National to put in a minority report. The reason we did so was that we were not comfortable with the purpose set out in clause 3, which states that the purpose is to “simplify and streamline the processes supporting the operation of the tertiary education system in New Zealand,” because we do not believe that this bill achieves that. In actual fact, we believe that the bill creates a further complexity. So it was very important that we pointed that out. I am quite sure this bill will come in front of this House again for further tweaking and modification.

The bill in itself gives the Minister enormous power, and that is what pre-empted this concern by the universities and the polytechnics that there had to be a restatement without affecting the academic freedom and autonomy of institutions. That was necessary because inside the body of this bill an enormous amount of power and authority is given to the Minister. Dianne Yates mentioned what the bill meant to academic freedom, as defined in section 161 of the Education Act. We know that it is about the freedom for people to express themselves inside an institution and inside their qualifications.

However, when we look at the bill from the point of view of new section 159AC entitled “Revocation and replacement or amendment of tertiary education strategy”, we see that it says that the Minister needs to consult only with whomever he or she “considers” is appropriate or “ought to be consulted”. That scares the horses somewhat, in the sense that we give the Minister that sort of authority. It challenges the ability for that Minister to be able to rewrite the tertiary education strategy.

When we look at the bill in balance, we see that it is not hard for National to vote against it. We find that the complexities, costs, and the increases in bureaucracy are over the top. It is a huge threat to academic freedom, and we know that academic freedom is something valuable. As stated by the vice-chancellors, it is over the top in the sense that no other Western democracy has this level of control.

Commercial sensitivities are something that have not really been dealt with by other speakers. My colleague Paul Hutchison touched on it. He is very interested in science, and aware that there is a lot of risk around anything to do with breach of confidentiality. Yet, inside this bill, that spectre is raised. From the perspective of somebody looking in, that person could be completely turned off by the fact that the bill mentions that he or she has to declare this information. That is another reason. Something else that is not in this bill—and that is the reason it really does concern me; it is all rhetoric—is that it does not deal with such things as the overlapping provision, it does not talk about repatriation of equivalent full-time students, and it does not guarantee quality of education. Section 195 of the Education Act points out that we must work hard at delivering quality if we want to improve our productivity. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Education and Science Committee by majority be agreed to.

Ayes 70

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 51

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland.

Question agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 70

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 51

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland.

Bill read a second time.

Human Tissue Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 6 November.

Part 1 General provisions (continued)

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki): I rise to speak on Part 1 of the Human Tissue Bill. I do so to let members know that this bill has been gone over very carefully in the select committee. Part 1 describes the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the Act will be to ensure that the collection and use of human tissue occurs only with proper recognition of, and respect for, the autonomy and dignity of the individual whose tissue has been collected; the cultural and spiritual needs, values, and beliefs of that person and their immediate family; and the cultural, ethical, and spiritual implications of the collection of the human tissue, as well. It also takes into account the public good associated with the collection of tissue.

One of the purposes of the bill is also to ensure that it does not endanger the health and safety of members of the public, and that it does not involve the requirement, acceptance, offering, or provision—and this is one of the parts of the bill that the committee was at pains to make sure it got right—of financial or other consideration for the tissue.

During the discussions on the bill, we had to get very clear in our minds that where there was a charge for the storage of human tissue, in the case of blood that was collected after the birth of a baby and stored for later use, or perhaps blood that was collected for use in blood parts, like transfusion, or other parts of blood that were used and perhaps sold to a particular district health board, those sorts of things did not become prohibited by the bill. It was very important that we got those details right.

This bill replaces the Human Tissue Act 1964, and just knowing that it has been 43 years since the Human Tissue Act 1964 means that this bill is necessitated by changes in technology—the modernisation of the technology that we use—and in the way we must view the way tissue can be used for the betterment of humankind, to promote the solving of the riddles around disease, and also, as we well know, how tissue can be used in organ donation.

When it came to the purpose of this bill, we were always mindful of the fact that one of the forefront issues was whether human tissue could be used for donation. The very next day following the second reading of this bill, on the front page of the Timaru Herald was an example of how human tissue had been donated by a 17-year-old. In fact, he had had no part in making that decision, but his parents did.

Equally, there has been some confusion about the register issue in this bill—confusion that obviously has not been resolved, because the editor of the Timaru Herald said that there is widespread understanding that creating an organ donation register would increase the number of organ donations. In fact, the select committee was told quite the opposite—that there is insufficient proof that an organ donation register would be useful.

