DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : This bill is not about preventing contracting-out or undermining competitive tendering. It is about ensuring that workers have the right to transfer, while, at the same time, the new employer has the right to make business decisions in relation to the workforce once the transfer is complete. So let us not get into overstating or hyping up what is a simple protection that takes New Zealand workers only one small, long-overdue step towards the kinds of protections workers overseas have had for many years.

I emphasise again that this bill is about fixing a problem that occurred because of the Crest Commercial Cleaning decision. It is about ensuring that the original intent of the Government and this Parliament is met. If we do nothing, the only workers in New Zealand who are left without any kind of protection will be those workers whom the original Act specifically sought to protect—that is, cleaners, food service workers, caretakers, laundry workers, and so on who have already been contracted out.

The bill does not encourage poor performance and acceptance of incompetence, as some have claimed. Those are management issues that can be dealt with at any stage of a restructuring process, either before or after. The bill does not give jobs for life. It provides protections for workers only at the point of transfer. After that, the employer is free to carry out normal business operations subject, of course, to existing employment law.

Let us be honest, even before the enactment of the Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 2004, many employers had carried out the requirements of the law in relation to transfer, and even with the Crest Commercial Cleaning decision, those employers had made a decision to continue to apply the requirements as intended by Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act. Has the world fallen apart? It does not look like it.

Cleaning, catering, orderly, and laundry workers have waited a long time for this protection in legislation. Unfortunately, they have had to wait a little bit longer because of the Crest Commercial Cleaning decision. This is a complex area of law, and I know that Opposition members do not understand it, but the workers who are affected by it do. They have had to live and breathe the unfairness of this situation for years and years. I look forward to sharing experiences at the select committee as to how this legislation can work positively for both business and employers, and to the protections that were originally envisaged by this Government being enacted speedily.

PAULA BENNETT (National) : First of all I would like to address the vulnerable workers. The premise I heard last week from members on the other side of the House was that National did not support those workers. What a myth that is. No one supports people in work more than the National Party, and no one actually acknowledges the job workers are doing more than the National Party. In fact, the National Party would like to see more money being put back into workers’ pockets. In many respects I personally feel that the people to whom the bill refers—our cleaners, our food service workers, etc.—are doing perhaps the hardest job in our community and in our society. Those people deserve to be respected for that, and they certainly deserve to have more money in their pockets.

I also want to talk a little about skills shortages, because if we listened to the Government we would be under the impression that skills shortages are about the shortage of engineers, machine workers, and those sorts of people, included in the Immigration Service list. As a matter of fact, we have a skills shortage across the board. We have as much of a skills shortage within the area of cleaners as we do anywhere else. There is a shortage in that area; as a matter of fact, it is not difficult to get a job in that area—and rightly so. A good cleaner will get a job in just about any town in New Zealand, because he or she is available. It is as simple as that. The Employment Relations Amendment Bill is not necessary.

I want to pick up on what Darien Fenton was saying, which was that cleaners who do an unsatisfactory job will not be taken on, because that is a performance issue. In the Dunedin Kindergarten Association situation the contract had finished. It is not that the contract was being rolled over. The contract had been terminated. The association then looked around, because it felt that the job that had been done had not been done to a satisfactory level. In fact, in the opinion of many parents and teachers the kindergartens were unsanitary and not suitable for children. So it is nuts to think that the very people who were not cleaning to a satisfactory level would then be passed on to the next cleaning company. Is this what we really want, as parents, for our kids—that we no longer have the right to say that an unsatisfactory job is being done and we do not wish to continue with that company, and to employ another one, because if we do we will find that we are working with the same people? It just does not make sense.

If we are really serious about supporting our most vulnerable people, or about supporting those who really need to be given a go and protected, the best thing we can do with them under employment relations in this country right now is to offer a 90-day probation period. The reality is that people want to prove themselves. They want to stand up, they want to be counted, and they want to be given a go. A 90-day trial period will work best for the most vulnerable in our society. It will work for the immigrants who are new to New Zealand, and are saying: “Let me stand up and prove my worth. Give me a foot in the door. Let me show you what I can do. Let me prove that my experience from overseas will actually stand up against anyone else’s. Let me in that door.” The 90-day period will equally stand up for people who have a criminal record, or who perhaps have not had the most favourable employment history, up to that date. Those people will be able to stand up and say “Give me a go.”, and a 90-day trial period is the way to do so.

From my experience within the employment sector, more employees bowed out of the employment arrangement in the first 3 months than were asked to leave or were performance-managed. It actually works to the employees’ favour that they too can trial the employment arrangement and give it a go. We do not know the fit. We do not always know whether a company will work for us. By having a 90-day trial period we get to step in and give it a go, and we can walk away with no penalties and no stigma involved. If we are serious about protecting those workers who need a go in our society, then a 90-day trial period is seriously the way to do it.

I want to talk a bit about a couple of scenarios that could happen under the bill. They are ones that cause me immense concern. Let us presume I own a relatively small business with a couple of cleaning contracts. One of them I lose and on the other one I am just making ends meet—I am struggling. I am struggling to keep my business alive, and I am struggling to continue to employ the people who are working for me. I have immense respect for the people who are working for me. I am giving them every opportunity and I am paying them above the minimum wage—I am doing everything I can. But I am barely holding on. I see a contract come up. I think I am going to get this contract, and I am going to compete for it to the nth, because I want to keep these employees going, and I wish to have a successful company. I cut my margins. I do everything I can to get that contract. I put in a very competitive tender and, lo and behold, I win. That is a win-win situation. I get to keep the employees I have had for such a long time—well, no, actually I do not get to keep those employees. I will have to put them off, because I have to take the other employees from the company that lost the tender. So I am going to have to make redundant those guys who are working for me and whom I have had a long-term, loyal arrangement with, because I cannot keep on both them and the new employees that, under this amendment bill, I would have to keep. So it is goodbye to those employees, because I would have to make them redundant at the end of the day. They are then without a job, but I have taken on others who have come from the previous contract.

Let us also think about a small to medium sized business that perhaps is not quite as ethical or astute, and is not running its business quite as smartly.

David Bennett: It could be a Labour Party member’s.

PAULA BENNETT: It could be a Labour Party member’s business.

The owners of the business are working away. Their cleaning contract is coming up for renewal in 6 months, and there is a good chance that they might lose it.. They have had a few complaints from the company that they have the contract with. They know the company is not overly pleased with the service they are giving, and there is a good chance that they will actually lose the contract. But they have an idea about what they might do to get rid of the competition—they might double the salary of the people who are currently working for them. They want to do it; it works in their favour and the employees are absolutely rapt, because they are getting double the money. The owners know that when they lose that contract and it goes to their competition, the competition will have to pay its employees the doubled salary. The competition will have to stand up and address all of this, because the bill does state, in new section 69A, inserted by clause 4, that employees have the right: “(a) to elect to transfer to the other person as employees on the same terms and conditions of employment;”. The owners could quite easily do that if they knew that they were going to lose a contract, if they wanted to affect their competition, and if they wanted to see the competition’s business go under. At the end of the day those employees would be without jobs—those very vulnerable workers whom Labour is trying to support. They would not have a job, because that company would not be there any more. Their original employees could make their conditions so good and so top of the range that their competitors could not possibly run a competitive business while paying their employees that much.

There are many scenarios in which the amendments in the bill would not work. I think we have to identify the fact that companies have the right to decide who they will contract their cleaning and their services to. They have a right to decide what is best for their business and, in the case of the Dunedin Kindergarten Association, what indeed is best for their children. This amendment bill is utter nonsense. It does not support our workers, who need the best protection. The best way to get people out there to have opportunities and to step up is to introduce a 90-day trial period, and that is certainly what the National Party stands for.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) : I move, That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.referred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

• Motion agreed to.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) : I move, That the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I intend to move that the bill will be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, with an instruction to the committee to present its report to the House on, or before, 13 March 2006. I also intend to move that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, on Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington region on a day the House is sitting, despite Standing Orders 192, 194(a), and 195(1)(b) and (c).

The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement is a four-way agreement to liberalise trade between Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore. In fact, it is the first trade agreement that spans four countries across Asia and the Pacific, and it offers strategic and economic opportunities for New Zealand. Together the four countries, which are all member economies of the APEC organisation, have a combined GDP of some NZ$400 billion, and trade flows amongst the four countries are worth over NZ$2.5 billion per year. The agreement not only reinforces the desire of New Zealand and Chile to deliver trade and economic relations with Asia but also serves as a building block to wider trade liberalisation within the APEC region as a whole.

The bill amends New Zealand’s domestic legislation in order to bring it in line with the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement. This bill in fact allows the agreement to come into force. That entails an amendment to the Tariff Act 1988, to enable the preferential tariffs conferred by the agreement to be applied to the parties to the agreement. The tariffs conferred by the agreement are included in the preferential tariff column of the New Zealand tariff. The actual rates of duty, as spelled out in the agreement, will be added to the tariff by a subsequent Order in Council.

The tariff reductions under the agreement will make New Zealand’s exports more competitive, and will bring small but useful immediate benefits to our exporters. On entry into force of the agreement, tariffs on 89 percent of New Zealand’s current exports to Chile will be immediately eliminated. All remaining tariffs will be phased out by 2017. That will bring savings to New Zealand exporters of around $2.2 million in import duties—the amount incurred in the year ended June 2004. In that way the agreement will immediately deliver benefits to New Zealand exporters, including exporters of products such as coal and a wide range of agricultural technology products where New Zealand’s exports are currently growing, such as seeds, animal genetic material, and veterinary vaccines. New Zealand exported only a small quantity of goods, worth $3.55 million, to Brunei Darussalam in 2004, incurring duties estimated at $52,000. Brunei will bind at zero tariffs, covering 92 percent of New Zealand’s exports to Brunei. It will eliminate all remaining tariffs by 2015. Tariffs between New Zealand and Singapore are already zero, under the existing New Zealand - Singapore closer economic partnership agreement.

This agreement, however, is about much more than just tariffs. It has a clear strategic focus beyond the direct tariff benefits that will accrue to the parties. The agreement will provide more opportunities, and greater certainty and transparency, for New Zealand businesses that wish to operate in Chile, Singapore, and, eventually, Brunei Darussalam, across a whole new range of services and sectors. New Zealand companies will be able to bid for Government procurement on the same footing as domestic suppliers. The partnership provides a framework for resolving issues concerning technical barriers to trade, and concerning sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Some barriers identified by New Zealand exporters have been included in the immediate work programme of the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade, which has been set up.

The agreement also establishes a framework for closer economic, scientific, technological, educational, cultural, and primary industry cooperation. The objective is to build on existing cooperative relationships, with a focus on innovation, research, and development, creating new opportunities for all parties. Cooperation programmes to support sustainable development will also be established under the Environment Cooperation Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding on Labour Cooperation, which were concluded as part of the overall package of the agreement.

This is New Zealand’s first trade agreement with a Latin American country. It will put New Zealand’s relationship with Chile—one of our closest Latin American partners—on a new level. As relatively small agricultural traders with comparable productive structures, the agreement provides the basis to foster a closer sense of partnership between Chile and New Zealand, opening the way to working collaboratively in third markets. Chile has established itself as a business platform for South America, in a similar way to the way in which Singapore acts as a hub in South-east Asia. The partnership will raise New Zealand’s profile in Latin America and will make it easier for businesses to use Chile as a launch pad. Since the signing of the agreement, there has already been increased interest among businesses and Crown research institutes in the opportunities that Chile presents. The membership of Singapore and Brunei, as ASEAN countries, is also an important part of the strategic rationale of the agreement, and adds significantly to the combined GDP of the member countries.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has considered this agreement, under the international treaty examination process. Its report to the House notes that the agreement serves New Zealand’s objective of broadening relations with Latin America and Asia, as well as promoting New Zealand’s wider trade policy interests in APEC and multilaterally.

To conclude, the agreement represents a significant economic and strategic opportunity for New Zealand. It enjoys strong support from the business community and others, including educational institutions with an interest in strengthening relations between New Zealand and the Latin American and Asian regions. The Government would wish to see the bill enacted by 23 March, in order to allow adoption by Order in Council of relevant regulations within the time frame in which the parties hope to ratify the agreement.

I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) : I will not detain the House for long in relation to this matter. The Minister has drawn our attention to the significance of the bill, and I want to say a few words about that. Also, I want to comment on the rather unusual process by which the House will be invited to support the motion that the Minister has given notice he intends to move.

I will speak briefly on the bill, because my two most learned colleagues—former Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials, Mr Groser and Mr Hayes—will no doubt speak at great length and with great eloquence in relation to the trade policy issues that sit behind the legislation. As the Minister pointed out, the measure is an important one. It cements some important trade relationships in place and provides the opportunity for us to see reduced tariffs between New Zealand and some important trading partners—and that, as I think the Minister indicated to the House, will see substantial reductions in tariffs in respect of some of those relationships, and quite quickly. So, for that reason, and because of some of the other facilitation measures that will flow—as the Minister has also pointed out—the National Party is unambiguously in support of this bill.

However, I want to make it clear that the process by which it is to be passed is a somewhat unusual one, and I want to reflect on the timetable that now lies ahead of the House in relation to the measure. According to the note I have here, I understand that this measure needs to be passed into law by the end of March and come into effect by 1 May 2006. It is not every day that the Government comes to the House and asks the other parties to facilitate a measure in quite such a short time frame. Indeed, as the Minister has already told us, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee will be asked to meet virtually any hour that is available, and the time that it will be given in which to report back is about as tight as one could possibly have while still having a select committee process.

I want to explain to the House why the National Party is being so soft and accommodating as to agree to those conditions. First and foremost, I say to the Minister that the National Party is very keen to cooperate with the Government on matters of trade. We want to send a clear and unambiguous signal to the other countries with which we do business. Also, we want to send a clear and unambiguous signal to the business community that it can look to the major political parties in New Zealand to cooperate on such matters and that any element of petty politics is removed from the proceedings. Just in that context, I say to the Minister that we would like a slightly more generous time frame, generally, in relation to legislation he brings to the House. I acknowledge that because of the election in the latter part of last year and some no doubt difficult machinery matters that the officials have to deal with, regrettably we have a somewhat less generous amount of time available to us than would normally be the case. However, I am satisfied that no one’s interests will be compromised by that process. As the Minister has already told the House, this treaty has already been before the select committee, and it has hardly been kept a secret from those in the business community or from those who otherwise might be affected by it. I am therefore quite satisfied that the highly truncated select committee process this bill will go through will not prejudice the interests of any party, in the way that would normally be the case with a timetable of the sort being recommended to the House today.

