MIKE WARD (Green) : When I was cut off in full flight the other night, I was talking about travelling by public transport—by the train, in fact. I had hoped that the motorists who were clogging the highway outside were sufficiently grateful to me, my fellow travellers, those who happened to be walking or cycling on the day, those who work from home, and the car-poolers. The benefits of public transport are for everybody who travels on our roads.

The Green influence was obvious in last year’s release of the national walking and cycling strategy, and in the public transport strategy. Thanks to the New Zealand Transport Strategy and the Land Transport Management Act, we are heading in the right direction, but too slowly. The big transport issues now are climate change and the end of cheap oil. When I spoke about this issue last week the price of oil was US$58 a barrel. This morning it was US$62 a barrel and heading upwards.

We are looking at spending a vast sum of money on roads, and the idea that it is business as usual just will not do. The fact that 80 percent of the transport budget, which went from $285 million in 2000-01 to a record $518 million this year, is targeted at roads in the form of new State highway construction spells to me that it is a case of business as usual. Our children will not thank us for white elephant motorways, which will be memorials to our lack of foresight when we can no longer afford to drive on them.

We have to move away from building infrastructure that perpetuates behaviour that, even if it were sustainable, can only be described as bizarre. Instead, we have to change people’s behaviour. I have spoken about my concern for my grandchildren, and it puzzles me that people in this generation persist in living far too far from all the places they need to be. The future may look bleak, but sitting in slow-moving queues of traffic day after day, travelling to destinations that we should have lived much closer to, is not exactly a bundle of laughs, either.

The Greens want a fairer deal for alternatives to cars. Urban and rural State highways receive 100 percent State funding. Urban public transport requires matching funding from local rates. To get real investment in public transport, we need to level the playing field; otherwise, the money allocated to public transport depends on weary ratepayers coughing up the funds. The Greens are committed to changing this outdated system. I want to talk about where we need to be. It is about redesigning our lives.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) : Given that we are debating the transport estimates, I will keep the focus deliberately on road funding. I very much want to talk about how the current Government has used something called “smoke and mirrors”. A year ago, the Government announced the huge figure of $18.7 billion for roading over the next 10 years. I have to say, quite honestly, that as an Opposition member I was gobsmacked by that figure. That is the biggest number for roading that I had ever heard under any circumstances, and I said: “Wow! How do we counteract that?”. I thought that we simply could not counteract it and that we had better be silent, because that is what one should do in Opposition if one cannot counteract something. But then I went back to my office. I sat down with an Excel spreadsheet, I looked at the last 10 years of road funding, and I looked at what the average amount of growth had been, which was around 6.9 percent per annum—and I ask members to remember that that is just growth from petrol tax, road user charges, and so on. It is nothing to do with the largesse of the Government; it is just that as people use, so they create the revenue. So I took that average 6.9 percent, I took last year’s base figure, I put in growth of 6.9 percent for the next 10 years, and it came out at $19.1 billion. In other words, this huge number, which, to be fair, was bigger than ever before, was actually slightly less than the historic growth that we have been experiencing. I have noticed ever since that the current Minister, Pete Hodgson—and I would like to hear his comments on this—often says that the Government is spending more on roads this year than ever before.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Not true.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: No, no. My colleague from the North Shore says that it not true, but Pete Hodgson is correct. That is true for every year in the history of the country for the last 20 years—for any one year and for any Minister of Transport. I have here the table that was developed for us by the researchers in the Parliamentary Library. It shows all the subsidies and spending. There was, though, one big year when it jumped, and I wondered how it went up in 1990 so much. But it turned out that that was a 15-month year, because we realigned the accrual accounting. But in every other year that was the case.

Let me give members the figures. I will start with the next year, 1991, when the amount was $503 million. In the next year it was $528 million, the next year $541 million, then $581 million, the next year $601 million, the next year $624 million, the next year $637 million, the next year $757 million, the next year $813 million, and the next year $884 million. Do members get the pattern? Every year the spending on roading was more than the spending in the previous year. So it is no great claim when Pete Hodgson comes into this House and says: “We’re spending more on roading than we have ever spent.” That is true—but it has always been true. The real test is what percentage of the economy the Government is actually spending on roading. That is the true measure. As the economy grows—and the GDP has grown every year along the way—so should what the Government is spending match it.

I want to go through a few tables. Here is a chart, and I think that Paul Swain, when he was Minister of Transport, answered the first 3 years of it, and then Mr Hodgson filled in the last ones. This graph is called “Auckland Roads: Capital Expenditure on New State Highways and New Local Roads”. If we listen to the Labour Government, it would have us believe that what it was spending in Auckland, compared to the spending of the National Government, was huge. Well, members should have a look at the graph. The blue tower on the left represents National’s last full year in office. The purple tower, the next one up, is a part year—it is 7 months of National and 5 months of Labour. The rest of those towers for the next 4 years represent the Labour Government in full. Now, these are the Minister’s answers to written questions on how much money was spent on Auckland roads. Only in the 2003-04 financial year did the spending actually get above what National had been spending back in 1999. So I tell the Minister that he should forget the smoke and mirrors, and forget the argument: “Well, we are doing better.”

What do members think of this graph? Here is a graph that shows the spending on roading, right back from 1990, as a percentage of GDP. Now, everyone who is involved in road funding overseas—such as the big financial houses or other Ministers, such as the roading Minister in New South Wales or Victoria—will say that the real test is what percentage of GDP is being spent on roads. If members look at this graph, they will see that spending actually peaked back in 1999 at about 1.1 percent, and that for the next 4 full years under the Labour Government, and not the part year—it did change last year; it came back to where it had been—it was less, as a percentage of the size of the economy. So no wonder we can use—

Lindsay Tisch: Labour lies!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: No, no. My colleague is not being fair. This is a case of using smoke and mirrors. Let me tell members once again that the figures can be used as the Minister uses them. One can say that every year there has been more spending than in the year before.

