"\u003C!DOCTYPE html\u003E\u003Chtml xmlns:xlink=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\u0022 xmlns:xsi=\u0022http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance\u0022 xmlns:mml=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Chead\u003E\n    \u003CMETA http-equiv=\u0022Content-Type\u0022 content=\u0022text/html; charset=utf-16\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cmeta name=\u0022viewport\u0022 content=\u0022width=device-width, initial-scale=1\u0022\u003E\n  \u003C/head\u003E\n  \u003Cbody style=\u0022font-family:sans-serif; font-size:100%;\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224d81c553db9449d98f8cb8bd31db28b7\u0022\u003ETuesday, 7 October 2003\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222e22cf6bb07f406ca4c584df052fc041\u0022\u003ETuesday, 7 October 2003\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000002\u0022\u003EMr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000004\u0022\u003EPrayers.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d35a0cccc4e343e6a15ebc06c50dbe22\u0022\u003EQuestions for Oral Answer\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022556e6960a73f4aa9b0c2b344b9d2c3dd\u0022\u003EQuestions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220911ff2a2c644a09b55839fdab810f48\u0022\u003EZimbabwe\u2014Commonwealth Membership\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279f87abf-aaab-44ff-96db-2e33d763670a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0d234ae465b448ab0024beca352bd85\u0022\u003E1. LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour\u2014Mana)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: What view has New Zealand expressed on the attendance of Zimbabwe at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Abuja in December, and on the continuing suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022 data-id=\u0022a2cb8a592ff24a5bacc08f2363315a5c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a2cb8a592ff24a5bacc08f2363315a5c\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade):\u003C/span\u003E New Zealand strongly opposes the presence of Mr Mugabe at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Abuja. I have registered that view with the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth and, indeed, formally and individually with every member country in the Commonwealth. New Zealand supports the continued suspension of Zimbabwe for as long as it continues to abuse human rights and undermine the rule of law, the freedom of the media, and the democratic process, in breach of the values of the Harare Commonwealth Declaration, agreed to collectively by the Commonwealth in 1991.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279f87abf-aaab-44ff-96db-2e33d763670a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2c803a7c25a4e058d0614ec6d2947d7\u0022\u003ELuamanuvao Winnie Laban\u003C/span\u003E: What information does he have on the likelihood of Mr Mugabe attending the Commonwealth meeting in Abuja?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228be32ab3b0c54c2c8bd6f0ad2617576f\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: The information I have is that President Obasanjo of Nigeria has not issued, and will not be issuing, an invitation to Mr Mugabe to go to Abuja. President Obasanjo will be aware that the leaders of a number of countries, including New Zealand, would likely not attend CHOGM if Mr Mugabe were present. The question of Zimbabwe\u2019s suspension will almost certainly arise at Abuja. Our position is that we must treat Zimbabwe consistently with the other countries that have been suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth. Those countries must stay suspended until they come back within the values agreed to and endorsed in the Harare Commonwealth Declaration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226828ee08a032444b8fdf68028260333f\u0022\u003EKeith Locke\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister agree that we can best promote strong Commonwealth action against the Mugabe regime if we do not imitate Mr Mugabe and detain politicians for months at a time in poor conditions without specific charges, as we are currently doing with Ahmed Zaoui, and if we do not subject them to secret trials based on secret evidence from intelligence agencies, as we are also doing with Mr Zaoui?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a1db4e3743ba4966a06dbf624a014bb1\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: The difference between New Zealand and Zimbabwe is that the Government in this country operates within the rule of law; Zimbabwe operates outside the rule of law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7ad9418c25948f89cca5a6966d06e7a\u0022\u003EHon Peter Dunne\u003C/span\u003E: What is the Government\u2019s reaction to reported claims from Zimbabwe that the opposition to its continued membership of the Commonwealth, and its pariah status have been inspired by the current Secretary-General, thus leading to its calls for his replacement, and will New Zealand be not only supporting Mr McKinnon\u2019s reappointment but also lobbying actively with other countries to ensure that he is reappointed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002255abf76b2ef64411a36c8fb8815d854b\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: The decision to suspend Zimbabwe was made by the troika consisting of the President of Nigeria, the Prime Minister of Australia, and the President of South Africa. I think the secretary-general has carried out his responsibilities appropriately. Certainly, New Zealand supports the re-election of Don McKinnon as Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. I put that to the Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Auckland, and it was endorsed unanimously by the leaders at the forum. That same forum also unanimously endorsed the need for Zimbabwe to remain suspended while it continues to suppress human rights and work outside the rule of law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222032bce2bca547ee8bdcd9fabb4e8cf0\u0022\u003EForeshore and Seabed\u2014Legislation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a87c178-9f60-439e-aa9b-0f1336c37ea9\u0022\u003E2. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2f87a9ad7bf4453bdec8f51982f2605\u0022\u003EHon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader\u2014NZ National)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement regarding legislation on the foreshore and seabed, \u201CI don\u2019t think it would be possible to pass legislation this year.\u201D; if so, what date does she expect legislation to be introduced?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022 data-id=\u0022e4ac5d8ae11b4308a7538f934a3a4dc5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e4ac5d8ae11b4308a7538f934a3a4dc5\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, and when it is ready.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a87c178-9f60-439e-aa9b-0f1336c37ea9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276603869ed6d48d98e43870db0db359a\u0022\u003EHon Roger Sowry\u003C/span\u003E: In light of the fact that no law is currently stopping the M\u0101ori Land Court from issuing freehold title to M\u0101ori, what guarantees can she give the public that while she stalls by delaying the legislation, we will not see title to the seabed or foreshore granted?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224af8da50cfa0475ab0c7cf0cf31d07fc\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: As I understand it, there is still an appeal on the books to the Privy Council on the matter by another organisation. Even if claims were to be heard, it is expected that it would take some time to get anywhere near the end point the member is talking about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b6fdd119c1240b9a7d01ec6c862c8f2\u0022\u003ENanaia Mahuta\u003C/span\u003E: How extensive has the Government\u2019s consultation been on the foreshore and seabed issue?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022672c23c6faf14ef1baf6618b2d770b90\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: It has been exceptionally extensive. Over 2,000 written submissions have now been received from a wide range of individuals and organisations. I know that Government MPs have attended more than 45 public meetings in communities around the country. Ten formal hui have been held with M\u0101ori. Ministers have met with more than a dozen recreational and other user groups, and are due to meet with Local Government New Zealand this week. We have distributed 15,000 copies of the document for consultation and have received over 650 other requests for information.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022afd46bd53f514ec4969c423ad1e960ea\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Which current legislation does the Prime Minister expect will be amended\u2014for example, will the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act or the Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, and Exclusive Economic Zone Act be amended to give effect to the Government\u2019s intentions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccca632079494829859ec9538289a0bc\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: The legislation to be amended will be that that requires change arising out of the refined proposal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223923a636af4844149cd2c479ed0db129\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: As it has been indicated that 38 cases will be brought by various M\u0101ori iwi and hap\u016B for the foreshore, and apparently the Government\u2019s approach is that because the Marlborough Harbour Board has brought a case to the Privy Council those cases will not proceed, can the Prime Minister explain why the Government itself has not either joined the Marlborough Harbour Board\u2019s case or itself appealed to the Privy Council?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220391c90c20864a8bb355a468aa34a56a\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: The Government judged that this was an issue better sorted out at home. It is worth noting that since 1927 no M\u0101ori case that has gone to the Privy Council has succeeded from the M\u0101ori point of view, and that the trend has been to send cases back to New Zealand. I might also say that the Marlborough Harbour Board went out of existence, I think, when the member was in the Government party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edcadd559033449fa48e74a94d6c21f1\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Why is there any need for any legislation other than a simple amendment to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to ensure that customary titles not be converted to fee simple titles and sold, given that that is the Government\u2019s stated bottom line and no tangata whenua have sought a fee simple title over the foreshore and seabed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240e8021ffecc49f9ae8f7e414c497b43\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I am not sure that I followed that question entirely, but the member will know that from the way the Court of Appeal decision came out it would be possible to go all the way to fee simple title\u2014something ACT seems to approve of.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a87c178-9f60-439e-aa9b-0f1336c37ea9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a79f54e75cc74395923f17cfabd5eafb\u0022\u003EHon Roger Sowry\u003C/span\u003E: Why is the Prime Minister hiding behind the pending appeal to the Privy Council by another party\u2014to use her own words\u2014rather than keeping her original promise to New Zealanders that she would legislate to ensure Crown ownership?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db35ce60fd1048e391c9244c017a5378\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: As I have said on many occasions, that was not an original promise from me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250bfce84e8254d049563d1ca5897e4f8\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Why does the Prime Minister persist in denying that she\u2014on day one of this issue, after the Court of Appeal decision\u2014said that the Government would clarify the position to ensure that the ownership of the foreshore and seabed lay with the Crown, let it go for months, and now, somehow, has every journalist lying and her telling the truth?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022463715900cf0481d9ca9d0b3c2243850\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I have been very clear in this House, over a number of months, as to what I did say.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a87c178-9f60-439e-aa9b-0f1336c37ea9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228214e3a73f2e40d3af9e07feda06bdef\u0022\u003EHon Roger Sowry\u003C/span\u003E: Did her attendance at the hui that discussed this matter inform her of the reasons that this legislation should not be introduced this year?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219a6f6ea204f4f568b2f4cb704c33603\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: Just as the member could not attend a caucus today, nor did I attend hui. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a87c178-9f60-439e-aa9b-0f1336c37ea9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222007479ce7b64a01a8f1ee7a6ea66367\u0022\u003EHon Roger Sowry\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002296a460f083ea4d6bb5ce49deda535438\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am just waiting. There will be people leaving the Chamber if I cannot hear a point of order in silence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a87c178-9f60-439e-aa9b-0f1336c37ea9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c18044b2cbcb4fb0a19c6908650abacb\u0022\u003EHon Roger Sowry\u003C/span\u003E: That in no way answered the question. In fact, the National Party caucus meeting is tomorrow, and I will be attending it. I want to know whether her attendance at the hui helped to inform her as to her decision to delay the legislation. If she did not attend the hui, then she can tell us. I am sure she was not hiding.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc83f4a8a6a34458bfdb79dfe1df6f72\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I thought the Prime Minister answered that in the second part of her answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235d8e566701946f7868bafef7008938b\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You cannot possibly believe that there was a reasonable answer in the second part of the Prime Minister\u2019s statement. I want to take you, further, to the question before that, asked by Mr Peters, which was a very simple question that asked the Prime Minister why she was not prepared to stick by her original statements when this issue first came to light for the public. Her answer was simply that she has been very clear about her statements. If the Prime Minister gives us answers like that and you accept them, we might as well not turn up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e44a2d639fa14325b03da06d568e7c7f\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: On many occasions the Prime Minister has pointed out that she did not make the statement that members of the Opposition claim she made. Eventually that will get through to the Opposition. As for the other point made by the member, the Prime Minister made it clear that she did not attend any hui, and therefore\u2014[Interruption] I am sitting next to the Prime Minister and I heard her very clearly state that. As there was no hui she attended, she is in the same position of ignorance as we all are about the National Party caucus today\u2014what happened there. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d49714551d7c4b4ea0743b91393a999e\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I will not warn people again about interjecting during points of order. Mr Peters has a perfect right to be heard in silence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e42aca4f90ce472d92437f9d7da8fcdc\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that the evidence for questions on this issue provided to you as Speaker\u2014or to the Clerk\u2014recited both the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, Margaret Wilson, who is the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, as having said that. It was repeated by every journalist the next day, but now, when we provide you with evidence that that is the authority for us saying that she said it, she gets up in the House today and says that she has been very clear about her statements. But she is not very clear as to whether she is a liar or the media are. That was my question. Did she tell the truth and are they lying, or are they lying and she is telling the truth\u2014or was it obvious to everybody?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6e229a928264ce0a9cb3a53d7d2a8c5\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The first part of the answer was arguably unnecessary, but the Prime Minister did address the question in the second part of her answer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a87c178-9f60-439e-aa9b-0f1336c37ea9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba424e8f87124f9ea54280819b6d2182\u0022\u003EHon Roger Sowry\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Prime Minister regret not being able to fit her attendance at any of the hui into her diary; if so, what is she going to do about it now?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6014cdae4884fe9b2da02aebec2fa11\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I have no regrets, at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221449ef252b2243978c3090a32ffec9cc\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I ask the Prime Minister why, when she and the Attorney-General were quoted the next day as having said that they would introduce legislation clarifying that the ownership of the seabed and foreshore lay with the Crown; and when every journalist reported that in her name and in Margaret Wilson\u2019s name, she has the audacity to come to the House now and deny that she said it in the first place\u2014or was that just spin for the first 2 weeks, to get the lie of the land?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e59e377bfc2d4f88a6145c646937ba00\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I am very clear about what I said, which was that clarifying legislation would be required.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00229a0ab8a030cd49c280d31ba2d604c6bc\u0022\u003EMethamphetamine\u2014Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003E3. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022313ff1d1b4224d90a5aed511ce748fda\u0022\u003EHon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader\u2014Progressive)\u003C/span\u003E to the Associate Minister of Health: What action has the coalition Government\u2019s Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy taken to date to combat the methamphetamine drug problem in this country?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228415e962-886d-47b9-9356-3fdce746891f\u0022 data-id=\u00224030895f142a43e2851cf0323b666a9b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228415e962-886d-47b9-9356-3fdce746891f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224030895f142a43e2851cf0323b666a9b\u0022\u003EHon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health):\u003C/span\u003E Since becoming chair of the ministerial committee, I have overseen the implementation of the methamphetamine action plan, which has been allocated $8.6 million in this year\u2019s Budget for police and customs initiatives, as well as $2.55 million for the development of community action programmes; the reclassification of methamphetamine to a class A drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act, so that anyone convicted of importing, manufacturing or supplying the drug now faces up to life imprisonment; and work to put in place successful protocols by the police and pharmacies to limit the domestic supply of precursor chemicals, such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221123bab870324fb8a35a5f354ac1f042\u0022\u003EHon Matt Robson\u003C/span\u003E: What are the next steps the coalition Government proposes to take in its fight against this dangerous drug?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228415e962-886d-47b9-9356-3fdce746891f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e71e14cfb244f889ee680c98beb2496\u0022\u003EHon JIM ANDERTON\u003C/span\u003E: Cabinet has agreed to lower the presumption of supply in relation to methamphetamine from the current 56 grams to 5 grams. This measure will give police the ability to prosecute more suppliers of that dangerous drug. It will help police and customs in their fight against methamphetamine, and it is expected to begin its process through Cabinet by the end of this month. Pseudoephedrine is an ingredient in the manufacture of methamphetamine, and the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs has recommended that it be classified as a class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act. I have accepted that recommendation, and the Ministry of Health is in the process of consulting the industry on that measure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241de1224ff6840ba8f6abcf15deb8c66\u0022\u003EDr Lynda Scott\u003C/span\u003E: In light of the fact that families cannot get their P-addicted children into drug rehabilitation facilities, which are bursting at the seams, or into acute mental health beds, because there simply are not enough of them, when will the Government put its money where its mouth is and start saving these young people\u2019s lives?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228415e962-886d-47b9-9356-3fdce746891f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c5fe2c0d765442cb55e4ba52000d880\u0022\u003EHon JIM ANDERTON\u003C/span\u003E: The inadequacy of facilities to cope with mental health and drug problems is not a new issue, and I can say that over the last 3 years this Government has had an average of six Ministers attending each meeting of the ministerial group. The last time the National Party had such a meeting, one Minister turned up, so members opposite should not accuse this Government of inaction when the last Government, led by the National Party, did nothing whatever about this issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f349039e-f016-4db0-a8d0-c374551be708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212f7db05220247bba92a651261125d9f\u0022\u003ECraig McNair\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister confirm that police previously dedicated to seeking out methamphetamine laboratories, where the drugs are made, have been pulled back from those duties to assist with the outbreak of homicides that have occurred in various parts of the country over recent weeks; if so, what is the likely impact of that action on methamphetamine supply and availability on the streets?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228415e962-886d-47b9-9356-3fdce746891f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f57ed26b6512400eb14e4faa912f4a04\u0022\u003EHon JIM ANDERTON\u003C/span\u003E: I cannot comment on the operational arrangements the police make on a daily basis, but I can say that this Government has taken measures to strengthen police action against methamphetamine use, and those actions are being implemented by the police.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b0360d9445e4c6490cfecbc0ea14fcb\u0022\u003ENandor Tanczos\u003C/span\u003E: What action is the Government taking to separate the market for hard drugs from the market for cannabis; a policy that, according to the Health Committee, was a stated aim of the Dutch Government, and has resulted in Holland having one of the lowest rates of hard-drug addiction in the Western World, and no methamphetamine problem?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228415e962-886d-47b9-9356-3fdce746891f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb2d9fd283ba499a9b478773f1e357d4\u0022\u003EHon JIM ANDERTON\u003C/span\u003E: Contrary to what the member believes, at the recent Vienna conference on drugs, the Minister of Health from the Netherlands advised me that although his country had had a relatively benign attitude to cannabis, it was now facing an explosion in the production of hard drugs, and the Netherlands now had a very bad reputation around the world for exporting hard drugs. I would recommend that the Green Party review its whole policy of being soft on any drugs whatsoever, because it does not work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220d9640b0-d861-43d8-b321-e7ba56dbe362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241898a71117748a7979eb8748f2b7071\u0022\u003EJudy Turner\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister intend to continue allowing not-for-profit community organisations, such as the Foundation for Alcohol and Drug Education, to bear the financial burden of immediate community education on methamphetamines while we wait for the implementation of the community action programmes early next year; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228415e962-886d-47b9-9356-3fdce746891f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f47256ca8334b6980857adb0f0dd649\u0022\u003EHon JIM ANDERTON\u003C/span\u003E: There are dozens, if not hundreds, of organisations that do very effective and valuable community work in drugs, rehabilitation, and so on. The Government cannot fund all of them, of course. At the present time it is engaging in a programme to develop a residential treatment unit for young people associated with the drug court in Christchurch. It is funding a number of organisations assisting with drug problems, but every organisation in New Zealand that does good work cannot expect to be funded by the Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc36b9ef6c514c098877f3681840403f\u0022\u003EDr Muriel Newman\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Minister seen the United Nations statement that New Zealand has the third-worst drug problem in the world; and since the problem with methamphetamines has occurred almost entirely while Labour has been in power, how does he explain his continual support for this \u201Csoft on drugs\u201D Government?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228415e962-886d-47b9-9356-3fdce746891f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224458c19ffcf54e4daaea72dd712e1986\u0022\u003EHon JIM ANDERTON\u003C/span\u003E: I did not hear the last bit\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d2625bafd2a743f0859c67931485922a\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: This \u201Csoft on drugs\u201D Government!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228415e962-886d-47b9-9356-3fdce746891f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a7f1aa9e0d14e78a6a87967279455b5\u0022\u003EHon JIM ANDERTON\u003C/span\u003E: I would recommend that the member who asked that question listens to, or gets a transcript from, the interview on National Radio where a reputed researcher on drug matters in New Zealand said that that report from the United Nations had no validity whatsoever in any scientific analysis of a country\u2019s reputation in terms of drugs. The second point is that if this Government is \u201Csoft on drugs\u201D, I suggest that the member ask those people out in the community who now know that anyone dealing in drugs like methamphetamine faces life imprisonment under class C reclassification, which the previous National Government, supported by ACT, never even got around to doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250ab61c3397343f7aaead2dcc66e5f14\u0022\u003EPeter Brown\u003C/span\u003E: What has Cabinet agreed to with regard to people who drive under the influence of drugs, as shown on that television programme on Sunday, where some people are apparently killing other people and getting off relatively scot-free?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228415e962-886d-47b9-9356-3fdce746891f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c6ac9e561cd498c9427b3d26768c526\u0022\u003EHon JIM ANDERTON\u003C/span\u003E: It may come as a surprise to the member, but this Parliament, and the Cabinet of the Government on this side of the House, make the laws; the police and the judiciary apply them. That is the way it will stay as long as there is a rule of law in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e45e72436e024ffe863f5dff85d6a83b\u0022\u003EDr Lynda Scott\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a press release from last year showing that young adults will lose a valuable lifeline when the Hanmer youth clinic is shut down by this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229cd4936ba55a4e6a8cc588a0928dd7ee\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228415e962-886d-47b9-9356-3fdce746891f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e14e27f4e9fd43018a4a5ef48cbd1dec\u0022\u003EHon Jim Anderton\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a document that shows that the last time the ministerial group on drugs met under the National Party, one Minister attended.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228415e962-886d-47b9-9356-3fdce746891f\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022973b57d81df34995ae273004fa13c3c6\u0022\u003EGreenhouse Gas Emissions\u2014Agricultural Levy\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E4. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222880f01d223142559dc4c635ca39c959\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (NZ National)\u003C/span\u003E to the Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change: When will an announcement be made on the future of the agricultural greenhouse gas emissions levy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022 data-id=\u002298534de8cf7540aea685e17119bae9b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002298534de8cf7540aea685e17119bae9b5\u0022\u003EHon PETE HODGSON (Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change):\u003C/span\u003E Any announcement will follow the outcome of discussions with the agriculture sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c020820574e413ea48251448df5d952\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister share the optimism of his office spokesperson, who was quoted in the Otago Daily Times on Saturday as saying that it looked as if the Government would end up \u201Cavoiding the need to bring the levy in\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b5ab340246a406586b7ff8bd5e1a026\u0022\u003EHon PETE HODGSON\u003C/span\u003E: Time will tell, but if it does happen, that will be the Government\u2019s first preference. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1c871be0748431fb11c19d6a3ffabc2\u0022\u003ENanaia Mahuta\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister see any advantages in a statutory levy, rather than in voluntary funding from the agricultural sector, for that research?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d00534aaaa164c7ebfd34122d042e29f\u0022\u003EHon PETE HODGSON\u003C/span\u003E: The Government\u2019s preference has always been for voluntary funding, and we are pleased that the sector is reconsidering its position on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b63935ee-d78b-43a8-a3bc-996e7951fb9b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a7cc091b48c42eb99d42e39dc71c1e1\u0022\u003ER Doug Woolerton\u003C/span\u003E: Why will the Minister not admit that the proposed methane emission research levy on farmers was a mistake and would do nothing for world greenhouse gas emissions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfb08f6987c14da8868b5a0fc123412b\u0022\u003EHon PETE HODGSON\u003C/span\u003E: Should the research into methane emissions prove to be a little successful, moderately successful, or even very successful, it will have small, medium, or large effects on greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, it is worth doing, because it puts more money on our farmers\u2019 bottom lines.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022295c9ca3-0f0a-4af6-b1bd-32c916cca579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b94926c9d4240a48d1f9fb8ad5b7221\u0022\u003EGerrard Eckhoff\u003C/span\u003E: Why will the Government not withdraw the proposed methane research tax immediately, in light of the Ravensdown Fertiliser Cooperative - Lincoln University announcement that a new, jointly developed product, started 10 years ago, could achieve the Government\u2019s Kyoto target, even if it were only half as efficient as the first research results show; and is this not an example of just how far the Government is behind the nineball in terms of its relationship with the rural sector?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7481b54a11d4e8791b01e5a9baa844f\u0022\u003EHon PETE HODGSON\u003C/span\u003E: That research is very encouraging, although it is yet to be tested in the field. I understand it is approaching that phase now. It has, of course, been funded by the taxpayer and by industry in the past. In other words, it is a very good example of how research can make a difference.