Having said that, we want to send a clear and unambiguous signal that the National Party will cooperate on these matters and therefore will do its best to cooperate with the select committee. I say to the chair of the committee, Dianne Yates, who is in the Chamber at the moment, that I trust that the Government will reciprocate the generous spirit that is being demonstrated from this side of the House by ensuring that the very lax resolution we are to agree to is not taken advantage of in any shape or form. We genuinely want to cooperate and we ask that the provisions that are being granted here will be reciprocated.

The Minister knows that in matters relating to trade New Zealand is too small a country, is in too remote a part of the globe, and has too great a dependence upon international trade as its lifeblood for us to play petty politics in any shape or form. So we will send this measure to the select committee, we will support it through that process, and we will make sure that all of those who do business with New Zealand feel that at least the major players are doing their bit. I am pleased to hear that the New Zealand First Party intends to support the bill to the select committee. I know that the bill will perhaps present some issues for its members, but I encourage them to approach the process with an open mind. The more that political parties in this country can send a signal that we stand together on these issues the better it is for all of us, particularly in relation to the position of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I hope that those members do not make his life unduly difficult, or complicate the nature of the relationships or future discussions that need to be held, by putting him in a position where his own party is seen to be taking an unduly negative—an unhelpful—view in relation to a bill of this sort.

I join the Minister in welcoming the bill into the House and pledge the cooperation of the National Party during the select committee process and the bill’s subsequent stages. I say to those who stand to benefit from this measure that I trust they will take full advantage of the negotiations that have been held in bringing this treaty together and in the expeditious progress of the bill through the House, as I am sure we will see.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : I thank the Hon Murray McCully for his comments on this bill. I might point out that it is a very small bill, comprising only two pages, so it will not take the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee a great deal of time to process.

The general policy statement in the explanatory note states: “The Bill amends the Tariff Act 1988 to enable the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPA) to be brought into force. The TPA has been signed by Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore. The agreement obliges each party to phase out duties on goods imported from the other parties. As goods imported into New Zealand from Singapore are already exempt under the New Zealand/Singapore Closer Economic Partnership Act 2000, the preferential tariffs provided for by the Bill will apply to goods originating from Brunei Darussalam and Chile.”

So this bill is actually a small technical bill to allow the treaty to continue and to become part of our law. This measure is not being hurried. The negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement started in 2002 with the New Zealand Government, the Prime Minister of Singapore, and the President of Chile. The agreement was originally known as the “P3” agreement, because it involved three countries: New Zealand, Singapore, and Chile. It was then extended to include Brunei Darussalam. So the bill will not take a great deal of time.

Also, the bill has gone through the treaty procedure, which means that the select committee has already looked at the national interest analysis and reported back on it to the House. During that stage we had public consultation and brought people in to the committee to give us their opinion, so we are now really only going through another step in the process.

The national interest analysis lists about five pages of people who were consulted in the process. Individual businesses were written to, and meetings took place with the Council of Trade Unions, Local Government New Zealand, the Federation of Māori Authorities, at least 51 companies, the New Zealand universities, and non-governmental organisations. Chambers of commerce have held workshops on the whole issue. So I do not think it is quite right to say that the matter is being rushed through. A great deal of consultation has taken place in relation to the bill.

I want to point out a couple of matters. One is about cultural effect, and there was some discussion when we looked at the national interest analysis. We have been assured that the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement contains safeguards to ensure that there are no adverse effects on New Zealand cultural values, including Māori interests. One part of the analysis states: “Provided such measures are not used for trade protectionist purposes, the Trans-Pacific SEP also gives successive New Zealand governments the right to adopt measures they deem necessary in relation to Māori, including in fulfilment of Treaty of Waitangi obligations. Furthermore, interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi is not subject to any dispute settlement provisions under the Trans-Pacific SEP.”

The analysis also has information on the full communication programme. For those people who are interested and listening to the radio, if they can access the national interest analysis, then that would give them far more detail on the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, the “P4 treaty”. I refer members also to the initial booklet that came out about that, and to the statement Jim Sutton made at the time. This is the first trade agreement to involve several Pacific Rim countries, and the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement—also known as the “P4”—has a strong strategic dimension and will serve to deepen the economic relationships between New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, and Singapore.

The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement is a high-quality trade agreement. It establishes a free-trade area and liberalises trade between New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, and Singapore in both goods and services. The Hon Jim Sutton went on to state: “It achieves a benchmark reached by few bilateral trade agreements in having a commitment by the four countries to eliminate tariffs on all traded goods, and at the same time adopts a high-quality approach to trade in services. The shared vision is to stimulate more open trade within the Asia-Pacific region, and New Zealand is keen to see the membership of the Trans-Pacific SEP expand as other Asia-Pacific nations look to take part. For New Zealand the economic benefits of the Trans-Pacific SEP will be seen from the day it enters into force.”

From that day, as the Minister of Trade, Phil Goff, has told us, 90 percent of New Zealand’s exports to Chile will enter duty-free, as will 92 percent of New Zealand’s exports to Brunei Darussalam. Tariffs between New Zealand and Singapore are already zero, as we have said, under the existing New Zealand - Singapore closer economic partnership. These tariff reductions will open up new market opportunities and restore level playing fields for our exporters with competitors from those countries like the United States that already have trade agreements with Chile and Singapore.

The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement is a model of free-trade agreements, which further establishes New Zealand’s credentials as a progressive trading partner. With the potential for more countries to join the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, now is the time—and we are keen that this legislation will progress—for Government and business to work together to maximise the benefits and opportunities it offers to enhance trade and economic links.

I am pleased that we have the support of the other side of the House. I thank those members opposite who were previously involved in some of those negotiations who are now members of the House. In fact, they will probably find it very interesting, after their having worked on the original negotiations, to be able to follow the bill’s process through the House and to see this agreement signed. I certainly know that the Prime Minister is looking forward to the signing of this agreement. Once again, along with the Minister, I commend this legislation to the House and look forward to its speedy process.

TIM GROSER (National) : When the chief whip asked me to fill the speaking slot—and I see now that it is only 7 minutes to 6—Mr McCully, a man I hold in enormous respect, expressed some doubt as to whether, given my background and the nature of the subject, I could express my views in anything under 3 hours. The second surprise was that I know he is expecting me to launch into a deep, geopolitical analysis of this agreement in the 7 minutes before we go to get something to eat. However, Mr McCully was so cooperative, so diplomatic, and so reasonable in his approach that I am afraid Mr Hayes and I have just had a quick consultation and we feel the need to slightly rebalance the equation. So before I get into the geopolitics of this subject—which I will address probably in 15 seconds, because basically Mr Goff the Minister has analysed it in correct and orthodox terms—I just want to make a few reflections on the issue of trade and foreign policy.

It is quite interesting to ask ourselves why we are in the situation that Mr McCully summed up in the way in which he approached this. Why is it that we are in this bipartisan space? When I first became involved in trade policy in the 1970s when working in the New Zealand Treasury, I can assure members, and I am sure members can recall, that it was anything but a bipartisan policy. In fact, we faced a bitterly divided country on those issues, for two reasons. Firstly, it was because we had the developed world’s highest form of import protection around our border for fear of being swamped by competition and, secondly, because on the other side of the equation the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the premier institution of the international trading system, was seen as completely unfair and biased against us. It had its rules on industrial products, an area where we feared we lacked all chance of ever becoming competitive, yet when it came to agriculture there was no sign of balance, whatsoever. So this is not a policy that has been all sweetness and light historically, as this debate indicates. We have moved strategically into this situation.

Like many New Zealanders, I have a view on MMP that I do not think is in any way original, and it would be summed up as follows. I think that when New Zealanders voted for it, they were voting not just for a change in the electoral system. I think what they wanted was a change in style, as well. I think they wanted a more cooperative approach, of which this trade policy is a very good example. I know that the Prime Minister finds it difficult to issue two sentences in a row without the word “inclusive” in them, but I do not see, apart from a few exceptions such as this agreement, a great deal of evidence of a new approach. I see instead that a largely partisan, “take no prisoners” approach to politics is still prevailing.

But there is another model, and if the Government had had the decency to listen to what Dr Brash was saying at the beginning of this session, it would know that we are prepared as a party to look case by case at other issues—exactly as we have done successfully in this country. We put forward the issue of climate change, but the Government would not even listen. But there is that other model, and as we sit down here in the comfort of that nice cooperative approach it is worth reflecting on the fact that it has served this country well. It is a model to use, if the Government can escape from the partisan model it is following in just about all other areas.

Now, let us have a little think about trade policy in the context of what it is. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Peters, gave a very nice speech a week or two ago, followed by Mr McCully. It was a standard Ministry of Foreign Affairs speech given to a new Minister. It is the seamless-web theory of foreign policy. Let me explain what that theory is really all about. It is a correct view, in my strong personal opinion, about how foreign policy actually works. It is not a matter of just putting foreign policy in one box and domestic policy in another—and that applies even more strongly to trade policy; they are closely interlinked

But of course we have a problem, and I shall not comment at large on it. We all know what the problem is and we saw it demonstrated today when the Green Party asked the Minister a series of questions. All he could do was act as a postbox, and in fact he was absolutely correct, in my opinion, in taking that approach. But when he is overseas there is no postbox beside him, and he will have to defend the Government’s position. I do hope that when my former colleagues in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave him their standard, seamless-web theory of foreign policy they did not use those words “seamless web” because, my goodness gracious me, that would be an unfortunate metaphor with regard to Mr Peters. What it brings to mind, of course, is the ancient child’s fable, The Spider and the Fly. Many of those children’s fables contain great wisdom that one should absorb by the age of 6.

Whether Mr Peters absorbed the wisdom of that fable is a question that we might examine in the moments we have left. Members will recall the original parable:

Will you walk into my coalition? said the spider to the fly.

’Tis the prettiest little coalition that you ever did espy.

The way into my coalition is up a winding stair,

And I have many curious baubles to show you when you’re there.

The problem is that Mr Peters clearly thinks he still has his exit strategy. However, the member for Tauranga—and I would refer to him by his name “Bob the Builder” if it were not a technical breach of the Standing Orders—has rather closed that option off. So we will find in due course what happens to the spider and the fly. We know who the fly is. I do not want to be too crude and suggest who the spider is in this case, except we know that she likes fast cars, provided she is not driving personally, of course. We will find out, I think, that this ends rather stickily for the fly—in this case, New Zealand First.

Nevertheless, the point about the seamless web theory is essentially correct. In terms of trade policy it is really important to understand that the real agenda for New Zealand, in terms of its domestic agenda, has moved on.

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

TIM GROSER: The dinner break was a very disturbing development for a new parliamentarian—I mean, I went to the wall, and then there was a break. The whole country and the future of the Government were hanging on my words, and then we stopped for an hour and a half. But I will try to get over it, and I will be very brief—well, I have only 2 minutes anyway, so I do not have much of a choice.

I want to make three fundamental points. First of all, to be more serious, the agreement is a good agreement. National has a small difference over the way in which our cultural industries might be treated. We went through that in the select committee; it is not a life and death issue, at all. I think Government negotiators can look to a lighter touch in the future, which is really related to a view that our cultural industries—and I have my hat on here as much as Opposition spokesperson on arts, culture and heritage as on the trade side of the equation—are clearly moving from a situation of being secondary industries in New Zealand over the last 30 years, and very much a defensive concern, to being very efficient and very export-oriented. There will always need to be a degree of subsidisation underneath the industry—but it is neither the right time nor place to go into the reasons for that—and there are different ways of offering that other than by the broad exception used in this particular case. But I think my first point has been made—that the agreement stands as a very good agreement, and that National is fully behind it.

The second point I make is a fundamental point about all trade agreements of this nature. At the end of the day, they are only opportunities. What New Zealanders make of those opportunities—or Zimbabweans, or Australians, or Chileans, or people of any country; they all have those opportunities—is very much dependent upon the initiative of the people concerned and the policy frameworks that are there to support them. We know that New Zealanders have a high degree of initiative. So it comes back, once again, to the linkages back into domestic policy structures, and that is why I introduced, albeit with a certain light touch, the theory of the seamless web of foreign policy. When negotiators are out there developing new opportunities, it is very, very important that at the same time they are backed up by the right type of domestic policy frameworks.

My third point is that the long-term significance of this agreement is a little difficult to tell at this stage, as is often the case. When I was a senior official working in the area, I often said to Ministers that trade policy is not an area for those who require instantaneous gratification; the seed time is very long. So if this agreement works well, and if international progress in the Doha round works well, the agreement may not turn out to be of major importance. But if things turn sour, then the opportunities that New Zealand has, like this agreement, will become strategically very important.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill. I advise the last speaker, Tim Groser, that the fly has landed in a positive place for all New Zealanders, which is far preferable to being Little Bo Peep who is valiantly trying to keep all of her sheep in order, as the National Party is doing at present. We know too that the dags of those sheep were in such a bad condition that the flies were not tempted, at all.

This legislation basically amends the Tariff Act to allow the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Agreement to come into force. With that comes the obligation on each partner—New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, and Brunei—to phase out duties. Singapore, of course, is already the subject of an agreement, so in reality we are talking about Chile and Brunei. New Zealand First will support the bill going to a select committee to enable members’ scrutiny and public submissions, and to acknowledge the strategic potential of an agreement that involves both Asia and South America—two areas of great importance to our future.

The agreement comes out of negotiations that began at APEC in 2002, and the national interest analysis was tabled in the House last year. It is New Zealand’s first agreement with a Latin American country. Tariff reduction will be phased in, with the longest protection—relating to textiles, clothing, footwear, and carpet—lasting until 2015. New Zealand First has long advocated that policy makers should give priority to New Zealand industries and communities when setting any programmes on tariff. In this instance, the value of the agreement is clearly strategic rather than financial. New Zealand goods going to Chile have been incurring a little over $2 million in import duties, and only $50,000 to $60,000 for our exports to Brunei. Those are not earth-shattering figures, but for a party that has succeeded in gaining an agreement that 2007 will be an export year, and for a party that has long advocated that we need to win the export and employment stakes, not some artificial tariff-removal race, the opportunity to open doors in South America and Asia is not lost on us. Around 99 percent of imports from Brunei, and around two-thirds of those from Chile, already enter New Zealand duty-free.