Hon Judith Tizard: You had nothing ready to go.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I challenge Judith Tizard today to tell me of one year in the history of road funding where the amount of funding was not more than in the previous year. I have the answer; it has happened once. Members should listen to this, because they will love it. In the first full year of the Labour Government—that is, the 2001 year—spending went from $884 million, the year before, to $846 million for its first full year. It is the only time, I tell Ms Tizard, in the history of the National Land Transport Programme, and right back to the time of the National Roads Board, when the funding for roading dropped in actual terms—not in real dollars, not in percentage of GDP, but in actual dollars.

Hon Judith Tizard: You are telling lies.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member on my right that there were two indiscretions there. The member brought the Chair into the debate, and she used a word that is unparliamentary. I ask the member to desist.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I ask her to withdraw and apologise for the sentiments.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Judith Tizard: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: And, in case the member for Auckland Central does not know the figures—

Hon Judith Tizard: Tell the truth!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON:. Well, I am going to go through the list of them. They are here—here is the total amount of money spent on roading. They are the Government’s figures and, to be fair, I note that they have gone up in every year. But, as I pointed out to my colleagues, there was one year where the spending dropped in actual dollars. [Interruption] Could someone get her some medication—she is having another one of her fits, over there. It is unfair to leave her unattended. Someone needs to help her.

Hon Judith Tizard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There was an extensive interchange where a member on this side of the House told a member on the Opposition side to take pills, and that member was required to withdraw and apologise. I require the same. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There is a point of order on the floor, and both members are interjecting. It is wrong to imply a personal reflection in the way the member did. I ask him to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not a person who normally does that, but I am a person who gets sick of someone continuously shouting all the time. You, Mr Chairperson, often say that interjections should be rare and reasonable and, hopefully, witty. You would like them to be that way, but during the second part of my speech Ms Tizard has not stopped yelling the whole time. I ask you to call her to order, too, Mr Chairperson, or you will bring this Committee to disorder.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Williamson. The member had been called to order, and I am sure she was coming to order.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I get back to the focus. As I said, this is smoke and mirrors. Now, my adoring drive-time audience in Auckland will be listening right now, and the real test would be to ask them whether they think that Labour has fixed the problem in 6 years. In 6 years, a helluva lot of roads can be built. Members should go to Sydney and look at what had been built in the last 6 years, or go to Melbourne and look at what has been built in the last 6 years. There is kilometre after kilometre of tarmac all over the place and cross-Sydney tunnels, and the Citylink’s Mitcham-Frankston spur is now under way in Melbourne. So nobody should say that we cannot do that in 6 years—others do—but the reason we have not done so has been the shortfall in funds.

We saw how worried the Government got when National announced that it would take all the petrol tax and move it to fund the roads. The first response from Dr Cullen was that it was an outrage and fiscally irresponsible. The second response was to say: “Hey, this is helping them in the polls.” The third response was that Labour would spend some more money, as well as the normal funding for land transport, and that it would be called Crown funding. So there is “N funding” from the National Land Transport Programme; there is “R funding” from the regional—the little special pot—there is “JA funding”, which is Jim Anderton’s special thing, through which he likes to give away some money to the regions, and now there is “C funding”.

The Government announced just a couple of weeks ago $660 million extra for Wellington. It had already announced $225 million extra, and there will be a little bit of largesse coming for the Bay of Plenty this week. We will also see a lovely Waikato package announced just before 17 September—just watch! Mark my words! When Don Brash said National would build the Waikato Expressway, Labour said that it was an outrage and talked about how fiscally irresponsible it was. You watch how Labour will find that money—like the $500 million and the—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Actually, Mr Chairperson, I am speaking to you—you watch how they find that money, sir, because I can tell you that it is just like the $540 million Dr Cullen found under the mattress the other day, by chance, and then said it was all for roads. Have we ever seen a panic button like that?

Dr Wayne Mapp: There will be more.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: There will be more. But where is the certainty? The contractors want some certainty. They want to know that in the long term the petrol tax will be committed to road funding so they can gear up their capability and capacity, but we are not hearing a mutter nor a murmur from the current Government on the issue. Well, hang on; help is on the way. National believes that what comes from the roads should go back to the roads—including Judith Tizard. I say to members of this Committee that that is what National will do. It will take every cent of petrol tax—

Hon Member: Put it down the highway.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON:—and put it down the highway for a number of them, actually—and start building some roads.

Darren Hughes: Yeah, right!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: And Darren Hughes should be out there fighting for that money. That is what he should be doing, instead of sitting in here carping away like a schoolboy who has not yet started shaving. He should be out there fighting for the money so the people of Kapiti can get some decent roads in their electorate and not end up with the shambles that is out there now.

I am very happy to say National believes that there are other barriers to roading. The other barriers are the things like the Resource Management Act, and we were told at the select committee that it now takes longer to gain consent for a new road than it does to construct it. I will repeat that, in case members did not hear. It takes longer to gain consent for a new road than it does to construct it. That is an outrage. I asked Transit afterwards whether there was any other—

Darren Hughes: Nine years and you didn’t do it!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: That member says: “Nine years and you didn’t do it.” Actually, in 1999 National introduced quite substantial amendments to the Resource Management Act to fix those barriers. Guess what—the incoming Labour Government made Jeanette Fitzsimons chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and it bowled them. Well, they are coming back. Let me tell Mr Hughes that those amendments are coming back. The only good news I have for that member is that the people of his area will start to see some good roads built. It will require funding. That will come from $4.5 billion on top of everything that is in the current National Land Transport Programme announced by Labour. The funding is on top of that. It is extra, in addition, over and above, and more—let us get the words right—than what is currently in the National Land Transport Programme. National is committing another $4.5 billion, because that is what the petrol tax would come to.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) : As I speak to the appropriations for Vote Police, people up and down New Zealand will be asking themselves whether they remember a time when the police were held in worse esteem by the people of New Zealand. There is no other. This Parliament is meeting on what may officially be its last day of this session, and we know that every single piece of market research information shows that public confidence in the New Zealand Police has plummeted. New Zealanders no longer believe that this Government’s priority is dealing with crime and drugs; they believe its priority is dealing with revenue gathering.