A number of quite technical phrases are described in Part 1. We came to understand that “anatomical examination” means the examination of the body, or of part of the body, for the purpose of study and practice in the science of anatomy. Of course, for many, many decades—in fact, for hundreds of years—bodies have been donated to science. Medical students—and, I have to say, dental students and other students—would tell us that they have had the use of human tissue to learn from. As a nurse working in Dunedin Hospital, I had the opportunity to learn much about the function of the brain. We used brains from people who had died from some disease or from something that had happened to them. That helped us to learn, as nurses, what we were nursing in the ward, which was a neurosurgical or neurological ward.

One of the phrases in the bill that was quite difficult to understand was “health care procedure”. We needed to understand just exactly what a health care procedure was, in order to understand also what a non - health care procedure was.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote): Just following on from what my colleague Jo Goodhew said about this bill, I think, really, there were two main points from the National Party’s point of view. The first one was that this bill would have been a great opportunity to introduce a voluntary opt-on donor register. We made that point very strongly in our minority report.

We were hearing this bill at the same time as were hearing Dr Jackie Blue’s member’s bill. It is a real shame that that bill was not able to be incorporated as part of this bill.

I think that it was pretty well established, and that all parties would agree, that there is a very real need to increase the donation rate in New Zealand. We had only 26 people coming forward to donate organs last year. When we are looking at a situation whereby we are facing increasing rates of end-stage diseases like diabetes or end-stage liver failure, when the only hope for people is to receive a donor organ, it is quite clear that something has to be done about it.

It is also notable that two previous select committees had recommended the establishment of a voluntary opt-on donor register. Indeed, Labour Party policy at the last election was that it was going to institute such a register. It is a real shame that that opportunity has been missed. Nevertheless, I think it is something that will come up again and again, and that Parliament will have opportunities in the future to make decisions on it.

The second issue that National really felt strongly about, which we expressed in our minority report, is the issue of the primacy of informed consent. As I think anyone could see from reading this bill, and from hearing some of the debate, it is an extremely technical bill. Intellectually, I think it is probably the most challenging bill we have had before the Health Committee this year. But when we looked at it we could see that one of the key things it was talking about was the issue of informed consent.

The National Party feels very strongly that it is important that people have the right to determine what happens to their tissue after they pass on. Issues were raised about the cultural context of informed consent, and we certainly had some lengthy debate on that. I hope we are going to hear about that issue from the Māori Party at some stage during this debate, because its members certainly had a different perspective from that held by my colleagues in the National Party.

But at the end of the day, I do not think we will get anywhere very fast or come to any substantial destination on this whole issue of human tissue donation, and on the rights of people to determine what happens to their body parts and body tissue, unless we hold that concept of the primacy of informed consent at the very heart of the debate.

Those two points really explain the minority report that National has submitted: that we wanted to see the voluntary opt-on donor register, and that we are very concerned that in all the technical jargon the concept of informed consent is not lost in the process.

As Jo Goodhew was saying, this Human Tissue Bill—the Government bill—replaces the Human Tissue Act 1964. It tidies up some areas of the legislation that need to be updated to take into account some of the technological developments that have happened in the 40 years since the original bill came into being.

One issue that really concerned some of the universities that came before us was the provision in the bill where it talks about regulating the sale and trade of human tissue. It has to be noted that the ability of universities to conduct research and remain world-class institutions is an issue that was brought to our attention. It figured quite heavily in our deliberation and in our thinking, because although no one wants to see the sale and trade of human organs and body parts in an unregulated, commercial market, and although no one would want to see the unregulated import of human tissue and body parts into New Zealand, academic institutions have to be able to import slides and specimens for the purposes of research and academic debate. So we have to be practical when looking at these issues of human tissue, human tissue handling, and the ability for body parts and, indeed, tissue to be used for the purposes of research, let alone when looking at the whole issue of donation.

The real impetus for this bill has been the shortage of donor organs in New Zealand. It is not something that will be easily remedied, but, as I say, in terms of National’s minority report, it is something that we would be really keen to see. Thank you.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 1 of the Human Tissue Bill. As previous speakers have said, this bill actually replaces the Human Tissue Act of 1964.