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e2e4b4af7ffe4084a1583a09ac2cb46d\u0022\u003EHon David Carter\u003C/span\u003E: Could the Minister explain to the House what is the difference between a back-down on the flatulence tax and a \u201Cback-up\u201D, a term the Minister used in the House on 4 September? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b35e189d7864778a33a85573226a043\u0022\u003EHon PETE HODGSON\u003C/span\u003E: It seems that it is within the bounds of possibility that the agricultural sector and the Government may be able to move back up to being the first preference of us all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f4cc2626b83c42c0a02fb9281ce4f77e\u0022\u003EParole Board\u2014Principles\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003E5. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022910f6c5b612f47c8b344961c248a58f7\u0022\u003EMARC ALEXANDER (United Future)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Justice: Is he satisfied with the provisions of the Parole Act 2002, which state that, as a guiding principle for the Parole Board, \u201Cthe paramount consideration for the Board in every case is the safety of the community.\u201D, yet the rights of victims are simply \u201Cupheld\u201D and victims\u2019 submissions \u201Cgiven due weight\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022 data-id=\u0022cddbf91c9fd44cd4a86658744bd52c75\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cddbf91c9fd44cd4a86658744bd52c75\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, I am satisfied that the safety of the community is, and should be, the paramount consideration of the Parole Board. It is also very important that victims\u2019 rights are upheld, and their views heard and given due weight. Under the Victims\u2019 Rights Act and the Parole Act, all victims\u2014for the first time\u2014have the right to make submissions to a parole hearing, either orally at an attended hearing, or in writing. That is a real advance in victims\u2019 rights over what went previously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cbf5f0068c62494cb3c32d5daefd9f3c\u0022\u003EMarc Alexander\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister explain in what way he is satisfied that the rights of victims are upheld, when Morgan Fahey, for example, was released after serving only 3 years and 4 months of a pitiful 6-year sentence for sex crimes against 11 women patients\u2014including the rape of a pregnant woman\u2014yet one of Fahey\u2019s victims was unaware of his eligibility for parole, and others stated: \u201CI would like to see him die in there.\u201D, \u201CI don\u2019t ever want to see him again.\u201D, and \u201CHow could they let him out when he\u2019s spent 30 years having a field day with women?\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f466d1e59caa433eaf1da96d01b8a3ff\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: Victims of Morgan Fahey did take up the right to be present at the Parole Board hearing and to make submissions to the board. If any victim was not notified, it may have been because she did not put herself on the victim notification register. The member might like to check that out with the person concerned. In respect of the sentence of Morgan Fahey, he was sentenced 3 years ago and it is not for a politician in this House but for the court to determine what sentence is given. In this case, he committed 13 offences\u201411 sexual assault offences, one rape offence, and one sexual violation offence. The judge at the time thought that a sentence of 6 years was appropriate, but, of course, the sentencing laws have changed since then, including the requirement that the maximum sentence be given for the worst type of offence. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e9b271711f94d4a9301cc495eac38be\u0022\u003ETim Barnett\u003C/span\u003E: What are the rights of victims in respect of parole hearings?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef9d69cc9e074e9c8ddbe9d45b7d7332\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: Under the Victims\u2019 Rights Act and the Parole Act, both passed last year, all victims have the right to make submissions to parole hearings. Those on the victim notification register will be automatically notified in advance of the hearing date. A victim may make an oral submission to a hearing. If it is an unattended hearing, written submissions may be made. In fact, the Parole Board will go to the extent of visiting the victim in his or her home so that it can hear those submissions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d776dd5fd4c64f15a444358a726b9750\u0022\u003EDeborah Coddington\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister explain how the Parole Act protects community safety, when New Zealand\u2019s youngest-ever murderer, Bailey Kurariki\u2014after serving only 1 year of a 7-year sentence and who has had 12 incident reports in Kingslea in the last 2 months, and he has shown no remorse\u2014is today being considered for home detention, and could soon be returned to a home where even the Minister\u2019s own officials reported there is no control over him, and he never went to school; where is the community safety in that \u201Csoft on criminals\u201D attitude?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224058bf0a3ea64a4ca4959cd66be1f1d4\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: The member is asking me to make a comment on a hypothetical situation, because, to the best of my knowledge, the Parole Board has not yet made a decision. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to guess what decision it might make. As the member knows well, the Parole Board is an independent statutory body. It works under the legislation passed in this House, but its decisions are its own and may not be interfered with by that member or by me. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276c403dcc5274665ae5682cbf7069681\u0022\u003EMarc Alexander\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister explain to the House why the Parole Act allowed someone like Morgan Fahey to be paroled last month, when his application for home detention was turned down just 3 months earlier?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223725c2ca75b7481b850446deca7acedb\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: The comments I made to the previous question are appropriate to that question. I am not privy to the information the Parole Board has or hears; nor may I interfere with its decisions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276b7a28fcefa4b6ab27eab349b007bbd\u0022\u003EMarc Alexander\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister satisfied that the rights of victims are upheld, when offenders are paroled showing no signs of remorse\u2014as in the case of Morgan Fahey, who, while giving an interview in prison said: \u201CWhatever I did at the time I was doing it, I did not know that what I was doing was wrong.\u201D, and who was found with pornography and old patient notes in his cell\u2014if the Minister is satisfied, why; if he is not, what does he intend to do about it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b7d711163e0434788c680d1cbd4b616\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: The Parole Board, while it has as its paramount consideration the safety of the community, and obviously has judged that this man is not a threat to the community, may also take other factors into account. However, I did read with interest the member\u2019s own comments, describing Fahey as a sad and pathetic shadow of the status he once enjoyed; that he has paid the price for his offences, over and above his prison term, including the loss of his honour, his city councillor role, his luxury home, and his right to practise medicine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0e3ab22036b451a9ef80772f4683ddb\u0022\u003EGovernment Members\u003C/span\u003E: Who said that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022383bbdf816d94356ba1b160ac990172b\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: That is what the member said.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b022d8af1d02454d880adba5a75d0a83\u0022\u003EMarc Alexander\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister agree that in upholding the rights of victims, the parole law should be dictated by the bad deeds committed by criminals like Fahey before their conviction, rather than the good behaviour they may ostensibly demonstrate after the fact, by making offenders fulfil their entire sentence, so as to restore the intrinsic value of punishment, so that victims can feel that justice has actually been done?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb7219f9fbeb4aa28dbd3fe61518de2e\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: As the member is aware, the Parole Board now has the discretion, if it decides it is appropriate, to keep an offender in prison for the full term of the sentence. This particular offender was sentenced under the old legislation, so automatically had to be released at two-thirds of his sentence, in any case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002212e4c451ccc3445da0921b2c0600d2ca\u0022\u003EState Housing and Elective Surgery\u2014Waiting Lists\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E6. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c87f2266ba344ea08d897aff774b2a91\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Is she concerned about the number of New Zealanders on waiting lists for elective surgery and State housing, and how many New Zealanders are on each list?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022 data-id=\u0022eb87d99b84db4a8f84e3a83b7f54b245\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eb87d99b84db4a8f84e3a83b7f54b245\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E I am satisfied that good progress is being made in both areas. Eighty-two percent of newly referred patients are now seen by a specialist within 6 months, compared with 66 percent in the 1998-99 year. In respect of State housing, the 12,379 applicants on the waiting list represent a smaller number than the number of State houses sold off under the previous National Government, of which Mr Peters was, for a time, part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002255ff6878a61e4f7ea1a1196bec6e8d8c\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister how many people were on the elective surgery list. She made no attempt to answer that. It is all there in the question. The last few words are: \u201Cand how many New Zealanders are on each list?\u201D. That member, who is meant to be the Prime Minister, comes down to this House, after a long rest, and cannot answer even a simple question as to what the numbers are in the two categories. She gave the number for the second category\u2014in a very diverse answer to do with the Government I was associated with\u2014but on the question\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002222c1f1f5225b45e4958375feed8037ba\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member will please be seated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224708f7f2ed8d4a02bdbd56dbc7391d25\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I have not finished, Mr Speaker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba9f6af58c694ac0987ef28b15fcd6f3\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member will sit down now. The member will come to his point, tersely. He has not yet raised a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022215ed272d2d941eb89dde2d94692082d\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I have raised a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked you why you have allowed the Prime Minister to get away with not answering the first part of the question to do with how many New Zealanders are on each list. In this case, it had to be, firstly, elective surgery, which is implicit in the question, and, secondly, State housing. When she got to State housing, having ignored the first part of the question, she then started to blame me for the past, which is not any matter for which she is responsible. So she has erred on three grounds, and why have you not got up and stopped her?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221bec16ab1f7c45089710f0f992ada7ee\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Because she actually addressed the question. She gave the figures that were required. She added comments in, as well. I heard her mention the number of people on waiting lists for State housing, and the member acknowledged that. When she came to the question of waiting lists for elective surgery, I heard a figure given there. The Prime Minister certainly addressed the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264053da29c3b4ff9ad466e2e95946764\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, then, I ask you to tell the country what the number is that I am seeking, in respect of elective surgery. Tell us all, now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223214d67f604c400cae502fc794b19287\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, I most certainly am prepared to support you, in that you cannot make the Prime Minister give an answer, but I really think you should rethink the reply you gave to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, because you suggested that the Prime Minister actually had given the number of people waiting for elective surgery. If you were involved in active politics, you would know that the number of people who are waiting for elective surgery is the country\u2019s best-kept secret. Nobody knows that number. The Government makes sure it does not keep the numbers. Hospitals are told they are not allowed to keep the numbers. That is a complete secret.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002243384acef3254b048d25c944f9b58e2a\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That might well be, but that was not the issue raised. Two figures were given. I am not here to judge whether the figures are accurate; that is for the Prime Minister giving the figures and for members asking supplementary questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224262a6c5d67b464293015061b942b20f\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, we have come back from a break from the House. We have all been led to believe by the media that we are going to get some sort of new transparency from the House in this term. I want to ask you as to how it is avoidable, on this question, to say how many New Zealanders are on each list. The first number required, of course, is the number of those on waiting lists for elective surgery. How could she possibly have answered that by putting up some sort of 6-month waiting list percentage? As the Hon Mr Prebble rightly points out, it is the number of people on those waiting lists that we want to know; so does the whole country. For the Prime Minister, of all people\u2014not some junior Minister, but the Prime Minister\u2014to come down here and get away with her answer, and be allowed by you to get away with it, is a democratic disgrace. I want a bit of accountability in this House, from her and from you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4bb6ef432ed4c38a6b1583e71a16dfd\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member will not make comments about me, at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad0819ee3e35482e892dca2e756803e9\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022573dcef1975f44b9bd432894ac008ec8\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: If the member makes any further comments he will be leaving the Chamber. I am warning him of that right now. As far as I am concerned, I heard an answer given. Perhaps the Prime Minister might like to restate the answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022362e6a7ef6894b18aa830973f6047c57\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If you heard an answer, then the Prime Minister has answered the question; but you did not hear any answer to do with the subject matter, and now you are asking her to expand on it. My point is this: why do we always have to waste the time of this House by having to ask for questions to be answered in the way they are in every First World democracy, particularly the ones we share the English language with. This is a disgrace. I am making my protest on behalf of myself and my colleagues, and I believe it is generally shared by every informed observer of this process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af44fee65c0e44aa8ba5488f762bca4e\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member might believe that, but that is not my point of view, and that is not the point of view I want to adhere to here. Ministers are asked questions, and Ministers reply. I invited the Prime Minister to restate the answer she gave. If she wishes to do that, I would like her to do so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ee1735f21714736a38f09d5091e9d80\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I am happy to advise\u2014supplementary to what I advised in a rather full answer earlier\u2014that the number on elective surgery waiting lists amounts to 31,785, of which a very small number are the refugees and new migrants Mr Peters despises.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221d38ae99a1c4d329834ac7e4b0d18ff\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Now, there you go! She had the figure. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc3586da47f9489ea10d2fee23d6971d\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a8f6462ba8ad412086bec5621b082dd3\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I will hear the member in a minute. I am going to be sending somebody out\u2014somebody who makes a comment. I am very close to doing that. Only one person speaks in a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224139f8beb5946fca8ca68083e43981e\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, there you go\u2014she had the figure. If you wish to send anybody out, you should send her out and make her an example for this Government\u2014and her Ministers. It is not a laughing matter to threaten to throw out members on this side of the House when she is clearly in breach of the spirit of question time in this House. In my view, that is a disgrace. You should send her out and make it a lesson, for the first time, for a long, long time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c1d8f9ec0b84ac389849b1beb3b0784\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: All I want to say is this\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a87c178-9f60-439e-aa9b-0f1336c37ea9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9a42a58fa004f7da3f109ea7efcdeea\u0022\u003EHon Roger Sowry\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226dd572ca4e8c4faab11eac1c93699fa4\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I do not need any further assistance on this matter. I will make that decision, and I will make it alone. As far as I was concerned, I invited the Minister to make any further comments, if she wanted to. She did. She made an extra comment. That does not come off anyone\u2019s question time, at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a87c178-9f60-439e-aa9b-0f1336c37ea9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002272e04c9274774a56875535d06f0112fc\u0022\u003EHon Roger Sowry\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to make two points. The reason it does not come off anyone\u2019s question time is that members of Parliament, and in this case, Mr Peters, had to take extreme action\u2014which included a huge amount of provocation, I have to say, of yourself\u2014to get the Prime Minister to give an answer to a question she had on notice. She can sit there and shake her head, but she did not give the 31,000 figure. She hid that figure until, under extreme provocation, she eventually stood up and gave it. At the end of the day, unless there are some guidelines for times when Ministers have answers and choose not to give them, but then give them under duress a bit later on during points of order, you can expect nothing else other than lots of points of order, because if anyone takes up extra questions that is just a way of those questions being used up. Mr Speaker, I do not know whether the next time you attend the Labour caucus you will lay out the rules to the Minister, or whether you will send a memo to Ministers, on the way they answer questions\u2014spell it out more\u2014but at the end of the day, for the sake of this House\u2019s transparency, we need to ensure when Ministers have the answer that they give it, rather than us having to wheedle it out of them through points of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285389fc4487a4967ba860bed8bc88cbc\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, perhaps the next time a National Party caucus is held, you might attend it to tell its members that the requirement is for Ministers to address questions, and the member needs to understand what that actually means.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f78a108075024b8c9085a4851c6d277f\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: There is a Speaker\u2019s ruling that states that if an answer to a question can be given, then it should be given. While I do not want to associate myself with the tone in which some of the points of order have been raised with you, I have to associate myself with the point that is being made, and I think you should make it to the Prime Minister. In this particular case, a question was given under notice. It asked for a particular number, and it now turns out that the Prime Minister always had that number. No one in this House could misinterpret this question as not asking for the number of people on waiting lists for elective surgery. The Prime Minister, in having that figure, and then choosing not to give it to the House when asked, is holding Parliament in contempt. It would be very helpful\u2014I have invited you to do this before, and perhaps you could have a think about it rather than doing it today\u2014to have a formal ruling by you stating that if a Minister has the answer to a question, then it is unparliamentary for the Minister to fail to provide that information to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284596fcf7aec4ae3af07ac1b53223d1d\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Speaker does not write answers for Ministers, or judge the quality of answers. The guidelines are that questions must be addressed, and in that regard Dr Cullen was right. On reflection, perhaps the point the Hon Richard Prebble made is also one that is worth considering.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f784484bf554b60917ec4fc84a7193e\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: When the Prime Minister was asked as to what the number was in respect of the elective surgery list, why did she not get up and just tell the House the straight, direct, and honest answer that was provided to her by her staff when she came down to the House; or is she just into full-scale evasion mode most of the time?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022264d89ec1c06420fa87089d6f3abffc7\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: Answers should not be over lengthy, and a lot of information was in the first one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af94855421094961a10e07c39a62e0ea\u0022\u003EDr Lynda Scott\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister concerned about the 25,000 patients who were dumped from the waiting list because under this Government people have to be sicker to get service, and how many New Zealanders does she think thought her credit card pledge to reduce waiting lists would be achieved by having patients simply dumped from the list?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc5792a824414544b3a8f73c142d3978\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: The residual waiting list process has been around for quite a while. The numbers removed at this time are considerably fewer than the 58,000 dumped when that member\u2019s party was in Government. I am satisfied that more surgery than ever is being performed, that a lot more money has been put in, and that we are getting very good results in terms of the numbers being seen by specialists within the first 6 months and then being referred for treatment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022636766c5f5ac48349c89745077f15590\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Why is the Prime Minister so little concerned about the effect, if we add the people who were tipped off the list to the 31,000, then add the number of people who are on State housing lists, which, all up, comes to 68,000; why is she so contemptuously unconcerned about those people who are living in anguish and agony, awaiting breast, heart, eye, joint, orthopaedic, and hip operations, to name but a few, or who are living in squalor and in overcrowded conditions, while she spends tens and tens of millions of dollars on a whole lot of illegal immigrants and reconciling some Afghans who, when the situation has been stabilised in their country, are not to be reconciled there but, of all things, here?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c31a513404a6422887db6d9af03000eb\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I am sure the member is not really interested in knowing that out of over 63,000 State tenancies, last year 154 went to refugees. It has been the practice of Governments for many years to make sure that refugees are appropriately housed in the community. I, for one, would want to see that practice continue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a41fc2b924144d81894acbc6511fc91f\u0022\u003EJill Pettis\u003C/span\u003E: Have policies in respect of the health and housing needs of refugees changed in recent years?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0fefb9df56c4073acfd8ba837adc7f7\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: No. I understand that essentially the same approach has been taken to the housing of refugees in the community, including in respect of State housing and in meeting their health needs, which are often quite considerable. It is a good thing about New Zealand that the practice has been the same under a range of Governments, including when Mr Peters was Deputy Prime Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225742f584335547afa50b6c6b6998b575\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I would like to table the comments made by the Prime Minister when I was Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister, when she blatantly complained about New Zealand First being far too influential in driving down the number of immigrants and refugees.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219a80c9334864d53aee8908f6204e611\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table those statements. Is there any objection? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f8feac17746b4c9e8f232c8c7131bcef\u0022\u003EMedicines\u2014Subsidies\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225c22a83-ff2c-474c-a092-883be2dd63d3\u0022\u003E7. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222974c6fbcdbe45599a4842830e849bd4\u0022\u003EDAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Health: What steps has the Government taken to improve access to subsidised medicines?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022 data-id=\u00223e3a216727804a8cb30ea600f365182a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e3a216727804a8cb30ea600f365182a\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health):\u003C/span\u003E The Government has increased Pharmac\u2019s budget for community pharmaceuticals to $566.6 million. This represents a 10 percent increase over last year, and recognises the growth and demand for medicines, particularly for improved access for people in primary health organisations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225c22a83-ff2c-474c-a092-883be2dd63d3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca55d99eb72b4afa8a3afa35423a28f0\u0022\u003EDave Hereora\u003C/span\u003E: What other initiatives has Pharmac taken to ensure that getting the medicines that doctors prescribe is easier for patients?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b92368da73647f1acc0eee7db1fc659\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING\u003C/span\u003E: Pharmac has reintroduced all-at-once dispensing as from 1 October. For most patients, especially those with chronic conditions such as heart disease or diabetes, it will be easier for them to get their medicines. Overall, all-at-once dispensing will mean that 71 percent of prescriptions will be dispensed in one go, and this will be more convenient for many people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3584ccda2ba4b4583c75262c4e68a22\u0022\u003EDr Lynda Scott\u003C/span\u003E: What is the Minister doing to address the rest home, dementia, and geriatric hospital patient issue, knowing that every one of those patients has his or her medications changed frequently, and 3-monthly dispensing will cause huge wastage of medications, increased costs for the rest homes and their clients, and major storage compliance and safety issues?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022adca8d26463d4499a278dd0c07a288a8\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING\u003C/span\u003E: The changes that were made to the stat dispensing proposal enable individual patients to have medicines dispensed either 3-monthly or monthly. I welcome that member\u2019s support of the changes that were made to the proposal when she wrote to Pharmac and congratulated it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022582e0ea07ff842d4b6cc7fdb55c5fa1c\u0022\u003EDr Lynda Scott\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked specifically about rest homes, geriatric hospitals, and dementia units. The Minister did not address that issue in any way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212d3baa6c8974d0b8602c83cd4a8d1ce\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, I point out that people who live in rest homes and other institutions mentioned by that member are individuals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d360d72609944e9dba57e19e5ef54ed4\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The point was made. The Minister addressed the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022acef221bb9b44685ab5e5df5519f70f3\u0022\u003ESupreme Court\u2014Appointment of Judges\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E8. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce61624204284fa6b451a77d1590dcd3\u0022\u003ERICHARD WORTH (NZ National\u2014Epsom)\u003C/span\u003E to the Attorney-General: Will she have the final recommendation on who the judges appointed to the Supreme Court will be, and is it her intention to follow the recommendations of the panel?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022 data-id=\u0022859998d343934596a28cb0e093025981\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022859998d343934596a28cb0e093025981\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General): \u003C/span\u003EYes and yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8dcb994a00645ddbd24d399341e3edc\u0022\u003ERichard Worth\u003C/span\u003E: Why has she created a Clayton\u2019s panel to advise her on appointments to the Supreme Court, when she has already said, and had reported in the media, that she is likely to make appointments exclusively from the Court of Appeal; what is it that each member of the panel will contribute to the process?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a839fe3535c4e058408326e7ba73cc5\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: I am following the same process that the previous Attorney-General has followed, with the exception that I have supplemented that panel with an additional member. The reason this process is being followed is that there are seven members on the Court of Appeal. Four recommendations will be made\u2014five if one includes the Chief Justice who is included\u2014so it is not known automatically who will be there. That is why I need advice from the panel, and I do not believe that it is a Clayton\u2019s panel.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220afef2332b254ab880eae310ad7475fa\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: How can the Attorney-General say she is following a process that has been followed before, when the Privy Council has never been abolished before, and this is an entirely new process for the establishment of a Supreme Court; and will she consider the judges\u2019 names that are to be forwarded being notified to, say, the Justice and Electoral Committee, so that the committee can give some consideration to the appointments that are to be made, and its meetings to be held in camera?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d2226290689f44c7a591a9becf3b89b3\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: All judges who are appointed are High Court judges. In that sense, as I have said, I am following the process that has been set down, but supplementing it in recognition of the fact that this is for the Supreme Court. Why the matter has not been referred, of course, to the select committee, is that to do so would be contrary to what I understood the select committee wanted; it did not want blatant political appointments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022 data-id=\u00229c628d055dc94494a0814f8ce5093b49\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c628d055dc94494a0814f8ce5093b49\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader\u2014ACT NZ):\u003C/span\u003E Why is the Minister apparently not prepared to follow constitutional conventions and avoid any suggestion of political bias or interference, by simply appointing the most senior judges from the Court of Appeal?