Up and down the country, communities know that if they dial 111, the chances are that they will not get the level of service they want. The Opposition revealed a few weeks ago that 180,000 phone calls to the police communications centres had gone unanswered. The Opposition has revealed case after case of human tragedy involving the 111 system. Iraena Asher dialled the police when she needed them most and got a taxi. Then we had the folks from Te Puke, Mr and Mrs Bentley. Mrs Bentley dialled 111 when they needed assistance because crazed lunatics with a gun were beating up Mr Bentley. What happened? She was lied to, and the police did not arrive in time. The emergency services were not informed that a gun was involved. It was an absolute catastrophe. Time and time again we hear those kinds of dreadful stories of events taking place under the watch of this Minister of Police, who does not even deign to come down to the House and face accountability for his appalling performance as Minister of Police.

We have never seen a time when New Zealanders have had less confidence in their police force. Let us look at the reason for that. It is because of a complete and utter lack of leadership by this Minister, and because of appalling leadership by the Commissioner of Police. Neither of them has grasped the full extent of the understaffing and the under-resourcing of the New Zealand Police. Right now, New Zealanders know that if they need the police, the policemen and policewomen of New Zealand will do their level best to provide the sort of service they want, but that those people are under incredible staffing pressure. The Opposition revealed a few weeks ago that 1,100 unallocated cases were sitting on the desks of police officers in Counties-Manukau Police District. Do members know what happened then? The police administration picked up the phone and said to every police district in New Zealand that it should quickly move the unallocated files and put them on officers’ desks. The districts were told that it did not matter whether the officers actually dealt with the files, but the administration could say they were allocated. That is why we got the incredible situation—even in my own police district—where when we rang each of the police areas to find out how many files were unallocated and we added them up, the total was about four times what police headquarters said it was.

In Counties-Manukau we had, and still have today, a number of unallocated sexual complaints that the police have not investigated. We found out that in south Auckland nine serious sexual assaults were not being investigated because of police understaffing. Information that will come out in the next 24 hours will highlight to members of this Parliament how bad the understaffing of, for example, the Criminal Investigation Bureau in central Auckland is, and the fact that the police simply have not had the resources they need to keep up. Our police staffing is way below what any New Zealander would expect of the police force, and that is because of this Government’s priorities. This Government has made revenue gathering the priority over crime and drugs in this country. This Government has increased the number of traffic tickets by over 65 percent, when still only one in every nine burglaries is solved and the time it takes the police to respond to priority one calls is getting longer and longer in every police district.

I have a message for the communities of New Zealand: help is on the way. Support for the police will come.

RON MARK (NZ First) : We are here today to discuss the estimates for the new fiscal year. But it is, I have to say, a rather pointless exercise. It is pointless because on the issue of law and order, on the issue of the police, and on the question of whether our communities are safer, feel safer, have confidence in this Government to protect them, have confidence in the Minister of Police to give the police the resources they need, and have confidence in the Commissioner of Police to manage those resources, this Government fails on every count.

It is sad, but I guess in some ways encouraging, that when we go out into the streets, clubs, pubs, and rugby clubs of New Zealand, the New Zealanders we meet say unanimously that this Government has failed them in the area of police. This country will look back on the 111 debacles and say: “How could that ever have happened?”. When New Zealand First looks at the resources allocated by this Government to the police, we see quite clearly that this Government does not understand in any way, shape, or form the problems the police are facing.

The police ask for only three things. They ask for adequate resources—and police numbers within those adequate resources—they ask for the tools to do the job, and they ask that appropriate priorities be accorded. But what do we see? In terms of resources in ratio terms, we have a totally inadequate ratio of police to citizens in this country when compared with other likeminded nations. In terms of money, the money that the Government crows about its having increased in the Budget goes no way to addressing the police’s ability to actually investigate the levels of crime that we are dealing with today. In terms of tools, the police still want some simple tools. They want on-board data systems in their cars, they want body armour, they want stab-proof vests—actually, they want simple things like socks to arrive on time; they do not want to wait 9 weeks to get a pair—and they want legislation like an amendment to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act that would enable them to put young men away earlier rather than have them kill themselves on our motorways.

They want the tools to put boy racers away at the earliest stage and not be dealing with them 30, 40, or 50 convictions down the line. They want the tools to deal with people who rack up $70,000, $80,000, or $90,000 worth of fines and thumb their noses at the law. They want priorities, and they do not want the priorities built around traffic policing.

But this Government has none of those things in its policy, and I have to tell the public of New Zealand not to worry about it; after this election, all those issues will be dealt with by New Zealand First. Why this Government insists on passing laws legalising prostitution—or lowering the drinking age, which the previous Government did—and telling the public that the police will enforce the laws, and failing every time in every Budget to deliver to the police the resources to do precisely that, is absolutely beyond me.

We have a crisis in the police force in terms of confidence. We are losing experienced officers, hand over fist, and one of the reasons we lose them is that we have an incompetent Minister of Police who, when he is told that there are problems in the 111 system and is told 2 years in advance by a brave police officer in uniform, he does nothing about it, and the first time the public knows there is a problem is when a young lady goes missing and is never seen again.