Although New Zealand First is absolutely not committed to a global liberalisation agenda, it is not inclined to oppose the measure on ideological grounds, when it has such strategic potential for our exporters, with little real threat to local producers. Let us consider the costs and benefits of the agreement, both in light of our trade and foreign relations objectives and against the background of a global liberalisation programme that clearly requires serious review. The place to do that, and to allow the public to have its say, is at the select committee. So New Zealand First supports the bill going to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party will be opposing the legislation, because we oppose the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, which this legislation is implementing. It is not that we are against trade agreements, but we are against this particular agreement. On an ideological basis, it is an agreement that just reduces tariffs everywhere, without demonstrating practical, positive effects for New Zealand.

If one looks at the tariff reductions in the bill, one must ask how they will overcome the huge trade deficit that we currently face, which was at the record level to the year ended January of about $7 billion. There has not been any working through of that issue. In one respect, the removal of the tariffs in the other three countries in the agreement, and the lowering of barriers there, will allow some of our exporters to export more into those economies. But that does not necessarily mean that there will be a net benefit, and it does not necessarily mean that we will get more for our existing exports. Phil Goff talked about companies saving $2.2 million in Chile in the duties they currently pay. Well, it is not necessarily a saving, because if those duties are built into the price that exporters get in Chile, when those duties are removed, the retail price drops down proportionately. It may not result in any savings for the New Zealand exporting companies. It is true that when we have knocked off duties in New Zealand, the prices have often gone down, and it has not necessarily meant an increase for the overseas companies exporting into New Zealand.

It is true that, as the previous speaker said, this is not a major agreement, in the sense that it does not change an existing situation dramatically, but it could lead in the direction of losing export capacity if the removal of tariffs in New Zealand made it more difficult for New Zealand manufacturers who might then have gone on to export. It could reduce our exporting capacity because we are competing with a lower-wage economy in the case of Chile, and with an economy that is not a level playing field in the case of Singapore. The Singapore Government plays a big role in many of its industries and can undercut New Zealand in its exports and bids for services—as it has already done. It is true that the existing free-trade agreement with Singapore has not demonstrably benefited New Zealand in terms of the balance of trade. It has tended to go more in Singapore’s favour, although there are arguments about what the current situation is. Some argue there has been a bit of an upturn in our favour if we consider the last few months, but over the last 4 years a benefit cannot really be demonstrated for New Zealand.

As Phil Goff, Murray McCully, and Tim Groser have all indicated, this agreement is not to be viewed on its own but as part of a larger strategic plan for free-trade agreements in Asia and in our whole region. It is a stalking horse for free-trade agreements with China—a much bigger economy—and with Malaysia, etc. If we look at these issues more broadly, towards a free-trade agreement with China, we are looking at the serious problem of losing more of our manufacturing industry, particularly in the textile, clothing, and footwear areas that are already hard hit and finding it difficult to compete. We want to retain some infrastructure in that area, and these agreements, and moves in this direction, are making that more difficult.

They take us in the opposite direction to what the Government, in cooperation with the Greens, is rightly doing—that is, promoting a Buy New Zealand Made campaign—whereas this agreement says there shall be absolutely no preference for New Zealand products over those from Chile, Singapore, or Brunei, and equal treatment has to be given to all exporters from those countries. That applies, for example, to the area of Government procurement, but if we are to have a successful Buy New Zealand Made campaign, the Government will have to take the lead and encourage local bodies to procure locally, too.

However, this agreement says that we cannot give any preference to New Zealand products over products from those other countries, or services from them in terms of procurement. If we were worried about unfair competition, about bad labour standards in Singapore, Chile, or Brunei, or about bad environmental practices there, all of which were undercutting our ability to trade and which were not leading to good situations in those countries, then there is a provision in this agreement—not in the bill itself but in the agreement—to have discussions about those problems. But there is no implementation enforcement procedure in the agreement. So I think that if we look at that, we will see that this agreement will have a detrimental effect, as a whole.

We should not look just at the balance of trade; we should look more broadly than that to the whole balance of payments, which is pretty dire in New Zealand at the present time and going very much against New Zealand, with billions of dollars worth of dividends going out of the country each year because so much of our economy has been taken over by foreign investors. There is roughly about $80 billion of foreign investment in New Zealand, and about only $20 billion of outgoing investment. There is a huge imbalance there, and it is getting worse all the time.

Unfortunately, this agreement helps to lock in an approach that will lead to even more foreign control of our economy. The Green Party believes that the existing excessively high threshold of $100 million, under which approvals are not needed for foreign investors coming into the country, is locked into this agreement with Singapore, Brunei, and Chile, and a future Government will not be able to change it, because there is a ratchet provision there saying that once we have agreed we cannot then push the threshold down, in the case of the investment side of the agreement. Even though this is not an investment agreement as such, New Zealand has committed itself under that agreement to locking in that $100 million threshold in a way that cannot be changed by a future Government. That undermines the sovereign power of any future Government that wants to change things, and of this Parliament itself.

The Minister of Trade indicated in his speech that services are also covered in this agreement, and the Greens have a particular concern there. The Minister said that educational institutions are quite keen on this agreement; unfortunately, it is the private educational institutions that are the most interested. The New Zealand Government is very involved in promoting those private educational institutions abroad, particularly through the World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) round. It is true that some New Zealand providers might get a certain advantage out of those practices, but it works the other way, too, with private providers from overseas coming in and potentially gaining a big foothold in control in our own education system. Under those arrangements, and under this one, foreign providers have to be given equal treatment and equal Government subsidies—if Government subsidies are to be provided to private education services.

There is a new approach in this agreement to service commitments, which is different from the normal GATS approach, whereby the four countries are to provide what is called a negative list of services—that is, things they want kept out of the agreement in terms of provision of services, but with a free rein on everything else. So if this Government forgets to put certain things in that negative list, then for all time the other things—and they may be the result of further technological development—stay outside of the commitment and it is a free-for-all between those four countries in terms of the provision of those services. There is also ambiguity in the list of services that are excluded from free competition, which is provided in the treaty, as to exactly how they apply, and the determination of how they apply is not made by New Zealand—not the sovereign Government or Parliament of New Zealand—but by international arbitration. When we talk about the agreement protecting public education, and a lot of education services are, in reality, mixed public/private, who is to determine what is protected?

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : The Māori Party’s contribution to this debate tonight is based on a Māori history of negotiation and alliances, in which our people have always looked at the potential for strategic and economic opportunities for Aotearoa. It is a history we know well, and it guides our decision making in all international trade agreements. As this nation entered the second half of the 19th century, the Māori partner to Te Tiriti o Waitangi was the dominant force in a vibrant, growing, and prosperous economy. For examples of that, we need just to look up State Highway 1 to Ngāti Toa and the rohe of Ngāti Toa Rangatira.

Two years ago, in the closing submissions of counsel for Ngāti Toa Rangatira to the Waitangi Tribunal, Matiu Rei, Te Waari Carkeek, and Professor Richard Boast, among others, gave evidence of the trading empire developed by Ngāti Toa with Pākehā/Europeans. They described the harvesting of flax, the use of European vessels and technology, and the full-scale involvement in the whale trade. Evidence was given by Professor Alan Ward and Dr Ann Parsonson of the reputation Ngāti Toa had as a maritime trading empire, controlling trade, the use of the coast, and access across both sides of Cook Strait. The significance of the coast and trade routes for Ngāti Toa, and its history of relation-building—of alliances, marriages, negotiations, and resource sharing—provided a solid base for an agreement to develop trade and benefit from multilateral cooperation. The concept of nation-to-nation strategic economic partnership agreements is therefore very familiar to tangata whenua.

Yet despite the glowing reputation of Ngāti Toa as an aggressive and energetic entrepreneurial group, its fortunes just as rapidly deteriorated. Submissions to the tribunal included the following: “… Ngati Toa, one of the most powerful tribes in Te Tau Ihu as at 1840, ideally situated, equipped with outstanding resources and exceptional leadership, a signatory to the Treaty and keen to benefit from the ‘benefits’ of European settlement, found itself by the turn of the century marginalized. Impoverished and reduced to virtually no land base, with its leadership scattered and decimated, its traditional tribal relationships and customary land tenure in a state of disarray …”.

So something happened, and I suppose that is where the Māori Party comes in. Our party is here to declare that we want to defend the rights and uphold the aspirations of the indigenous peoples of the world. In considering this legislation, I must think about the indigenous communities in Brunei—communities like the Malay, the Tutong people, the Bisaya people, the Dusun people, and many others. What happens when local and regional sovereignty interacts with multinational and international identity? It usually involves the loss of local identity and local and ethnic practices, which become subsumed under flows of global trade, colonialism, and assumptions of universalism. How will the indigenous communities of Brunei benefit from the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement?

The bill proposes that Singapore will act as a hub in South-east Asia, and that Chile will become a similar launch pad for South America. But still some questions concern us. How will the indigenous communities fare in this four-way trade agreement that opens the door to wider trade liberalisation within the APEC region? Have those communities experienced the same reversal of fortune that saw Ngāti Toa—or, for that matter, any hapū or iwi—decline? Have similar steps been taken to destroy the mana and rangatiratanga—the power base—of indigenous communities implicated in this trans-Pacific agreement? Our knowledge of indigenous communities is that across the globe, traditional ways of life and homelands are being destroyed by overpopulation, growth, and industrial development, all in the name of progress—but to whose advantage? It is generally not to the advantage of tangata whenua.

Since the Spanish conquest, indigenous peoples have been used as labourers—poorly paid and lacking political representation. Although those conditions of semi-servitude are changing slowly, just 4 months ago the indigenous people of Chile gathered in Santiago for the First Forum of Indigenous Peoples on Poverty Eradication. They gave some indication of their plight. Their letter to the Presidents of Latin America and the Caribbean makes for interesting reading, as we consider the place of this bill today. It states: “In spite of the call by the international community with regards to decisively improving the human rights situation of Indigenous Peoples, the State of Chile persistently refuses to acknowledge Indigenous Peoples and their rights in the constitution … This legal lack of protection in terms of collective rights places Indigenous Peoples at a disadvantage before the rest of the Chilean society … In Particular, for Indigenous Peoples like the Aymara, Quechuas, and Likanantay, a real commitment to overcome poverty implies the acknowledgment and enjoyment of our rights to superficial and subterranean water sources, the acknowledgment of our rights over mining fields existing in our ancestral land and the right to have a share in profits resulting from their exploitation.”

I ask this House to seriously consider this whole bill and how we can sign up to a four-way trade agreement linking Latin America, the Pacific, and Asia, when we have such gaps at home with regard to indigenous people—Māori. One would hope that this nation, understanding the strategic and constitutional significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, would ensure that Treaty responsiveness in any international trade and tariff agreement is given considered thought by any Government entering into such an agreement. The Māori Party therefore looks for a guaranteed involvement of Māori as Treaty partners in the negotiation of, or enforcement of process under, such agreements. The national interest analysis, however, is guarded in its application of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It states that the trans-Pacific agreement contains: “safeguards which will ensure that there are no adverse effects on New Zealand cultural values, including Māori interests”, which earlier speakers talked about. It is hardly a full endorsement of pride in tangata whenua achievements, is it?

This could have been an excellent opportunity for the New Zealand Government to recognise the unique contribution that Māori offer to the domestic New Zealand economy. Instead, the strongest position put forward is that there is nothing in the agreement that will prevent the Government from fulfilling any obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is no wonder that there is general scepticism on the part of tangata whenua that those acknowledgments amount to any more than a paper promise. Commitments are avoided, and any real benefits are geared to the Crown, not to Māori or any other indigenous parties implicated in this relationship.

The relationships envisaged for tangata whenua communities as Treaty signatories should entitle us to enjoy the rights as a Treaty partner that attach to these international agreements. The commitments articulated in Te Tiriti o Waitangi should translate into international trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement. Promises made should be promises upheld. There is certainly space for greater collaboration between Māori and other indigenous communities about how international agreements like the Treaty could work in practice at international and domestic levels in contemporary times, but our treaties should be used as affirmations of, or a source of, political rights and status. They should be used to provide power as a vehicle for revitalisation.

The Māori Party will not stand by and allow, or turn a blind eye to, the situation that tangata whenua in other places—our brothers and sisters overseas—find themselves facing, and to the gross injustices and inequalities outlined by the indigenous communities implicated by this treaty. Our decision to oppose this bill is influenced finally by an ancient Incan prophecy from the Mapuche people of Chile and Argentina: “One day the great sacred birds of the North and the South will fly together. When the eagle of the North and the Condor of the South fly together, the Earth will awaken. The eagles of the North cannot be free without the condors of the South. Now it is happening. Now is the time.” Indeed, now is the time for the Māori Party to defend the rights, and uphold the aspirations, of indigenous communities across the globe. In doing so, we honour the inherent entrepreneurial capacity of tangata whenua and will do our very best to protect it for future generations.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) : In a roundabout way the previous speaker, when he talked at the commencement of his speech about the people of Ngāti Toa—not far from here—and their history as traders, encapsulated New Zealand’s history and the rationale behind this bill. He went on to move some distance from that point. But the starting point has to be that New Zealand is a small country, at the end of most of the world’s major trading routes, that historically has lived by its capacity to trade. We have significant natural advantages, but proximity to markets is not one of them. We have capacity in terms of attractive products that we produce, but we need willing markets into which to sell those products.

In today’s global environment where—notwithstanding delays in completing the Doha round or other international agreements—more and more multilateral agreements are being entered into between countries that believe they share a common interest, it is only rational that New Zealand looks to maximise its opportunity in this regard. That is why United Future supports the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill.

I was momentarily encouraged when the Green speaker said that the Green Party was not opposed to trade. Then I reflected on all the trade agreements that we have discussed in this House over the last few years, and I could not think of one that the Green Party had actually supported. I also recalled his leader making a comment at one stage, in 1999, that New Zealand’s biggest export was soil—windblown by erosion—and that if we stopped international trade, we could cut international air travel in half, because all those trade negotiators would not be flying back and forth and, therefore, the polluting effects of aviation fuel in the upper atmosphere would be minimised. So I thought for a moment that we might have been seeing a change of heart, but it was not to be.

I listened to both the previous speakers, and one of the points that came through—which is one that is always raised when these types of agreements are being debated—was the question of what essentially is in it for the various partners. When we look at this agreement, we might ask: “New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Brunei Darussalam—what is in it for New Zealand?”. There is the opportunity for us to have access into markets that we might not have access into in the same way at the moment, but the downside risk is argued to be that we have to accept products, services, and all sorts of things coming the other way.