When we look at Part 1, we see that it focuses on the “General provisions” around the bill. A number of definitions are listed in Part 1, and explained and updated to be relevant in today’s society. One of the interesting clauses is clause 7A, which defines who is a “close available relative”. It looks at that in subclause (1) in relation to a “close available relative … who was 16 years or older at the time when he or she died,” or, in subclause (2), in relation to a “close available relative … who was under 16 years of age at the time when he or she died,”. It is quite interesting to see what process actually has to be followed if one of those situations occurs. This clause states that a “close available relative” is either “a spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner”, or the “close available relative” could be “a parent of the individual;”. The provision goes through a whole lot of scenarios that were previously not in the Human Tissue Act, and it is good to define that clearly. In the Health Committee, we discussed extensively the cultural context of a person who is a “close available relative”, as well.

All in all, in the select committee we believed that this was a very good opportunity to discuss the issue and to hear the views of the people of New Zealand. We were very aware at the time that there was no way we could actually satisfy everyone, and although we would have liked to satisfy Andy Tookey and have a compulsory, binding organ donor register, it was generally felt that merely setting up a register was not going to be the way to ensure that a register was successful. We want to ensure that anything that is set up is totally successful. I must say that we have not had a lot of information circulated widely in the community about becoming an organ donor. I was very interested today to see in Change the World for Fifteen Bucks—a book that MPs received from New Zealand Post, and we must thank New Zealand Post for it—that action 15, one of the ways to make a change for the world, is to register as an organ donor. I will quote some of the words here, because I thought they were quite telling, quite poignant, in their own way: “After you have died let your heart beat inside someone else’s chest. Let your liver live after you have passed on. Even your eyes could give somebody else a new look.”

The book reminds us that in 2005 there were only 25 organ donors in the whole of New Zealand, and that here we have one of the countries with the lowest organ donor rates in the world. We know that a lot of organ donors think they have done their bit when they tick their driver’s licence, but it is a shame that that is really only the very start of the process and is not a binding register. There is no way that that can be taken to be part of a binding register in any way. We in the select committee were very interested to hear the various views from the groups involved in this, and it was interesting, when looking at the definitions and going through some of those definitions to ensure they were updated, to see who was involved in making the decision—who were the immediate family. In this, we had a very interesting discussion initiated by the Māori Party, about who actually owned a person’s body when that person passed on—whether the whole whānau owned it or whether the person owned it. We had a very interesting discussion when we went through this particular bill.

We are very aware, too, that with the shortage of organs we will have in the future, many, many more people are waiting, or are on medication and anxiously hoping that some organ will become available that they may be a tissue match for, so they may be a recipient, and live a reasonable quality of life. I know that for some of the submitters we saw, compulsory organ donation was the way they believed we should go—that when one died, one should have mandatorily signed one’s body over to the State for whatever organs were required.

LESLEY SOPER (Labour): I am very happy to rise to take a call in the Committee stage of the Human Tissue Bill tonight, on Part 1. I was a member of the Health Committee through its consideration and the hearing of evidence from 19 of the 31 submitters, which we heard largely in conjunction with submissions on the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill—a less comprehensive bill that has now been discharged in favour of this Human Tissue Bill.

Once this bill is enacted it will replace the Human Tissue Act 1964, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister and the chair of the select committee, Sue Kedgley, on ending up with an excellent piece of updated legislation, through a very complicated process of submissions and very technical data around the use of human tissue. I think the fact that we did need flow-chart diagrams in the schedules to the bill to clarify the hierarchies of consent for some particular uses of human tissue illustrates just what a complex bill this one was to deliberate on. I believe that the select committee has done a very careful and thorough job, and that we can all be very proud of ending up with a bill that provides a robust framework for regulating the collection, storage, and use of human tissue, primarily from deceased people.

The bill also regulates trading in tissue, the export and import of tissue, and the use of tissue for non-therapeutic purposes—for example, for research, education, audit, and anatomical examination. It very clearly makes informed consent the fundamental principle underlying the lawful collection and use of human tissue. In so doing, it brings consistency with the Code of Health and Disability Consumers’ Rights, and that is a not insignificant achievement.