Police officers are leaving the force because they are sick of writing out tickets to pump up this Government’s revenue, which is what it is. I ask the Minister, if the speed cameras and the quota ticketing are working, why are so many young men still dying on our roads? They are dying because the policy of issuing quota tickets does not work, because it is catching law-abiding citizens in the main. It is not focusing on or targeting the recidivist offender—the person who should have been taken off the road. How ridiculous it is that a man with 23 convictions for being drunk in charge of a vehicle is still at large. How sad it is that young men who are clocking up $20,000 or $30,000 worth of fines get away with it, only to die on the roads later.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) : Members are speaking at the moment in connection with the appropriations debate, and it is perhaps interesting to reflect on why we are doing all this. The reason is that the Crown cannot spend money, levy taxes, or raise loans without the authority of Parliament. So, in the course of the parliamentary financial cycle, a number of pieces of legislation are passed through Parliament to provide the support for funding and maintain the system of democracy as we know it here. Appropriations are, of course, made for specific purposes and are grouped into votes. I will follow the previous speaker by speaking about Vote Police, and I do that in the context of the responsibilities I have in the National Party for justice.

The previous speaker has said that we do not feel safe on our streets and in our communities. That is in marked contrast to the position that this Government has taken. The Minister of Police, Mr Hawkins, has made it clear on a number of occasions that he considers the police are fabulously well resourced. I recall him stating on 3 February 2005, in answer to a question in this debating chamber “… the police are well resourced.”, and he was to repeat that line some 12 days later when, in a second answer to a parliamentary question, he stated: “The commissioner and I often talk about resources and he is very pleased with what I get him.” The Minister was again to reaffirm the Government’s position when he stated, in answer to a question asked on 4 May, 3 months later: “I am satisfied that the police are very well resourced under this Government …”. Well, that is absolute nonsense! One need only to look, by way of comparison, at the ratio of population per police officer in countries similar to our own to see that New Zealand is critically starved of front-line police officers.

Darren Hughes: Give us the exact number that National proposes.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: I am going to give the exact numbers, by way of comparison, in a number of countries.

Before I do that, though, when we are talking about front-line police—and, as the Government member knows, National has made a commitment to increase the number of front-line police—we need to define exactly what we are talking about. When we are talking about front-line police, we are talking about police officers in police cars and detectives in the front line. These are the ratios. In France, for example, the ratio of population per police officer is 255:1, in Scotland it is 321:1, in England and Wales it is 393:1, in Australia it is 427:1, in the United States of America it is 438:1, in Canada it is 531:1, and in New Zealand it is 554:1. What will happen is that, by including additional sworn police staff in the 2005 Budget, New Zealand’s population to police ratio will decrease from 554:1 to 544:1. Of the countries that I have just used as an example, our percentage is the worst. Yet we have a brave and, some would say, foolish Minister stating that the police are well resourced: “The commissioner and I often talk about resources and he is very pleased with what I get him.” Finally, he stated: “I am satisfied that the police are very well resourced under this Government …”. What a load of nonsense that is! That is why, no doubt, the Police Association is calling for 10,000 sworn officers by 2010.

One of the things that has happened in the context of police funding is that tagged funding has occurred. Government members may be interested to know, if they are wide awake enough to listen, that the tagged funding has done nothing substantial—nothing significant—and nothing at all to increase the numbers of front-line police officers. We have seen increases in tagged funding, so that at Auckland airport the number of police officers has dramatically increased. That is a response to treaty obligations, which New Zealanders have accepted, but it has done nothing to increase the number of front-line police.

National’s pledge is to substantially increase the number of front-line police officers. That we are capable of doing, that we will do, and that we will fund.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : I thought Mr Mark made a very good contribution to this debate in summarising the problems we have with the police, but I just want to take a much smaller area, which does not usually receive much public consideration, but which is very indicative of why no amount of money under the current control is likely to fix the problems. I want to look at the culture of secrecy. Mr Mark also raised this issue this afternoon. We have a Minister of Police who receives $1.5 million for policy advice, including advice on answering questions, who simply chooses not to answer them.

What kind of police force can we expect with a Minister who decides that the rules do not apply to him, or just decides that when it is embarrassing he will forget about supplying answers? It is a culture of secrecy where the police are, in fact, our only defence in court. In our justice system, wrongly, the public do not have a voice. The victims do not have a voice in court. The only people speaking up for the victims and the public in court are the police prosecutors, and the police are headed by a man who does not bother to answer parliamentary questions when they are embarrassing. The police should be fighting bitterly to make sure there is a general expectation in this country that truth will out, cheats do not prosper, and honesty pays. But they do not. I believe that this is as much a source of grievance to local police—the police on the beat—as it is to us.

Three high-profile cases at the moment exemplify the tolerance that this Minister has supervised—the tolerance of cover-up that means New Zealanders are simply treated as plebs, kept in the dark, and have their trust in the justice system, not just the police, affected by it.

Ron Mark: Helen’s little mushrooms!

STEPHEN FRANKS: Exactly. Wrongdoing is kept under wraps by name suppression; and by the habit of judges—the justice insiders—to decide that they can know all about cases, but it will not suit the plebs, or them, if others know. Name suppression, which the police do sometimes oppose, is a cancer in the public confidence of the justice system. I have asked this Minister about his attitude on these matters, and have not got answers.

ACT policy is for open courts—to restore the tradition of British justice that prevailed until only 40 years ago. Last week I asked the Minister of Broadcasting about a State-owned enterprise I believed was complicit in a cover-up of a Northland case. It appears to me now that the State-owned enterprise, if it is involved, has covered its tracks deeply, though the Minister of Broadcasting’s answers are ambiguous, to say the least.