About 18 months ago, in the Legislative Council Chamber next door, I hosted a three-way discussion between the ambassadors for the United States and Mexico and the High Commissioner for Canada to commemorate 10 years of the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement. One of the key messages relevant to this bill that came forward at that meeting was the mutuality of benefits to all three countries over that 10-year period. Each country had benefited from the agreement, perhaps in different ways, but no country could report that it was worse off as a result of having concluded that agreement.

I think that is the lesson here. We know the advantages we have achieved from some of our bilateral trade agreements, going right back to the Closer Economic Relations agreement with Australia, which is the obvious one. But this is the first multilateral agreement of its type that we are seeking to conclude, and it recognises the common interests we have already with Singapore, the various ties we have with Brunei, and the fact—as the previous Chilean ambassador to New Zealand, Mr Appelgren, was so fond of reminding us of—that Chile is our nearest neighbour to the east. This is about bringing together a large regional agreement between countries that already have some interests in common and countries that have a willingness to expand those trade and political partnerships.

The format of the bill is exactly the same as with other trade agreements. The amendments it makes are to the Tariff Act, and that is entirely as it should be. They have come after the consideration by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee of a national interest analysis, and in some cases, the draft treaty. The bill will go back to the committee for some period for the consideration of submissions, and I wager that, in this particular situation, we will hear many of the arguments, from the same sorts of groups, that have been rehearsed in respect of every previous trade agreement, and not a great deal of light will be shed on events as a consequence.

I also make the point that in the last Parliament, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee carried out an inquiry into New Zealand’s relationship with the countries of Latin America. The Government response to that report, which was tabled in the House just recently, acknowledged the importance of New Zealand’s developing trade relations with all of those countries, and with Chile in particular, because of the opportunities that are there for us in terms of countries of similar latitude and geography, and countries where the markets that we might be seeking to promote are likely to be favourably viewed. This agreement, bringing Chile into the fold, as it were, as far as New Zealand is concerned, is, in my view, extremely welcome.

The way of the future will be these types of agreement. New Zealand is already negotiating with China, we have agreements with Thailand, Singapore, and Australia, and there is talk of more and more regional cooperation. We cannot pretend, particularly as a country of our type and size, that we can somehow stay outside that set of new environments. We live by trade. We will perish if we are unable to trade effectively in the future. I say to those people who criticise this legislation as implying a loss of sovereignty, or a surrender to the evil power of the multinationals, to look at what is happening elsewhere. Last night a group of us had dinner with the delegation from the European Parliament.

One of the issues I raised in discussion with a number of people—from new Europeans, such as the Poles, through to some of the more traditional members of the European Union—was how, in this new European environment, is national identity preserved? How can people who have spent the best part of the last couple of hundred years fighting each other come together in a political and economic union that is sustainable and viable? And the answer I received from those people, from Britain, Poland, Austria, and other countries, who were at our table was that culture and language is the distinctive thing. The Germans are no less German because they are in the European Union. The British, despite people like Margaret Thatcher, are no less British because of the European Union. The national culture preserves that identity. I say to those, therefore, who worry that somehow we are surrendering culture and identity through these agreements that, if anything, we are providing the opportunity to strengthen those links.

So we welcome this bill. We will certainly be supporting it. We are confident in the advantages it will bring to the New Zealand economy, and we look forward to the bill being passed and the relevant agreements coming into effect as soon as possible.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : I was interested in the platitudes of the previous speaker, who clearly has not done very much homework. He would know, for example, if he had done some, that we do not have an agreement with China, and if he reads today’s copy of the Independent, he might find the reasons why we might not get one.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Poorly informed.

JOHN HAYES: He is absolutely poorly informed—that is dead right. I would also like to comment on my Green colleague, that well-known supporter of Pol Pot. He talked about ideology. He was born into it; his parents were great supporters of Stalin. He was talking, as members will recall, about bilateral trade balances.

Sue Bradford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you may be aware, but this member may not be, that it has been ruled out of order for those kinds of references to be made about my colleague Keith Locke.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is quite right. We will desist from that. I thank the member for raising it.

JOHN HAYES: I want to come back to the point about bilateral trade balances and the nonsense he was talking about how these things had to be in balance. I used to get this a lot when I was the ambassador in Iran. I would get hauled across by the Iranian Treasury people, who would say that our trade balance was out of order and that we had to buy more products from Iran—until I pointed out to them that every New Zealander spent about 50c per capita on Iranian products and every Iranian spent about 7c per capita on New Zealand products, and that just drove a bus through their arguments.

This is an agreement involving Brunei, Chile, Singapore, and New Zealand—four countries with tiny populations, tiny economies, and, in some cases, very few resources. Its gestation, for those of us who can remember, began as a P5 agreement. Originally it was proposed that this agreement would include Australia and America. Well, this Government has not done much about delivering that. This Government has brought in a trade agreement that has actually cost more to negotiate than it will ever deliver to the people of New Zealand. What else, I wonder, would Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials have been doing if they had not been spending their time negotiating this agreement? They would probably be spending more time at the United Nations, helping the Government with its social engineering agenda.

I support this agreement and National supports it for reasons of philosophy, but it will not make the slightest bit of difference to anybody—and it will make no practical difference whatsoever to people in my electorate. But it is a good idea. I would like to draw on the words of the late Robert Kennedy to illustrate why we support it. He said: “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” I commend people to think about this agreement in those terms, because this is a tiny step and the people of our country will need to change this Government if we are to take bigger steps in the trade area.

I congratulate Phil Goff, who is not in the House tonight. Interestingly enough, we do not have the Minister of Foreign Affairs here, we do not have the Minister of Trade here, and we do not have the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee here.

Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. First of all, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am on my feet and the member is standing. I appreciate that he is a new member, but he has now made reference to two individual MPs whom he says are not in the House. The member, under the Standing Orders, must not refer to members who are absent.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was just about to raise that point. Thank you, Mr Carter for raising that. The member must not comment on the absence or otherwise of any members of this House.

JOHN HAYES: The people of the Wairarapa will certainly be furious with me for this mistake, because like me they want to see an open economy, and particularly in a small country like ours, we want to be open to international trade in goods and services. It is a primary requirement that we have this for economic success. The dismantling of “fortress New Zealand” over the past 25 years has been a key element in the reform programme that has produced today’s more efficient economy. Tariffs and other barriers to trade are now low, and New Zealand is likely to reach free trade, zero tariffs within a decade.

I also want to draw attention to the comments of our New Zealand First colleague who was, it seemed to me, despite the lead-up to the election, saying: “We will not support free-trade agreements.”, and was actually positioning her party and her leader to do just that. The people in my electorate are looking for returns from the activities of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and it is not happening. I wonder why. It seems to me that there are people in this House who believe that Helen Clark and her Labour Government will retain power for the next millennium. Certainly Winston Peters appears to be in this camp. He was desperate to align himself with Helen Clark even though he is now in the unusual position of being our most important Minister, but outside Cabinet.

The governing party must have self-confidence. It must want power, and it must believe that its exercising of that power can send our country in the right direction. This agreement will not do that. But the Government also needs to keep in mind that on any projection of its political past its power will come to an end. Winston Peters should keep that long in mind, as, I think, should Ron Mark. Mr Mark has a huge wealth of experience to contribute and really deserves a Cabinet post, but he has spent 10 years in this House and has not got to Cabinet yet. That has been at least 7 years too long, and the way things are going he is not going to get there.

The test of Winston Peters’ statesmanship, in the context of our history, will not be how many trees he pulls out by the roots but how he fits our foreign policy into a continual process of adaptation in which he combines leadership of our foreign policy with our national mood. This is not necessarily a recipe for inaction or the avoidance of controversy. Some of the most bitterly contentious measures—for example, the Civil Union Bill or issues around immigration—will, I think, for New Zealand First become inviolate. They will not be undone, because of the cost of too much damage to the Labour – New Zealand First relationship.

I would never ever say that the Labour Government is the most rapacious, doctrinaire, and unpatriotic Government this side of the equator—quite the reverse—but I would like to point out, from today’s copy of the Independent, the words of Chris Trotter. He talks about the recent speeches made by Murray McCully and by our Minister of Foreign Affairs. He points out that we are a weak and relatively vulnerable nation, and that we should be making every effort to deal with trouble before it arrives. He talks about what is going to happen, and what is very likely to happen in Iran, which is a confrontation between Iran and the United States. As a consequence of that, he says there is a need for the five fingers of the Anglo-Saxon fist—the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—to act in concert. He argues that Helen Clark will come under intense diplomatic pressure to stand shoulder to shoulder with her very, very good friends.

If there is to be a strike against Iran, that will cause a lot of difficulty for us. If we abandon our current multilateral stance and support the United States’ plan to, as Chris Trotter says, detach the Iranian energy nozzle from China’s petrol tank, then we should abandon all hope of the possibility of a mutually rewarding free-trade agreement with the People’s Republic of China. On the other hand, if we decide to stand aloof and condemn the actions of our Anglo-Saxon allies, New Zealand exporters may well find themselves shut out of their hard-won markets. Having grasped that very unpalatable situation, I think people should refer to the speech made by my colleague Murray McCully because he provides some answers.

I warn the people in my electorate and the people of New Zealand that we are on a difficult and dangerous path. We do not have the trade relationships in place with our major partners to generate the sort of income we need as a country. Why do we need that income? Let me tell members. We need income to train and provide doctors, general practitioners, in Dannevirke, for example. I warn that we do not have the trade agreements in place to generate income to pay for the cost of kids’ operations in my electorate. For example, children are waiting for 4 years to get a glue ear operation.

I warn the people of this country that we do not have enough decent trade agreements in place to generate income to stave off poverty in the Pacific region, for which we are responsible. Let me tell members on the other side of the House that they have squandered $12 million of taxpayers’ money in the Solomon Islands by giving school books that have never left the wharf. Twelve million dollars of taxpayers’ money—which includes money from the people in my electorate—has been totally squandered. I warn members that as long as we tax petrol and do not spend that tax on the roads, we will not have enough money because we do not have the trade agreements in place to pay for decent roading systems. We do not have enough money coming from our trade agreements to get enough police to man the police station in Carterton, despite the Mayor of Carterton, Gary McPhee, having been to Parliament this week to talk to the Minister of Police to try to sort it out.

I support this bill, but we are a small, vulnerable country. We need to work out where our future lies, and we need to stop wasting our taxes on agreements such as this that are of no consequence. We need to focus our resources on agreements that matter.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During that speech John Hayes made accusations against me, and previously in this Parliament members have been forced to withdraw and apologise for saying that I supported Pol Pot. I never supported Pol Pot in his crimes, and that member should be asked to withdraw and apologise.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are quite right, Mr Locke. But the issue was raised and—

KEITH LOCKE: But the member did not withdraw and apologise.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That matter, Mr Hayes, should not have been raised in the way it was. I ask you to withdraw the reference to Mr Locke being a supporter of Pol Pot.

John Hayes: I withdraw. [Interruption]

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member over there said: “But not to Stalin.” He is implying I supported Stalin. I never supported Stalin.

Hon Maurice Williamson: I didn’t say that at all.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is wrong with saying “Stalin”? Who—

KEITH LOCKE: It was Maurice Williamson.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that is a debatable point. But thank you for raising it.

TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I distinctly recall John Hayes including in his accusation reference to Mr Locke supporting not only Pol Pot but Stalin, as well.

Hon Maurice Williamson: No. He didn’t accuse Keith Locke of being a supporter of Stalin.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: He has withdrawn the main one, so I think we will leave it at that. But I thank you for raising that, Mr Locke.

• Bill read a first time.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister of Trade: I move, That the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee

• Motion agreed to.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee for consideration, and that the committee report the bill back to the House on or before 22 May 2006.

The main aim of the bill is to extend the eligibility for the single rates of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions to all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who have spouses or partners in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. The single rates are higher than the rates payable to persons who are married or in a civil union. This amendment will apply from 1 July this year. It was recommended by the Social Services Committee in a report that the committee presented to Parliament in May last year. The committee report was prepared in response to concerns outlined in a public petition. The Government accepted the recommendation in the committee’s report.

Currently, a person with a spouse or partner in long-term residential care is eligible for the higher single rates in only two narrowly defined circumstances: firstly, if the spouse or partner is receiving the residential care subsidy, which is means-tested; or, secondly, if the spouse or partner is suffering the effects of a stroke or dementia and is thereby unable to recognise the spouse or partner and affirm marriage vows. There are two main issues with the current approach. First, the current linking of access to the higher single rates to the residential care subsidy is inconsistent with the general non - means-tested approach to eligibility for New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. Second, the exception that relates to a spouse or partner suffering a stroke or dementia has proved difficult to administer. In particular, it requires officials to ask intrusive questions and make complex decisions regarding sensitive issues.

This amendment will ensure fairer treatment for many superannuitants and veterans pensioners living in the community with spouses and partners in residential care. Approximately 2,000 older New Zealanders in that situation will benefit from this change. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the petitioners who first brought this issue to the attention of the House, particularly petitioner Mrs Barbara White, who was supported by Lianne Dalziel.

The bill also makes other changes to eligibility criteria for New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. From 1 July 2006 the bill will remove the sharing expenses rule, which has prevented some superannuitants and veterans pensioners from receiving the living alone payment. The living alone payment represents the difference between the single sharing rate and the higher single living alone rate of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. This difference is currently just under $20 a week net of tax. Current legislation limits eligibility for the living alone payment to superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are single, living alone in their principal place of residence, and not sharing their household expenses—including accommodation expenses—with any other person.

The sharing expenses rule operates as a somewhat strict and arbitrary form of income testing for the living alone payment. It is strict in that any contribution to household expenses denies eligibility completely. It is arbitrary in that only a particular form of income—namely, contributions to household or accommodation expenses—is counted. In some cases, superannuitants and veterans pensioners have been denied eligibility for the living alone payment because they received modest contributions to their household expenses from others, such as family members. The amendment will mean that eligibility for the living alone payment is based solely on actual living arrangements. It will, therefore, ensure fairer treatment for all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are living alone.

The third amendment contained in this bill will enable a person to be paid New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension for up to 156 weeks, if that person is overseas and undertaking voluntary work for a recognised aid agency such as Volunteer Service Abroad. Currently, the maximum payment period is 52 weeks. However, Volunteer Service Abroad’s standard assignment period is 2 years. The extension of the payment period to 156 weeks that is provided by this bill will allow for a typical 2-year assignment plus potential extension of the assignment for up to a further year. This will, therefore, remove the financial disincentives that inhibit older volunteers from making a longer contribution to Volunteer Service Abroad.