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b127e1006d574c08a3a06d30038ba3d0\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: That is why I am following the constitutional convention that has evolved in this country\u2014that is, by having recommendations from a panel. In this instance there seems to be no reason to change that practice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022624c354fc7134078b147f125f22b8350\u0022\u003ENandor Tanczos\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister agree that the issue of judicial appointments goes well beyond the Supreme Court; and following her discussions with the Green Party, what consideration does the Government intend to give the issue of a judicial appointments commission to make judicial appointments in general less political?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022773244dca1a84b56a1cf7676f04ccc41\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: I understand that during submissions on the bill the Green Party raised that we should follow the UK example of setting up a discussion paper and inquiry into whether we should establish a commission to recommend judicial appointments. I have already indicated that I am very comfortable with proceeding with that, and hopefully a discussion paper will be available in the new year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227467634cd7ee4fee8a7b3259bbe90fbd\u0022\u003ERichard Worth\u003C/span\u003E: Did the Minister not deal with judicial appointments in the Judicial Matters Bill because she wanted to be able to appoint the Supreme Court, effectively by herself, in a triumph of social engineering; if not, why does the Judicial Matters Bill not deal with judicial appointments, as the Justice and Electoral Committee was led to believe that it would?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af7c930f4a904ed3af2ef79bf8a8c9f4\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: I am following the normal practice in making judicial appointments. I am following the process that was established prior to this Government by the Attorney-General in the previous National-led Government. I see no reason to change that practice at this time. The Judicial Matters Bill came long after the Supreme Court legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00224158b778dd8347de8b6cf1abae88e99a\u0022\u003EGenetically Modified Crops\u2014Canadian Experience\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003E9. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ea64269017b45af82500813d0fa3098\u0022\u003ESUE KEDGLEY (Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for the Environment: Will she agree to visit Canada before the Government lifts the moratorium on the growing of GE crops, so that she can see at first hand the problems Canada is experiencing as a result of growing GE crops, as outlined in the recently released report by Canada\u2019s Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022 data-id=\u0022badafdc7c6424456b79e965cf2cc627d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022badafdc7c6424456b79e965cf2cc627d\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E No. There are much more cost-effective ways to gather information in this age of telecommunication.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccbab4c04b2d4d1ca7c5d69603e21cbc\u0022\u003ESue Kedgley\u003C/span\u003E: Why on earth would she not want to visit a country that has been growing GE for 7 years to see for herself at first hand the consequences, or does she not want to face up to the fact that growing GE in Canada has resulted in widespread contamination, a loss of premium markets in Europe and Asia, damage to the international perceptions of Canadian produce, and loss of confidence amongst consumers in the integrity of the Canadian food supply?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f5330d1943c24cb4b0560f16bcab68f9\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS\u003C/span\u003E: I have no need. I can get information on most of that huge list in the question by ringing the Canadian High Commission, going on the Internet, and talking to a number of people. I do not have to visit a country and cost the taxpayer much-needed money.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f04ed27e95a74361b5415d931668369d\u0022\u003EHon Brian Donnelly\u003C/span\u003E: How can she be confident that the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be able to make adequate economic risk analysis on a GE food application, when her own Government has demanded that the methodology be improved, and this work does not have to be reported until October 2004?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df74c9f81f1a4e7e93a211ad341224ba\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS\u003C/span\u003E: The member has confused two different work streams. The methodology used by the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be completed by the time the moratorium lifts. The further work being done by Treasury on economic effects is certainly not due until the end of 2004. But we have much information, including the wee gem that the Canadians have not suffered any loss in their overall export markets because of what they grow in genetically modified products.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022002aefeef4b544ad98b4c9e7d2cea2d2\u0022\u003ELynne Pillay\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Minister seen any information to support her view that a cautious case by case consideration of applications to release GM technology will not harm the economy following the expiry of the moratorium at the end of the month?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9c07a03499b4e5494e098430f12b46f\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I have. A recent Otago University study interviewed key people in the European food markets and found that negative sentiment about genetically modified food does not transfer to general perceptions of country image in relation to food quality and food safety. Nor does negative sentiment transfer to unrelated non-GM products. In other words, the expiry of the moratorium on applications to release genetically modified organisms will not harm New Zealand\u2019s clean, green image, as some in this House claim, and the cautious application of GM technology is the appropriate way to proceed, which the Canadians are about to adapt, as they have stated in that same programme that the member quoted from.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221fefcceed1ec4f6ebeb30beff6b9bc3e\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: If the Minister is so confident of her position\u2014unusual as it is\u2014why will she not ask the Prime Minister to allow a conscience vote on this issue so that the Labour Party can express, without the whip being applied, its real view on this issue?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c99a93081aa43e58d15670040b26382\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS\u003C/span\u003E: I am absolutely confident that even if there were a conscience vote Labour colleagues would vote sensibly on a case by case decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7b9eb0ba3d7470ba581c45e974936a9\u0022\u003ESue Kedgley\u003C/span\u003E: What is her response to the Canadian farmer who said, in an interview published last week: \u201CThey told us GM food would help farming, but it has brought nothing but trouble, and now we are trapped in a giant experiment over which we have no control. Once you open the door to GM you may never be able to close it again. We were also assured cross-contamination would not happen but the fact is that GM is out there, nobody can control it, the stuff is spreading, no one can stop it, that is what is so scary.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022261e0e230b584d8798205a3aea91f2ba\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister may respond very briefly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef44c1e69bc14b35b23acc71a35825a1\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS\u003C/span\u003E: The difference between Canada and New Zealand is that Canada has no form of conditional release. The only way it could make an assessment was on some environmental contextual assessment. It cannot assess for economic benefits. One of the things that is different between Canada and New Zealand is that we are setting up a process under the legislation before the House for case by case, for modifications, for conditional release, for the setting of conditions, that will prevent us from going down the way that Canada experienced with GM canola.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5e44d9617da4ebbb52a652a879b98fa\u0022\u003EJeanette Fitzsimons\u003C/span\u003E: If the price farmers receive for non-GE canola is damaged by the nearby growing of GE canola\u2014as that Canadian report shows\u2014why does she support a field test of GE onions, in preparation for a release of those onions in New Zealand, that could damage our $100 million onion exports, which are mainly to countries that are very resistant to GE food?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f17e94964c224d159d301cade8cba685\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS\u003C/span\u003E: The only price loss was for a period of time when the Canadians were denied a market entry into the European Union. When they changed their market across to Japan, Saudi Arabia, and I have forgotten the two other countries, their market price recovered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00229889028a60f543b1a3525ccdd7639c67\u0022\u003EForeshore and Seabed\u2014Appeal to Privy Council\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E10. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022887ad706d0874d18b1f338fb4e6ce33d\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader\u2014ACT NZ)\u003C/span\u003E to the Attorney-General: Why did the Government decide not to appeal the Court of Appeal decision in relation to the Marlborough foreshore case to the Privy Council?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022 data-id=\u0022118ef088193a406484835c54df7aff9c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022118ef088193a406484835c54df7aff9c\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General):\u003C/span\u003E The Government considered that the questions raised by the Court of Appeal as a result of its decision could best be addressed by working through the issues, which is what we are doing in the present consultation process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b93c4a394c2422782fed47f018762fa\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Attorney-General seen the press reports of distinguished lawyers such as Paul Cavanagh QC, and former Land Court M\u0101ori lawyer, Marcus Poole, at ACT\u2019s foreshore conference on the weekend, stating that the Court of Appeal decision was wrong in law; given this, is it not irresponsible for the present Government not to appeal the decision to the Privy Council?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b77398e34c514c98bbd7ba306445bd02\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I have seen the opinions of those two lawyers. I have heard the opinions of many other lawyers. All lawyers give opinions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002260020eabc90446808c97bdd9cf3cc596\u0022\u003ERussell Fairbrother\u003C/span\u003E: What is the Crown\u2019s role in the appeal?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b5bf00dcbac46aa863973f1c87c6c39\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: The Crown is no longer a party to the appeal and, therefore, will not be participating in the hearing of the appeal. We have played a neutral role in the appeal so far; for instance, we did not oppose the granting of leave to appeal, which I understand is yet to be heard and determined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022166e78c60d704144835381cba4c6ead1\u0022\u003ERichard Worth\u003C/span\u003E: When the Attorney-General said that the Crown is not a party to the appeal, why is she misleading the House when the Crown is a party to the appeal, albeit that it has decided to abide by the decision of the court on the appeal; why is it that there has been a history by the Crown in the M\u0101ori Land Court, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal to argue that the foreshore and seabed are the exclusive property of the Crown, and now the Crown is wimping out on that argument?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233b51a325098426b9d5640105095de41\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: It is true we were certainly a party to the Court of Appeal decision. We are not a party in the sense that we are pursuing an active role, as far as the Privy Council is concerned.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022630c14c3381d45c2a046e7ee89331331\u0022\u003EGordon Copeland\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Attorney-General give a categorical assurance to existing owners of private title to the foreshore that, following the chain of events arising from the Marlborough decision, title to the foreshore that is now privately owned will not be taken away or removed without full and just compensation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225bd2a35e248c4fffa27533f9a2c7ff8a\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. On previous occasions we have given that reassurance and there seems to be no reason to depart from it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a258501fe86e4756add0f383b23d67cb\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Attorney-General prepared to repeat in the House the statement she made to me\u2014when briefing me on the Court of Appeal decision\u2014that Crown Law advised the Government that the decision was wrong and the foreshore did belong to the Crown; given that, is the real reason that the Government will not appeal to the Privy Council because to do so would admit that the Government\u2019s decision to repeal appeals to the Privy Council is a dangerous mistake?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af772813d88e4e9db62d870d8f1e7a6c\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: No. It is not surprising that Crown Law, which argued and lost, would think that its argument would be better heard yet again in another forum. I think that is quite normal for any party in such proceedings. The reason we are not proceeding is in terms of the answer that I have already given the member. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d514423cb5fd46adb88264d980a66e2b\u0022\u003EBusiness Compliance Costs\u2014Australia / New Zealand\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022\u003E11. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (NZ Labour\u2014Manukau East), on behalf of \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a2f1304532749f6a7eee42747e1b6fd\u0022\u003EMARK PECK (NZ Labour\u2014Invercargill),\u003C/span\u003E to the Associate Minister of Commerce: What reports has he received comparing business compliance costs in New Zealand with Australia?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022 data-id=\u002224bb4356c7d24622914581f9d054834c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002224bb4356c7d24622914581f9d054834c\u0022\u003EHon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Commerce):\u003C/span\u003E Recent reports from the Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the New South Wales State Chamber of Commerce highlight the higher compliance costs faced by businesses in Australia, our largest trading partner. This is most notable in areas such as GST compliance, superannuation and payroll tax, accident compensation, and occupational health and safety. These figures highlight why New Zealand is a great place to do business, and why the idea of packing up and moving to Australia is not that clever.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002225b597032aa04a95867f5024b348aa1d\u0022\u003EH V Ross Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: How do the figures in the report compare with other international evidence?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb433ac3de02498db7d1d0d8f15cc619\u0022\u003EHon JOHN TAMIHERE\u003C/span\u003E: The 2003 Index of Economic Freedom, published by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, ranks New Zealand third in the world for economic freedom, compared with Australia which ranks ninth. The report, which noted an increase in economic freedom since 1998, goes on to describe New Zealand\u2019s regulatory regime as relatively light and transparent, and commented that it is easy to establish a business in New Zealand. In its 2002 economic survey, the OECD commented that the quality of Government regulations and their administration in New Zealand is generally of a high international standard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3d8c9d41a3640e39312f766801f49cd\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: Why have the Small Business Advisory Group appointments not yet been announced, when the Minister said that they would be announced by the end of June; and can he confirm that the delays are because the Government cannot find business leaders who will not challenge the policies it has said are not open for debate or review\u2014such as an overhaul of the Resource Management Act?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226839e5f8785249f4aecee836d551dfbd\u0022\u003EHon JOHN TAMIHERE\u003C/span\u003E: I am delighted to advise the member that, quite contrary to his views, we had hundreds and hundreds of applicants\u2014in fact, 640 high-calibre applicants. They took a hugely long time to vet, and the Government is about ready to announce some very capable and superb applicants in the very near future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269e8e258a9334dfca967bce4a793923a\u0022\u003ESue Kedgley\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister aware that New Zealand producers of dietary supplements will face dramatically higher compliance costs if they are forced into a trans-Tasman therapeutic goods administration\u2014with no gain in safety when compared to a strengthened New Zealand regulatory model\u2014and this may force many of them to relocate to Australia; if so, why will he not step in to protect these businesses from such a fate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fff70087b59c44a4ae9873c286618b26\u0022\u003EHon JOHN TAMIHERE\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225edce8adc8d44b19829e828e9798dc63\u0022\u003EDr Muriel Newman\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Government have a modest goal to ensure business compliance costs are not quite as bad as in Australia, or does it have an ambitious goal to eliminate red tape as far as practicable, in order to give New Zealanders a true competitive advantage in the global marketplace?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca679ae5cd844b73ac220acf7abdf01c\u0022\u003EHon JOHN TAMIHERE\u003C/span\u003E: We prefer the ambitious one. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022559eb9339d084741b733a294dfaeb90b\u0022\u003EProceeds of Crime Act\u2014Effectiveness\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E12. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239df29bcea9b46d89eb4f504bee8b5c4\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL (NZ National\u2014Bay of Plenty)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Police: Has he received any reports from the New Zealand Police on the effectiveness of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991; if so, what do those reports say?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022 data-id=\u002261d1ac10e72a45bf920bfbe81deb31d9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002261d1ac10e72a45bf920bfbe81deb31d9\u0022\u003EHon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police):\u003C/span\u003E Yes. The Police has advised me that in the year to date eight restraining orders have been obtained, to the value of $1.468 million.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b6f3663cefa4d24a803fca2efb293d5\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: Noting that cash is the lifeblood of criminal gangs, can the Minister explain why drug-dealing gangs are escaping unscathed from the Proceeds of Crime Act, when official documents from the Government show that so far this year not one dollar has been confiscated from a convicted drug dealer\u2014not one dollar?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222cc9cc8e001040de87fd2341d9c5f0c9\u0022\u003EHon GEORGE HAWKINS\u003C/span\u003E: I think that the member should have listened to the original answer. Can I say that since 2000 about $3 million has been obtained as a result of restraining orders. That will probably be the case this year as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022931f916ddaee4209978aa631ff4c7455\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: Noting the Minister\u2019s boast about collecting $3 million since 2000, and noting that $3 million was collected in 1999 alone, is the Government\u2019s support for decriminalising cannabis interfering with its decision making in dealing with drug-dealing gangs, considering that the Government promised to do this within its first 6 months of office?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d354b7fb02f04086ab545606d7a9dc2b\u0022\u003EHon GEORGE HAWKINS\u003C/span\u003E: Marijuana is not getting in the way of the police doing their job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022d665be01f2f94cc8ad999ff48c57e4f3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d665be01f2f94cc8ad999ff48c57e4f3\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I want the Minister to give a little bit of a further answer to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228aed5169d38f4e20a30c969725a50116\u0022\u003EHon GEORGE HAWKINS\u003C/span\u003E: The police do concentrate on serious crime. They take a very tough line on drugs of all sorts. In fact, the police have just finished a major methamphetamine bust called Operation Choker, where they have made approximately 30 arrests.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ddedeeb06154df889367c53f9c37c68\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: If the Government is seriously reviewing the Proceeds of Crime Act, will it consider the features of the highly successful Western Australian Proceeds of Crime Act, where the police and the Parliament have got serious on dealing with the criminal underworld who are responsible for the P scourge infesting our country?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288bdbf0c5c44487986139fef33fc6f55\u0022\u003EHon GEORGE HAWKINS\u003C/span\u003E: I hope to have a report in 2 or 3 months on options that the police have. We are looking at all sorts of options\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221fe5d051ead4698809577ff637358be\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: Four years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b971da974cc4a3a874772d5ae8c693c\u0022\u003EHon GEORGE HAWKINS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, Tony Ryall can wave, but it is not much good. I can tell the House that we are looking at all options. Western Australia is not the only one\u2014we are looking at Europe. We will come up with a law that is tougher than the 1991 Act that that member\u2019s party introduced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be9b64701e4c4b34833c5635b6d42554\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table the statement of Mr Goff in 1999 that: \u201CThe Proceeds of Crimes Act has not worked effectively against organised crime, and the public will not be impressed at the belated recognition of this.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022236e596091a449a7b73bc7954a5cda8b\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a100f8067d264e3d9f31c0ea0de7926b\u0022\u003EQuestion No 5 to Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022 data-id=\u0022e409df8b8ba149b7948870fb17ca3e15\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e409df8b8ba149b7948870fb17ca3e15\u0022\u003EMARC ALEXANDER (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E During the course of my supplementary questions, the Minister of Justice\u2014deliberately, I think\u2014misled the House on some of the words that I used in one of my documents. He did not quote some of the other aspects of my document, which included such comments as\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u002210ba9eaa44ce444298ec4aca4af282be\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002210ba9eaa44ce444298ec4aca4af282be\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: There is a proper way to do this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b24f26368aed45e5962431e0f50885d2\u0022\u003EMARC ALEXANDER\u003C/span\u003E: I do seek leave to table the document.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002282b6f028896148a59c440b44f7824744\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: If the member wants just to seek leave to table the document, he may do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022 data-id=\u0022fd81bb3b209b41e3a19f53d40bdd1f05\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fd81bb3b209b41e3a19f53d40bdd1f05\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave to table the document that I quoted from, and I have highlighted the areas that I have quoted to show that I have done so accurately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cbb6c987e61a44b284f5ecf8dc85c484\u0022\u003EPoints of Order\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022055ba807407b4ff4b70cfceae26603e0\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 4 to Minister, 18 September\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022 data-id=\u002249b6ad9e22cb45ceadefa79206f8a7a5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002249b6ad9e22cb45ceadefa79206f8a7a5\u0022\u003EDr DON BRASH (NZ National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the last sitting day, during question time, I asked Mr Cunliffe for a comment about compliance costs. I believe he made a quite erroneous answer to the House. I wonder whether he will correct that misleading impression.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022d850b6ff365d48f08df352cbc57f7484\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d850b6ff365d48f08df352cbc57f7484\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Although that is not a point of order, I can tell the member that I discussed the matter just before the House sat. The member has been discussing the matter with the Clerk and, if necessary, he will be making a statement to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00229c0d204189fa41d4ae1fd5e5d7e4f9a6\u0022\u003EUrgent Debates Declined\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f0cac26e619f473ebc105bed41db9ed1\u0022\u003ETariff Reductions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u002295cd56744515425c883dce1d3a58f1d0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002295cd56744515425c883dce1d3a58f1d0\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have received a number of applications for debates under Standing Order 376. Rod Donald seeks to debate the Government\u2019s decision to reduce the level of tariffs on imported goods. The decision is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility, but I cannot regard a decision on the level of tariffs post-2005 as requiring the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d0d445e7125649489d873b1ec1b8b504\u0022\u003ETransmission Gully\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022b5e5f97bfc1148c0acc65cb17330bab9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b5e5f97bfc1148c0acc65cb17330bab9\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Peter Dunne seeks to debate a statement by the Prime Minister regarding the building of the Transmission Gully project. While the Prime Minister did respond to a question on the project, she did so without changing Government policy at all. In these circumstances there is no particular case of recent occurrence to give grounds for a debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00226d269585966840569bccca2bf601f889\u0022\u003ECrimes Act\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022c0590db3d43d4a359dc0dceaa9ce4fd1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c0590db3d43d4a359dc0dceaa9ce4fd1\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Murray Smith wishes to debate an announcement by the Minister for Social Development and Employment that section 59 of the Crimes Act, which permits reasonable force against children, will be repealed. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility, but as the Minister indicated that a time frame of 2 years and legislation will be needed to effect it, there is no ground for an urgent debate on it today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002286e11941732847e1a87414aa164c0ef0\u0022\u003ECredit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e36b33da872d4ced91a219c5734299ec\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022 data-id=\u00228c1a2a5cf69a4851bb563c3307c97f55\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228c1a2a5cf69a4851bb563c3307c97f55\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill be now read a third time. The purpose of this bill is to protect consumers entering into, and through the duration of, credit contracts, consumer leases, and buy-back transactions. The bill achieves this purpose by updating and strengthening the information disclosure requirements, thus enabling consumers to make informed decisions about consumer finance transactions. Flexible but fair rules relating to fees and interest charges on credit contracts are set. The bill closes the loophole exploited by buy-back operators in the housing area, and empowers the Commerce Commission to enforce the new legislation, including the buy-back provisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003EI acknowledge the very efficient and timely manner in which Parliament has progressed this bill. I acknowledge the work of the select committee, and the work of parliamentary counsel and officials on the legislation. I also want to acknowledge that this is a major consumer law statute and represents a milestone in providing consumer rights to New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022 data-id=\u0022c81abc26a58b420386096a50534b59ad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c81abc26a58b420386096a50534b59ad\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL (NZ National\u2014Bay of Plenty):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to report that during the Committee stage the Opposition parties drew to the Committee\u2019s attention a number of flaws in this bill that the Government refused to acknowledge. Not only did we tackle the Government about the inadequacies of the compliance costs statement involved in this bill, and not only did we draw to the Government\u2019s attention the unfair and cumbersome administrative burden that would go on New Zealand finance companies in particular, but we drew this important notice to the Government. This bill is supposed to be about improving the provision of information to New Zealanders who borrow money from second-tier financial institutions; it is supposed to be about providing those New Zealanders with more information, so that they can be more aware of the cost of the credit and the responsibilities that they may have. But this Opposition, in a united way, pointed out to the Government that its very first goal in this legislation will not be met. The Government said very clearly that this bill was about providing full information on the cost of credit for consumers\u2014but it does not. It does not, because it fails to capture the fees and charges of brokers involved in financial transactions. It fails to capture recording the charges of brokers involved in financial transactions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EI give members the example of the many New Zealanders who may want to consolidate their debt, or may need to travel overseas for a funeral, or may need money to buy a new car. They go off to \u201CQuickloans Ltd\u201D and borrow, for example, $5,000 to do so. The Government\u2019s bill fully allows for the full cost of that credit to be disclosed in the documentation. But many New Zealanders go and arrange their consumer finance through a broker. There are brokers in New Zealand who charge quite large percentages for their fees, but the average charge is 10 percent. A broker will say: \u201CI will arrange a $5,000 loan for you, and I will take a 10 percent commission.