But in this case we have a perfect example of the suspicions that emerge about the motives of people in the justice system when we have secrecy. The insiders have their vanity satisfied by knowing all about it. The connections of an accused whose name is suppressed usually end up knowing all about it. Those who want to can find out on the Internet what is going on. We have three cases like this at the moment. We have the sports celebrities, whom everyone except Joe Public is not allowed to know unless they go on to the Internet, and we have the Northland case—the Whangarei case—where it appears that a contractor to TVNZ has helped persuade the court to allow a cover-up for 9 months.

There is an arrogance about this in the system, and it is an arrogance that is not shared by front-line police, who do not like it. It is an arrogance that comes from the insiders feeling that they may be capable of putting aside their previous knowledge and acting objectively, but the punters, who will perhaps end up on a jury, cannot. It is the arrogance that says: “Let’s dispense discretionary privilege of information”—that is the court speaking, and the police when they go along with this—“but let’s not let New Zealanders know that justice is being done.”

These high-profile cases do absolutely nothing for confidence. Veronica Jacomb, in the series To Catch a Thief, made a mockery of the public’s interest in that series. The police appear, represent the public, and represent the victims, and then we see the spectacle of virtually the whole of New Zealand with ideas of who it is, but a whole series of people having to issue statements purporting to clear themselves. This does not do anything for confidence. This does not do anything for a general belief by the public that the justice system is just serving those who have money to get Queen’s Counsel, and those who are rich.

This leaves us all in a position where we believe that justice is available to, or justice can be manipulated by, people who have access to power. The Minister of Broadcasting did not choose to resolve this. The Minister of Police—to be fair he has not had the 10-day time allowed to answer the questions I have asked him about police support for any of these cover-ups—will have 10 days to answer questions. He has a budget of $1.49 million to do that. His answers that I received today to four other important questions say just what I expect he will do with this embarrassing question on name suppression. He has told me: “It has not been possible to obtain the information required to enable me to respond to this question by the due date. I undertake to provide the member with a copy of the information once it is available.” My guess is that that information will not be available until well after the election.

In the Whangarei case, name suppression has been extended to 22 September, well after the election. In the Whangarei case it cannot be the interests of the accused that have been considered by the court, it must be the financial interests of those he is associated with, because everyone in Whangarei has a good idea of the nature of the charges and who the accused is—everyone who knows the accused. It cannot be the normal charitable concern about family and close relationships, it has to be commercial interests.

The Minister of Police, who could have helped resolve this, and who could have been seen as a Minister who was keen to see open justice, has set a pattern of cover-up. This is the same Minister of Police who, when I first asked about the Te Puke couple, Maggie and Peter Bentley, told me that the inquiry would look into whether there was lying, and would look into why he called it a textbook case. The police told the Bentleys that there were police on hand, when they were at least an hour away, told the Bentleys that they had called their neighbours when they had called no neighbours, and blocked Mrs Bentley with reassuring words that were entirely false.

The Minister of Police assured me, in answers to written and oral questions, that that matter was the subject of a police investigation that would later be reported on. I have read the investigation report, and it does not touch on those matters. There is no explanation that I have seen of why the Bentleys were lied to or why the Minister then described that as a textbook case. The Minister, as the political leader of a police force, should have made it his business to insist on an adequate answer to that. He should have made it his business to be setting a model of openness and a pattern that respected truth, and when he made a mistake, fixing it immediately.

When I implied in my parliamentary question last week that the Queen’s Counsel in the Whangarei case had been directly supported by TVNZ, I made sure, as soon as I learnt that that was not the case, that that was revealed. What does the Minister of Police, charged with statutory duty to uphold the confidence of people in the police, do? He goes to ground. He does not answer the questions. With all the hundreds of thousands of dollars—the $1.49 million—that he has at his disposal to answer questions and provide policy advice, we get nothing more. I do not think he has even asked for any more. I see in the new initiatives his sum for ministerial policy advice has increased by $13,000. There is $13,000 extra, yet his excuse to me, and to Mr Mark of New Zealand First, for not answering his questions is lack of time.

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

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) : I am going to cover three main points concerning Vote Veterans’ Affairs. The first is that the community will be aware of the role that veterans played and continue to play in developing New Zealand as a nation. A seriously wounded Gallipoli veteran told his grandson that Anzac Day is a day when politicians speak fine words of the glorious dead but they always avert their gaze from the living survivors who gave them democracy. I recognised this when I was invited to the Montecillo Veterans Home and Hospital in Dunedin. It is a home for veterans who are struggling for finance to be relocated. Did the local Government MP support them? No. Who pushed the issues to get them to where they are today? One guess—it was New Zealand First.

The second point I would like to refer to is that the veterans’ perspective is considered as part of Government decision-making on issues that impact on veterans’ lives. A mere apology, no matter how sincere, from the State is simply not enough to redress the gross injustices that have been built up over a number of years, or discrimination against the New Zealand Viet Nam veterans. My appeal to the Government is this: will this Government rectify the misdemeanours that have taken place in reference to the discrimination against our Viet Nam veterans and their families; if not, why not?

For more than 30 years successive Governments have salted the wounds of poisoned veterans and their families. Two Government reports, one ordered by National and the other by Labour, pooh-poohed the veterans’ claims that they were dying after serving their country. No one wanted to know about the chronic disabling illnesses afflicting veterans and their genetically harmed children, who were dismissed as a statistical blip. If one dithers for long enough the problem usually dies, but the legacy of Agent Orange will haunt us long after the last-affected veteran has perished.

The Agent Orange issue needs putting to rest. Allegations that New Zealand soldiers in Viet Nam were exposed to the defoliant and have suffered severe repercussions have been current for some three decades, and no Government has stepped forward to sort this out. All of a sudden, when there is to be an election, we hear promises about what parties would do with the veterans. This is what the veterans have said: “The bidding by the political parties for veterans’ votes is as distasteful as the grandstanding that now disfigures every military celebration in the calendar.” The Press article continued: “It is difficult not to be moved. The stonewalling the Vietnam veterans have been subject to should not have happened to men who risked their lives for their country—a conclusion that stands even in the face of the fact that the war they fought was controversial and bitterly opposed by many New Zealanders.”