The final amendment contained in the bill changes the War Pensions Act to enable all rates of veterans pensions to be increased by Order in Council. This change will align the legislative provisions for the adjustment of rates of veterans pensions with those of New Zealand superannuation under the Social Security Act. As required under section 73 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act, the Minister of Finance has provided a statement regarding the consultation process followed in the development of the amendments to that Act that are contained in the bill. The statement also covers the outcome of this consultation. The statement is included in the bill’s explanatory note and was also tabled in the House when the bill was introduced.

The amendments contained in this bill address several anomalies in the current treatment of superannuitants and veterans pensioners. I am confident they will ensure fairer and more equitable treatment for many older New Zealanders. In summary, the bill is further evidence of the commitment of this Government to ensure that superannuitants and veterans pensioners are able to live in dignity and participate fully in our society. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : It is with pleasure that the National Party supports this bill. It is a very good provision, and it actually looks to recognise the situation that has been highlighted by my colleague the Hon Nick Smith. He took up the issue of a Nelson couple. Mrs Page had to go to a rest home. She and her husband have been married for 70 years, and Mr Page applied to Work and Income for the living alone payment—because he was, of course, living alone—but he was declined under the previous Labour Government because his wife still recognised him.

So the situation was that because Mr and Mrs Page could recognise each other and were not divorced, they were told by Work and Income that if Mr Page wanted to get the living alone allowance he would have to divorce his wife. That is the sort of callous situation that we found people in.

I was on the select committee that looked at the petition the Minister referred to, and it was certainly one that we took very seriously and, I recall, looked at very favourably, because it actually addresses a very cruel situation for people who in this day and age have to be separated at such a time in their lives. I note that the bill was in fact introduced on 21 February this year, 1 week after my colleague the Hon Nick Smith, who was very frustrated with the lack of work the Government had put into this area, lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on behalf of Mr Page, who is now aged 91. I am very pleased to see that the Government has finally moved on it. We have to wonder why it took so long. With all the talk about petitions and everything else, the Government knew about this problem. The Government has been in power for over 6 years, and it could very easily have fixed this issue very quickly.

When we look at the bill itself, we see that it is a matter of only a couple of pages. So given that there was pretty much across-the-board and cross-party support for the bill, one would have thought that a bill of six pages might have been introduced with somewhat more speed once this problem had been recognised. However, we should be very grateful that despite the mad situation we have had, and still have in law at the moment, we are finally getting some action, because if this couple, Mr and Mrs Page, aged 91 and 88 respectively, had been either a de facto couple or a gay couple, or if Mrs Page had dementia or was in prison, then Mr Page would have been able to get the extra money.

Finally we are getting some action, and, really, only after my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith took a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. Frankly, the Ministers involved should be wondering why they could not have brought the matter to the House earlier. So we are very pleased to be able to support the bill. We do not want to be too nasty about that fact that it has taken so long, because finally something is happening. We are very pleased to be able to say that the Government has finally got itself together, found some legislation to bring to the House, and can finally get a bill passed—even if it had to get a hurry-up from Nick Smith. So we are very pleased to support the bill, and we are delighted to see that something will finally be done for Mr and Mrs Page and for couples like them.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) : I am very pleased to participate in the first reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I thought it was a little churlish for the member who has just resumed her seat, Judith Collins, to carry on about Mr Nick Smith, who obviously had little influence in terms of finding a real solution to the problem, as opposed to what the Government has been able to do.

I would like to reiterate the words of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, David Benson-Pope, when he congratulated Mrs Barbara White, the lead petitioner who brought the matter to the attention of the House via a petition and, of course, her excellent advocate in that matter, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who was with her every step of the way. Not many petitions make it right through to this particular instance of having legislation created directly from them. So I congratulate Mrs White on achieving that outcome, if she happens to be listening to the debate this evening, and I hope she is pleased the bill has come to this point.

This is another example of Labour delivering its election promises. The bill extends the eligibility for the single living alone rate, from 1 July 2006, to married superannuitants who have a partner in long-term residential care. That was a key election commitment, and this bill will do it. That change will mean that nearly $20 extra per week will go to approximately 2,000 qualifying older New Zealanders. It is further evidence of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that superannuitants, veterans, and pensioners are able to live in dignity and to participate fully in society. This is the Year of the Veteran, and what better timing could there be for such a bill?

In conclusion, I look forward to the House sending the bill to the Social Services Committee. We were very pleased to consider the petition of Mrs White, which prompted this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) : I am pleased to rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. Since Georgina Beyer mentioned that this is the Year of the Veteran, I point out that I have made an application to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, Rick Barker, in relation to a special statue and a memorial celebration to take place in the Auckland Domain for the bombers, who have not had any memorial there and do not have a statue. I understand it would cost about $60,000. Millions of dollars are floating around—the Minister of Finance has about $6 billion worth of surplus available to him. I know that this matter is a bit outside the topic of the bill, but I am very hopeful that the bombers will get their just recognition.

It is interesting that we are in a House that is a war memorial—and it was certainly a war zone today—and that we should be looking to do something for poor veterans and New Zealand superannuitants, who have been forced by this Labour Government, under a crazy scenario, to divorce their partners of often up to 70 years so that they can get the single living alone allowance. What a disgrace it is that the Government has had 6 years to fix that up, but it has sat on its hands and has done very little—other than to count the cash. Michael Cullen sits on a pile of cash that he likes to count, night after night, while the poor veterans and the New Zealand superannuitants are out there, struggling to make ends meet. It has taken the Government 7 years to bring this legislation to the House.

It has taken the good work of the member for Nelson, Nick Smith, to bring the bill forward. This is a proud day for Nick Smith and a proud day for the National Party, because we are forcing the agenda once again, just as we are forcing the tax agenda. Michael Cullen spoke today on the issue of payroll tax. It took the National Party to expose that Michael Cullen is, by stealth, about to introduce a payroll tax to many New Zealanders—fortunately not the New Zealanders who will be eligible for assistance under the provisions of this bill, because they have moved outside the workforce. But I thank Nick Smith for his contribution of caring beyond the extent that many members of Parliament do, by ensuring that the 2,000 eligible New Zealanders will live with some dignity, because it is a crazy scenario that a couple who have been married for 70 years could be forced to get a divorce.

I can add that I have been married to my wife for 21 years. I do not like to admit that, because I am greying slightly. I am 44. I know I am not very good with numbers, but if we add to that another 21 years, we will find that I will have been married for 42 years by the time I am 65. I do not anticipate going gaga any time soon, but should I go gaga at 80, then that would add up to 57 years of marriage at that time. I do not think my lovely wife, after 57 years, should have to divorce me, because she loves me as she does no other human being. She cares about me. She should not have to go through a divorce after 57 years of marriage, so that we can get the single living alone allowance. It is a disgrace that my wife of 57 years—when I am 80 and gaga—should have to go through such a despicable display, and I am surprised that that was not something the Government tackled earlier.

I am surprised that Nick Smith, the very hard-working member for Nelson, had to drive the agenda, and I am amazed that Georgina Beyer tried to rain on Nick Smith’s parade. That is disgraceful, when Nick Smith had undertaken all that work on behalf of the party, had listed all of those things, and had driven the agenda. That is typical of the Labour Government: it is late to do absolutely everything, but is all too quick to put its hand up and claim the credit. The Labour members in the House are barracking, even as late as this point. They should just take it sitting down and accept that Nick Smith drove the agenda, Nick Smith put the issue on the map, and Nick Smith is the person whom thousands of New Zealanders will have the opportunity to reward.

I say to Nick Smith that he has done a wonderful service for the people of New Zealand, and a wonderful service for those veterans. What a tremendous job and what a tremendous effort he has made, given that Michael Cullen is too busy dreaming up payroll taxes, and Georgina Beyer was not sure whether she would stand in Wairarapa. In the end it did not matter, because National romped home in that seat with Chester Borrows. It would not have really mattered whether Georgina Beyer or anyone else had stood in that seat, because the people of Wairarapa knew a disgrace when they saw one. They knew that a person who has been married for 57 years should not have to get divorced in order to get the single living alone allowance. They knew that that was wrong. They knew not to ring 0800 Georgina Beyer, they knew not to ring 0800 Labour, and they knew not to trust a credit card that was paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand—and while we are on the subject of that, we want the money back, thank you very much.

Instead of doing that, people rang “Nick for Nelson”. When they rang “Nick for Nelson” the phone was on the hook, unlike the Labour Party’s phone. Nick did what Nick always does: he stood up for the people of Nelson, he stood up for the people of New Zealand, and he went the extra mile. It was a tremendous effort by Nick Smith, and I say to Georgina that I was absolutely shocked by what she said. I thought she would have risen above that, and I thought she would have given the credit to the member for Nelson that he deserved. All I can say is that National is proud to support the bill, because National led the agenda. Once again the people of New Zealand can look to the National Party for security, for dependence, for leadership—for all the things that one would expect from a party like ours. The people of New Zealand will be very happy.

I make just one final point in relation to voluntary service abroad, and the ability of New Zealanders to work abroad and still receive their New Zealand superannuation for 156 weeks, not for 52. What a good idea that was, as well. I do not know whether Nick Smith recommended that, but I am pretty sure he would have done that as well, because he has a heart. In Nelson, where Nick works, volunteer work is a critical part of the community. Nick knows the value of volunteer work, and he knows that people who are working as volunteers overseas deserve to receive New Zealand superannuation. They deserve to receive the benefit of all those things.

How proud Nick and the other National members who have driven the agenda on this New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions bill can feel as New Zealanders head overseas for 156 weeks, knowing that they can receive their New Zealand superannuation as they do their good work—as they work in the tsunami-affected areas, and as they work in Pakistan in areas affected by earthquakes and landslides. As they work in other parts of the world that are challenged, they can look to the National Party of New Zealand and know that it cares about them—not like the Labour members, who sat there for 7 years not caring about that issue, and who were too busy looking at student loans and things they could do to make their way back to victory. National cared enough to make this matter a big issue; National, through Nick Smith, cared enough to make that happen.

I finish by simply saying that I am disappointed with Labour, but, frankly, after 4 years, I have come to learn how easy it is to be disappointed with Labour, which is sitting around, doing very little, and leaving our economy to wander in the wilderness as other countries go past us. Only on Monday, Peter Costello was very happy to set up a taxation review, and very happy to make the Australian economy more efficient and more effective, to drive home the real advantage for Australians. Our Minister of Finance sits in the House tonight, twiddling his thumbs. He will probably get up at some stage, take a call, and claim that Nick Smith’s effort was not fantastic. Well, I say to him that it does not matter what comes from people who have taken 7 years to put this issue on the agenda. National is the one to thank; Nick Smith is the one to thank. It makes one proud to be a member of the National Party.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I do not know whether it is good news or bad news for Mr Key’s wife, but after listening to that speech I have to tell the good member’s wife that she will not have to wait 57 years for John Key to become gaga—I think he is well on the way. As for Nick Smith standing up for the people of Nelson, if my memory serves me correctly, within a fortnight of being made deputy leader he could not stand up for anybody. He was carried out of here—and I think he was actually carried back in.

There is an old saying—at least I think it is an old saying; if nobody has said it before me I will say it now—that we should judge people not by what they say but by what they do. What did that crowd on the National benches do when it was last in Government? It scaled back superannuation to 60 percent of the net average wage, and it wanted to means test superannuation and raise the age of entitlement to 70! And now National is trying to say it is the party of compassion. The only compassion National members have is that they feel sorry for themselves, and they will spend a long time sitting there feeling even sorrier.

Taito Phillip Field: Three years.

PETER BROWN: Three years? They will be there for a long time if they try to fool the people of New Zealand with the sort of carry-on that John Key has just indulged in. His contribution was really more about wishful thinking than anything with substance.

New Zealand First members welcome the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. We are absolutely delighted with it. We do question why it has taken so long, but now it is here, and we hope it will be fast tracked through Parliament. It is very, very sad for some New Zealanders whose husband, or wife, or partner has lost the ability to communicate, for one reason or another, and ends up in a rest home. The sound member of the partnership is left to cope as best as he or she can on less than adequate funding. The bill will address that problem; it will make it fairer. Those people are living single people’s lives with added responsibility, and it is about time we delivered on the issue. It is about time we looked at the issue for war veterans as well, and the bill will tidy that up. New Zealand First is pleased also that the period of pension entitlement will be increased from 52 weeks to 156 weeks for mature people who work overseas and give their time and effort for very, very good causes. New Zealand First thinks that is a very important issue, also.

But there is much to be done. This is but the start. To quote Winston Churchill—and this quote, I think, applies to this issue as well as it applied to the one about which he spoke—“This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. It is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” That is the case as far as elderly people in this country are concerned. We are at the end of the beginning of addressing their needs. New Zealand First will start a golden age card in this term, and that will give—

David Bennett: Oh!

PETER BROWN: Oh, the member rubbishes the idea! The member sits there and groans and thinks it is an uncaring idea. Well, let me just tell the member that the golden age card will come, and it will come in this term of Government—thanks to New Zealand First and, in particular, thanks to Winston Peters, who will steer it through and lead the way on producing a golden age card for New Zealanders. Additionally—and this will happen before the bill comes back—the 65 percent of the net average wage that married couples are currently entitled to will increase in April to 66 percent, and it will go up progressively thereafter. It is my understanding that that can be done by regulation for a superannuitant now, but that it cannot be done by regulation for a person on a war veterans pension. The bill will tidy that up. The war veterans will receive the automatic increase that superannuitants receive.

The bill has been a long time in coming. I will not give one iota of credit to any member of the National Party. I am encouraged that National members will support it, but when it comes to addressing the problems of the elderly and the aged of this country, they have been totally and absolutely remiss—so much so that they should be hanging their heads in shame. When they had the opportunity to address some of the concerns that face elderly folk in this country, they walked away, they turned their back, and they said they would not help at all. In fact, they did worse than that: they hindered things, and tried to scale back superannuation, as I said earlier on.

We have an ageing population. The aged sector is about 12 percent of the population right now, and by the year 2051 it will be closer to 25 percent. It is a sector of our society that we must help. This is the start, but it is not the end. New Zealand First will ensure that the concerns of elderly people are uppermost in everybody’s mind in the House. John Key might like to speak light-heartedly in this particular debate, but I can assure members that by the end of this session he will be taking it very seriously indeed.

Hon Tau Henare: Bring back the leader, whoever that is!

PETER BROWN: There is no hope for Tau Henare—no hope whatsoever. But for John Key there might be a glimmer of hope. I can see he is taking what I say seriously, and maybe the next time he speaks he will not be so frivolous when he talks about the concerns of the elderly.