The bill sets out who is able to give informed consent in four different circumstances: firstly, the collection and use of tissue from a deceased person for general purposes, including organ and tissue donation and research; secondly, the collection and use of tissue from a deceased person for anatomical examination or public display; thirdly, the use of tissue collected from a living person for a secondary purpose after his or her death; and, fourthly, the collection and use of tissue from a living person where the code does not apply and the analysis is for the purpose of obtaining genetic or other information about a particular condition or trait. The consent framework is different for each situation, so the flow charts, as I said, are a very good thing.

As a general statement, I would say that the Human Tissue Bill has striven to strike a clear balance between respect for the wishes of a deceased person and the cultural and spiritual needs of his or her family in dealing with a highly sensitive set of issues around human tissue collection and use. We heard during the hearing of submissions many, many heartfelt submissions for and against individual or family decisions on these matters. Certainly, during the time of the submissions I spoke with a dying friend, who was very clear that if any of her organs were able to be used—or, in fact, if any parts of her body were able to be used—for organ donation or research, that was her wish, and she was totally opposed to any veto of that decision.

In the end this bill has a proposed framework that gives primacy to any informed consent given, or objection raised, by the individual whose tissue might be collected or used. However, there was an understanding from the select committee—and many submissions touched on this point—of the difficulty of enforcing an individual’s wishes against those of a deceased’s family, so there is provision in the bill for a decision not to proceed, for informed objection, and for taking into account the cultural and spiritual needs of the family. I think we have a good balance there. I am very pleased that the bill provides an enabling clause for the setting up of an organ and tissue donor opt-on register by regulation at a later date. We clearly heard that the evidence, which we explored very thoroughly during the submissions and research on the bill, shows conclusively that a register will not be effective at this point, but the enabling clause that we as a select committee recommended be put into the bill does provide for a register when the evidence shows it will be effective. The international evidence will give us that ability at some later stage. I am very pleased to commend this bill, including Part 1, to the Committee.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Kia ora tātou i tēnei pō. Kua tū ake ki te whakamārama i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei take me te kī, ka kōrerohia ngā kōrero i te reo Māori. Nā runga i te aha? Nā runga i te mea, he take nui rawa atu tēnei ki te ao Māori. Ko tēnei pire, i heria haerehia i te mata o te whenua i ngā wiki kua hipa ake, me te pātai i te marea, ā, tēnā, pēhea ō koutou whakaaro mō tēnei pire? Me kī, mō tata ki te kotahi tau i nāianei, ko au tētahi kua heri tēnei pire me ōna kōrero katoa ki roto i te marea ki te whakamātautau i te hōhonutanga o tēnei o ngā pire kia ngāi tātau.

Kua tū ake anō rā i te mea, nā Tariana Turia tētahi pepa āpitihanga hei whakatakoto ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare i tēnei pō. Ka riro māku tērā pepa e kōrero.

Ko te mate kē o tēnei pire, e hoa mā, he āhua noho tukituki nei i Te Ao Māori me te ao Pākehā nā runga i te rere kētanga o te whakaaro mō te katoa o te tinana o te tangata, te wairua o te tangata, ēnei āhua tangata katoa, e kōrerohia nei e tātau.

Kei te mōhio tonu au, ruarua noa iho ngā ingoa Māori kai runga i te rārangi ingoa o te motu, ruarua noa iho.

Nā, e rua ngā wāhanga i kōrerohia e au, i whakamāramatia ake e au me kī, ki ngā hoa. Tuatahi, tērā e pā ana ki te tuku o te tangata ora i tētahi wāhanga o tana tinana ki tētahi atu tangata e ora tonu ana. Pēnei i a Jona Lomu. Ā, tērā kōrero tērā. Ka rua, mēnā kua mate tētahi tangata ka mutu, ko tētahi wāhanga o tana tinana e pai ana mō tētahi atu. Nō reira, koi nei ngā uauatanga i roto i ngā kōrero i kōrerohia, ko ngā huarahi e rua. Nā i āhua rongo nei ngā taringa o Te Ao Māori ki tērā raruraru o te tangata e āhua tata mate nei me te koha i tētahi wāhanga o tana tinana ki tētahi atu kia ora tonu atu a ia. Āe, i āhua rata mai ētahi ki tērā. Tērā te take nui rawa atu ki Te Ao Māori, ko te tangata tata mate, mate rānei me te koha o tētahi wāhanga o tana tinana ki tētahi kia ora tonu a ia.