When troops returned from Viet Nam they were ordered to wear civilian dress and to turn up in the dark. Who are the people who opposed them and attacked them? A greater number repeatedly re-elected the Government that deployed the troops. 161 Battery fired the first shot on 16 July 1965. Three months before they were deployed, the Holyoake Government—and Holyoake was the Prime Minister—allowed it to happen. Why are our veterans being treated in such a manner, when we enjoy the freedom that resulted from what they did?

• Vote agreed to.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) : It is perhaps on the issue of treaty negotiations that Labour has been most spectacular in demonstrating its incapacity to govern appropriately. The template for treaty negotiations was set down during the 1990s, and is widely accepted by the vast majority of the New Zealand population. New Zealanders, we are often told, are fair people—and they are. They do know that where there is a grievance and it is settled, then there is progress. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I cannot speak while a conversation is going on 2 feet in front of me.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Your point is taken, Mr Brownlee. Perhaps the conversation with the Clerk could be held to one side. You have not lost any time, Mr Brownlee.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I look at the entries in the Government’s books for treaty negotiations and see that little has changed over the years, and that is good. It means that the fiscal envelope set by the National Government some 15 years ago has still not been exceeded. That, I think, is a tribute to the process that was originally put in place through Mr Bolger, the then Prime Minister, and the Rt Hon Doug Graham. Many people ask about all the money that is going to Māori and wonder why they should get it. The reality is that we were pouring money back in the early 1990s, through the Māori Affairs Department, into all sorts of programmes that never benefited people directly, or as directly as the treaty settlements do.

The thing that I find most interesting here—and I want to receive an answer from the Minister on this—is under the heading “Sector Outcomes and the Ministry’s Intermediate Outcomes”. Before I go on to that, I want the Minister to tell us why the Government appointed two new people to the Waitangi Tribunal almost 12 months ago who have yet to hear any historical grievance. An answer from the Government would be good, if we can get one. Why are people currently being appointed to the Waitangi Tribunal who do not have any caseload allocated to them?

I now go back to the other issue, under the heading “Sector Outcomes and the Ministry’s Intermediate Outcomes”, which states: “a fairer, more credible and more effective justice system, being a system in which people’s interactions are underpinned by the rule of law and justice services are more equitable, credible and accessible.” Why does that have to be a goal for the Office of Treaty Settlements? I would have thought that that goal was something we would want for all New Zealanders. That is a perfect demonstration of how the Labour Party is out there with a message that would tell one audience that it is taking a lot of race-based stuff out of its programmes, but then it quietly slips this sort of thing into the Government accounts. I would have thought that the Office of Treaty Settlements was just about negotiating the settlement of grievances, and would not have that wider social objective. I would hope that the Minister may be able to give us an answer on that.

Another objective set for the Office of Treaty Settlements is safer communities. Those communities are described as those “in which there is reduced crime and in which safety and wellbeing is enhanced through partnerships …”. What does that state? Does it state that this Government believes that much of the criminal element in this country resides amongst those people who are harbouring an unresolved treaty grievance? That is how it reads to me, and that has to be an utter nonsense. Safer communities are what all New Zealanders should expect. To state that a safer community is one where there is reduced youth offending, reduced offending by Māori, reduced violence, reduced family violence, a reduced number of burglaries, reduced organised crime, and reduced theft of, and from, cars is something that all New Zealanders want. I want to know whether the Labour Government seriously believes that those things can be achieved through the process of treaty negotiations. That just seems to me to be an utter nonsense. So I would like the Minister to take a call, to explain what that means.

SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand that in Committee, or in the House, it is inappropriate for us to challenge your ruling. Far be it from me to speak on behalf of New Zealand First—it certainly does not need my protection—but it would seem to me that, as the third-largest party in Parliament, the first call on a vote should go to New Zealand First, unless it yields to United Future. My understanding is that Dail Jones has not done that.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. He is perfectly correct, and I stand corrected. But the problem now is that, under Speaker’s ruling 25/4, because I have already called Mr Adams I have to give him the call. I will certainly come to Mr Jones straight after that.

DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I was going to seek two calls. Now I am in the invidious position where, if Mr Adams goes first, I will have to seek two calls in a row.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member can have two calls in a row. I have already taken two calls in a row before.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Notwithstanding Speaker’s ruling 25/4, which you quoted, you have an opportunity here to make a bit of a mark and perhaps make your own ruling in this matter. I know that sounds like a rash thing to do on the last day that Parliament sits officially—although today rolls on into tomorrow, in one of the vagaries of the parliamentary system—but here is an opportunity for H V Ross Robertson, MP for Papatoetoe, to be noted in Speakers’ Rulings.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is questioning my ruling. I have made the ruling. I am not creating a new precedent; I am following Speaker’s ruling 25/4. I call the honourable member Paul Adams.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future) : To build a prosperous nation, first, obviously, we have to build prosperous people. As spokesperson on immigration for United Future, I asked the library to look up some figures so that I could see exactly what has been going on in the people area over the past 6 years, seeing as Vote Immigration is $160 million.

In 1999 our estimated population was 3,832,900 people, and by 2004 it had grown to 4,054,300 people, which is an increase of 221,400. Live births in the same period were 337,641, and deaths were 165,537, which brings an increase by natural births of 172,104 people. It should be noted that those births were genuine Kiwi kids. Their parents would have come from a wide variety of countries and cultures—just as many of ours did—as we are a very multicultural nation. However, those children were born New Zealanders. Natural births, therefore, accounted for over 75 percent of our population increase in that period.