\u201D He or she will advise the finance company of his or her appointment, and the finance company will approve the loan, and send $4,500 to the consumer and $500 to the broker. But all that the documentation shows is that the person borrowed $5,000; it does not have to say what the broker\u2019s fee was. In some situations, the broker\u2019s fee is added to the actual amount of money that the person wants to borrow. This bill does not capture that charge.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EThe Committee stage went on for 6 or 7 hours, and the Minister in the chair, Judith Tizard, took only a handful of calls\u2014virtually amounting to one call\u2014in order to address the concern that Opposition members were raising. The point is that this bill fails to capture that $500 that goes to the broker. It fails to have it declared in the transaction\u2014in the information that is required in the bill. We moved amendments that required that information to be included. The Government says that all of that is caught by the description of fees, but the point is the fees relate to the transaction between the finance company and the borrower. The transaction involving the broker is outside that contractual arrangement and, therefore, does not have to be declared. Therefore, the person who is borrowing the money is not fully aware of the costs associated with that borrowing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EDuring the Committee stage, the united Opposition parties made that point time and time again. Mr Catchpole will agree; he stood up and talked, from a south Auckland experience, about why it is important to have that money declared. Sandra Goudie, from Coromandel, made the point to the Government about the need to do something about it, as well. Deborah Coddington, from ACT, also pressed the Government about why brokers\u2019 fees are not being included in the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EWe did that because we do not want Government members going up and down the country, trying to convince New Zealanders that they have improved the level of information associated with consumer finance. They have not, because there is a huge loophole. The Opposition was told that there are finance companies in New Zealand that are considering changing their entire commercial operations so that all their offices will operate on a brokerage arrangement rather than on an agency arrangement. That is a pretty dramatic step. Those companies know that the brokerage fee does not have to be declared; it does not have to be on the document that is available for consideration of various quotes that a person may be seeking. That is serious. There are a whole lot of people who go to the second-tier lenders, who want to be fully informed of all that information and want to know what the full cost of their credit is, and that information will be not provided by the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EThat is a major loophole that the Government is inviting finance companies to drive their tractors straight through. Because we told the Government that that would happen, it will be culpable for the confusion that happens when brokers\u2019 fees and charges are not included in the borrowing, and people say: \u201CBut the Government said that this was the full cost of my borrowing, and that all the information would be declared on this one piece of paper.\u201D It is not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EWe say that it is disrespectful to Parliament for the Minister, Judith Tizard, to come to the House and say that this is a bill that will provide full information to borrowers, when it does not. We also say that it is disrespectful of the Government to introduce a bill in which the compliance cost statement is woefully inadequate and does not cover the considerable compliance costs associated with upgrading forms and procedures to comply with what is required in the bill. Small businesses are what run these finance companies. We should respect the effort and the service that they provide to the public, and the Government should have had the decency to tell Parliament how much this legislation will cost those finance companies, because that cost is passed on to consumers. We think it is disrespectful for the Minister to know that she is leaving a huge loophole in the bill and to do absolutely nothing about it. I tell members that we will be back here within 18 months in order to fix that loophole. We have warned the Government what will happen, we know that there will be an amendment, and I will be the first one to say to Judith Tizard: \u201CWe told you so. You should have listened.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022 data-id=\u0022c5b522f173c44254b7817d76ff38f6f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c5b522f173c44254b7817d76ff38f6f7\u0022\u003EMURRAY SMITH (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E United Future supports the third reading of this bill. It is part of a reform process of the Credit Contracts Act and the Hire Purchase Act, and will replace those Acts. It follows the line of other Acts that have been implemented by Parliaments over the years\u2014in particular, the Consumer Guarantees Act, the Contractual Remedies Act, and, to bring up living memory, even the Door to Door Sales Act. Those pieces of legislation were all designed to address the imbalance of bargaining power between commercial enterprises and consumers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThis bill, and bills like it, fly in the face of pure market ideology. ACT at least, and National\u2014well, I think National; I am never quite sure what National thinks these days\u2014support the pure market ideology. In essence, that ideology says that everyone is in an equal bargaining position, and that market forces will ensure that no one gets ripped off\u2014or at least that if people do get ripped off, then it is their right and choice to have that happen. That ideology says it is their fault if they have not been properly informed and they will learn from that, so at the very least the Government should not interfere. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EHowever, we are very well educated, by programmes such as Fair Go and Target in particular, to recognise the reality that even well-informed consumers can be trapped by unscrupulous commercial operators, and that there is a need to protect consumers against commercial operators who know information that consumers cannot possibly know. Even if consumers buy the simplest of goods, the people who manufacture and market those goods will inevitably understand the nature and quality of their goods, and the purposes for which they can be used, far, far better than consumers, who are trying to address all sorts of different goods during their lifetimes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThe difficulty we have in our society is that we will always find people who use enterprising ways to get around whatever laws are put in. This bill is an endeavour to keep pace with some of the entrepreneurial ideas that such people come up with, in order to avoid their legal obligations and to ensure they can market products in a way that unwitting consumers will get sucked into and that they, the entrepreneurs, can profit by. I note that this bill, in particular, has gone through a long gestation period. The law was reviewed over a 2-year period, from July 1999 to July 2001. The bill has had extensive input since the 2-year period when the review was done. It has, of course, been through the select committee process, where it was further examined in depth. The difficulty is that our commercial world has lost a lot of its moral sanction, yet it can operate only where there is a degree of morality in existence and, in particular, a degree of trust. Even commercial businesses such as car dealerships\u2014which over the years have, perhaps, borne more than their share of the brunt of criticism for unscrupulous dealing\u2014have people listening to their salesmen when buying cars. Although people may take precautions such as arranging independent checks, they still need to rely on the information provided to them in order to buy anything like that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThe difficulty we face when dealing with fraudsters, who will use any legal device to rip off consumers, is to know how far Parliament should go in order to protect people from themselves. The balance that has thus far been struck\u2014which this bill follows, and which I believe is the right balance\u2014is the knowledge that we cannot stop consumers from going into those sorts of transactions or using their money in the way that they wish to use it. All we can do is to ensure that they have as much information as possible, in a format that is easily read and brought to their attention, so that they make their decisions as intelligently as possible. Thereafter, if consumers want to throw their money at something that is, in fact, not worth the paper it is written on, then that is a choice they must be free to make. In some cases it is appropriate that people are required to obtain independent legal advice before entering into transactions, and we find that happening already in the law. But, at the end of the day, even a lawyer giving independent legal advice\u2014as I know from my own experience\u2014must always say: \u201CWell, that\u2019s my advice, but you need to make the decision.\u201D People, unfortunately, sometimes do make decisions contrary to good advice, and find themselves entrapped. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThere are two aspects of this bill that particularly please me. One is the requirement for disclosure to guarantors. I have faced that problem in my legal practice over a number of years, in situations where somebody signs a guarantee and thereafter the terms of the guarantee\u2014in particular, the weight of the obligations placed upon the guarantor\u2014are increased without the guarantor even knowing that, let alone consenting to it. That happens in husband-and-wife situations where the husband may be running a business, and the wife signs a guarantee that covers, and is secured by, the family home. The husband can increase the debt of the business and get the business into difficulties, without the wife being aware of it. Then the home is suddenly lost, because the amount of debt at stake is a lot more than the wife even contemplated. It happens in parent-and-child situations, and the mother-and-son situation is perhaps the most typical of those. A young son trying to set out in business may persuade his mother to allow her home to be used as security for an advance. Then the mother finds, all of a sudden, that the home is stripped out from under her because the son, either through bad dealings or simply through misfortune, has got himself into financial difficulties. It also happens in small companies, where the directors and shareholders are called upon to provide guarantees of the company, and then do not have the information the company is generating in order to see how it is going, and to understand that the risk they have placed themselves under has increased. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EIn my practice, particularly with guarantors, I got to a point at which, whenever a bank required a guarantee, I would endeavour to limit it to a fixed amount, to a specific loan, to a specific period, or even to a combination of all those. Effectively, the extent of the guarantee could not then be increased without the guarantor\u2019s specific consent to do so. I know that more than once I provided a provision and a bank guarantee stating that the guarantee would cover only a loan numbered 12345, or whatever the number was. In the situation where the bank subsequently over the years refinanced that loan into other loans, it then found that the guarantee was not effective, because it was restricted. That problem often occurred in situations where the guarantor was unaware of what was going on. So I welcome the fact that guarantors will now know a lot more about the information that has been provided. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThe second area that I am particularly pleased to see provision made for is the buy-back schemes generated over the last 5 to 10 years, which have become a bit of a plight. That area falls under the comments I made before about people finding enterprising ways of getting around the law, which, in this case, is the provisions of the Credit Contracts Act. I remember, 5 to 10 years ago, having a client come to me with some papers about a buy-back / lend scheme. I found that very quickly I was smelling a rat. The papers and the scheme were complex, and seemed to be trying to get around the legislative restraints. When I realised that a private company was putting great efforts into marketing a get-money-quick scheme, the alarm bills started ringing. When I realised that the company was targeting older people and other vulnerable groups in society with its project, the orange lights started flashing. It was not hard, at all, for me to find that the scheme was untenable. The clients concerned were looking to sell their home for less than its value, with an option to buy it back within a certain period of time if they could afford to, but otherwise they were selling it at a great loss. Usually I found that clients looking at those schemes were unable to obtain finance from more legitimate sources, such as first-lender banks. They had got themselves into debt with credit cards or moneylenders, and, realistically, the likelihood of their being able to repurchase their homes was not particularly high. I strongly advised against the buy-back transaction, and it did not go ahead. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EI am very pleased to see that the provisions concerning buy-back schemes are there in the bill. I am also pleased that my colleague Paul Adams was able to increase the penalties, which started at $30,000, for such schemes. The Commerce Committee put that penalty at 3 months\u2019 imprisonment and a sum of $200,000. My colleague\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper increased that to 3 years\u2019 imprisonment and a sum of $200,000, and I think that such sanctions are important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EUnited Future will support this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022424c9c684605491b8ab165af2107d793\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022424c9c684605491b8ab165af2107d793\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National\u2014Ilam):\u003C/span\u003E There is, unfortunately, a growing trend developing within the current Government that sees legislation such as this pushed through the House fairly quickly, subjected to a Committee stage that has absolutely no relevance or meaning\u2014where the legitimate concerns of members of Parliament are raised with Ministers and rejected\u2014only for the legislation to be passed and then, a short time later, subjected to change through the statutes amendment process. So far this year we have seen bills like the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill passed, where the Opposition stated there was a clear problem with some of the definitions and the Ministers rejected that, but now, just 3 months later, that legislation is subject to a statutes amendment change. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe Hon Tony Ryall, in his speech, outlined a very serious flaw in this bill: if someone is to arrange a loan that is subject to a brokerage fee, there need be no disclosure of that fee. This bill allows finance houses to reorganise themselves from agencies into brokerages, and a person taking out a loan to be none the wiser about the overall costs of that loan. I predict, as did Mr Ryall, that in a couple of months we will see the Government quietly sidling up to members of the Opposition, and saying it sees there is a problem here and wants to slip an amendment into the \u201CStatutes Amendment Bill (No 1) 2004\u201D. I say to the Minister and everybody else involved that they should not bother knocking on our door, because it will require a full bill to be brought to this House to sort that out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EOne of the interesting things about this bill is that it is designed to let those New Zealanders who borrow money know the full cost of that. We have just been through the exercise of explaining that they may not know the cost in all cases, but let us assume that everybody plays the game fairly. It will be a good thing that those New Zealanders who are borrowing money understand the costs involved. But it may be interesting to consider, for a minute, why so many New Zealanders need to get the sort of consumer credit we are talking about\u2014why so many New Zealanders need to load up their credit cards to the gunwales, and why so many retailers in this country cannot move stock unless it is with some sort of a \u201Cpayday may\u201D or some other interest-free arrangement that, effectively, entices customers through the door under a credit contract. The reality is that the vast majority of retail sales in the household lines\u2014whiteware appliances, furniture, and various other electronic appliances\u2014are done through a consumer credit contract. I think the reason for that is that in the last 4 years, New Zealanders\u2019 incomes have become extremely squeezed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe Government is out there saying how wonderful it is, skiting about its massive surplus of $5.6 billion\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212699a9a01ea4fa88073d18ca202ef9e\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: Overtaxing the people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ed80feb5e384609bbc0484fb23f93d0\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and overtaxing poor workers, in order to achieve that $5.6 billion surplus. We read in the newspapers that the average income of New Zealanders rose recently to a point\u2014and this is nothing to skite about\u2014where income from wages and salaries is now set at some $332 a week! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a49279d5f8d4536abe9a4537840d150\u0022\u003EJill Pettis\u003C/span\u003E: Because we want everything, and our parents went without.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221275fd8652ec4a5c9722883759df2b03\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: I heard the junior Government whip say that people are too greedy\u2014that workers want too much, and that they expect everything.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203bb338f07774a518a97daa7efc2177c\u0022\u003EJill Pettis\u003C/span\u003E: We don\u2019t say that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6362126bfaf46d4a37cc6c911efc9f9\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: When people are earning $332 a week and the Government is saying they are well off, I do not blame them for getting a bit keen to have one or two extra things in their life to make it slightly more comfortable. We have a Government that identifies problems out there\u2014like the buy-back schemes that have affected so many M\u0101ori families\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a93def1a07449bba4895c35c30e4954\u0022\u003EHon John Tamihere\u003C/span\u003E: Don Brash doesn\u2019t agree with that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e9fab7b6a724b8bb241a14d7be0b52e\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and have the Hon John Tamihere all hot under the collar, yet he is going out there and he is going to pass this bill, which makes the conditions of buy-back schemes much clearer. He says that that is good for M\u0101ori. I tell him that $332 a week as an average wage and salary income for New Zealanders is not good for M\u0101ori or for anybody else. [Interruption] What we get\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241413b1f306f4b01aec1fa9852020e85\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry to interrupt the member, who does handle interjections, but the member who is interjecting will not do so again during this speech. She has been interjecting in the second person, and I am not to be brought into the debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c97d4d0ea07a4ca99c7278658ae4fd81\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we will have to turn the heaters on, because we will all be shivering, after the heat we have been subjected to from that member in the last couple of minutes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI make it clear that the problem with this bill is that while it does some good things\u2014while it tidies up a whole lot of aspects of credit information for consumers, and while it does do some good things in creating a definition of what buy-back schemes are and how they should operate\u2014it fundamentally misses the point that New Zealanders do not earn big incomes, and that is why they borrow so much. It is a disgrace that a Government can say to New Zealanders their incomes have gone up, the average wage and salary income is now $332 a week and they are well off, and the Government will put in place some consumer credit legislation so that when they have to borrow for the kids\u2019 uniforms, to get the bikes to get them to school, to get the family car, or to fund the mortgage, etc., then the rules around that are to be a whole lot better for them\u2014and is this not a good Government! That misses the point that a Government should be looking to increase the disposable income of families in this country, and this Government is not doing that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI want to comment about the legislation itself, and about a concern I have. Much of the interpretation of this legislation will be open to the courts. I do not have a problem with the courts enforcing the law. But I am worried about the courts giving an interpretation of it, because one of the key points in this bill, particularly with regard to the buy-back schemes that have caused so many families so much angst, is the issue of whether the activities of the lender are oppressive. The bill states that if the credit contract, consumer lease, or buy-back transaction is oppressive, then that contract, lease or transaction can be reopened by the court and conditions can be reapplied. Clause 93(b) provides that a matter may be reopened if \u201Ca party has exercised, or intends to exercise, a right or power conferred by the contract, lease, or transaction in an oppressive manner;\u201D. We now have an idea of what an oppressive approach would be, but we are leaving it up to a court to decide exactly what that is. That will make it very difficult for some minor credit contracts to be exercised by legitimate finance houses, which will be uncertain about what \u201Coppressive\u201D may mean. It may be oppressive to even ask for a payment from someone who is living on a benefit, for example. A loan may be oppressive if someone claims that he or she simply cannot afford to repay it, and a court could instruct that the loan need not be repaid. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003ESo whilst there is much gloss being applied by the Government in respect of this bill, there is a murky underside. I want to restate the proposition I laid down earlier: one can make all the rules one likes about credit, but if people do not have enough money to live on\u2014and New Zealanders, whose average wage and salary income has just gone up to some $332 a week, are struggling\u2014then we will see more and more of them going into debt because of this Government\u2019s policies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022 data-id=\u0022147e8103a6f14c82a401e5026fd1f5a3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022147e8103a6f14c82a401e5026fd1f5a3\u0022\u003EHon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Commerce):\u003C/span\u003E First I would like to thank my colleague the Minister of Consumer Affairs, Judith Tizard, for her work on this bill. Although the bill has a number of applications, I would like to focus on the impact it will have on housing buy-back schemes. Earlier this year I became aware that a number of my constituents in the electorate of Tamaki Makaurau, many of them from the poorer parts of south Auckland and many of them elderly people, had lost their homes or were under threat of losing their homes through housing buy-back schemes. That led us to lay complaints with the Serious Fraud Office, the Banking Ombudsman, the police, Auckland District Law Society, and the Commerce Commission. Upon further investigation, it turned out that although the buy-back schemes were most concentrated in Auckland they were also operating in other parts of the country, including Christchurch and Tauranga. Investigations by the authorities involved continue, and I am confident that those whose conduct is found to have been illegal, unprofessional, or unethical will face the full consequences of such behaviour. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI would also like to commend the Minister of Commerce, Lianne Dalziel, for her efforts in bringing to account the companies involved in operating housing buy-back schemes. In June she moved to place into statutory management eight companies that were operating buy-back schemes. That prevented the immediate sale of a number of families\u2019 homes. No other Government would have taken such quick and decisive action in that regard. This Government also set up a hotline, so that victims of housing buy-back schemes would get help and alert the Government to the full extent of the problem. The people duped into those scams were not greedy people hooked into get-rich schemes by their own greed, as Rodney Hide would tell members. Not all of them were the most sophisticated people in the world; they were ordinary, honest, hardworking Kiwis. They were people who, through years of hard work and saving, had sometimes built up a substantial equity in their homes, which they were offered the chance to use in order to help family members to be on-financed into their homes. They took that opportunity. People entered into those schemes without independent legal advice; the same people who gave them legal advice also acted as lawyers for the finance companies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EAmendments to the bill will protect consumers against future loses through such schemes, and will provide remedies for those already involved in those deals. The bill will ensure that any consumer entering into a deal has received independent legal advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c0951da28314474bfac552bf6da9dfd\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: Throw the notes away and speak from the heart!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bbcafb31077a4decbabdc4b0359f602c\u0022\u003EHon JOHN TAMIHERE\u003C/span\u003E: It will prevent the sale of property without court permission where full disclosure has not been made or independent legal advice has not been given. Furthermore, the bill\u2019s provisions relating to oppressive conduct will provide consumers with remedies against scam operators. The member for Rangitikei knows about oppressive conduct, particularly with regard to the caucus he is in. Together those elements of the legislation should put an end to buy-back schemes. Similar provisions in Australian law against unconscionable conduct, covering credit arrangements, banking transactions, and financial advice, particularly for disadvantaged groups, have been effected, and I expect that this legislation will carry similar weight to that in protecting consumers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI am glad to be part of a Government that acts promptly to put an end to scams targeting innocent New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022 data-id=\u00226dbada9fa8f948139e7f51dc42171b7e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226dbada9fa8f948139e7f51dc42171b7e\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ):\u003C/span\u003E I rise, on behalf of the ACT party, to oppose the third reading of this bill. What was the Consumer Credit Bill is now the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill, and the aim, as we have heard, is to repeal the Credit Contracts Act 1981 and the Hire Purchase Act 1971 and replace them with this new legislation that covers credit contracts and consumer leases. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EI will refer to some of the submissions that have been made on this bill. The Financial Services Federation, for instance, made some very valid points. It said that the Credit Contracts Act is an extremely well conceived Act. It is settled law, and it has generally worked pretty well over a period in which we have seen significant growth, especially in the sector of household borrowing. So it does seem a pity to see that Act thrown out. There has been valid criticism of that legislation, in that enforcement has been difficult, but I argue that that aspect could have been fixed without rewriting the entire Act\u2014a point that has been argued since 1988 but seems to have fallen on deaf ears. It seems to me that we did not need to go down this whole, expensive process and come out with legislation that is confusing, to say the least. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EI ask members to look at what Simon McArley wrote in the National Business Review last year. He is senior lawyer, a specialist in commercial law, in Auckland. What he stated about the law was that there was a perceived imbalance between borrower and lender, and that the existing law does not provide adequate redress for unfair behaviour by lenders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThere may be some merit in that perception. That may not be the reality but there may be some merit in the perceptions. As we debated this bill during the Committee stage we heard stories about usury schemes. We heard about some of the buy-back nonsense that needs tidying up. But I ask this question of the Minister: if a power imbalance does exist, why does it cease to exist, simply because the borrower is borrowing for business purposes? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EOne of the essential faults of this bill is that it leaves businesses out in the cold. It does not cover business transactions. I know that if the Minister were here she would say that that is in order to reduce compliance costs, but that is actually not the case. It is impossible to see how excluding businesses from what is supposed to be simplified statutory procedure actually reduces costs. That is a non sequitur; it does not make sense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E Let us turn the argument around. If including businesses in this legislation would have increased compliance costs for them, then that means the Government is actually quite happy to increase costs for individuals, for families who are borrowing, for working people, and for sole traders. There are many sole traders in this country who pay GST, and accident compensation, and who have to comply with all the other strangling red tape, such as the occupational safety and health legislation. Why should they be subject to the increased costs that this legislation, by the Government\u2019s own admission, will now deliver to them? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThis bill favours big business. Clearly, a large business can use resources to hire lawyers to ferret out unfair terms and wield commercial clout, but those businesses comprise less than 20 percent of the New Zealand business community. More than 80 percent of businesses in this country employ fewer than five people, and those businesses, those owners, share the same concerns and needs as the average consumer, who is covered by this bill. And why is that? It is because those owners and operators are average consumers. I cannot see why they have been left out of this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003ELet us look at the new protections that the Minister thinks are inappropriate for new businesses. Briefly, those protections are simplified disclosure requirements\u2014that is, setting out clear and useful information about the transaction so that informed decisions can be made\u2014a 3-day statutory cooling-off period in which to evaluate the disclosure, and properly consider borrowing decisions; a prohibition on unfair fees and bank charges; and stronger and more easily enforceable remedies when lenders do not follow the rules. Well, all those areas have been the basis of complaints from small businesses in the past, but now the Minister is quite happy to cut those small-business voices out of realistic consumer protection, and I do not see the fairness in that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EAs my colleagues in the National Party, like the honourable Gerry Brownlee, have already said, there is still much confusion over several clauses in this bill. Once more, we are seeing the passing of legislation that will actually be a feast for lawyers and an absolute nightmare for people who are trying to comply with confusing legislation that just raises the uncertainty stakes. For instance, if we look at clauses 56 to 58B, I think it is, which cover the buy-back transactions and the definitions of \u201Coccupier\u201D and the disclosure provisions, we see that the transferee must ensure that the occupier has independent legal advice and so on. That is fine, but if we read on a bit further to the following clauses we see that every transferee must ensure that a copy of the terms is given or sent to every occupier under the transaction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EWe go from dealing with \u201Can occupier\u201D to suddenly \u201Cevery occupier\u201D. Presumably, this is under one transaction, therefore one piece of land is being dealt with. Is the transferee liable because he or she did not know or did not try to find out how many occupiers there are for the transaction, or inform them about all the terms and conditions? That is not clear. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThere is also the issue of loan sharks. I argue that this bill will not stop loan sharks. In fact, it will make it easier for them to operate, because credit is going to become more expensive, and, as I have already said, rich people can get lawyers to guide them through the legislation, and pay for it. But what about poor people? They also have a need for credit, and they will now be driven to the back-door credit agencies and the loan sharks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E I predict that we will see more of the underworld area of lending, where recovery is gained through a brick through the window; or the other downside of that form of lending, which is that the people who cannot afford it, and should not be in debt, end up in even more debt because they are high risk. They go to the lenders of last resort, and to cover the risky situation they are in they end up signing up to the most dreadful terms and conditions, and putting on the line even more of what meagre property they have. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EFinally, I would just like to address the hardship clause. This really is a farce. It allows people to welsh on their debts, and it is telling that creditors who submitted were unanimously opposed to this. Under the current legislation, there is nothing to stop creditors from negotiating with lenders if they get behind on payments. In fact, most creditors know that it is better and more sensible, if there is a hiccup, to negotiate through it, rather than call in the debt abruptly and put the debtor through and have the chance of getting nothing out of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThe legislation is now far too loose. Debtors will be much more able to give creditors the runaround by using illness, injury, loss of employment, or the end of a relationship to have the terms changed. If the creditor does not allow it to be changed, then he or she can apply to the court, and this could delay it for years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThis is bad law. It will make credit harder and more expensive for small-business people, it will send poor people to loan sharks, and the ACT party opposes it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f8b92f47-d078-4e6a-b4c6-136913bda55d\u0022 data-id=\u002201ab46c44d564027a3a4be0ca5af3b2b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f8b92f47-d078-4e6a-b4c6-136913bda55d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002201ab46c44d564027a3a4be0ca5af3b2b\u0022\u003ESUE BRADFORD (Green):\u003C/span\u003E On behalf of the Green Party I welcome the return of this bill to the House this afternoon for its third reading. We look forward to its implementation. This updating of the laws around the provision of consumer credit is well overdue. The addition of buy-back transactions to deal with the dreadful scams that have recently come to light, and which the honourable member John Tamihere has done so much good work on, only makes this legislation even more timely.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f8b92f47-d078-4e6a-b4c6-136913bda55d\u0022\u003E The Green Party strongly believes that the State has a role to play in protecting the most vulnerable in our community to the extent that it reasonably can. I trust that as the bill comes on stream we will see a real clean-up of a lot of the worst aspects of third-tier lending, and an end to the iniquitous buy-back schemes that lead all to often to the loss of an innocent person\u2019s home. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f8b92f47-d078-4e6a-b4c6-136913bda55d\u0022\u003EDuring the Commerce Committee consideration of this bill the Green Party was pleased that the committee saw fit to seriously take on recommendations from some submitters, particularly church and community groups working with people suffering from the impact of some of the worst excesses of third-tier lending, to include hardship provisions in the final draft of the bill. The Green Party supported the desire of these submitters to strengthen the original bill, and we pushed for the addition of clauses that mean that a debtor who unexpectedly faces hardship such as illness, injury, loss of job, or the end of a relationship, has a right to apply to have the terms of his or her credit contract changed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f8b92f47-d078-4e6a-b4c6-136913bda55d\u0022\u003EDebt is one of the most exacerbating causes of extreme poverty and family hardship in New Zealand today. I commend the Government for taking action to strengthen protections for consumers in these areas. I hope that as the bill is put into practice it will achieve its avowed goals of bringing to an end the most unfair, oppressive, and exploitative practices of some parts of the credit industry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022 data-id=\u002228694339d7d94448982a9822d7c4a0d6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002228694339d7d94448982a9822d7c4a0d6\u0022\u003EBRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this bill. Generally, New Zealand First is supportive of any initiatives by this Government to improve, to protect, and to safeguard consumers\u2019 credit contracts, and in particular with regard to buy-back schemes. In that regard the Government is to be commended for bringing this to the House at this time. It is timely because we have seen a huge influx of the buy-back schemes that have trapped people into tremendous debt, making it virtually impossible for them to get out of those debts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EChanges to the previous legislation are long overdue, and it is timely that we now determine and enshrine in legislation those matters that need updating and improving. I have previously spoken on this bill and have alerted the House to some areas that require further fine-tuning if this bill is to be successful. If it is to be successful, complete, and robust, then these changes will need to be made later on. As Gerry Brownlee mentioned, there are one or two other issues\u2014brokerage fees being one\u2014and I will touch on those in a moment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EOnce the new bill becomes law it will be far more difficult for unscrupulous lenders to take advantage of the often desperate bargaining positions of some of their customers by charging fees and interest rates that border on exorbitant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003E The most important part of this bill is Part 3, because this is where the Government has had to act swiftly and take into effect the buy-back schemes. These deals have left families in destitute situations unable to recover their homes. These schemes came about in fairly recent times, and they hit with a vengeance. It is very important to protect the unwary from the extraordinary lengths to which some people will go to trap the most vulnerable into a situation that they will have no way of getting out of. These schemes are set up in such a way that the individual borrower transfers his or her property to the moneylender under conditions that make it virtually impossible for that borrower to recover his or her property.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac6306754a3d4ee893becd64992a7e5c\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s called a mortgage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227187dabe08044fefba1ac15d8967b2e2\u0022\u003EBRENT CATCHPOLE\u003C/span\u003E: Under real mortgages the interest rates and the conditions are not so oppressive that it is impossible for people to get their property back. These schemes have left people in a situation where they have lost not only their home that they tried to borrow money for, but often the homes of relatives who had put up the finances to try to help them out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EA section in the bill covers independent legal advice. This is a very important part, and one that is essential if these people are to get the proper advice and not be trapped into these schemes. However, it must be enforced rigorously. One of the concerns during the Committee stage was that the independent legal advice would be recommended by the lender. This is unsatisfactory because obviously if the lender is recommending the legal advice, then that legal advice will be leaning towards the lender and not be independent of that lender, and it will therefore create a problem for the people borrowing and may even leave them in a situation where they may be entrapped again. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EClauses 115 and 116 allow for the older Acts that this bill replaces to continue to apply. These clauses allow creditors the choice to elect for the Acts to apply in contracts that were in existence prior to this law coming into force. However, it does not allow anywhere for the debtor to have that choice. I am disappointed that debtors are excluded from this option, because there are a number of very important issues in this bill on which a debtor would have recourse to a better deal, rather than just the creditor having that option. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EThose clauses allow for the creditors to decide whether they want buy-back schemes to remain under those old Acts. If we consider that the buy-back schemes were legal under those old Acts, then I am afraid that people who are already trapped in those buy-back schemes will not have recourse under this bill. During the parliamentary Committee stage I asked the Minister to take a call on that to assure the people who are already trapped in these schemes that they would have a safeguard under this bill, but, sadly, that Minister would not take the call to alleviate the fears that people have over the buy-back schemes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EThe Minister\u2019s failing to continue to assure people has meant that they now will be in a position where they have no recourse. In regard to clauses 93 and 96 relating to reopening of credit contracts, we were hoping that those clauses would provide the consumer with the means of getting out of some of those contracts. But unfortunately clauses 93 and 96 relate to oppressive contracts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EBuy-back schemes were legal under the old Acts; even though we considered them to be oppressive, they were legal. Therefore, if the creditor chooses to continue with those schemes under the old Act, unfortunately I fear that people will not have recourse under those particular clauses in relation to the oppressive nature of a contract. That to me is a very sad situation, particularly considering that many of those schemes are so oppressive in real terms that if those two clauses give the lender an out, then I am afraid the bill will fail, and, as Gerry Brownlee suggested, will have to come back to the House in the new year, not just as a short clause, but as a full bill, to try to rectify those problems. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EIn the previous debate on this bill, there were suggestions that an education scheme be set up to try to educate people in the better management of their finances, and try to avoid the schemes that these contracts are setting up. If this bill is successful, then I suggest that it would be a wonderful model to set up an education scheme in schools where people can learn how to avoid the financial difficulties and traps that many people in lower socio-economic situations get themselves into, particularly gambling and other means of throwing their money away, and not putting it into the correct means of saving and budgeting. If an education scheme were put in place, then I think many of the measures that we have had to legislate in this bill would not have needed to be legislated for. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u0022770d1b15db2d4388b612a90534443e3c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022770d1b15db2d4388b612a90534443e3c\u0022\u003EDAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour\u2014Dunedin South):\u003C/span\u003E I am delighted to rise very briefly in support of this bill, and recommend its speedy passage through the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022e1c966c879aa4888892ad024dfe06148\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e1c966c879aa4888892ad024dfe06148\u0022\u003ELINDSAY TISCH (NZ National\u2014Piako):\u003C/span\u003E There have not been any major changes to the credit contracts that we have operated under for many years. The bill provides for the repeal of the Credit Contracts Act 1981 and the Hire Purchase Act 1971. This has come about because, over time, we have seen changes\u2014the deregulation of the finance industry, and the role that computerisation and technology have played. The concepts of the Hire Purchase Act and the Credit Contracts Act were relevant for the 1960s and 1970s, but today, of course, they have gone by the by.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EThe bill does refer specifically to individuals and persons as opposed to business. One of the shortcomings that we found in this bill is that it is silent on business. It does not relate to business enterprises, yet it is our view that businesses are very much affected by credit contracts and by the way that individuals who enter into contracts can now cancel those contracts and get out of them. On the other side, the creditor who has supplied the services and provided the finance can be worse off. I will cover that more specifically later on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EThere are other shortcomings that came to light during the Committee stage. I never got a response. I asked a number of questions. In fact, I spoke on each part in the Committee stage, and I put some specific questions to the Minister about the shortcomings that we saw. It was interesting that Government members would not take a call, either. They were not prepared to stand up and answer the queries I had, yet this is a Government bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EThe first issue that I want to draw the House\u2019s attention to, an issue that I spent some time on, is clause 24, \u201CRight to cancel consumer credit contract\u201D. Subclause (1) states that \u201CA debtor under a consumer credit contract may cancel the contract by giving written notice ...\u201D, and that 3 days\u2019 notice is required. Well, that is fine, and that will be allowed. But if we were to take that further and look at what happens if those goods that have been taken are used within those 3 days, the contract is cancelled, and those goods are returned, we see there is no provision in the bill for compensation. We had some very good submissions that were made by the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Retailers Association. They said that if someone purchases some goods, and then the contract is cancelled, it is a fact that goods depreciate immediately, and in some cases by 25 percent. A 25 percent depreciation is not uncommon; that is what can happen. Yet the creditor, the retailer, the wholesaler, or whoever it is\u2014the person who has provided the goods\u2014at that stage is left out of pocket because the bill is silent on the whole issue of compensation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EThat issue comes up in clause 27, which is another clause that I was concerned about and spoke in the Committee stage about. It concerns the effect of cancellation of a consumer credit contract, Specifically, clause 27(1)(e) states: \u201Cunless the contract otherwise provides, the debtor is liable to pay to the creditor\u2014(i) any reasonable expenses necessarily incurred by the creditor in connection with the contract and the cancellation of the contract; and (ii) if property is returned to a creditor that has been damaged while in the possession \u2026\u201D. That is fine. I have no difficulty with that whatsoever. But the point that I make here is that no compensation will be paid for the loss of value.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EThe classic example, and the one that I used during the Committee stage, is that if a person goes into a car yard and buys a new car, what happens as soon as that car is driven out of the yard? The value of that car is diminished. If that person wants to resell that vehicle, he or she will not get back what was paid. I made that point during the Committee stage, and the Minister was not prepared to take a call, and nor where Government members; they were not prepared to explain why, when we had had those submissions from the New Zealand Retailers Association, and the New Zealand Law Society, those provisions were not included.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EAnother shortcoming in the bill that I believe needs to be reiterated for future reference is that, as we heard earlier from the Hon Tony Ryall and Gerry Brownlee, it is a possibility that the Government will come back in a short time and, by way of statutes amendment legislation, want to make some changes. Another concern that I draw members\u2019 attention to is the hardship provisions. They enable debtors to alter credit contracts. Examples could be because of illness, injury, loss of employment, or loss of a relationship. There could be a number of reasons why one would want to alter the contract. But the provisions do not apply if one has exceeded the credit limit, or been in default of a payment. They do not apply to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EIf the creditor does not agree to a course of action that the bearer is proposing, it could be that the debtor goes to court. This is where we move into the area of cases being taken to court. There will be huge compliance costs. This Government is renowned for increasing costs. That is its hallmark. In the last 4 years compliance costs have been increased at every turn. One area that we identified in the course of the Committee stage was the costs involved, and the inability, really, of the creditor to enforce a contract. If the debtor decides that the creditor is not playing ball, he or she has the right to take the case to court, and we will end up with a huge compliance cost regime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EAnother clause that caused me concern was clause 111. In every piece of legislation that the Government brings in, it seems to be hell-bent on doing things by way of Order in Council\u2014that through regulations it can increase costs. That is what clause 111 talks about\u2014that the Governor-General, by Order in Council, can make regulations for the purposes stated. Well, it is just another way to increase the tax take. It is just another way to add compliance costs on to those businesses and those individuals, who are finding it extremely difficult. Gerry Brownlee articulated very well the issues about the disposable income of people and the extra costs that will be incurred. It is interesting that the National Business Review of 3 October states: \u201CSpring of discontent. Businesses seething privately over high taxes and galloping compliance costs\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002217f1da7319c34f2b9795cbd73809f8fe\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: What did they say about Margaret Wilson?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227d85a84b7b54962853616420bc7f222\u0022\u003ELINDSAY TISCH\u003C/span\u003E: There you go. It says: \u201CMinisters may think they are reducing them, but in fact business groups\u201D\u2014and we have plenty of examples of business groups and others\u2014\u201Care saying that those things are getting out of control.\u201D So that was an issue that we identified and talked about. The Minister was not prepared to take a call at the time, about clause 111, \u201CRegulations\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EMark my words: within a very short time this Government will want to make amendments to this legislation by way of statutes amendment legislation, to streamline the process that we are going through now. We are concerned about that and we are flagging it now. Although the concept of the bill is fine and there are some minor changes that actually improve the position\u2014and we have no disagreement with that\u2014there are still the shortcomings I have mentioned of compensation, and of regulations and the way in which they can be applied. The other area of major concern that the bill does not allow for is brokerage fees, and that is another story in itself. But if full disclosure is wanted\u2014and that is what the bill states\u2014then brokerage fees should be included. They are not included, and that is a major shortcoming of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022 data-id=\u00227eebbcc549cf473dbb271778c8a7a0f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227eebbcc549cf473dbb271778c8a7a0f8\u0022\u003EJANET MACKEY (NZ Labour\u2014East Coast):\u003C/span\u003E I am very pleased to rise in support of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill. I commend the Minister for her initiative in putting forward this legislation to address the serious concerns about the industry. I congratulate the select committee on its work. It is probably an ongoing regret of the whole nation that members opposite did absolutely nothing about this issue in the 9 years they were in Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022acb6a053-bcf3-4936-8684-af4d6876983d\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00229eae0c90f9b34f4fbf100bca240f5ed6\u0022\u003EPersonal Explanations\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222e0e24c856d94f1bb24b999a6e6b1118\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 4 to Minister, 18 September\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u0022b26b676f9a164f8795c5489e49758b86\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b26b676f9a164f8795c5489e49758b86\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State):\u003C/span\u003E On question for oral answer No. 4 on 18 September, our previous sitting day, I responded to a supplementary question and referred to a survey on business compliance costs. In the response I may have used the phrase \u201Cat least 80 percent\u201D. The response I had presumed I had made, and certainly had intended to make, in line with my briefing notes, was \u201Cup to 80 percent\u201D. I have ensured that the Hansard records are in line with what I thought I said. I wanted to draw the attention of the House to this as a matter of personal integrity, and because I am interested in maintaining the highest standards of debate in this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fae64464ba01474db3671e2f1622b195\u0022\u003ESupreme Court Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00220be401b407cd4de083d9de4b85413bf7\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022 data-id=\u0022c6d23eac90b94cb0b489bd3de7d258cc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c6d23eac90b94cb0b489bd3de7d258cc\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Supreme Court Bill be now read a second time. The bill before us has been closely examined over the past 9 months by the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I congratulate that committee on its thorough and careful consideration of the bill. The committee received 315 submissions and held hearings with 106 of those parties. I understand that the committee vigorously debated many of the features of the bill. In addition, members of the committee attended a national hui on the New Zealand courts system in Taupo to listen to the views of M\u0101ori represented there. I commend the committee for the way in which it has engaged with New Zealanders to consider the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThe committee\u2019s work was preceded by 3 years of consultation and policy development by the Government. It began with the release of a Government discussion paper, Reshaping New Zealand\u2019s Appeal Structure, in December 2000. Public submissions on that paper emphasised the need for an independent, two-tier appellate structure above the High Court, if New Zealand appeals to the Privy Council were to be ended. In 2002 a ministerial advisory group reported on the key features of the Supreme Court Bill, and that report provided the basic features of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThis is a significant bill for all New Zealanders. It will give all New Zealanders, for the first time, the opportunity to have their cases heard at the highest level. That has been denied to many New Zealanders up to this point. The bill will also enable the legislation passed in this House to be interpreted at the highest judicial level by a New Zealand court. No longer will the final Court of Appeal be available to a privileged few. At long last New Zealand will be in control of its own legal destiny.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThe bill has provoked vigorous debate. That is healthy and appropriate in a democracy such as ours that values freedom of expression. What has not been appropriate, however, is the personal denigration of members of the judiciary. Such comments have cast unjustified doubt on the independence, integrity, and capability of our senior judiciary. Therefore, it is important to place on the record that New Zealand is well served by a fine and capable judiciary, ably led by the Chief Justice, Dame Sian Elias. That fact is attested to and acknowledged both within New Zealand and also internationally.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EWhat, then, is the effect of this bill? It ends the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to hear New Zealand appeals, and it removes the statutory limits that restrict the final opportunity for appeals to courts other than the Judicial Committee. In essence, the bill establishes the Supreme Court of New Zealand as the final Court of Appeal for New Zealand. Before I consider the committee\u2019s report I wish to give notice that I will move a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage that will address minor and technical amendments, establish a new position of Chief High Court Judge, and clarify the commencement date for the Supreme Court Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EI now turn to the principal amendments recommended by the majority of the committee. The committee recommended the purpose clause explain more fully the reasons for the establishment of the Supreme Court\u2014namely, that New Zealand is an independent nation with its own history and traditions; that important legal matters, including legal matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi, should be resolved with an understanding of New Zealand\u2019s conditions, history, and traditions; and also that there be improved access to justice for all. The purpose clause also affirms our commitment to the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThe committee further recommends changes to the provisions governing leave to appeal. Clause 13, containing the leave criteria, has been restructured to read that the Supreme Court must not give leave to appeal unless it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the court to hear and determine the proposed appeal, and that the interests of justice require the hearing of appeals involving a matter of general or public importance, including a significant issue relating to the Treaty of Waitangi; or a substantial miscarriage that may have occurred, or may occur unless the appeal is heard; or a matter of general commercial significance. The Supreme Court is not limited to these grounds if the interests of justice require an appeal to be heard. The Supreme Court will be required to give reasons for the refusal of a leave application, but these reasons may be stated briefly and in general terms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThe committee also recommends that the Supreme Court should comprise the Chief Justice and four or five other judges. The majority of submissions on this clause thought a court of five was insufficient to cover situations where a member of the court was unavailable. I welcome this amendment to clause 17. This will provide greater flexibility in matching the judicial resources of the court to the workload as it develops. The workload is likely to take some time to build up. For that reason, I intend to nominate four judges for appointment to join the Chief Justice in the initial Supreme Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EChanges have also been made to enable the appointment of technical advisers in any case before the Supreme Court. Members of the committee believe that it is important the Supreme Court should have the ability to appoint a technical adviser when the need arises. However, it is expected that this provision will be rarely used.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThe committee further recommends the transitional provisions be extended so that the Privy Council may determine an appeal arising out of a successful application for leave, or special leave to appeal to it, against the decision of a New Zealand court made before the commencement of the Act, or a decision of the Court of Appeal made after the commencement of the Act in a proceeding whose hearing was completed before that commencement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThe committee also recommends a number of minor and technical changes for the purpose of clarifying the bill, as well as a number of consequential amendments. These amendments are set out in detail in the commentary on the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThe committee considered whether overseas judges should be available to sit as acting judges on the Supreme Court from time to time, and decided against so recommending. The ministerial advisory group had also recommended against the use of overseas judges, after consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThe committee received submissions on a number of other matters that could not be considered within the scope of the legislation. There were two significant issues that did not directly affect the provisions of the bill, but merit further consideration. The first relates to the judicial appointments process. Since I announced the Government\u2019s decision to end appeals to the Privy Council and establish a Supreme Court, I have consistently acknowledged the importance of appointments to this court. For that reason, a panel comprising the Chief Justice, the Solicitor-General, and a lay representative, Sir Paul Reeves, will advise me in making recommendations to the Governor-General for the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court. I note some members of the committee are interested in establishing an independent body to appoint judges. I have recently announced my intention to prepare and release a public consultation document next year, with the possibility of establishing a judicial appointments commission. The United Kingdom is undertaking a similar process. It is important that such a proposal is considered carefully.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThe second issue outside the bill\u2019s scope relates to New Zealand\u2019s constitutional arrangements. A number of submissions raised concerns about those arrangements. The committee is considering conducting an inquiry into New Zealand\u2019s constitutional matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThe proposed amendments to the bill are important improvements, and I would like to thank all the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee for their valuable contribution to the development of this bill, and all those submitters who gave of their time to contribute to this important development. It is important to note that since I introduced the bill in December last year the United Kingdom has announced its own plans to establish a Supreme Court. It is proposed that the domestic jurisdiction of the Privy Council to hear appeals on devolution matters from Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales be transferred to that Supreme Court. On 1 April 2003 the Privy Council\u2019s appellate jurisdiction in UK medical disciplinary matters was also removed. The Caribbean community is establishing its own regional final appellate court, and 10 countries will soon withdraw from that jurisdiction. This leaves New Zealand, the Bahamas, Brunei, and Mauritius as the only independent Commonwealth countries using the Privy Council.