I kite tātau i tērā take nui i roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau i ngā tau kua hipa, arā, ko te ngaronga o ētahi wāhanga o te tinana o te tangata i te hōhipera, ā, ka hoki ki te whānau, kātahi ka rongo te whānau, ha, kua ngaro tētahi wāhanga o te tinana. Kātahi ka ohorere. E ai ki tā Te Ao Māori, kia haere te tangata ki te kōpū o Papatūānuku me haere katoa a ia. Kia kaua e waiho tētahi wāhanga ki kō, ki kō, ki te hōhipera, ki hea rānei.

Nō reira, waiho tērā kōrero ki reira. Ka hoki ki te wāhanga tuarua, ko tētahi take nui, whakaharahara i kōrerohia i roto i te pānuitanga tuatahi, tuarua, ko tērā e pā ana ki te āhei o te whānau ki te whakatau i ngā kōrero katoa mō tērā tangata i runga ake i tōna ake hiahia, tōna ake whakatau. Koi nei te pūtake o te pepa āptihanga nei a Tariana Turia, o tērā mea. Kia kore te ao Pākehā e tāmi i Te Ao Māori engari, kia āhei te ao Māori ki te whai i tāna e pīrangi nei.

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

[Greetings to you, Mr Chairman, and to us tonight. I rise to explain matters relating to this bill, and to say as well that I will speak in Māori. And for what purpose? Because this matter is of huge significance to Māori. This bill has been taken about the country in the past weeks, with the public being asked their views on it. That has been going on for nearly a year now, and I was one of those who took this bill and all the information about it amongst the public to make an in-depth examination of it for our people.

I rise as well because amongst the Supplementary Order Papers to be placed before the House tonight is one from Tariana Turia, which I will be addressing.

The real problem with this bill is that there is a slight clash of viewpoints between a Māori and a non-Māori perspective, in respect of the total human body, its spirituality, and all aspects of the human body that we are debating.

I am well aware that the number of Māori names listed in the national register is minimal—very small indeed.

I have talked about two areas, and explained the matter in detail to colleagues. Firstly, there is the situation of a living person donating part of his or her body to another living person, like Jonah Lomu. Secondly, there is the situation where a person dies and a part of his or her body is suitable for someone else. So difficulties such as those two are what we are hearing about. The difficulty facing a person near death about donating a part of his or her body to someone else so that the other person may live longer has come to the attention of Māoridom in a somewhat indirect way. Yes, some are gratified by that. For a person near death gifting a part of his or her body, or for one who plans to so before dying, to prolong the life of someone else, is regarded in the Māori world as a very important issue.

We saw the consequence of that in an issue in Auckland some years back, which escalated when some body parts were misplaced in the hospital. When the body was returned to the family they discovered, much to their alarm, that parts of it were missing. What a panic it created! From a Māori cultural perspective, the entire body goes back to the bosom of mother Earth. Body parts are never to be left here, there, in hospital, or wherever.

So let us leave that point there. I go back to the second part, to a crucial and very important point that was made in the first and second reading of the bill, relating to the family’s ability to settle everything over and above what a person wishes or deems personally. That is the crux of Tariana Turia’s Supplementary Order Paper, in that Pākehā perspectives should never suppress the world of Māori, and that it should retain its ability to pursue that which it desires.]

Ka pai, kāti ake kua rahi tērā. Mr Chairman, kia huri ki te reo Pākehā,

[Enough. That is sufficient. Mr Chairman, I shall turn to English] to catch up on some of the key issues. Firstly, I will catch up again on this issue that I have taken on the road and tried to test out amongst Māori communities. I have to say that the reaction has been varied. We have attempted to do this for over a year or so.

The two key concerns seem to be in the clash of ideology—or philosophy, if you like—in respect of how we view death, how we view body parts, and so on. Those are the issues that seem to come up. There were two lines that really interested people. One of those lines concerned when a person is still alive and donates his or her body parts or tissues to another person. Some understood that there is a connection there—in particular, say, with one’s own child. Also, some of our people understood the issue of somebody gifting a body part to somebody else.

The other issue, in respect of a person who is dying or close to death giving organs to somebody else in order to allow that person to live, almost seemed to be at odds with how people really felt about it. Until one is in that situation, one will never really understand how important those sorts of issues are. As we went around discussing this I noted that not a lot of Māori were on the register, and it would be fair to say, of course, that many Māori would be the ones who would be screaming out for some of the organs or body parts that we are talking about.