So what did we have to do to achieve, over 6 years, an increase of an additional 49,296 people—an increase, in reality, of only 8,216 per year? Despite all New Zealand First’s negative talk about immigration and the pressure it has caused on our infrastructure, even New Zealand First will have difficulty arguing with the reality of those figures, and our ability as a nation to handle that level of increase. Our infrastructure problems are obviously, in part, due to an expanding economy and growing tourism industry. Surely they are good challenges to work through, but, no, the third tired old party wants to take New Zealand back to the Dark Ages, and United Future says “No way!”.

However, those figures should certainly indicate to us that we do not have the formula right yet, as we need to consider seriously the things we need to do better. Permanent long-term arrivals in that period were a massive 461,210 people. Our permanent long-term departures were 294,938. That is a difference of 166,272 people in a 6-year period. From 166,272 people, how come we achieved a net gain of only 49,296, which is a retention rate of only 30 percent? Are we becoming only a transfer station to other nations? What are we doing so wrong that people who wanted to make New Zealand their home are finding it impossible to do so and have to move on? They are questions the incoming Government should seriously address.

In closing, I note that we had an inflow of 461,210 people to achieve that 49,000 gain, yet in the same period we aborted 112,116 genuine New Zealand babies who would have become true New Zealanders. Yes, future doctors, carpenters, dentists, schoolteachers, and union delegates, to name a few, die at the hand of the abortionists. If that number had even been halved, our population increase would have been better than what we achieved over those 6 years. That is why United Future believes that a decrease in the number of abortions must be good for our families and good for our country.

We are proud to grow our own meats and our own wines. We have discovered that what we can grow at home, in New Zealand, ends up being among the best in the world. Our children have been no exception. Many of the world’s greatest achievers—such as Michael Campbell, whose success we have celebrated just tonight—have been New Zealanders. We need to realise this with our children, who, after all, are the fruit of the womb. If we lift the rate of home-grown children, we will find that many of our current challenges are a lot easier to handle. Therefore, let us keep the issues the issue, and not blame immigration for pressures that immigration in itself simply has not caused.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : I would like to thank the member who has just resumed his seat for his speech. He and I have been to a couple of meetings together, and he has obviously listened to what I have to say and he has been working around the information I have been putting forward.

New Zealand First has made it clear that we need a population policy, and the Rt Hon Winston Peters made this very clear in his Ōrewa speech about 5 or 6 weeks ago. New Zealand First intends to stop the knee-jerk annual immigration planning and start working on 10-year and 25-year plans for New Zealand. We want to establish long-term labour market demands and import the skills needed if sufficient New Zealanders cannot be trained. We want to target people with the skills needed and ensure that immigrants have jobs to go to. We want to consult New Zealanders about the make-up of those people coming here, and we want to produce a targeted programme aimed at retaining skilled New Zealanders and encouraging others offshore to return.

New Zealand is the only First World country with an agricultural base. We have to decide the size of our population and the nature of our environment. We rely on our clean, green image to encourage tourists to come here—in fact, tourism is now our major foreign exchange earner. Yet our population increased by more than 25 percent in the last 18 years to take us to over 4 million, and the suggestion from United Future, from the member who has just spoken, that we should have a population of 5 million in another 10 years, must give us cause for concern.

What is happening in New Zealand at the moment to say that such a policy is overdue? Well, the member has just given us some figures. From 1976 to 1986 New Zealand’s population increased by 160,000. But from 1996 to 2004, for example, eight years out of 10, our population increased by 329,400, which is more than double the increase from 1975 to 1986 in four-fifths of the time. In 1986 our population was 3,298,000. In 2004 it was 4,061,400, an increase of 772,400 in 18 years, which is a 25 percent increase. Where did it all go? In the Auckland region the population increase from 1986 to 2004 was 435,000. Almost 60 percent of that new population in those 18 years went to Auckland. That increase in Auckland’s population in 18 years—and I am talking about the Auckland region—is almost the same as Wellington’s entire population in the region from year one.

So the problem for Auckland is this: did we get the same number of schools that Wellington has, the same number of hospitals that Wellington has, and the same number of roads that Wellington has, in order to compensate for that 18-year growth in Auckland’s population—which was the same as the total population of Wellington since the year dot? The answer is no. In speaking about the effect of immigration on the people of the Auckland area, for example, in west Auckland, when I was the member of Parliament from 1975 to 1984, a new school was built in 1975 and good on the Kirk-Rowling Government and the previous planners for doing that. On the North Shore, at Long Bay, a new secondary school was built in about 1975. Has another secondary school been built in that region since 1975, when Auckland’s population has shot through the roof? No. Not one other secondary school has been built. No wonder the schools have large rolls. There has not been another secondary school built in west Auckland, in the Waitakere College or Long Bay College area, since 1975. I went to the opening of Waitakere College in 1975. Mr Garelja does a wonderful job at Waitakere College, but that is the problem we have in Auckland in so far as immigration is concerned.

What are we going to do about it? We see the effects of this massive immigration to New Zealand, which is totally out of control. We have an electricity crisis in Auckland now. We read about it every day. What will be one of the consequences of that? Well, I am pleased to see that they will have electricity power stations, but there is nothing to stop them from building a nuclear power station. There is no law that stops the building of a nuclear power station. The Royal Commission on Nuclear Power, which we set up from 1975 to 1978, indicated that as of 2005 two nuclear power stations should already be commissioned. The plan was to have two in the North Island and one in the South Island. They should be commissioned now, based on that 160,000 increase in population every 10 years projected back in those days, and we have gone well beyond that today.

That is one of the effects that immigration has. We know that law and order is out of control, and that housing is out of control, and these are all indications of the failure of successive Labour Governments, starting in about 1988 when they opened the floodgates, and of National Governments in the 1990s. There was a slight decrease when New Zealand First was part of the coalition, as we were trying to turn the tap down, and another roaring increase in the last few years.