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EIn conclusion, the Privy Council has provided a valuable service to New Zealand on a limited range of legal matters. The need for a more accessible system for New Zealand\u2019s final appeals on a full range of our law has haunted successive Governments. It is time we entered the 21st century and time for New Zealanders to take responsibility for their own legal system. This bill enables us to do so, and therefore I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u00225789858151dd4edf9051102c19d495fb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225789858151dd4edf9051102c19d495fb\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (Junior Whip\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the course of her speech the Attorney-General mentioned she would lodge a Supplementary Order Paper. It is very important for the House to know just when we can see that. It is unfortunate that, so soon after hearing submissions and reporting back to the House, we are faced with a Supplementary Order Paper. I ask the Attorney-General, while she is still in the House, to give us some indication whether we will see the Supplementary Order Paper today, or perhaps later this week. I know that this may technically not be a point of order, but it is raised to help progress the debate in a proper manner.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u00229b3fcf8f1bed485f8548ad0519e159d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229b3fcf8f1bed485f8548ad0519e159d5\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the honourable member for that. It is not really a point of order, and I will leave that to the discretion of the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022 data-id=\u00220405fc8e92f241f79860f650d1eb9ceb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220405fc8e92f241f79860f650d1eb9ceb\u0022\u003ERICHARD WORTH (NZ National\u2014Epsom):\u003C/span\u003E This is not a good day for the Government, and it is certainly not a good day for this Parliament, as we come to the second reading of the Supreme Court Bill. I say from the outset that National is strongly opposed to this bill and will take whatever steps are necessary to see, in due time, the repeal of this legislation and the restoration of a court structure that has served this country particularly well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EIn commenting on what the Government proposes is the objective of the bill, a good starting point is the introductory material set out in the commentary. One of the defined objectives is improving access to justice. This is a claim that the Government has made on a number of occasions. We in this Parliament have had an opportunity to judge the sincerity of that objective. We have seen, on a number of occasions, that the claim of improving access to justice is a hollow one. Here we have another illustration of that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EThis morning an interesting thing happened. United Future had supported this bill out of the select committee. In other words, United Future wanted to see the Privy Council scrapped and this new court put in place. But this morning it changed its mind\u2014for good reason, I think. Anyone who carefully reflects on the merit of this legislation will see that it is hugely flawed. National\u2019s position can be quickly and shortly stated. We see no reason for this legislation, apart from a desire on the part of the Government to implement Labour Party policy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EMuch could be said against this bill in the short time that is available. I will confine myself to making some points by way of summary. The reasons for retention of the Privy Council include these: first, it is a court of acknowledged excellence. In the course of the submissions we heard, a former New Zealand Chief Justice said: \u201CThe Privy Council certainly is an extremely high-class, polished, Rolls Royce service. There\u2019s no gainsaying that.\u201D I ask, rhetorically, if this is a great service\u2014which it is, and many of the submitters acknowledged that\u2014why we are doing away with it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EThe second proposition I would like to advance is that the major users of the Privy Council\u2014which include business interests and M\u0101ori\u2014are opposed to the abolition of rights of appeal to the court. I think it is instructive to refer to comments the Attorney-General made in the Independent on 10 October 2001. In that article she was reported as saying that it was of substantial importance that the business community agreed with any legislation to do away with the Privy Council. What is the reality? The reality is that the business community is strongly opposed to this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EThe third point I would like to make is that some people\u2014not strongly, and not well\u2014advanced the argument that as a matter of national identity New Zealand should no longer defer to an overseas jurisdiction. There is apparently an aspect of colonial cringe in retaining appeals to the Privy Council. What nonsense that is! The reality of the modern world is that many countries have ceded sovereignty in a number of ways. New Zealand has entered into a number of international conventions, which is just one example of where sovereignty has been ceded. More significantly, many countries have chosen to look to outside adjudicative bodies for the resolution of disputes. Even countries that are not members of the European Community seek to use the adjudicative mechanisms set up by the community for the resolution of disputes. New Zealand will follow a contrary course and move against the stream if this legislation is passed. National\u2019s simple position is that justice transcends nationalism. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EMy next point is that the committee heard from a number of people with active involvement in business and investment, who said it was of critical importance that investment interests had confidence in the domestic legal system. The evidence we heard persuaded us that the Privy Council, as the final appellate court for investment and business interests, provided substantial confidence in the New Zealand legal system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EMy final point in this short summary of why we should keep the Privy Council is that issues of substantial constitutional substance should be subject to referenda. So it is that the parties of the centre-right, which might well include United Future\u2014if United Future is a centre-right party, and sometimes we wonder about that\u2014are actively promoting a referendum. We have set in motion a train of events under the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act, and we believe that debate on the bill should not proceed further until the outcome of that course of action is clear. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EIt has been more than 30 years since we have faced a measure of this constitutional significance. If the bill passes on the numbers, then as the numbers look tonight\u2014as we stand on this second reading\u2014it will pass with a margin of three. That has to be the most slender of margins for what is hugely significant legislation, so on regaining office in 2005, National plans to seek to re-establish rights of appeal to the Privy Council\u2014if that course is possible. The Privy Council will still be around in 2005, and we plan to negotiate with the British Government to restore the right of appeal. Other changes we would seek to negotiate with the British Government include making the Privy Council a court accessible by leave, and for a greater range of interests. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EWe have sought in a constructive way to suggest changes to the bill to make it more workable. We have major reservations about the appointment process for the proposed Supreme Court. For a number of reasons, we do not have confidence that the Attorney-General will make appropriate recommendations. These include her track record, particularly in respect of quasi-judicial appointments. I can name a number of cases where her judgment in making those appointments seems to have gone sadly astray and been wholly flawed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EI am bound to say that some of her recent appointments to the District Court have also attracted a degree of scrutiny, both from District Court judges and others outside the profession. She has set in place an advisory panel, which she obviously thinks represents some answer, but I simply note that she has chosen who will be on that panel. She is not obliged to accept the panel\u2019s recommendations, and, in any event, she has said publicly\u2014and it has been reported in the media\u2014what her plan is and who will be appointed. That is why it was said in question time today that the advisory panel is simply a Clayton\u2019s device. National would like to see greater transparency in the appointment of judges. One of the suggestions made, which I personally support, is that judges should be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. The method of appointment would be the same as that for the Ombudsman and other senior statutory appointees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EMy final point is that judges of the new court have the potential to shape the legal and social landscape of New Zealand in a significant way. We have seen this in its most dramatic form with the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of the foreshore and seabed. It is wrong that judges should be appointed through a limited political process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022 data-id=\u0022a2cd6d85b47f4df78a95f4dc62cf68a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a2cd6d85b47f4df78a95f4dc62cf68a9\u0022\u003ETIM BARNETT (NZ Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E As chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which spent 9 months dealing with the Supreme Court Bill, I rise, a proud person, to speak to the process that the select committee went through, and to comment on some of the particular changes that we pushed for. I will talk about the challenge we faced, the work we did, the report we produced, the changes we made, and the issues we raised. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022\u003EI think Mr Worth is quite right to say that this is a historic debate. The legislation is obviously of historic importance. In the absence of a written constitution, we can reasonably say that this legislation is not only about access to justice, but also has a constitutional edge to it. The challenge faced by the select committee was to make sure that the various groups in our society who were particular consumers of the Privy Council were properly engaged with the select committee process, and also that the wider community, reflecting the increased number of New Zealanders who will have access to the new Supreme Court, could have their voices heard. If members look at our report they will see that M\u0101ori, legal interests, commercial interests, and community interests all had a say in the process the committee went through. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022\u003EThe committee inherited the ministerial advisory group report, and we inherited a history\u2014not only of the Labour-Alliance Government and the Labour-Progressive Government, but also going back to the National Government in the 1990s\u2014of attempts to deal with the issue of the Supreme Court. It is a matter that is certainly being dealt with now in the party political environment, but that has also exercised many minds in this Chamber over the last 15 or 20 years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022\u003EIn addressing the legislation, the select committee first of all gave 4 months for consultation, so that we generated, in total, 315 submissions. The committee heard the submissions around the country at great length\u2014they averaged over 30 minutes per hearing. We also identified a number of prominent individuals to whom we gave extra time, to make sure that we were making decisions and producing recommendations on an informed basis. After hearing the submissions we then spent another 2 months deciding how to take matters further. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022\u003EThe report produced by the committee essentially tells the story through a combination of chronology, followed by a clause-by-clause analysis. Thanks to Murray Smith, the committee started off by inviting submitters not only to look at the details of the bill, but also to go back to the policy questions behind the legislation. I thank Mr Smith for that proposal, and I think it enriched the work of the select committee. The commentary identifies the questions that we put, including the fundamental one of whether the right of appeal to the Privy Council should be abolished, maintained, or extended.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022\u003E The report to the committee then looks at the environment, which both the previous speakers have mentioned, of the Privy Council looking at reforming itself, and the British Government addressing those issues, but also the prior consultation and prior debates within the New Zealand Parliament on these issues. The report then goes through the submitters, grouped into legal, M\u0101ori, business, and other submitters, and identifies the main arguments on either side, and the report goes into that in much more detail than any other select committee report I have seen. Again, I think it is proper for any reader to be able to identify the range of arguments, and I was not in the least worried that the length of arguments against the bill, in the report, was very slightly greater than for those in favour of the bill. We are not trying to produce a propaganda document here; what we are trying to do is to explain to readers now and in the future exactly why the select committee came up with the decisions that it did. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022\u003EWe then went on to look at some of the particular arguments around the legislation. The budget is obviously an important argument. It was itemised and it appeared in the process of the committee considering the bill. The cost to litigants is a matter of great debate. I think most people would imagine that a court sitting in Wellington would be a bit cheaper for New Zealanders using it than would a court overseas. There were one or two particular factors about the Privy Council\u2014existing mainly thanks to the British taxpayer\u2014that might mean we do get some things somewhat cheaper than we might do from the Supreme Court. But the reality is that the system being established here will be both more accessible and more cost-effective to New Zealanders choosing to access it, and the report of the select committee details why we believe that to be the case. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022\u003EWe then moved on to look at the issue of referenda, already mentioned by Mr Worth. We noted that no other country that has made the same decision that we are looking at making in the next few days has held a referendum in the process of making that decision, and I did not hear any arguments to counter that. Clearly there is a constitutional aspect to this legislation, but we have to draw a line between when referenda are appropriate and when they are not. It was pretty clear from the majority of the select committee that the debate had been a lengthy one, going on for a number of years, but that the issues were clear, and that New Zealanders were not faced with such a loss of rights to counterbalance the increase in rights they would get through access to a new Supreme Court that a referendum would be an appropriate way to go. The report details both the history of referenda in New Zealand and also the arguments of submitters on both sides. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022\u003EWe did hear at length from M\u0101ori submitters, and some very clear points were made by them about the relevance of the proposal to the relationship between tangata whenua and the Crown. We thought it was useful to add into the legislation a purpose clause that reiterated that Parliament is the supreme decision-making body in this land, but, at the same time, also recognised that the court existed in an environment where the Treaty of Waitangi was of importance. I thank Jack Hodder, the Wellington lawyer, for his very powerful submission, which I think made all the committee think again about those issues to very useful effect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022\u003EWe considered the issue of consultation with M\u0101ori, which my colleague Mita Ririnui will be speaking more on later, but our committee did engage at a very high level with M\u0101ori, recognising the particular relevance of this proposal to them. We looked at the issue of the first appointments to the Supreme Court, and we noted the comments made by the Attorney-General leading up to the introduction of the legislation. We supported the concept that the appointments should essentially be drawn from the current membership of the Court of Appeal, so far as that is possible. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022\u003EI note what Mr Worth said in terms of judicial appointments. I think the concern of all the people on our select committee about aspects of the way judicial appointments have been made in New Zealand was something that was reflected in our report. I am very pleased that the Attorney-General has responded by announcing that the Government will be consulting on those issues in time to come. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022\u003EWe then went on to look at the qualities of judges. We went on to look at a particular phrase in the legislation that we unanimously decided was inappropriate, which was the phrase \u201Ctikanga M\u0101ori\u201D. The legislation as it came to the select committee said that matters to do with the treaty or tikanga M\u0101ori would automatically get leave to the Supreme Court. We felt that to leave what is such an ill-defined phrase for the court to work out was not necessarily a good way to go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022\u003E I want to just touch on one or two other issues. The issue of overseas judges exercised the committee. I think a number of us went into that debate with very open minds and were persuaded by the power of argument over those issues. Retirement age of judges was touched on, and that is a debate that may well come up again. Just to back up something the Minister said in terms of our recommendations at the end, I point out that the committee unanimously supported the need to continue the debate about New Zealand\u2019s constitutional arrangements, and in principle we supported the concept of an inquiry into those issues. All of us were conscious of a number of matters that were raised by submitters that were not appropriate to be dealt with in this legislation, but indicated that a debate has begun in this nation, and that the Supreme Court legislation formed part of that debate. It is appropriate that it be captured not by a Government, but more appropriately by a Parliament. Our select committee felt that we were maybe a body that could take that debate a bit further. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022\u003EThat really goes through the broad approach that we took to the legislation. I want to thank the committee for their good humour. Obviously we were sharply divided politically on these issues. I thank particularly the Green and the United Future members for coming into the committee with an open mind. They gave support for the legislation coming in, but did not necessarily support it going out from the committee. Both were persuaded by the arguments and were open to discussion in that process. I really very much regret that United Future has subsequently changed its mind, but I do thank Murray Smith in particular for his support for the legislation going out of the select committee and for the constructive role he played. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022\u003EI want to respond lastly to one point mentioned by Mr Worth, which was the issue of \u201CWhy do it?\u201D. We deal with the abolition of the link with the Privy Council because we, as a nation, want to move forward. We have to mature, and part of that maturing process is to establish our own Supreme Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u00225fa04ca3248f4dfdbddf35b77207a212\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225fa04ca3248f4dfdbddf35b77207a212\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E On behalf of New Zealand First, I would like to thank all the staff who helped us in the select committee. I would like to thank the chairman as well, even though he expressed no thanks to New Zealand First. I thank the chairman for making sure that any request we had with regard to material and suchlike was followed up; I cannot think of anything I asked for that was not made available. I would like to thank the staff for taking the trouble to find all that information and from time to time offering things that I had not thought of myself. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThis was a very interesting piece of legislation. New Zealand First\u2019s view on the matter is set out in its manifesto, and we adhere to our manifesto. We believe that there should be no repeal of the right of appeal to the Privy Council until a referendum has been conducted amongst the society of New Zealand, and that prior to that referendum there should be a 2-year discussion and education on just what is involved in abolishing the right of appeal to the Privy Council. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EInstead of having a wide, open, public debate on this issue, with people being well informed and a Parliament with a broad support for any decision that is made in this respect, we have a very, very sad situation at the moment. We have a situation where, by a majority of about four, this minority Labour Government, the Progressives, and the Greens will force a very substantial constitutional change on New Zealand. This is a substantial constitutional change. Such a change should be passed by this House only by a 75 percent majority. Instead, it will be barely 50 percent. That is an utter disgrace if we believe we are a Western-style democracy, if we believe in consensus, and if we believe we are mature enough to move forward together. This is not moving forward together; this is the Labour Party, the Progressives, and the Greens, with a majority of about four, forcing their views on the Parliament of New Zealand and the public of New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E They are forcing their views on the M\u0101ori people of New Zealand. Every submission from a M\u0101ori group was opposed to this legislation, and we had any number of submissions from M\u0101ori groups. The Treaty of Waitangi means more to M\u0101ori than it means to anybody else, because some of us, who went to university in the 1960s and studied history and constitutional law, barely touched on the Treaty of Waitangi when we studied, but it is part of tikanga M\u0101ori for the M\u0101ori people of New Zealand. It is part of their way of life and is ingrained in them. Again and again and again, they said that they do not want appeals to the Privy Council being abolished until some clear constitutional arrangements are set in place. That was the crux of the M\u0101ori submissions to the select committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThose M\u0101ori submitters who were present at the venue in Rotorua will recall the leader of New Zealand First, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, making it clear that submissions from M\u0101ori groups should be heard on marae, not in hotel rooms here, there, and everywhere. I put the suggestion to the select committee that we should go to various marae around the country, and a list was made available to the select committee. We have seen how this Government will go around the country to various marae in order to hear views. But did it take up the point about hearing the M\u0101ori people\u2019s views on the abolition of the right of appeal to the Privy Council? The answer is \u201CNo\u201D. The Government had made up its mind. It was not interested in the views of the M\u0101ori people, despite the fact that the M\u0101ori people of New Zealand were totally opposed to this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EI turn to one of the points made by Nandor Tanczos when the bill was introduced. Nandor Tanczos, the spokesperson for the Greens, said on 17 December 2002: \u201CThe select committee should look at the possibility of holding hearings on marae, for example. I understand that has happened with other bills before the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee. It would be useful to do the same here, because this is an issue of constitutional importance.\u201D What was Nandor Tanczos\u2019 view when that came up before the select committee? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3f943c7653b4cb3a4a33d77d3f66d58\u0022\u003EHon Georgina te Heuheu\u003C/span\u003E: Lie down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e8f8ec626ab477ab156cbb0ec4d332e\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: There was no interest. He was not interested in going to marae. He was given the chance. That is the Greens. I cannot recall any support from the Greens, and I leave it to Georgina te Heuheu to comment on that later on, if required. Where was Nandor Tanczos in the select committee, banging away for hearings of submissions on various marae around the country? He was nowhere. The Greens have done a deal with the Labour Party on other legislation, and they could not give two hoots about constitutional matters as far as New Zealand is concerned. They could not give two hoots about the views of the M\u0101ori people of New Zealand. On 17 December 2002, Nandor Tanczos said: \u201CWe are guided by our policy, which states that removing the Privy Council appeal rights, or any move to a republic, would need to be preceded by full dialogue between the tiriti partners to agree on how the tiriti relationship would be given effect to in any new arrangement.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290b3913179a74e10b47f455c7baae8be\u0022\u003ENandor Tanczos\u003C/span\u003E: Who said that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022994962d780b446deaaff03a8e0d27ddc\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Nandor Tanczos said that on 17 December 2002 in this House. That is in Hansard, Volume 605, at page 2795. Did he do that when the bill came before the select committee? No way! The Greens have sold out any support that they were looking for from the M\u0101ori people, and what do they get in its place? I think he is glad that the Clean Slate Bill might become a Government bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c5d0a4456764cf28a392167c8d8106f\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s the deal, is it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022487fd03508d54bdba3743fff5fac4204\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: That is the deal. That is one of the little deals on the side.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002271e85cf3967c4bfb8f040810c4542c32\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: And have marijuana convictions quashed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221baae89b79ec4e61bb6da3bc512eed81\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: All those people with little marijuana convictions will have them squashed, as will people who might have been protesting at one stage or another in the early 1980s. That is the sort of deal we will be getting with the Greens. The Greens will protect all those marijuana-smoking types who have minor convictions; that is what they will get as a quid pro quo for supporting the abolition of the right of appeal to the Privy Council, whereas the M\u0101ori people of New Zealand have asked the select committee time and time again to support the retention of the appeal to the Privy Council. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EOf those who made oral submissions to the select committee, 74.5 percent favoured the retention of appeals to the Privy Council. That is just one of the many statistics in the select committee report. Most submissions from M\u0101ori oppose the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. An early submitter who supported the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council and who spoke in his own right was Shane Jones. I give him credit. He came along and said that he had some experience of appearing before the Privy Council. I should draw to the attention of the House Sir Tipene O\u2019Regan\u2019s experience of appearing before the Privy Council, as well. I had never met the gentleman and I was extremely impressed by his submission. I can now understand why Ng\u0101i Tahu have done so well. He gave us an example of his experience with the Privy Council. The case was being put by a QC, who was perhaps from Wellington or Auckland, and Sir Tipene O\u2019Regan made the point that he was staggered by the poor pronunciation of M\u0101ori by the New Zealand QC, and he was amazed and delighted by the wonderful pronunciation of M\u0101ori by the judicial officers of the Privy Council. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThe absolute claptrap and nonsense that we get in the House from some members\u2014that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council does not care at all about M\u0101ori\u2014should be tossed out of the window. That was a clear example. As a user of the Privy Council, Sir Tipene O\u2019Regan, who supports the continuation of appeals to it, really opened my eyes to the way in which the Privy Council was far and away ahead of some of the lawyers from New Zealand who appeared before it, insofar as things M\u0101ori are concerned. He made the very good point that he is a user of the Privy Council. He has been there, used it, and seen how it works, as opposed to some of the judges who gave submissions to the select committee and said that they wanted appeals to be abolished. They were the judges, the people who make the decisions, and they are in a different category altogether. But the users of the Privy Council\u2014the M\u0101ori groups and the business groups, in the main\u2014want it to continue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EAs far as access to justice is concerned, we will be spending another $21 million in capital costs to set up a new Supreme Court\u2014if the Greens continue with their folly and it goes ahead\u2014and $4.5 million per year on running the court. There is no support in this country for this bill. There was no consultation by the Labour Party before the bill was introduced. It should not proceed. This is a very sad day for all of us in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022 data-id=\u0022fc03c5ed7c5d4c26994cf20dc19b6a62\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fc03c5ed7c5d4c26994cf20dc19b6a62\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader\u2014ACT NZ):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of the ACT party to totally oppose the Supreme Court Bill. It will abolish the right that New Zealanders have had throughout our history to be able to appeal to the Privy Council. There is no doubt, at all, that the courts are part of our constitution. It is an abuse of power for a minority Government to change, by a simple parliamentary majority of three, an important part of our constitution. I am pleased to see that the United Future party has come out against the bill, but every member knows that, if there were to be a conscience vote, this bill would fail. The Labour Party has had to whip its members. There are members of the M\u0101ori caucus in the Labour Party who are opposed to this bill. If there were to be a free vote in the House, this bill would not pass. This is part of our constitution, and a true majority for it does not exist. One can tell that I am right, by Government members\u2019 reactions. I challenge them. If that is not so, we should have a conscience vote. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EWe do not have a written constitution. Our Westminster constitutional conventions are guarded only by the willingness of the Government of the day not to change the constitution unless there is an overwhelming parliamentary majority\u2014members suggest that that should be at least 75 percent of all MPs\u2014or by the New Zealand tradition of having a referendum. This Government is not following either. Our Attorney-General, Margaret Wilson, is the most dangerous politician, not just today, but in this country\u2019s history, and I include among those Sir Robert Muldoon. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E Margaret Wilson has her own agenda, which the public of New Zealand does not support. She is seeking to create the socialist republic of Aotearoa, and honourable members should make no mistake about it that abolishing the Privy Council is an important step on her agenda. That is what we are facing. Labour is now going to put through this bill\u2014and it is a minority Government\u2014with the help of the extreme left Green Party. They have no moral majority to make this stance, and I say that it is an affront to our Westminster democratic system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003ELet me turn to the merits of the Privy Council, and I can speak with some authority because I am the only member of Parliament who has taken a case to the Privy Council. I have actually been there. Members might say that I am biased, because when I went to the Privy Council, I won. But I want members to consider this matter, including the members interjecting\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e34dee4b3f446049056bf29047e53a8\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: Prove it!