The issue that Tariana Turia has raised by way of her Supplementary Order Paper is very, very serious in terms of Te Ao Māori. Although, I understand from Tariana Turia, some of those concerns were also raised by a number of submitters in the Health Committee, both in respect of this bill and Jackie Blue’s, those issues are so serious that we felt it appropriate to put up a Supplementary Order Paper. Although the Māori Party fully acknowledges that many New Zealanders believe that they themselves as individuals should have the sole right to decide the fate of their bodies upon death, it is not a belief that generally fits within tikanga Māori. In a tikanga context, appreciation needs to be given also to the collective wishes of the whānau alongside those of the individual. Although the Māori Party holds the expectation that all legislation should recognise tikanga Māori, as was anticipated in the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, this is especially so with any legislation concerning whakapapa material. I suppose it is an entirely reasonable expectation that in Aotearoa New Zealand any laws concerning human remains could acknowledge the world view of tangata whenua, thereby giving recognition to the rights of the collective alongside Western World views that give precedence to the rights of the individual. The purpose of our Supplementary Order Paper is to open the bill’s consent framework to both world views and create a truly bicultural law. Given the presence of both our nation’s and other culture’s world views that esteem the collective, there is also the opportunity to create a multicultural law.

The real concerns that came up in our discussions have been about the ability for the whānau to overrule the desires of anybody who might be passing on, or that sort of situation—the part that the whānau might play in respect of decision making. I suppose it all came to a head last week at a hui back home where there were some judges. I put it to them to discuss this question: if somebody was passing away, who, in the end, should have the overriding say? Firstly, a person who was actually dying, by way of a will; secondly, his or her whānau if they happened to be looking after that particular person over a long period of time; or, in our case, in our construct, iwi Māori? On a straw vote we came to an end result; it was a three-way split. Everybody was pretty much convinced that, yes, the individual has some rights, and, yes, the family has some rights, but in particular Te Ao Māori have some rights as well. For example, some might say that it is appropriate for us to pick up our tūpāpaku and take him or her back to the marae, because in not doing that one may as well burn down the wharenui if that will not be the place where we can lay our dead to rest.

Now I know that is really opening up the debate to a real big picture in respect of this, but I am trying to make the point that this is part of the discussion that happens amongst Māori communities, and we want to make some sort of presence felt in respect of this issue on the back of Tariana Turia’s Supplementary Order Paper. We hope the Committee will give it its full attention when we get to that point. Kia ora tātou.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health): It is my pleasure to take a very quick call on the Human Tissue Bill, and to thank all members of the Committee for the very constructive spirit that has been evident in this debate.

Clearly, issues of human tissue, of personal human remains, and of the use of human tissue for medical purposes are amongst the most personal and sensitive of matters that are likely to come before this House. It is gratifying, therefore, that members on all sides of the House have given this matter very careful consideration at the select committee and in the Chamber. I extend my thanks and congratulations to the Health Committee on the care of its deliberations. I think we have a bill that will stand scrutiny, and that clearly bears the hallmarks of the submissions made to it, and for that both I and the ministry are grateful.

Several important issues have been raised on the Chamber floor in this discussion. I turn first to the latter contribution from the member, Mr Flavell, to say that although I have great respect for the perspective that he represents, I cannot share his assertion that the bill is contrary to the Treaty of Waitangi. The bill is, in my view, a permissive bill, which establishes, at a minimum, the rights and responsibilities of the individual in respect of human tissue, but does not preclude the role of whānui in forming a collective decision that may influence the individual should that be appropriate. I earnestly hope that the appropriate tikanga will be followed in Māori communities as is possible, but not compulsorily, admittedly, within the structure of the bill. I know that the committee has given those matters careful and respectful consideration.

Members opposite have also raised the question of a voluntary organ and tissue donor register, and on this issue I believe the select committee has taken extensive advice and also provided careful consideration. I am advised that as of 1 January there were 433 people on a waiting list for a kidney transplant, 13 waiting for a liver, five for a heart, eight for a lung, and four for a pancreas-kidney transplant, so this is a very important matter. I am further advised that there are currently only some 36 people who have actually provided whole organ donations in the last year—a number that I think most New Zealanders would find surprisingly low.