New Zealand First is 100 percent behind the bill, and we hope to see it fast tracked through Parliament, through the select committee process, and back in the House with unanimous support—and genuine support, not the rather flippant and frivolous support that the two National members presented. New Zealand First is 100 percent behind the passage of the bill.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : On behalf of the Green Party, I take a brief call to say that we also are totally behind this bill. It is long overdue, and, once again, characterises just one aspect of the huge mess that our income support and welfare system is in. However, at least this little piece of it is being sorted out.

I would like to endorse the words of Peter Brown, who just now said that it has been a bit disappointing to hear such frivolity from Mr Key on this topic. This is actually about fixing up a situation for people in absolutely desperate straits at the end of their lives, where one partner of a couple has been in long-term residential care, and the other partner, who has been left out in the real world, has been stuck on the married rate of the pension or veterans’ benefit, to his or her disadvantage. That is actually really serious when one is counting every dollar and every cent, and it is not something that should be the subject of a whole lot of laughter.

I would also like to acknowledge the role that Lianne Dalziel of the Labour Party played. An elderly petitioner came to the Social Services Committee, as did Lianne Dalziel, to tell the committee about this situation. I would like to acknowledge the courage, in coming to speak to the committee, of the elderly lady who led the petition. She has had long-term support from Lianne Dalziel in trying to get this legislation through Parliament. I would like to acknowledge both her and her colleagues for bringing it through—quite quickly, now that I know something about the legislative processes here. It has been quite a quick process since we heard the petition at the committee, not a long one. It is good to see that the Government does not just accept the decisions of the Social Security Appeal Authority. I just wish we had a mechanism whereby we could look at a lot more of them, rather than just this one.

The Green Party is totally behind this measure. We will be pleased to see the day come very soon when this anomaly is ended, as it affects thousands of people. I understand that the select committee process will be quick, which is excellent—as long as people have a chance to make submissions. If people have problems with it, let us hear from them, but I doubt that they will.

On the other matter of the Volunteer Service Abroad, I say that I think it is fantastic that the Government has seen fit to extend the period for which people can get superannuation or the veterans’ pension while they do volunteer work abroad. It is being extended from 1 year to 3 years. It is a wonderful thing to see our older generation giving their time and experience in this way, and I know that increasing numbers of them are doing this once they leave our regular workforce. It is a great contribution that this country can make, particularly to our neighbours in the Pacific and Asia.

From what I understand, this is very unusual: we are seeing unanimity across the House in support of a piece of welfare legislation. That is great. Let us just get there as fast as we can.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Rākau papa pangā, ka hei ki te marae. A weapon discarded can be an ornament on the marae. In the context of this bill, that whakataukī advises us that an older person who has followed a career of certain skill but is no longer agile enough or strong enough can teach younger persons the same skill. In its essence this describes the unique relationship of reciprocity, of manaakitanga, inherent in our valuing of our kaumātuatanga—of recognising that the elders, the wise ones, are the repositories of whānau stories and family histories; that they are the bridge to a world not lived by the young.

It is these characteristics that instruct us in supporting the proposed changes to amend the New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension provisions. We must ensure that the adjustments provide for an equitable standard of living, pay for essentials, and enable the continued participation by older people in community life—participation, which is about the best opportunities for all, that will close the gaps between rich and poor, Māori and non-Māori, and older and younger.

This House will recall the New Zealand report from Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen last year. The special rapporteur identified significant disparities between Māori and Pākehā in regard to social and human development indicators in his visit to Aotearoa. A key concern for the special rapporteur was the lack of significant disaggregated statistical data that identified ethnicity. If one does not have the right data, one cannot really target social policy. The information we do have in Aotearoa is as a result of a 2002 report published by Professor Mason Durie. The Living Standards of Older Māori report shows a relatively high rate of material disadvantage amongst older Māori, and clear disparities between the living standards of older Māori and non-Māori. One in five older Māori face severe difficulties.

It is data such as this that must inform the subsequent drafting of new legislation to broaden eligibility criteria and to ensure that Māori are able to maximise their take-up from superannuation and the veterans pension. It is never too soon to plan ahead to help boost Māori material well-being and to ensure that all superannuitants and veterans pensioners living in the community are able to benefit from simplified rules, clear entitlements, and income support appropriate to assist actual living arrangements. If we are to hold our heads up high on an international stage, we need to know how to respond to what Professor Stavenhagen observed is a surprising differential of 10 years in life expectancy between Māori and Pākehā.

The urgency of this crisis is also influenced by the demographic changes, as the Māori population will age at a faster rate but at a later time than the non-Māori population. In March 1996 there were 14,200 Māori aged 65 and over. By the year 2011 the number of Māori in this age group is expected to have increased by 84 percent to reach 26,100, when Māori will comprise 5 percent of the population aged 65 years and over. By 2031, the expected number of older Māori will be 59,000—more than four times its current size—and they will account for 9 percent of the total Māori population. In the space of one generation we can expect significant population pressures that this new legislation must take into account.

It is our moral, economic, and cultural responsibility to take care of our older people. Such care is critical for the survival of mana ā-hapū, and we must not short-change another generation. If we can live up to this expectation, the benefits will accrue for the nation as we nurture the leaders and wise advisers of our growing communities. It is all about respect and taking appropriate care of our elderly. The broadening of eligibility criteria means that our elderly are able to continue to play an active role in our communities. The provision to extend the period of time a person can continue to receive superannuation or the veterans pension while overseas working voluntarily for an aid agency is a particularly commendable move.

No one should leave this House tonight without acknowledging the fact that this is the Year of the Veteran. This is our chance to thank all New Zealand veterans of all ages—tangata whenua, Pasifika, and tauiwi alike. This is our time to honour their enormous sacrifices. It is an opportunity to recognise the inherent value of their service to our nation. The Māori Party will continue to call for justice for New Zealand’s veterans who served in the Viet Nam War in order to ensure that their significant contribution to shaping our nation is also recognised.

In light of the year being distinguished as the Year of the Veteran, we could not believe it when we were first approached by Viet Nam War veterans throughout the country, who were incensed at the decision by the joint working-group on the concerns of Viet Nam War veterans to refuse to meet on marae for their hearings. We received emails and phone calls, including a letter from one vet currently living in Sydney, who called the working-group’s decision to boycott the Ngāti Kahu marae in Tauranga a “cultural insult, disrespectful, and a slap in the face for Māori Viet Nam War veterans.” We had to ask how hard it is to hold a meeting on a marae in order to respect the wishes of tangata whenua to honour their request. Many of the veterans never received any support or counselling following their return to Aotearoa. Many experienced serious trauma and turned to alcohol to help them to cope. So where were the hearings held? They were held at the good old watering-hole, the RSA—far more suitable than the marae, or so the working-group decided.

One would think that the long-term care and restoration of all our veterans, including those who served in Viet Nam, would be that they could be rehabilitated with as little trauma as possible. It seems to us to be simple good sense that those who were wounded in mind or body would be adequately cared for and compensated for their injuries.

The well-being of veterans’ families is of critical importance. Our veterans and their whānau have waited for 30 years for the report released by the Health Committee, which confirms that Viet Nam War veterans were exposed to a toxic environment. In honouring the dedication of our own forces, we must never forget the innocent victims of war—the villagers, people and families of Viet Nam—who were also sprayed with the defoliant—the innocent non-combatants whose voices here in New Zealand we do not hear.

It is time now for the Government to act. The Government must honour its responsibility to respond to the devastating trauma experienced by Viet Nam War veterans and the ongoing intergenerational impact on their children in light of their exposure to Agent Orange and defoliant chemicals during their war service, and it must do it now. The Māori Party believes there is no better way of honouring the Year of the Veteran this year than to recognise the genetic damage and the serious health problems caused by the impact of Agent Orange on Viet Nam War veterans. Taking action on Agent Orange, agreeing to hold meetings on the marae, and introducing amendments to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act and the War Pensions Act are all ways of commemorating and paying tribute to the services so many of the people of this land gifted to future generations.

We as a society must ensure that what nature has decreed should not generate undue insecurity, as Nelson Mandela, aged 77 at the time, said. He went further and said that he wanted to be able to sleep until eternity with a broad smile on his face, knowing that the youth opinion-makers and everybody are stretched across the divide trying to unite the nation. We will support this bill as a mark of respect and for the principle of honouring our elderly, our pakeke, and our veterans, the sons and daughters of Tūmatauenga, many of whom as rangatahi sacrificed their youth in serving so that we may sleep with smiles on our faces.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future to take a brief call on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I must say that it is a pleasure in this House sometimes to follow members of the Māori Party, and the previous speech given by the honourable Tariana Turia was one example of a very thoughtful, well-constructed, and very good contribution to the debate on this bill. When she talked about the importance of ethnicity in terms of the statistical—and if one likes, the genetic—characteristics of ethnicity, I was reminded of the little campaign that seems to be run by some members of the National Party at the moment that seeks to confuse New Zealanders about the difference between ethnicity and nationality. For example, this morning at the Finance and Expenditure Committee the member Craig Foss wanted to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why he did not just regard all the people working for Treasury as New Zealanders, rather than worry about their ethnic origins.

It is important to say that ethnicity talks about a person’s DNA and gene pool origin. In my case that happens to be Caucasian, and within Caucasian is the subset of Scottish, English, and Irish. It is a completely different question from nationality. The other difference between the two is that we are born with our ethnicity. It is not something we choose and it is not something we can change, whereas our nationality is something we can change. Everybody who is born in this country is a New Zealander; everybody who has a New Zealand passport is a New Zealander, but I could choose tomorrow to go and live in Australia and I could start to call myself an Australian. Or people could come, as many have, from places like Taiwan to live in New Zealand, and they now consider themselves to be New Zealanders. So that is just a little aside for those in the National Party who have confused minds about the difference between the two terms.

I come to the bill. United Future supports very strongly the provisions of this bill. We believe that it is entirely fair and reasonable when a spouse or a partner goes into full-time residential care, that the rate for the partner who continues to live in the community should then become the single person’s rate. That is eminently fair and it addresses a situation that has probably been blatantly unfair for quite some time. We also support the provision of the bill that simplifies the rules for living alone payments, so that it is based on a person’s actual living arrangements. Again, we are a common-sense party and this is a common-sense provision, when one thinks about it. There is a difference in the rates for single and married couples, because of the difference in living costs. The old saying that two can live together cheaper than one is true when it comes to sharing all kinds of things, from cars to packets of Weet-Bix. One can achieve some economy if one is part of a married couple or a couple living in a partnership, as compared with a person who is on his or her own. That is exactly what the scheme does and that is the distinction we should ensure is made. I know, from correspondence I have had from people, that there has been some confusion around that point and it is good to see it clarified.

We strongly support the extension of the voluntary work provisions for people who are doing voluntary work overseas, from 52 weeks to 156 weeks. I am constantly amazed at the number of New Zealanders who in their retirement years choose to undertake fantastic voluntary work overseas. I would like to ask the select committee that will consider this bill to look carefully at the way in which that work is defined. In my view it should be defined in a way that includes, in an unambiguous manner, people who take short 1 to 3-year terms overseas as missionaries. Some people like to argue that they are in the business of simply—if one likes—winning converts to their particular faith, be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever. But speaking for the many, many missionary organisations that I know about, the reality is that day in, day out they give considerable humanitarian support to people, particularly in Third World countries, in every range of charity one could imagine. By the way, the word “charity” happens to mean love for one’s fellow man They express that through medical help, educational help, translation help—the list goes on and on. All of that is part of the day-by-day work done by many of those people in missionary organisations. It is true that their motivation is based on faith, but that should not obscure the reality of the good that they do in those countries. I think that if an objective account were ever taken of New Zealand’s history, it would be true to say that the early missionaries in this country also made a significant contribution—sometimes controversial, but overall extremely positive.

It is also right that we align the veterans pension with the adjustments we are making to New Zealand superannuation. United Future strongly supports the confidence and supply agreement between Labour and New Zealand First, that New Zealand superannuation will move to 66 percent of the ordinary-time weekly earnings as from 1 April 2006. Indeed, our own party’s policy would have been a bit more generous than that. We wanted to move the data to a prospective base rather than a retrospective base. At the moment those calculations are done on 1 April, but are based on the figures for the previous 31 December. When one works that through the next 12 months one finds that superannuitants are always 9 months behind the eight ball, because this new rate applies from 1 April until 31 March in the next year but is still based on 31 December in the year before. I have done the sums and that is the way it works out on average. One is always 9 months behind. Under our formula we would have gone to more than 66 percent, but this at least is a good step in the right direction. I am happy to signal our strong support for this bill on that basis.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) : I begin by thanking all members of the House for, so far, their support for the bill. Some clearly are more enthusiastically and genuinely supportive than others.

I would just say to my friend Gordon Copeland that everybody is actually about a year behind everybody else, in terms of pay increases, once he or she has had his or her last pay increase, and that is no different for superannuitants than for anybody else. The formula in that respect, in terms of the fixing, has not changed in that instance since 1976, when New Zealand superannuation was first introduced under the National Government. It has always been related to wage relativity at the point that it occurs, not at some point further down the track.

I would have to say I was a bit surprised by his call for further increases in Government spending, as this morning he was urging me at the Finance and Expenditure Committee to cut Government spending as a proportion of GDP. He appears on occasion to share the strange belief of members opposite that one can increase every item of Government spending but reduce the total in some way or another. It is a very interesting prospect, I have to say.

I want particularly to thank Mrs Barbara White, who was the person who really brought this matter to Parliament’s attention, and my colleague Lianne Dalziel, who is the MP who was most supportive.

I must say I was very amused by the enthusiastic, over-the-top speech in support of Dr Nick Smith by Mr John Key. I am surprised that he had heard of Dr Smith, because he thought the member for Wairarapa was Chester Borrows. He said so in his speech. If he is ever going to get the numbers to do Dr Brash, he has to learn that Mr Hayes is the MP for Wairarapa and Mr Borrows is the MP for Wanganui. But, never mind, that is the trouble when one thinks about financial markets rather than one’s colleagues. I gently say to Mr Key that in a few weeks’ time he may want to read that Hansard and perhaps dissociate himself rather more from Dr Smith than he was doing this evening. I gently suggest to him that he might care to start distancing himself from one or two of his colleagues on the front bench reasonably early in the process. I am sure he will do that over the next few weeks, at some point. [] I say to Mr Henare that what goes around, comes around. That is an old rule in this place, and the National Party will learn about that old rule some time in the next few weeks. I will now come to the other extraordinary thing about Mr Key. [] Oh yes, and it is a lot better too, some of it.