From 1996 to 2004 the increase has been 329,000 people, in that short space of time. That is an impossible rate of growth for New Zealand. It is about the size of the Canterbury region’s population in total. We have had increases in Wellington of 15 percent, in Canterbury of about 20 percent, and in Tauranga of 30 percent, but in Auckland, the biggest city, the population increase has been over 50 percent in 18 years. That is a disgrace. New Zealand First says, and I suggest, that we have what David Lange suggested once: not a cup of tea, but a pot of tea and a good, long think about where we are heading now.

It does not matter how many roads the Labour Party puts in, and I am really pleased with the roading programme that the Labour Party has put up; over the upper harbour bridge, in Mount Roskill, on the northern motorway and the city motorway. It is doing a great job. But it does not matter how many roads we build for the current population because if we increase the population by the same amount again in 10 years, from 4 million to 5 million, no amount of roading can ever stop the problems that Auckland will feel. When I come to Wellington I come to a city that is the same as it was in 1984. I think that the way in which Wellington’s population has increased should have been the master plan for New Zealand, at about 15 percent over 18 years, or about 60,000 in about 18 years in the region, and not the 50 to 60 percent Auckland has had.

Wellington is old New Zealand to me. When I come here I see that there has really been no change since I was here in 1984. When I go to Auckland, it is a foreign city. Auckland is a foreign city to Aucklanders now. If one is a fair-dinkum Aucklander, in the mainstream, walking up and down the main street of Auckland, one feels that Auckland is a foreign city. That is what Aucklanders feel. I welcome multiculturalism. I know what it is to be a minority of 0.001 percent myself, but we must have an infrastructure. Immigrants get the blame, but it is the Government’s fault. It is the fault of the Labour Party, and it is the fault of the National Party. Immigrants get blamed for all these things, but it is the fault of successive Governments. That is what the real problem is and that is what New Zealand First highlights time and time again. We have to put in the infrastructure, and that is why we in New Zealand First say that we need a population policy. I am so pleased that Taiwanese people agree with me.

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

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There must be some mistake. The New Zealand First member has just spent 10 minutes railing against immigration policy, and now he is abstaining.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

SIMON POWER: How can he abstain?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My apologies to the Committee but I think I may have inadvertently said “nine abstentions” in the previous votes after the dinner break, rather than eight.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has to seek leave to correct the vote.

NANDOR TANCZOS: I seek leave to—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say to honourable members when there is a point of order on the floor there is to be absolute silence. The member is seeking leave to alter the vote. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member should tell us what particular vote he wants to change.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It concerns Vote Treaty Negotiations.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Actually, your intervention did not help, because in order for us to understand what the honourable member is requesting, we need to hear precisely what his dilemma is. That was not clear. He said he “thought” he had made an error.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I ask the member to clarify—

RON MARK: We are being asked right now whether we object to something about which we are not clear. I think the member deserves an opportunity to make clear precisely what the problem is, so we can decide.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) : Mr Chairperson, if the Committee will give me a moment I will clarify that and then seek leave.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I just say that not too many minutes are left in this debate. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is no objection. The vote will be corrected.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. What is “that course of action”?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Does the member wish to change the vote, which is, as I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong, Vote Treaty Negotiations?

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) : Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Instead of nine votes it should be eight?

NANDOR TANCZOS: Correct.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is not.

MIKE WARD (Green) : The appropriation for Vote Environment totals about $57 million, which is quite a lot of money. The total amount across all ministries is something like a billion-plus dollars—2 percent of the vote. That is a lot, too. One could ask whether it is enough. In fact, real savings could be made. There are things we could be doing to look after the environment. We certainly do not look after it—not in the way we might—and those things would cost a lot less than what we are doing. In respect of waste, New Zealanders still throw away about 10 million kilograms every day. Between 1981 and 2001 the population of this country grew by 19 percent, but the amount of stuff we threw away increased by over 100 percent. New Zealanders throw out something like 10 million kilograms of waste every day. My grandchildren’s inheritance goes into those holes in the ground.

I do not want to talk about recycling. We have done a good job in terms of getting people to think about the stuff they are throwing away. We have a good waste strategy; it just needs to have some more teeth. But we have to move on from recycling to persuading people not to take home stuff that they will throw away in short order. We import extraordinary amounts of stuff.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time for this debate has expired.

MIKE WARD: I seek leave to continue.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry. The member cannot seek leave, because this is a set-time debate.

MIKE WARD: I seek leave to continue.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is seeking leave to complete his speech. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That is ludicrous. Labour will be looking to the Greens to form a coalition Government after the election, yet it turns the Greens down and treats them like some sort of doormat—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order. The Government has made its objection quite clear.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As far as I recollect, although Mr Mallard is, of course, an important instrument for the Government, he is not the Government on his own. Perhaps he thought Mr Ward was seeking to change a vote again, or suchlike. It seems to me to be an extreme demonstration of a lack of generosity not to allow the man to take another 2 minutes to finish what may well be his last speech in Parliament.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member, but I have made a decision.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I had requested that perhaps the leave could be put again, as your decision was unclear.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already made a decision. The leave has been denied. All the remaining votes will be taken together.

• The question was put that Vote Environment, Vote National Archives, Vote National Library, Vote Official Development Assistance, Vote ACC, Vote Child, Youth and Family Services, Vote Senior Citizens, Vote Women’s Affairs, Vote Conservation, Vote Local Government, Vote Community and Voluntary Sector, Vote Courts, Vote Customs, Vote Fisheries, Vote Consumer Affairs, Vote Racing, Vote Communications, the preamble, clauses 1 to 13, and schedules 5 to 7 be agreed to.