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022792cff1fa0474ddfade961ef13acbdfa\u0022\u003EJill Pettis\u003C/span\u003E: You can\u2019t win elections, though.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a3ef58eb0cc44ee88595226b7ebf4f9\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: I say to those two members who are interjecting that I did so as a member of Parliament. I had a situation where Television New Zealand, a State institution, published a lie on television. The lie was that it was claimed that I, as Minister for State-owned Enterprises, had gone to the State-owned enterprise unit and deleted a whole lot of information from that unit\u2019s computer that would have shown I had been up to naughtiness. In fact, that was a fabrication. I had never logged on to that computer, and I went to the Government computer service, which said that no files had ever been deleted. The service actually kept a record. So it was a lie from day one, but State television repeated it. I then went to the Court of Appeal, which said that as I was a member of Parliament I could not have my day in court because of parliamentary privilege. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EI appealed that to the Privy Council, which overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal, unanimously. Since then, there have been dozens of academic articles written, and every one has said that the Privy Council was right and the Court of Appeal was wrong. I say that there will be a future member of Parliament who will have his or her career destroyed by a local New Zealand court, just as I had\u2014or would have had. Why did I win at the Privy Council? In this country\u2014[Interruption] The member may not know this, but in this country I am a controversial figure. The Court of Appeal is a local court, but the Privy Council had never heard of Richard Prebble, so its members just looked at the case\u2019s merits. What do we want from our final court? We want an unbiased, professional court that will look at merits, not personalities. That is what the Privy Council does. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EBut let us take a more recent case. What members are asking is whether what the Court of Appeal has said in the Marlborough case is what we want from our judges in future. Here is a New Zealand court deciding to overturn a decision that is not just 40 years old. It does not go back to 1963; it actually goes back to 1877. I tell members that if that case were appealed to the Privy Council we know that the Marlborough court case verdict would be overturned. It is wrong. We have a Court of Appeal with unelected judges engaged in activism. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EI say that to members opposite, who have had to have 10 or 11 huis, and who have had to have their whole programme disrupted by a court suddenly deciding something that no Government would have done\u2014that the Crown no longer owns the foreshore and the seabed. Would a Labour Government have introduced a bill like that? No, it would not have. No party in this House would have introduced it, but we now have unelected judges prepared not to interpret the law but to make it. I say to members of Parliament that this is a crucial point they have to consider. Do we want to live in a parliamentary democracy where members of Parliament pass laws and have to face the people every 3 years on their stewardship, or do we want a system where unelected judges\u2014appointed by Margaret Wilson, the most dangerous politician in New Zealand\u2014believe that they have a mandate to pass laws that Parliament would never pass? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EI have no doubt in my mind where I stand on that. I am in favour of democracy; I am in favour of Parliament; I am in favour of the people of New Zealand being able to pass their laws. I say that Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark, when putting forward this Supreme Court Bill, know that they are establishing a court that will pass laws that even they cannot get through the Labour Party caucus. That is the reality, and this legislation is a challenge to our constitution. It is a challenge to our Westminster parliamentary system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EMargaret Wilson\u2019s agenda is to create a socialist republic of Aotearoa\u2014something that she could not get the public of New Zealand to agree to. How do we know that? Because if this Government thought there was support for this bill, who would doubt that the Government would call a referendum? Of course, it would. It would love to have a referendum, but it knows what the result would be. The Government knows that a majority of New Zealanders do not support Margaret Wilson\u2019s socialist agenda. It knows that a majority of Labour voters do not support Margaret Wilson\u2019s agenda. I say to this House that the Marlborough court case will turn out to be just the start of a series of cases by unelected judges, not interpreting the law but creating it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EWe have in the Privy Council a safeguard\u2014a constitutional bulwark against judges deciding that they do not want to interpret the law any more but to make it. The Privy Council has had a proud record of providing sound, impartial lawmaking, and it is reckless for the Government to do away with that. But it is worse than that. It is a constitutional outrage to do away with it by a slender parliamentary majority of three, and to do that only by applying the Labour Party whip to those members of the Labour Government also opposed to it. There is no parliamentary real majority, and the Greens should vote against this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022 data-id=\u0022f29def547bd540ff8df29b849dd97c82\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f29def547bd540ff8df29b849dd97c82\u0022\u003ENANDOR TANCZOS (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to begin my speech by echoing some of the words of Dail Jones, in terms of his thanks to Pat McCabe and the team who advised us during the Justice and Electoral Committee proceedings. The quality of the advice was extremely good and impartial. I think all committee members owe the advisers a vote of thanks for that. I would also like to thank Tim Barnett for his chairing, which was both fair and open-handed in its approach. Again, I think all committee members would probably agree with me on that, so I would like to begin on that note. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EAs Tim Barnett said, in the first reading Green Party members took the position that we would support this bill going to the select committee, although we were uncommitted about whether we would support it further than that. We were looking forward to taking part in the select committee process and working through a number of questions in some detail. The select committee process was very good in terms of doing that, and in clarifying some of the concerns we had. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EThe question has been put whether the Greens will continue to support the bill now that United Future has decided to oppose it. The Greens will be supporting the bill, on the basis that it is good legislation. Our position on the bill will not be determined by United Future\u2019s position, as that would be quite improper. So the Greens will be supporting this bill through the remaining stages. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EFor me, one of the crucial factors was that the select committee process brought me to the opinion that this bill will finally give this country a fully functioning final court of appeal. That point was made quite strongly by Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Francis Cooke. Sir Geoffrey said the Privy Council simply did not have enough New Zealand cases to fulfil the function of a final appellate court, which is to clarify and develop the law of New Zealand so far as that is appropriate for the courts. The ministerial advisory group also made the point that the role of a Supreme Court is traditionally to correct errors, and clarify and develop the law in the context of the individual cases before it, consistent with the limits of judicial decision-making. The Privy Council is not fulfilling that function, nor is the Court of Appeal able to fulfil it, because it is too overworked. Again and again, the select committee heard submitters say that the Court of Appeal is a very effective workhorse court, but is too overworked to survey points of law exhaustively and clarify their application in a manner that one expects of a final appellate court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EFrancis Cooke made the point that final courts of appeal do not determine technical legal issues where it is a simple question of right or wrong, but they do decide the appropriate rule to apply within the community. That was the subject of quite a wide-ranging debate in the select committee. Is it the role of the courts simply to apply the law in a black-letter fashion, or do they have an interpretative function? It is interesting that the opposition to the bill fell on both sides of that argument. Some submitters said they opposed this bill because it would lead to judicial activism, in the way that Mr Prebble referred to earlier. Other submitters\u2014like the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties\u2014said they opposed the bill because the Privy Council was becoming increasingly activist, and they wanted an activist court, so we needed to retain the Privy Council because a Supreme Court would be too technical and black letter. So one of the difficulties is that the arguments are going both ways. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EI believe it is appropriate for the court to interpret the law and apply it within the particular community, and the Privy Council is increasingly recognising its own incapacity to fulfil that function. Submitters pointed out that the Privy Council now declines to overturn New Zealand Court of Appeal decisions, or to determine matters in cases where there is a policy component. That is exactly what various people are talking about when they say it is important that we have an appellate court that has some appreciation of local conditions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003ESome people made the point that we get superior judgments from the Privy Council; that we get much better justice; that they are wonderful judges and we cannot hope to come anywhere near their quality. That is premised on a number of different assumptions. One is that New Zealand has less able raw material, and I simply do not accept that. Again, after hearing the submissions, I do not accept that we are not capable of filling the bench of a final court of appeal. If we look at how highly regarded the New Zealand law profession is internationally, I think that bears that out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EThe other thing is whether we get superior judgments, anyway. Jack Hodder makes it his business to compare the decisions of final courts of appeal, and he is regarded highly by many members of the select committee, including some opposing the bill, such as Stephen Franks. He said that the Privy Council judgments were amongst the least satisfactory in the world of those final courts of appeal he has looked at, because they were non-detailed and single. If I remember the quote correctly, he said the judgments of the Privy Council were singular and cryptic. That is what people are holding up as the superior law we are getting from the Privy Council. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EThe problem is not that the Privy Counsellors are not able\u2014that is not the case, and I would not want anyone to think that was my point. What we did hear in the select committee was that there is a lack of interest among the law lords for sitting on the Privy Council, because as far as they are concerned it is small fry. They are dealing with minor matters, and they have much more interesting things to do sitting on the appellate committee of the House of Lords. So the Privy Council depends\u2014at least to some degree\u2014on ring-ins. In light of the changes that are going on in Britain, that is extremely important, because in June this year the British Government announced plans for a United Kingdom Supreme Court to replace the House of Lords appellate committee. We know that medical disciplinary issues have already been removed from the Privy Council, and that the proposal for a United Kingdom Supreme Court intends that devolution appeals\u2014from Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales\u2014will transfer to the Supreme Court. They are probably the most interesting thing that the Privy Council has to deal with at this stage. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EOK, at this stage it is true that no proposal has been made to end the Privy Council, but it is difficult to imagine how it will survive the changes going on in Britain. Once it loses those devolution cases, once the Caribbean nations\u2014the CARICOM 10\u2014move to their Caribbean Court of Justice, which is what they are talking about, what will the Privy Council be left with? It is predicted that the appeals that the Privy Council has to deal with will go down to 24, and 12 of those will come from New Zealand. Getting senior judges to sit on the Privy Council will become an increasingly difficult problem. If the Privy Council survives at all, it will be a sad shadow of its former self, and the question is whether that is what we in New Zealand want for our final court of appeal. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EI would like to quickly address some of the points raised by Dail Jones. He made up a number of things in his speech, including the Green position on hearings at hui. In the same way, he released a press release during the select committee\u2019s consideration of the bill, and when the committee bailed him up, saying it was a breach of privilege, he said it was not a breach of privilege, because he made it up. Because the decision he said the select committee had made had not been made, it was not a breach of privilege. That is his position. Dail Jones says he wrote a letter to the committee about having hearings on marae. He did write a letter to the committee, but he did not bring it to a vote at the committee. I was waiting for him to bring it up for discussion, because I was very interested in that discussion. Unless he brought it up when I was visiting the toilet\u2014to make sure he could score a cheap political point\u2014as far as I am aware he never brought it up at all, so the contention he made in his speech is quite false. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EIn terms of M\u0101ori issues, there were a lot of submissions from M\u0101ori, and various points were made. There was a very real fear that this bill is an attempt to belittle the treaty, and that was one of the reasons that the select committee moved to amend the purpose clause and make clear reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. The Greens would have liked a much stronger reference in that clause, but we were convinced that that was properly the subject of its own debate, and that is why we are very keen to support the idea of an inquiry into the New Zealand constitution by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think that will go some way to address some of the concerns, because a number of submitters said they did not oppose a New Zealand Supreme Court, but they wanted it to be in the context of a constitutional debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022 data-id=\u002222657b4053724cd1b5860891ea8f58d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002222657b4053724cd1b5860891ea8f58d5\u0022\u003EMURRAY SMITH (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E The demise of the Privy Council is, in my view, inevitable. United Future saw the writing on the wall at the beginning of this year. It was reinforced by my visit to the Commonwealth Law Conference in April, and in the papers that were presented there. That demise is coming about for four reasons. The first is the withdrawal from the Privy Council of most of the Commonwealth countries. The Caribbean is the latest one we have heard of, and that represents 40 percent of the Privy Council\u2019s current caseload. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003ESecondly, there is the pressure on Britain to abolish the House of Lord\u2019s judicial division, in order to comply with European requirements for separation of powers. That will take away the UK disciplinary cases\u2014a further 20 percent of the council\u2019s current workload. That will leave New Zealand cases at 20 percent, with 20 percent coming from five other small Commonwealth nations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThirdly, there is pressure on the UK, through Europe, and the slow \u201CEuropeanisation\u201D of UK law, such that it is moving away from a strict adherence to Commonwealth loyalties to a position more loyal to European directions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EFourthly, there is the issue of the resources within the Privy Council chambers in Downing Street. The facilities and the research material have not been improved, and seem to be becoming more and more inadequate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThis year, things moved apace. By the middle of the year Britain announced moves to set up a Supreme Court, and it is clear that that will happen sooner rather than later. Just recently, senior civil servants have advocated that Commonwealth countries should be told to find other forums. Senior British judges will be sitting on the Supreme Court bench, and there is strong commentary within Britain that they will be too busy for Privy Council duties. In a forum in England in just the last few days, Sir Thomas Legge QC said that non-UK users of the Privy Council should be politely invited to consider alternative arrangements, and that the UK should not be burdening its Supreme Court judges with Privy Council work. People such as him carry a lot of influence, and although his position is not the position of the British Government, it is an indicator of the way the thinking is going there. We will shortly be left with the second and third XI sitting on the Privy Council. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EA lot of the objectors to the bill said: \u201CIf it ain\u2019t broke, don\u2019t fix it.\u201D That call is wrong. If it is not broken now, it shortly will be. I give it 5 to 10 years maximum, but given the pace in England currently, it could be less than 5 years, and we will need to decide as a nation what is to replace the Privy Council. In general, United Future believes that this bill does that adequately. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EHowever, it is one thing for the Government to be doing the right thing. There is always a second issue, and that is whether the people want it. This is a significant constitutional change, and the Attorney-General admits that. It is imperative therefore that there is strong public support for it. It is also important that there is strong political support for it, which there is not, although I think it is rather hypocritical of National to oppose the bill when it has proposed this very thing in the past. There is more than a hint that National has done so solely because it is a Labour proposition. First-past-the-post politics is alive and well in the National Party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EFifty-four percent of the submissions opposed the bill and 40 percent were in favour. Of the oral submissions, 76 percent were opposed and 23 percent were in favour. Key sector groups opposed to it were business, the legal fraternity, and M\u0101ori. So although the bill might be the right idea\u2014perhaps premature, but only slightly\u2014the Government has failed to sell it, and that comes down to marketing. The Government\u2019s and the Attorney-General\u2019s approach has killed it in the public\u2019s eye. Simply put, they have not taken the public with them. That has come about through a lack of trust in the Government, and if there was one message that came out of the Taupo hui, it was that M\u0101ori do not trust the Government. The fact that I keep getting emails saying there is no reason to abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council shows that events in Britain have clearly not been adequately conveyed to the public. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EUnited Future members opposed the first reading of the bill. We did so because we considered that there had been a lack of public consultation. The public discussion documents put out by the Minister focused on what should replace the Privy Council, not on whether it should be replaced. In fact, until United Future successfully extended the select committee consideration of the bill to include the question of whether the right of appeal should be abolished, that question had not been directly put to the general public. The Attorney-General\u2019s blinkered approach meant that she did not even consult United Future before the bill was tabled. It was just expected that the numbers would be there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003ESo what were the key objections that came through from the submitters? The first was the immediate appointment of the bench, and there was a real suspicion that it would be politically biased. We tried to curb that by suggesting that following whatever consultation she wanted, the Attorney-General would need to announce who would be on the first Supreme Court bench, and that the announcement should happen before the bill went through. Alternatively, as is explained in the commentary on the bill, we suggested that the bill itself should effectively make that provision if the Attorney-General would not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThe second objection was to the long-term relationship in terms of the appointment of the judiciary, and United Future has been the party that has been pushing for a judicial appointments commission. We will be retabling the proposal I tabled at the select committee, which is that the Judicial Matters Bill be widened to include consideration of a judicial appointments commission. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThere is a lack of confidence amongst the business community in our Court of Appeal bench, as a result of some of the decisions it feels have been wrong. Whether or not that is correct, it is nevertheless the perception within the business community, and it is a strong reason for its wanting to continue with the Privy Council. To try to meet that objection, we proposed that there should be overseas judges. Some of the business community indicated that they would support the proposal if, whenever a case of commercial significance was to be heard, two out of five of the judges were overseas judges who had specialised in commercial law. However, there were still many who had gone past the point of agreeing, even on that basis, that the bill was the right way to go. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EIn terms of overseas judges, I was also personally concerned that there was no point making it mandatory to use overseas judges until we could get them, and I can do no better than quote from the commentary on the bill: \u201CThe United Future member notes that the Attorney-General\u2019s advice that no one could confirm the possibility that serving British Judges could be available infers that no one discounted the possibility either. Nor, it seems, was the possibility of recently retired Judges being available adequately explored by the Attorney-General. The member is disappointed that his request for direct consultation with the relevant overseas legal officers has not been met. The member feels this issue has not been properly explored and that the question of the availability of sitting Judges from comparable jurisdictions has not been adequately investigated.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThe third area was the constitution. M\u0101ori, in particular, were concerned about the constitutional status of the treaty and felt that needed to be dealt with before other issues surrounding the constitution, such as the court structure, and the Supreme Court in particular, were dealt with. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EIf the select committee inquiry had been conducted first, raising the question of whether we should abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council in favour of a Supreme Court, and that model had been outlined, maybe we could have taken the public with us. Foisting a Supreme Court Bill on the public without adequate consultation, and on the basis that the thing would be simply put through, put the backs of the public and the business community up right from the start. The result has been a distinct lack of public confidence. A vote of 63 to 57 is inadequate for a proposal like this, and it is wrong for the Government to go ahead on the basis of those numbers. In fact, I would say that it is foolish for the Government to go ahead with it. There is no political endorsement; there is no public endorsement, and United Future therefore believes that this is a reprehensible step on the Government\u2019s part. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EUnited Future has been slow to get to that position. The Opposition opposes; that is its job. It has no real effect; it simply opposes. The Greens eventually managed to do a trade-off, and I suspect that the Land Transport Management Bill was the price that was paid. United Future members listened. We listened first. We knew we were in a position of influence, and in the end we consulted, we listened, we heeded, and, at the end of the day\u2014given the public\u2019s views about the matter\u2014we had no alternative but to oppose. Because of the moves in Britain, I suspect that within 5 years we will be back to address the issue again, and I hope the Government of the day manages the process somewhat better than it has this time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022 data-id=\u00220cadfb4d1d7f466fb28895377caa610d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220cadfb4d1d7f466fb28895377caa610d\u0022\u003EHon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader\u2014Progressive):\u003C/span\u003E In the view of the Progressives, this is a day to celebrate in the New Zealand Parliament. It is an important step forward towards the independence of this country, and it is a very proud day for me that there are three parties of the left\u2014Labour, the Progressives, and the Greens\u2014supporting this position. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003EI count today as being as important as New Zealand taking its steps away from dependence on British colonialism by giving itself a Citizenship Act. I count it as being as important as ending the cringing that occurred during the First World War, when we allowed British courts to execute our soldiers. I count it as a step away from the cringing of the Second World War, when we kept our soldiers in the Middle East, at the behest of Winston Churchill, to protect British oil interests, when the Australians brought their soldiers home to protect Australian soil. It has taken a long time for us to take the steps to be a sovereign nation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003EOur laws are not passed by British Parliaments; our courts should not enforce laws through a British court system. It has taken a long time to reach this position. The New Zealand public have actually moved to be New Zealanders a long time before many of the conservative parties in this Parliament. I am not sure what underlies their appeal to the populace, because the populace is actually asking for a New Zealand that holds its head up high. That is very clear. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003EI find it strange, too, that those conservative parties in this Parliament who say this bill is a constitutional outrage have not assembled their forces here to fight it. How many times in this Parliament have I, and others, heard that the sky will fall in if a certain measure occurs? Are those members who are frightened that the sky will fall in busy digging shelters somewhere? I do not think so. I do not think there is sincerity behind their position.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003E If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, then I think the constitutional argument often is as well, because terrible things have been done in this Parliament in terms of New Zealand\u2019s independence. One of them, which the ACT leader took part in, was to sell the public assets that are our birthright. In opinion polls, 97 percent of the population were against the sale of our assets, yet that member pushed ahead with the sale of New Zealand\u2019s vital assets in that period, and set National up for the sale of many more. To me, that is an outrage\u2014constitutional or otherwise\u2014and it was done in the face of what the New Zealand population wanted. If there were any doubt about that, members should look at the election results of 1990, and through the 1990s. That will show them what an outrage the public considered the sale of assets to be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003EThis step does not abolish an appeal right; it replaces an appeal right. We join so many other countries inside the British Commonwealth that have taken this step long before us. There is an argument running that this legislation is a step towards republicanism. I wish it were so, for I am a republican, but I do not pin my hopes on it. The historical evidence simply does not point that way. I believe that Australia abolished the appeal right in 1986, and Canada did it many years before, but both are still a part of a system that has a monarch as Head of State. Is it a step towards those changes? It might be part of the debate on how we should become an independent country, but it does not follow that republicanism follows from it. As I have said, we just have to look at those other countries. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003EWhat does it do in terms of giving the people of New Zealand access to justice? For a start, it broadens the number of courts that can take an issue to a level of appeal that is now reserved for a very small number of people in New Zealand. I note that the National Party has said through its spokesperson, Mr Worth, that the Privy Council delivers a Rolls Royce service. Not many of us aspire, or have the means, to have a Rolls Royce service. As ordinary citizens, we are happy to have just a good service, but I think the term points to what the National Party, ACT, and United Future are talking about. The Privy Council is mainly at the disposal of large business interests. Of course, others get there from time to time, but in the main it seems to me that big business likes to use it as a weapon to bludgeon others: \u201CWe\u2019ll take you to the Privy Council. You can\u2019t afford to go there.