Let me now come to another aspect of Mr Key. When one has been overseas for so many years, speculating on the foreign exchange markets, one tends to become out of date with what is happening in New Zealand. I just need to bring him up to date very briefly about what has happened with superannuation in the last 15 or so years. Firstly, the single living alone allowance was introduced by the last Labour Government. I was the Minister who introduced the single living alone allowance. Secondly, the last National Government, in 3 out of its 9 years, froze New Zealand superannuation and had no annual increase, at all. In its last year in Government it legislated to cut the relativity from 65 percent to 60 percent. It had proposed 55 percent, but to get Mr Henare’s support, and that of one or two others, it had to raise it to 60 percent. And there is no question that Dr Brash—because I think he might have said it in detail—actually wanted to go to a relativity of 50 percent of the average wage. National, as a whole, wanted to go to 55 percent. What was the first thing the incoming Labour Government did? It restored the relativity up to 65 percent, and, in the end, to 67 percent of the average wage.

Bob Clarkson: Thanks very much!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I know that Mr Clarkson gets all his jokes from old films. He also got most of his money from a Labour Government at some time or another.

Some of the younger puppies opposite want to start trying to bark and bleat about New Zealand superannuation, but they need to know the awful history of their own National Government in that respect. In 3 out of 9 years, there was no increase for any superannuitant in the country, and the relativity of New Zealand superannuation was cut. The National Government abolished the surcharge only because New Zealand First forced it to. We know that Dr Brash wants to raise again the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation. He has given speech after speech saying that the New Zealand superannuation age of eligibility should be raised. Of course, that did not stop him from collecting it the moment he turned 65. So dedicated was he to reducing Government spending that instead of simply not collecting the pension, he decided to collect it then release a press statement saying he was going to give it to charity. Well, he could have saved the taxpayers the money in the first place by simply not collecting the pension. It is not compulsory to take New Zealand superannuation when one turns 65. It is not a legal requirement.

But let me say again to Mr Key that I advise him very strongly—especially when he is talking about Dr Nick Smith being on the telephone—to be very careful before he associates himself and his future too closely with that of Dr Nick Smith.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : I stand to support the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. It has been a long time in the making, and we have to thank the Hon Dr Nick Smith, member for Nelson, for getting this going. It is a pity that we had to wait so long.

I am pleased that the bill will make changes to the New Zealand Superannuation Retirement Income Act 1954, and that it will enhance the lives of superannuitants and veterans who have spouses in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. Superannuitants and veterans are a section of our society that needs to be acknowledged. They have all contributed to our society; it is a pity that they have had to wait so long to get this recognition.

Veterans are a specific group within New Zealand, and this amendment bill in part acknowledges the role that veterans have played, and continue to play, in the development of New Zealand as a nation. The decline in the number of veterans of World War II in our population means that veterans are a dwindling population. It is difficult to estimate the numbers of veterans in New Zealand, but it is probably best done by counting the numbers in receipt of the war disablement pension. Approximately 16,000 veterans are in receipt of that particular pension. This bill targets those veterans who have spouses in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. In respect of the veteran population, we are dealing with a small, but diminishing, population. Having a loved one in a long-term care facility is an added emotional and physical burden to this group.

I am pleased that the bill will go some way to help both the veterans and the superannuitants. When a spouse or partner is critically ill in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home facility, there is the inevitable additional financial cost of travelling to and from the facility, and the other extra costs of caring for a loved one who is in care. Quite simply, it is more expensive to live alone. This bill removes the sharing expenses rule for the living alone payment, so that entitlement to the living alone payment for New Zealand superannuitants and veteran pensioners is based solely on actual living arrangements.

I am pleased that the sharing expenses rule has been addressed, as it has been the cause of a lot of negative public comment. It operates as a strict and arbitrary form of income testing for the living alone payment. Any outside contribution to the household expenses denies completely a person’s eligibility for the payment. It is arbitrary in that only a particular form of income, namely that directly related to household or accommodation expenses, is counted. In some cases, New Zealand superannuitants and veteran pensioners who are living alone are denied eligibility because they receive modest contributions to their household expenses from others, such as family members. Clearly, that is wrong.

Chris Auchinvole: It is wrong!

Dr JACKIE BLUE: It is very wrong. I am pleased that the sharing expenses rule has been removed; it is a pity that it has taken such a long time. We have to thank Dr Smith for that. It is a fair and just amendment. In real terms, this bill means that those veterans and superannuitants who have a spouse or partner in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home facility will be better off by $24 per week, or about $100 per month. That will go some way to ease the financial burden of those veterans and superannuitants.

The bill also increases the period of time a person can continue to receive New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension while overseas and working voluntarily for an aid agency, such as Volunteer Service Abroad, from 52 weeks to 156 weeks. I would be lost even to begin to estimate how many superannuitants or veterans are working overseas voluntarily, and suspect that it would be quite a small group. But, nonetheless, it is an important group, however small, and those people should not be disadvantaged, as they are doing selfless work in Third World countries. They need to be acknowledged, saluted, and supported, and this amendment will go some way towards that.

However, I suspect that many superannuitants and veterans want to travel overseas on extended visits to their children and grandchildren who are settled in other countries because they do not see a future in New Zealand. Those children and grandchildren are part of a growing exodus of people who are leaving our shores in search of a better life. Those superannuitants and veterans should not also be disadvantaged, simply because they want to spend some time with their relatives overseas. I am pleased that the bill acknowledges those circumstances.

Under the current legislation, a person with a spouse or partner in long-term residential care can receive only a single or single living alone rate of New Zealand’s superannuation or veterans pension in two narrowly defined circumstances. The first circumstance is if a person’s spouse or partner is receiving a residential care subsidy, which is means-tested. The second circumstance is if a spouse or partner is suffering the effects of a stroke and/or dementia and, as a result, is no longer able to affirm his or her marriage or civil union. We have the petition of Barbara White and 1,500 or so others, which has been mentioned by previous speakers, to thank for the broadening of the eligibility criteria introduced into the bill. It was considered by the Social Services Committee and was recommended in a report that was presented to Parliament on 12 May last year.

National MP the Hon Dr Nick Smith will be very gratified by the introduction of the bill. In February last year, he sent out a press release entitled “Super living alone policy stupid and unfair.”

Paula Bennett: Did Nick put out a press release?

Dr JACKIE BLUE: Yes. He will be very pleased that something is finally happening. It was actually on behalf of an elderly man in his electorate, who was denied the living alone payment under Government policy, because his wife was in a rest home and still recognised him. The Hon Nick Smith said in his press release that “The policy is stupid and unfair. It should make no difference to eligibility whether the husband or the wife was in rest home care because of physical or mental disability.”

He went on to say: “It is insulting that WINZ is advising people that to get the living alone payment they would need to divorce lifelong partners who required resthome care.” He further said: “It is bizarre that if this couple were de facto or gay, or if Mrs Page had dementia or was in prison, he would be eligible. These factors should be irrelevant to eligibility for the Living Alone Payment that is intended to recognise that it is more expensive for superannuitants living alone.” He went on to say: “There will be hundreds of New Zealand superannuitants whose wife or husband has gone into care and who are affected by that iniquitous policy. The Government should recognize that their new policy is blatantly unfair and change it. If not, the Human Rights Commission should declare the discrimination unlawful.” It is very gratifying to see that the legislation is finally coming home to be passed.

Before I conclude, as an associate health spokesperson I would like to make some remarks on the care of our elderly. I would like to quote my colleague Jo Goodhew, who is the member for Aoraki and also an associate health spokesperson. In a recent media release she said there was widespread concern that district health boards are still not passing on funding or funding increases to providers of aged-care residential facilities. Mrs Goodhew discovered at a recent Health Committee that figures show that some district health boards are passing on the funding, and others are not. Mrs Goodhew was very concerned, and did not receive a satisfactory explanation of why that was happening. She said that questions had been asked about why that increased funding had not flowed through to providers, but those questions are yet to be answered adequately by the Ministry of Health. It seems that $71 million is, in fact, to allow the sector only to tread water, not to meet increased costs.

That is simply not good enough. We are an ageing population, and to ensure that the health system works effectively we must ensure that we have residential facilities and hospitals for our sick elderly population, and we must ensure that those facilities are adequately funded.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) : As the MP who met with Barbara White to discuss with her what we would do in order to address what was a serious issue, I am very pleased to be able to speak in the first reading debate on a bill that addresses the second limb of the two-limbed issue she brought to my attention. When we drafted the wording of the petition, we wrote: “That the House of Representatives recommend that the Government review the rules of eligibility for the living alone payment when one of a superannuitant couple is in long-stay or permanent residential care and for practical purposes they are no longer able to live together as a couple.”

We made a mistake, Barbara White and I, because we did not realise when we wrote the wording of the petition that the issue of the living alone payment was not the primary issue. For her to qualify for the living alone payment, she first had to qualify for the single rate of superannuation. A person cannot get the single rate of superannuation if he or she is married, and that was the issue she faced. So we discovered, after we had presented the petition, that there were two separate issues. One was the appropriate rate of superannuation—that is, the single rate as opposed to half the married rate—and the second issue related to the living alone payment, which appeared to be subject to different considerations, not simply whether the person was living alone.

So I did some research, and I found out that the ministerial directive that related to the living alone payment dated back to 1999. It was a National Minister who signed the ministerial directive that set the way the living alone payment was to be paid. So I had then to find out why she was not entitled to the single rate of superannuation, because she was entitled only to half of the married rate of superannuation. I discovered, when I went back, that a previous National Minister had been given costings on fixing that problem nearly 10 years ago, but National had said that it was too expensive and had decided to leave it like that—precisely like that. [Interruption] I am really interested that National members want to try to yell over the top of me. The point I want to make to the House—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Interjection is obviously OK, but not barraging, and not repetitive barraging in the way it is going on now. Would members please keep it down a bit.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I think it is important for the House to recognise that National was presented with this problem, in Government, about a decade ago, and National said it was too costly to fix. This problem—

John Key: It was weeks before the election. What was the actual date? Come on, name the date.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: It was in 1996 or 1997 that National costed the fixing of this problem. I think it is important for members to know why that happened, but I know that National members are not interested in knowing why that happened. The reason was that National finally delivered on a commitment it had given in 1990, which was to remove the surcharge on superannuation. It removed the surcharge, and when it did that it created this anomaly. National members do not remember that, because they cannot recall how that happened. But I know that Peter Gresham was the Minister of Social Welfare who called for the costing on this matter, and he said that it was too expensive to fix. So it—

John Key: You should be ashamed that it’s taken 7 years to sort this out.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: It has not taken 7 years to fix, because it was brought to my attention by Barbara White 2 years ago, and within 2 years this Government has fixed the problem. That is because Barbara White came to me, unlike the constituents in Nelson who went to their constituency MP and got nothing. They got a letter sent to the Human Rights Commission; we got a change in the law.

I think it is important for people to realise that it was not any Government, neither Labour nor National, that brought in that dreadful exemption, which I call the “dementia exception”. It was actually a decision of the Social Security Appeal Authority, which stated: “where a married couple are living apart, due to one partner suffering the effects of a stroke or dementia, and he or she has ceased to recognise his or her spouse, and as a result is incapable of positively affirming their marriage vows for the limited purpose of determining what rate of superannuation the spouse living at home should receive, the chief executive should regard that spouse as living apart from the marriage partner and therefore unmarried.” Nick Smith said in his letter, as was quoted in the House, that the policy is stupid and unfair—that is true. That is why the Social Security Appeal Authority tried to work its way around it. It was a National policy that the authority was trying to work its way around. The Social Security Appeal Authority had to determine that a couple was essentially unmarried in order that the spouse at home could qualify for the higher rate of superannuation. This bill fixes that issue.

But there was a second issue. By the time Barbara White brought her petition to Parliament, and had her hearing—very respectfully, I might add, in front of the Social Services Committee, whose members on all sides of the House treated her with great respect, and she was very grateful to be treated that way—she had been determined as eligible for the single rate of superannuation. But she did not qualify for the living alone payment, because it was considered by the department that her husband was still contributing financially to the household through their joint assets. This bill fixes the second limb of the problem. So both parts of this problem are now addressed for everyone—not just for Barbara White but for the other people who signed the petition.

I met the man who signed the petition second. He was in exactly the same situation as the individual referred to by the previous National Party speaker. He did not qualify for the exception because his wife did not have dementia—she did recognise him. He did not qualify for the exception that had been created by the Social Security Appeal Authority to get around the stupid and unfair policy that had been created by National. This legislation will fix that for him. So I think that this is a very proud day. We should be celebrating the fact that the parliamentary system has worked. An individual came to a member of Parliament and said that the situation was unfair. The member of Parliament agreed that it was not fair and undertook to try to fix it. So that member of Parliament, instead of rushing off to the Human Rights Commission, informed the Minister’s office that a petition would be brought in and asked the Minister to work with the petitioners. We worked with the select committee, Barbara White brought her petition to Parliament, and, with the Minister’s office, we were able to achieve this very great result.

I know that Barbara White is proud of the New Zealand Parliament today because Parliament has set aside some of the political differences that affect the way we operate from time to time to do the right thing—the right thing for her, for the other 1,500 people who signed her petition, and for those who did not put their names on the petition but want to have this matter addressed. This is an example of the system working well—somebody brought an issue to Parliament, and Parliament set aside all personal interests to look at the issue and find a solution.

I think that this could not have happened except under a Labour-led Government prepared to listen to the real concerns of the people and finally to address the problem. I am afraid some National Party members will be very embarrassed when they find out that one of their own previous social security Ministers actually costed fixing this problem a decade ago and decided that it would cost the country too much. All the hollow words that we have heard tonight will return to reflect on those who said that they cared about this issue. Barbara White is a tremendous New Zealander who has done a great thing by bringing this matter to the attention of a Government that is prepared to act and make a difference.

• Bill read a first time.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill be referred to the Social Services Committeereferred to Social Services Committee

• Motion agreed to.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) : I rise to speak in opposition to the Education Amendment Bill. In doing so, I wish to focus on the new regulatory regime for the early childhood education sector. That is another example of the way in which the Labour Party thinks that by making a bureaucracy it can solve the problems of children. When will the Government learn that no child ever learnt to read in a bureaucrat’s office in Wellington?