I know that many of us in this Chamber probably have on our driver’s licence the little word “donor” down in the bottom corner. I would take this opportunity to encourage all New Zealanders to consider taking that step, as I have, because the reality is that by the time the question is asked one has no more need of those organs. Of course, it is a personal decision; it is a very private decision. But I think that we need to encourage organ donation. However, the evidence does not support the proposition that a voluntary register is the best or only way of doing that. I believe, rather, that a combination of developing clinical expertise to improve identification and management of potential donors, combined with improved processes used to request donations from family members, and coordination between the various parties involved in organ and tissue removal is likely to provide the best combination of services.

Again, the bill is permissive in the sense that it provides for the Governor-General to make by Order in Council a regulation to set up such a voluntary register at a future point in time when the international evidence is at the point where it would support that in terms of the objective of the bill.

I am pleased that there is widespread support in the Committee for this bill. Again, I thank all members for the constructive and thoughtful way in which they have approached this most sensitive of issues.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 156 in the name of Tariana Turia to clause 7 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Noes 109

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 155 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Human tissue

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): We now come to Part 2, clauses 10 to 63. There are six subparts therein.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Human Tissue Bill. Part 2 is quite a comprehensive part, with a number of clauses. I would like to concentrate just on clauses 10C, 27C, and 37A. They are to do with the cultural context of informed consent. I know that there have been discussions earlier about the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Māori Party, but these three clauses, I believe, should satisfy the Māori Party, hopefully, that the family can be involved in the decision making. The whole decision as to who has primacy—whether it is the individual or whether it is the family—was a source of contention. That was certainly the case with the register that was proposed in my member’s bill.

I know that the Māori Party has great difficulty with these clauses, and its wish was to amend the bill so that the clauses would state that if a dead individual was Māori, then the family could override the dead individual’s express wishes. Again, this would have overridden the Human Tissue Bill’s framework of primacy, given that the individual’s wishes are given primacy at all times. The National Party certainly supports the primacy framework and is disappointed that the register will not be supported. Without a register there is no informed consent process, and we cannot see how the Human Tissue Bill can work in this respect.

I go back to clause 10C, which states: “A person who proposes to collect or use human tissue is justified in deciding not to do so if satisfied, based on all information available to the person in the circumstances, that any informed consent for the collection or use of that tissue should for any reason not be acted on.” This clause gives powers to the person who proposes to collect human tissue to take into account the family’s or other family members’ objections or concerns.

Similarly, clause 27C, “Person assumed to have taken into account immediate family’s cultural and spiritual needs, values, and beliefs”, states: “A person who proposes to collect or use human tissue is, unless that person is aware of evidence to the contrary, entitled to assume that a person giving informed consent or raising an informed objection or overriding objection has complied with section 37A.” Again, the person must take into account the immediate family’s cultural and spiritual needs, values, and beliefs. I believe that those two clauses—along with clause 10C—should, hopefully, give the Māori Party some comfort.

Another clause that is very similar is clause 37A. It states: “A person giving informed consent or raising an informed objection or overriding objection must take into account, so far as they are known to the person based on information to the person in the circumstances, and decide what weight the person wishes to give to, the cultural and spiritual needs, values, and beliefs of the immediate family of the individual whose tissue is, or is not, to be collected.”

So I think that these three clauses are really quite comprehensive. They spell it out. They are a wee bit repetitive in that they say the same thing in different ways, but they certainly acknowledge the fact that in a situation where other members of the family have wishes or objections, they must be taken into account. I hope that will satisfy the Māori Party. I believe that those clauses give cultural context to informed consent and certainly allow for families’ wishes to be taken into account.

I would like to move on to clause 55, “Trading in human tissue generally prohibited”. There are a number of subclauses to it. It provides that a person is not allowed to take a fee or accept any payment when trading in human tissue. We heard from a private company, CordBank, during the course of submissions. CordBank collects umbilical blood from newborn babies. That blood is stored in a bank. What is good about umbilical blood is that it has all the rich stem cells from which our other cells can differentiate. Potentially, cord blood, if stored, could be very useful for treatment if that baby develops a type of blood cancer in the future. The CordBank organisation was very concerned with this issue of not having payment and worried that it would have to close its doors. Happily, an exemption has been made for that organisation.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 156 in the name of Tariana Turia to insert new clause 27CA be agreed to.

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

Ayes 4

Māori Party 4.

Noes 115

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland, Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.