I take on board the advice of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and the Early Childhood Council, both of which have expressed concern that the children who currently miss out on early childhood education will gain nothing from this bill. Yet it is those children who would benefit most from access to early childhood education. From among those children will come the silent catastrophe of New Zealand life—the 150,000 New Zealand boys and girls who will pass through our school system not learning to read, write, or do mathematics. This bill will do nothing for those children. We know that children who have good early childhood education are more adaptable when they start school, and more likely to pass through the school system and go on to tertiary education, than those who do not get that opportunity. So why does the Labour Government continue to ignore the children who most need opportunity—who most need help?

I reflect on the irony of this situation. If this were a National Party bill, people like me would be burnt in effigy on the forecourt of Parliament House by members of the New Zealand Educational Institute. Instead, kindergarten teachers are ringing and asking me to go and see them, or asking to come and see me. They are begging members to do something to protect their work practices and their work, because they know that this bill is the end of kindergartens as we know them in New Zealand.

I want to take a moment to reflect on what kindergartens have meant to New Zealanders—to think about what going to kindergarten meant to my four children, and to think about the opportunities that being involved in a kindergarten gave me to meet the parents of the children my children would go through school and grow up with. That went right to the very fabric of what made decent, caring communities. We got involved in volunteer efforts. I remember well painting the kindergarten roof, and two or three guys putting up a new shed there. Those were the days, of course, when a couple of volunteers could put up a new shed for a kindergarten—not like today. Those were the days when on a Saturday we would go and dig the sandpit or help clean the building. Our involvement would then carry on through the school and the PTA to the children’s sports clubs and that sort of thing. That is what we will destroy if we let the kindergarten system collapse—yet that is what we are doing.

I say thank you to the kindergarten teachers of New Zealand for the years of service they have given to children like mine, and to hundreds of thousands of others. I ask them to reflect on where the leadership from their union is—or is it just the fact that because this is a Labour Party bill it is OK? How many of those teachers forewent the opportunity of a decent tax cut to vote for Labour, and now what will Labour do to them?

This bill will be the end of kindergartens as we know them. We know that children who have the opportunity of decent early childhood education will be more successful at school, will not become the criminals of tomorrow, and will not be amongst the youngsters who will not learn to read, write, or do mathematics—150,000 of them, the silent catastrophe of New Zealand. This bill does nothing to give those children a start in life. The Government will spend $100 million, yet the children who most need access to early childhood education, and who most often do not get access to it, will miss out again.

What is it about socialism that says that it is legitimate to leave 20 percent of one’s population stranded—stranded in poorly performing schools, stranded in lousy State-funded housing, and stranded in crime-riddled streets—but not to lift a finger to deal with that silent catastrophe. In fact, we are introducing into this House legislation that will perpetuate that situation.

Hon Member: It’s just poor workmanship; that’s all.

Hon Brian Donnelly: He would have seen the figures that came out, just after you guys got out.

ALLAN PEACHEY: I would like to thank Mr Donnelly, the chairman of the Education and Science Committee, for the committee’s contribution. He does a fine job chairing that committee. I know that he must appreciate the disappointment of missing out on the baubles of office. I say to him that his leader owed him better than that.

So where is the New Zealand Educational Institute? Where is the voice of kindergarten teachers? And where is the voice of those parents who want a kindergarten education for their children—who do not want to drop their children off at 8 o’clock in the morning and pick them up at 5 o’clock, but who like the idea that their children can go to kindergarten for 3 hours in the morning, then spend the afternoon at home with their parents? Where is the consideration for those parents?

Let us not lose sight of one thing: the best upbringing a child can have is from that child’s parents. The more time a child spends with his or her parents, the better it is for that child, and we do not want to be in a situation of encouraging the State to take over the upbringing of our children. It is far better to put our resources and our effort into those children who are currently missing out. That is where our efforts should go, because that way we can finally start to break that chain of silent catastrophe. We can finally start to reduce the number of our children who are not learning to read, to write, or to do maths, and who will, therefore, have no place to contribute positively through our economy. That is what we should be concerned with—not with creating another bureaucracy that gives jobs to bureaucrats. And, please, will this Government understand: no child was ever educated in a bureaucrat’s office in Wellington.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : I could use up the whole of my 10 minutes picking holes in the previous contribution from the National education associate spokesperson, but I will not, and I will tell members why. I think that member has a lot to contribute to the debate and discourse on education, and to what the Education and Science Committee has to do. He has, without a doubt, a great passion for education. I do have to mention that I did spend some time with an education spokesperson from the ACT party who had a great passion for education, and she happens to be in jail now—but that is neither here nor there.

I am very pleased to be speaking in this debate. I am the fifth speaker in this debate, but I am the first speaker who actually knows anything about what this legislation is about, the first speaker who has actually sat and listened to the debate, and the first speaker who has had any involvement in making contributions to the changes made to the original bill. I would like to work through that process in a sensible way.

I want first of all to pay due tribute to the members of the Education and Science Committee in the last Parliament. In particular, I pay tribute to the two members of that committee who are no longer in the House, for a variety of reasons: Bernie Ogilvy and Deborah Coddington. Although much of this bill was motherhood and apple pie, and the report is a unanimous one—and I would like to point that out to members of the Opposition; there was no opposition, and there is no minority statement in the report back—we worked our way through the issues, and made a number of changes. The members of the Opposition parties on the select committee at that particular time contributed to those changes in a very positive way. I want to acknowledge that. The report was a unanimous one, but, as I said, there were a number of changes. The need for those changes was identified as a result of the careful work undertaken by the committee.

It was identified, for example, that certain clauses of the original bill—the bill as it was presented to us—had the unintended effect of preventing a teacher whose registration had expired from undertaking relieving teaching. I can tell members now that my registration has expired. It has been expired for quite some time.

Hon Tau Henare: And all the kids are clapping their hands.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: And on election night I was really glad we had made that change. I was really happy. It was a bit like 1999, I might add for Mr Henare. I had to really reconsider my registration process then! The bill contains a number of other provisions that improve the teacher registration process.

There are also a number of issues relating to the composition of the disciplinary tribunals. We recommended, for example, changes that would ensure that at least one member of a disciplinary tribunal—a disciplinary tribunal for teachers—must be a member of the Teachers Council, and that one may not be teacher, which allows for the appointment of someone with specialist knowledge, such as a lawyer with expertise in employment law. However, even with those changes, the way the original bill was drawn up meant that the disciplinary tribunals could have been composed of members, none of whom was a teacher. That seemed to the committee to be contrary to the objectives of the legislation that had established the Teachers Council. Those objectives were intended to professionalise teachers. I think it was the Education Standards Bill, which was in the name of the National member Alec Neill. One of the classic criteria of a profession is that it controls its own membership, including disciplinary action. Yet this legislation was going to take that away. The committee therefore insisted that any disciplinary tribunal must be composed of members the majority of whom are registered teachers. We believe that is right.

Hon Tau Henare: Why?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: Because of the professional process. That does not mean to say that other people cannot be brought into it, but if teaching is to be a profession, it must control the entry and exit of its own members.

The bill in its original form extended the prohibition in the principal Act that makes it an offence to abuse, insult, or intimidate teachers in front of children, to early childhood education and care services. It also increased the penalty from $40 to $1,000. The committee explored in detail the issue of the abuse or intimidation of staff, because it had come to our attention that many teachers, largely female teachers, in small and isolated rural schools were operating in fear and trepidation because of the current P epidemic. I take the opportunity to put on record that this is an issue the Government needs to address. However, the provision in the Education Act is specifically about abuse or intimidation of staff in front of students. What the bill intended to do was to extend that to early childhood education providers. What came about as the result of our extensive exploration of this legislation was that we found that under the present Act a student who abuses a teacher in front of his or her fellow students could be liable to a fine of, at present, $40, and maybe, in the future, $1,000. So the select committee put in a clause to make it clear that this provision did not apply to students, as we believed that such behaviour should be dealt with through the ordinary school disciplinary process or through the general law.

The bill also allows for people who renege on bonded scholarship contracts to be required to repay outstanding amounts through student loan scheme processes. That was unanimously agreed to by members, and it was good to have that position endorsed by members of the students association of Christchurch teachers college when I met with them on Monday.

Surprisingly, there was no objection from any party representative to the provision in the bill to extend the use of national student numbers to the early childhood sector and the compulsory sector. New Zealand First is extremely supportive of this move. Our particular concerns are issues of truancy and transiency. One of the real downsides of the Tomorrow’s Schools reforms was that large numbers of students fell through the cracks. They fell through the cracks during the transition process from one schooling level to another, and they also fell through the cracks when parents shifted homes, particularly from one location to another. This move, in fact, will enable systems to be developed that better track some of our most at-risk and vulnerable students.

However, notwithstanding the careful scrutiny by the select committee, a part of this bill is still of genuine concern, and I wish to focus upon this area of concern and bring it to the attention of National’s early childhood spokesperson. It lies in new section 317, in clause 43 of the bill—specifically, subsection (2)(b). The member who might have railed against regulations happened to have sat in Cabinet when the last set of regulations—Desirable Objectives and Practices—were put through in 1998. But this bill is actually trying to put through a different framework, and the Desirable Objectives and Practices will be collapsed into it. New section 317 allows for a process of putting regulations in place. That is fine and I do not think any one would disagree with it. But subsection (2)(b) states: “authorise the Secretary, after consultation with those organisations that appear to the Secretary to be representative of persons likely to be substantially affected by these regulations, to prescribe criteria to be used by the Secretary to assess compliance with the minimum standards imposed by these regulations:”. I want members to focus their attention on that. What it actually means is that, potentially, ministry officials could have the power—and Parliament could be giving them the power, without any review by the Regulations Review Committee—to determine exactly what every early childhood centre has to do, down to the colour it has to use—

Hon Tau Henare: And you like that.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: No, we disagree with that. We think that power is far beyond what was ever intended by the legislation, and if that is what the legislation is actually doing, we believe that in the Committee stage we need to draw back on it. We are signalling at this particular stage that we have a concern. We are in discussion both with members of the Opposition and with members of the Government itself to ask what exactly it means and what powers it gives. It was never drawn to the attention of the select committee, but it has been drawn to our attention since then. We want to ensure that the intentions were to set the regulations, then to allow some examples to be given for early childhood centres to draw on, rather than to provide that power.

Later on in that provision, section 317(2)(i) talks about: “prescribe offences punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding $500 in respect of the contravention of or non-compliance with the regulations.” In other words, if a sleeping room is not coloured the colour that the ministry has determined is the right colour for children, one could be up for a fine of $500. That is completely the converse of the whole notion of keeping the diversity that is the very strength of early childhood education.

So I signal here and now to the House that we will be proceeding to explore this issue, and to try to resolve it—

Hon Tau Henare: Explore or resolve it?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: —to resolve it in a sensible way, to ensure that what it may be saying is not true.

Hon Tau Henare: Are you going to bring it up in a Supplementary Order Paper?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: We will bring it up and amend it at the Committee stage if that is necessary, yes.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : I was very pleased to be able to sit on the Education and Science Committee for at least part of the consideration of this bill, and I did hear some of the submissions, but I was not able to be there for the last part. We will support the second reading of this bill, but we will not make a final decision until after the Committee stage because we still have some real concerns about it.

On the plus side, this bill makes some important and necessary changes. We are pleased to see changes to clarify and simplify the prohibition of corporal punishment in early childhood services. It is an important principle that children should not be subjected to violence, and we look forward to this House taking a similarly principled approach to my colleague Sue Bradford’s section 59 abolition member’s bill when it comes before the House for consideration. Some years ago the decision was made to prohibit corporal punishment in schools, and we, as a community and a Parliament, need to make sure we are consistent in our condemnation of violence against children, regardless of whether it is done by teachers or by other adults.

We are pleased to see that a new section makes the intimidation of staff at schools and early childhood services—where that is happening in front of children—unlawful, and that the fines have increased, because violence and abuse have no place in a child’s life, anywhere. We, as legislators, should do everything we can to make sure that the community knows that such behaviour is unacceptable and will be punished. We are also pleased to see that those provisions do not apply to children, and that more child-appropriate services and systems are in place to deal with their behaviour.

We are very pleased to see that a parent’s right to enter the premises of the early childhood service that his or her child attends is retained. I was very surprised when some privately owned centres asked to be able to exclude parents from entering their premises as they saw fit. That struck me at the time as being a terribly unsafe policy for an early childhood centre to have, and I certainly never would have sent my children to a service that barred me from entering its premises to check on their welfare.

The exemptions to this provision in the bill are generally sound, but I would like to see some tightening of the new section 319A(e), proposed to be inserted in the Education Act 1989 by clause 43 of the bill. This paragraph gives the operator a right to bar a person whom the operator considers is “exhibiting behaviour that is … disruptive to the effective operation of the centre …”. I think that it is not the operation of the centre that is the main concern, but the physical and psychological welfare of the children. Under this wording, an operator could bar a parent who wanted to come in, say, to feed or care for a child in some way, because that would disrupt the centre’s schedule. That is not a good enough reason to bar parents from checking on their children in those centres.

Our real concern about the bill, which was expressed by my colleague Rod Donald at the first reading, relates to the extension of the student number system from the secondary into the primary and early childhood sectors. Currently, those numbers are used for the secondary and tertiary sectors to collect and combine data for policy and analysis purposes—largely for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and tertiary providers to use to verify the identity of enrolling students.

On the face of it, the network management system that has operated those numbers is used for fairly benign purposes, but the Greens have always been concerned that those unique personal identifiers could be readily misused. The only other existing national ID number is the national health index number, which is an identification number given to all children at birth. So we are already trapped for our entire lives, in some form.

The Greens are not yet convinced that those numbers will not be misused or that there are sufficient checks on their use in the bill. We are particularly concerned about the privacy of the children and the families concerned. There is no doubt that the numbers are useful for the better sharing of information between schools when children enrolled at those schools move, and for the better identification and management of truant children—and certainly the Office of the Children’s Commissioner supports the use of those numbers.

But there still remains a high possibility that a breach of those children’s privacy may occur. Just because they are children does not mean they have any less entitlement to the protection of their privacy. In fact, we should put in extra measures to protect their rights and interests, because they have even less power to make any changes or to hold people to account should that information be misused.

We are concerned that the information could be used to access children for advertising—even by the education sector itself. What is worse is that it could be used to trace and punish already struggling parents and families, who, for a variety of reasons over which they may have very little control, are already engaged in a cycle of transience and difficulties.

So we would like to see some better protection mechanisms placed in the bill and to see whether some amendments can be made to tighten up the rules. We look forward to seeing what happens at the Committee stage, but the Greens will support the bill through to its second reading.

• Debate interrupted.