\u201D That is what \u201CRolls Royce service\u201D actually means. That is why United Future has changed its opinion. United Future members have seen that the Business Roundtable wants to keep the Privy Council. They look to organisations like that to give them support politically, financially, or whatever\u2014I am not sure. That is why they have changed their position, because it is easier to appease and please that group than to advocate for the interest of ordinary New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003EThis new appeal level will reflect New Zealand\u2019s talent. There has been an argument\u2014apparently only in the British courts\u2014that the best brains and legal talent are on the Privy Council. It must only be male talent, because there is not one woman on the Privy Council. Presumably, the conservative parties in this Parliament are saying that even in Britain, with its large population, women are not good enough to get on to the Privy Council. I do not think so. If they take the trouble to go through the list of the schools those judges are drawn from, they will see that they are drawn from the elite public schools of Great Britain. Surely, in a country that is founded on getting away from a class-ridden society, and that has tried to develop a democracy where the poorest child can go through to hold the highest position in the land, we are not going to bow our knee to that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5d9f81e-8fbc-419b-8f03-d0c6abebb8d2\u0022\u003EI look forward to many changes in this country, but those of us who harbour the wish that we become as much of a socialist country as possible\u2014in the sense that we have a country that is equal, that is as democratic as possible\u2014are not using this bill to smuggle those things through. If that were so, I doubt whether John Howard would be a supporter of the Privy Council being abolished in Australia, which I believe he was. I do not believe that those in Canada who voted for the abolition of the link to the Privy Council were secret socialists. If they were, then their plan was not a very good one, for history does not bear them out. We have here a day of celebration for anybody who wants to make sure that the institutions we set up reflect New Zealand\u2019s traditions, values, and the needs of the New Zealand people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022 data-id=\u002249ed3a6d21e84b4c980d6b07ab83b212\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002249ed3a6d21e84b4c980d6b07ab83b212\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National):\u003C/span\u003E National opposes this bill, and when we get back into Government in 2005, along with our supporters on this side of the House, we will bring back appeals to the Privy Council. The loss of the Privy Council to New Zealand\u2019s court structure will be a sad day for this country. It will go down as a day when Margaret Wilson, the Attorney-General, had her way with her socialist, republican agenda. M\u0101ori members on the other side of the House ought to be worried about that. The problem is that this is a change that is being made against the will and the wishes of the New Zealand public. It is a change that will be made by a minority Government with only three votes to spare. That is why it is an outrage, and, as I said, it is being done by stealth and to Margaret Wilson\u2019s agenda, and we, the public of New Zealand, are the recipients of that. However, mark my words, the public of New Zealand have woken up to her. They consider her to be one of the most dangerous women in this country, because they can see that, by hook or by crook, she is setting out on a path to change the face of our constitution without their consent. That is where the outrage comes in. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EIn case I forget, I want to say that I am very pleased that United Future\u2014now that we are back in the House, having completed the select committee process\u2014has indicated clearly that it will oppose this legislation. Members of the Greens, however, in their sort of dithery way, right through the select committee process, pretended, in my view, that they would take notice of the submissions, particularly M\u0101ori submissions. Nandor Tanczos was quite vocal on the fact that he wanted to see where the weight of M\u0101ori opinion was, and he said he had an open mind. Well, I do not know what happened to his mind in the end. It closed\u2014because he heard the majority of M\u0101ori submissions, just as I did, yet, regardless of the fact that the majority were against the abolition of the Privy Council, in the end Nandor Tanczos clearly went back to his caucus and said: \u201CI\u2019m happy with the bill.\u201D It is to his and his party\u2019s great shame that they happily stand up in this Chamber and babble on about M\u0101ori tino rangatiratanga. I have heard things from them about what that stands for that I have never heard from M\u0101ori people, but that is what they do\u2014they stand up and babble on about M\u0101ori tino rangatiratanga. When they had the chance to show they appreciated what that was and that they would support it, what did they do? They turned their backs on M\u0101ori and showed, in essence, that they do not understand what M\u0101ori tino rangatiratanga is. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EI also want to turn to the M\u0101ori MPs in the Government. Seven of those MPs are in Government on the strength of the M\u0101ori votes. As I look across the House, I see my whanaunga from the Bay of Plenty, Mita Ririnui. We were both on the select committee in Rotorua, as was the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and no doubt he will say something just as damning of those M\u0101ori MPs. Miti Ririnui heard the severe opposition by M\u0101ori submitters to this bill. But it is kind of like: \u201CWell, yes, OK, we hear you M\u0101ori\u201D, but either they do not hear or they give no credence to the M\u0101ori arguments, and I think that that is disgusting. M\u0101ori people know exactly what they are talking about when they talk about things like the constitution and the court structure. They have had so much experience of all of that over 160 years. They know exactly what they are talking about when they talk about the foreshore and seabed, as well. Yet the M\u0101ori MPs have given no indication that they took any of the arguments from the Opposition on board. They have not replied, which would have been normal courtesy in my view. It would have been in keeping with tikanga to go back to the M\u0101ori electorate and say: \u201CWell, we heard your arguments.\u201D, then discuss each of those arguments. That would have been tikanga, but no, the M\u0101ori Labour MPs will go down in this House with what, I think, will not be a proud record, at all. They are helping Margaret Wilson to shepherd this legislation through. Goodness knows what they will do on the foreshore and seabed issue. They are in power on the strength of the M\u0101ori vote, and they ignore that vote at their peril, and that is what they are doing here in relation to this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EThe weight of the opinion before the select committee, as we have been told a number of times already, was that just over 70 percent of the submissions are opposed to the Supreme Court Bill. Given the weight of the opposition from business, M\u0101ori interests, representative groups, like Local Government New Zealand, and so on, and Federated Farmers, many, many individuals, and the legal profession, as well, I would think that this Government might have slowed down and decided that, really, there is no rush for this\u2014because there is not. There is no rush for this. They might have taken it into their heads to think: \u201CWell, maybe, when people come to us and say this is a major constitutional move, and that it should not be done without the will of the public of New Zealand or a 75 percent majority in this House, we will take two steps back and think about it, and perhaps put it on hold.\u201D But no, they are determined to push this through. They are determined to push it through in the face of major opposition. That opposition was absolutely evident throughout the 4 or 5 months that we sat on the select committee. Nothing that Margaret Wilson or any of the Government speakers has said answers what, I think, were very valid, cogent arguments put to us by those who took the time and delivered their submissions before the committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EThe point about the M\u0101ori opposition\u2014particularly based, as it was, on opposition to a constitutional change of this magnitude when issues like the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand\u2019s constitution have not been properly debated or considered\u2014and issues like that, in my view, ought to have made the Government slow down. Addressing those issues by way of changes to the purpose clause and the leave provisions does not answer the objection, no matter what Nandor Tanczos might think. I am sure he thinks that M\u0101ori ought to be happy now because the Treaty of Waitangi is referred to in both the purpose clause and the leave provisions. Well, he needs to think again, because that does not address any of the arguments that they put, and it will not satisfy the opposition that they brought to us. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EI think this is a sad day. We have come back from the select committee, and I want to thank the select committee officials and the departmental officials. They were extremely helpful. But in the end, I guess they have a little bit of responsibility, in a way, to bring back advice that basically supports what this Government wants. They certainly answered all the queries and the requests from the Opposition, but ultimately, I guess, when it comes to the crunch, this Government is embarking on a course of its own regardless of who supports it. I suppose that in a way the official advice probably has to reflect that. I do not mean any disrespect to the officials, but I guess that is the way it goes. I come back to where I started\u2014this is a sad day. It will be a sad day for New Zealand when access to the Privy Council is lost to us. The existence of an independent arbiter at the highest level of our court structure is something we are so fortunate to have, and is something that we will all be the worse off for when it is gone.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022 data-id=\u00222f824ea65ac642508b325d29c5828cb4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222f824ea65ac642508b325d29c5828cb4\u0022\u003EMITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour\u2014Waiariki):\u003C/span\u003E I stand to take a brief call in this second reading debate on the Supreme Court Bill, but before doing so I join some of my colleagues, including Nandor Tanczos, in congratulating the clerks, officials, and advisers to the Justice and Electoral Committee on their accurate and timely advice in assisting the committees to bring this bill back to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EIs it not amazing that people say one thing in Opposition and say something else when they are in Government? I was listening very carefully to the previous speakers and the statements that they made in opposition to the abolition of the Privy Council. I, too, will make some statements about the strength of the M\u0101ori submissions during the submission process. I heard the question earlier on, from the National Party member Richard Worth: \u201CWhy do away with it?\u201D. Well, I want to quote what a couple of his own party members said in 1994 and 1995. In 1994 the Hon Nick Smith said: \u201CI am one of those who believe that the Privy Council has out-served its time.\u201D Now, that is exactly how we feel on this side of the House, and, surprisingly enough, even though a lot of submissions from M\u0101ori were concerned about the abolition of the Privy Council, many did say that it is running out of time and that its shelf life is almost up. In 1994, and in 1995, the Hon Maurice Williamson\u2014admittedly at No. 28 on the National Party list\u2014said: \u201CI think the Privy Council is outdated.\u201D In 1995 he also said: \u201CWe should not have to trot off to London for certain permissions on all sorts of constitutional matters. We should do it here.\u201D Now, it does not come any more accurate than that! I want to congratulate those members on making those statements. They probably would have had their legislation up before this House had they not been told to withdraw it by \u201Cyou know who.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EI want to speak briefly on the submissions from M\u0101ori groups, and I congratulate Nandor Tanczos because he actually did listen to what they were saying. On the one hand, they were saying that they have a concern\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec099a6ed0e247fea2423c2abc8653be\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Rubbish! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202b2650668e84c1fa9b8d01e2cb11ec4\u0022\u003EMITA RIRINUI\u003C/span\u003E: The member will have his opportunity to speak. M\u0101ori did say to the select committee that they oppose the abolition of the Privy Council for one reason and one reason alone\u2014because as yet we do not have a written constitution in place. That was the main concern of those groups, and, of course, it is a concern to many of us. But we were able to satisfy those submitters by explaining that we are proposing a constitutional inquiry through the same select committee process, and that, by and large, satisfied many of those people. The Hon Richard Prebble has described Margaret Wilson as the most dangerous politician in this country. Well, let me tell that member something. Margaret Wilson has put the Treaty of Waitangi at a level that we can all debate. She has also made sure that it is included in much of our legislation. Members can be sure, as well, that when we come to a constitutional debate, the treaty will be prominent. It is interesting that New Zealand First member Dail Jones\u2019 idea of a treaty policy is having a hui on a marae. Well, I tell Mr Jones that the treaty is bigger than that. It is about all of us having a debate. It is not just the M\u0101ori treaty\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b4ae4c5dc4f4056b9b878d285aca97b\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: What did Judge Hingston say at Rotorua?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208ec159f032141a380e99f31e03f0121\u0022\u003EMITA RIRINUI\u003C/span\u003E: Well, he actually said that he was speaking on behalf of the paramount chief of Ng\u0101ti Tuwharetoa. What happened the next day? There was a disclaimer in the New Zealand Herald. What does Mr Peters think of that? I got it right. That member went to Rotorua not to assist those submitters in the process but to advocate for votes. That is all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u00224aac4ca77c9246e58d646f6fa318a148\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224aac4ca77c9246e58d646f6fa318a148\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I am somewhat surprised to find that Mita Ririnui is not here to complete his speech. He said he would talk about a number of issues. He dealt with none of them in any substance and length, and after 4 minutes he has resigned his position and left it to the House to get on with the debate. That underscores exactly what is going on in the world of M\u0101ori politics, where the Labour Party is concerned. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EWe have a system that has worked effectively in New Zealand for well over 100 years, at no cost to the New Zealand taxpayer at all. The reasons for fixing something that is not broken must therefore be very compelling. Lord Cooke of Thorndon has described the retention of the right of appeal to the Privy Council as eccentric and an anachronism, but wants\u2014rather unusually\u2014overseas judges to be on the Supreme Court. What is eccentric about providing an important constitutional safeguard in a country that has neither a written constitution nor an Upper House? What is anachronistic about the vision of a two-tier system of appeal? That is fundamental to the interests of justice, and allows the full development of legal argument. Lord Cooke\u2019s suggestion that the proposed Supreme Court panel of judges should include overseas judges is contradictory. That is another reason for the retention of the Privy Council, which already provides that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EWhat are the real advantages of this nation of 4 million people going judicially alone? Lord Cooke claims that including overseas judges on the Supreme Court panel would ensure diversity and resist the tendency to be isolationist or inward looking. Precisely, Lord Cooke, precisely! It is the independence and geographic remoteness of the Privy Council that provides the detachment that ensures its decisions are free from local concerns and agendas. Anyone who suggests that those sorts of agendas do not get a run in New Zealand has not looked into the wine box, and I will deal with that issue shortly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003ELord Cooke said that the people could not be trusted on this decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291030098d20946eb8309f95bd595c566\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: It made him tremble.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da4588b7998649a18066514c500426d2\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: It made him tremble to think that the people may be allowed to make this decision. I do not want to criticise the learned judge, other than to say that it makes people tremble more to think that, without any mandate from the people of this country, the judiciary would decide what our rules and constitutional precedents should be. That would concern people more than making the decision themselves. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EI say this in respect of the background of this legislation. A discussion paper titled Reshaping New Zealand\u2019s Appeal Structure was released three Christmases ago, and that so-called discussion paper is now being touted as consultation in respect of the abolition of the Privy Council. It was no such thing, and Margaret Wilson knows full well that it was no such thing. To many M\u0101ori, the appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is seen as a symbolic link to the British monarch, and as a protecting factor in relation to issues of concern. The lack of real consultation on this proposal is deplorable, and every M\u0101ori member in this Parliament knows that, where the M\u0101ori people are concerned, and every other MP knows that, where professional groups and others are concerned. A small group of pseudo-academics in the current administration is hijacking New Zealand\u2019s constitutional processes, and it will ignore public opinion at its peril. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EWe in New Zealand First intend to be back in the next Government, and the first thing we will do is to repeal this legislation and restore the constitutional arrangements we have enjoyed for over 100 years. That will be the first thing that we will do. To anybody who has any high and mighty ideas of promotion to the judiciary, I tell that person, or the institution that is thinking of promoting him or her, that it will be a very short-term occupation\u2014if any at all, given the time it will take to set up the Supreme Court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EI have this to say about the seven Labour M\u0101ori MPs. It comes down to this: the vote for this bill will be by a bare majority, and the seven Labour M\u0101ori MPs in the M\u0101ori seats have betrayed their people again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad4934d2b5914c249150d7d77bd920f7\u0022\u003EJill Pettis\u003C/span\u003E: Rubbish!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289bc3b89acb742c891d53d45bc5f724c\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Here comes the fishwife to speak for the M\u0101ori members. The usual paternalism that emanates from Labour has her speaking for the M\u0101ori members now. It is the socialist version of the white man\u2019s burden that Labour does not have M\u0101ori speak for themselves. That woman, who just made it back in Whanganui at the last election and who will be beaten next time, speaks for M\u0101ori. The seven Labour M\u0101ori MPs have betrayed their people, again. They have ignored M\u0101ori leadership, again. They have deserted M\u0101ori people, and M\u0101ori institutions and beliefs, again. They have distrusted the M\u0101ori people, again. Anyone who knows anything about M\u0101ori society knows full well that from Kaitaia to Invercargill, M\u0101oridom is against this measure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc8ee558acbe4fe49347cdd24618737b\u0022\u003EJill Pettis\u003C/span\u003E: Why did you deny you were M\u0101ori?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002296ee52f661a449db8a4933055c7766e7\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: I have never done that. How could the captain of the Auckland M\u0101ori team deny that he was M\u0101ori? I totally debunk that in one statement, just like that. I hear that kind of lie often. But how could the captain of the Auckland M\u0101ori team for years claim that he was not M\u0101ori? I have debunked that already. I hoped not to hear that rubbish, but I know that it is market day, and anything can happen on market day. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EThe seven M\u0101ori members in the M\u0101ori seats do not trust the M\u0101ori people. Instead, they trust Helen Clark. They trust not the M\u0101ori people. Instead, they trust Margaret Wilson, who will not be in Parliament after the next election. She is a temporarily empowered Minister, who is soon to go. She will write her stamp over the New Zealand system, regardless of how unpopular it is. Margaret Wilson was president of the Labour Party during the 1984-90 period. Margaret Wilson knows\u2014and books reveal this, and it is confirmed by David Lange\u2014that millions of dollars had been given by dubious businesses to the Labour Party, to fund its campaign. At the same time, Labour was implementing policies that were very destructive in terms of M\u0101ori employment, and tens of thousands of M\u0101ori lost their opportunities forever. Six hundred M\u0101ori families went out of fishing between Mahia and Whangarei alone, as a consequence of Labour\u2019s changes to the fishing laws. That is the Margaret Wilson whom the M\u0101ori members trust, but they do not trust Api Mahuika and every other senior M\u0101ori elder in this country. They do not trust the elders of Ng\u0101ti Whakaue of Rotorua, who got into the M\u0101ori members in a big way, and, in particular, into Mita Ririnui. They gave the message very clearly. If Nandor or \u201CTandor\u201D could not understand that, it is beyond me. He said that the Greens would listen to the M\u0101ori people and would heed them. The Greens had no such intention. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EIt is a fact that such an important issue as this has never passed this way. [Interruption] I do not want to hear that rubbish from that woman over there. With the greatest of respect, she knows nothing of the M\u0101ori world, but she claims she is one. She should give us a sign of that, because right now it is New Zealand\u2019s best-kept secret. If the M\u0101ori people\u2019s interests were given here in Parliament and that member\u2019s own socialist views were to be asked for to balance them out, we all know who would win. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EI say to those seven M\u0101ori members that at the end of the next election they will have found out just what a betrayal the M\u0101ori people have experienced at their hands. When the party vote comes in, it will be all over. But the good news for M\u0101ori is that we in New Zealand First will be back, and this legislation will be out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9e26d1d5fa7453c8779215dd5b3a6ba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9e26d1d5fa7453c8779215dd5b3a6ba\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour\u2014Napier):\u003C/span\u003E The M\u0101ori vote spoken about by the previous member is represented by rhetoric and bullying, and that member knows very well that most submitters on that issue at the hui at Rotorua had not read the bill. That included former Judge Heta Hingston of the M\u0101ori Land Court, who spoke loudly in opposition to the bill but who, when I asked, admitted that he had not read the bill. That was the substance of the submissions. The submitters were wound up by that member for the benefit of that member\u2019s vote, as he tried to curry favour with and mislead the submitters. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EYet what has the Privy Council done for M\u0101ori? The Privy Council has done for M\u0101ori precisely what it has done for the rest of New Zealanders: very, very little. In 2001, President Gault of the Court of Appeal said that 95 percent of the cases in New Zealand never go to the Privy Council, and that the Court of Appeal is virtually the final court of appeal for most cases in New Zealand. That is because the jurisdiction to get a case to London is so narrow. And when people do get to London with their cases, they often find it is a New Zealand judge who will preside. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003ELet me take the case of Chris Wingate, who paid $3.5 million in New Zealand to have his case defended. After the High Court had twice found in his favour he went to the Privy Council, paying $1 million for English counsel. There his case was rejected, in a judgment written by a New Zealand judge. That is not English justice; that is New Zealand justice delivered 12,000 miles away. Those who have spoken against this proposal and most submitters have never been to the Privy Council. They have no concept of what it is like. They have the belief that the Privy Council is much better than our courts because it is a long way away in England, and, because it is free, it must be far better still. Well, Winston Peters is free to most people in this country, but he is not admired by many of them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EThis bill will bring to all New Zealanders a right of final appeal before a court that is made up of people who understand and represent New Zealand. Recently in my electorate of Napier one of the country\u2019s most profitable freezing works companies, the Richmond freezing company, was subject to an underhand takeover by a South Island freezing works, PPCS Ltd. The High Court found that its efforts were dishonest. Recently the Court of Appeal released a judgment upholding the PPCS appeal and overturning the High Court judgment in favour of the Richmond freezing company. And what did that major freezing works say? It said it could not afford the cost of going to the Privy Council. So even in the commercial sector, the most recent instance of a matter that should be taken to a higher court languishes undecided, because London is too far away and too inaccessible. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EIt is not just commercial cases that are affected by that. What has the track record of the Privy Council been in respect of M\u0101ori in recent times? It has been nothing at all; the cases are sent back to New Zealand for decision. Litigants who have no money whatsoever have to rely on a lawyer who is prepared to do the work for nothing and to go to London to argue the case, because the cost of getting legal aid is too prohibitive. Many people are languishing in our jails right now who have taken good cases to the Court of Appeal and have been concerned about its judgments, solely because that court handles nine times the amount of work of any other final appellate court in a Commonwealth jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal turns out 450-odd judgments a year, whereas a final appellate court should address just 50 cases or fewer\u2014as will the Supreme Court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EWhen we get a final court of appeal\u2014the Supreme Court of New Zealand\u2014that handles a reasonable number of cases, we will get considered decisions that reflect the major movements in our law in this country. It will give service to the people of New Zealand and give judgments that people will be satisfied with. We have the intellectual capability here, because our judges are welcome to sit on the Privy Council. We have the training here, and we will develop a Bar that will be able to argue at the final level of appeal. At present we have a Bar that is not experienced in arguing at the second level of appeal, because so few of its members go to London. We will develop a jurisprudence that reflects New Zealand, we will develop an expertise with our legal profession that will develop New Zealand, and we will develop a respect in the Commonwealth for our judicial system\u2014a respect that we engender in all activities in this country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EI endorse this bill thoroughly, because it brings New Zealand justice home to this country\u2014justice by New Zealanders. It will be justice of a standard we all desire, and we will get top-shelf decisions from our top judicial leaders. They will deliver judgments that will lead us into the rest of this century. I support this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002272116e2bdbc84cf7a085a4fcf2207713\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 45\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EQuestion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022626e43a277834b58ada5e139550d7644\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Supreme Court Bill be now read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 53\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6;United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002248539d8c49144fe5920642d8fe7d7d78\u0022\u003ENew Organisms and Other Matters Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00229aa748f18c63463e9810201e74dd397b\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000484\u0022\u003EDebate resumed from 18 September.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f013bec1784b47cfb1d3f11cc92821fa\u0022\u003EPart 1  Preliminary provisions (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022 data-id=\u00229e6ef21aa9b04864a3ce7c8c3056f5f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229e6ef21aa9b04864a3ce7c8c3056f5f7\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER (NZ National\u2014Rangitikei):\u003C/span\u003E As many who have spoken on clause 2 have commented, the commencement date outlines 30 October 2003 as the D-Day date. On that date the provisions contained in this bill will come into effect. As has been discussed, three existing pieces of legislation will be amended.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003ESince the Committee last met to discuss the issues further, some interesting developments have taken place in various parts of Parliament grounds. No doubt, those types of concerns will continue to be expressed in a way that has a visual impact on the nature of the bill, and we will continue to have argument.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EThe commencement date is important, because it signals the end to the moratorium that the Government placed some time ago on the development of new organisms. We have seen an interesting flow of events since that time. I have outlined to the House on a number of occasions the issues relating to the Minister\u2019s call-in powers, which will come into effect on 30 October 2003. I look forward to going into some more detail on those during the debate on Part 2 and also on those matters relating to reverse burdens of proof, which have been covered in earlier stages and will be covered in more detail in later parts of the debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EConcerns have been expressed by members on both sides of the Chamber relating to the role of local government in the enacting, or otherwise, of parts of this legislation, and the confusion that exists around those issues as signalled at the Education and Science Committee by a number of members. I see that the chairman of that committee, Brian Donnelly, is nodding on that point. Those issues will be covered in detail by members on this side of the Chamber once we get into the debate on Part 2. But, of course, the important matter to focus on at this point\u2014for the sake of keeping the debate relevant to the part under consideration\u2014is that those clauses will be triggered by the date we are currently debating.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EMembers on this side of the Chamber have indicated on more than one occasion that they are supportive of the bill in most phases. But the Committee has heard me express a number of reservations in respect of the two or three issues just raised. We on this side of the Chamber still reserve the right to continue to question the clarity of the law more than its spirit. Members will know that the National Party has supported the Government on the passage of this bill in general, but we retain the right to express our concerns about the nature of its drafting, and in particular the uncertainty that it will present for users of the mechanisms it creates. In the case of this legislation, we should consider what that means for applicants, and, in particular, what burdens they will have to incur by way of reversals of proof and connections of the causal links between harm and the release\u2014if that occurs, conditional or otherwise\u2014of organisms, going back to the original legislation. That is one of the issues in relation to which I do not believe that this legislation has been sufficiently well crafted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EOn a number of occasions I have raised the issues relating to the role of local government in this matter. I think the bill is appallingly crafted around those particular clauses, and I had great concern when members of the Government who were on the select committee simply said that these things get sorted out in the fullness of time. Actually, no, they do not. What happens is that a whole lot of unelected people, called judges, get to make law in respect of very important issues like this. It is an abdication of the democratic responsibility of members of Parliament to allow that level of judicial activism. It is something I have seen occurring during my 4 years in Parliament, and I am concerned about that level of activism. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022 data-id=\u0022979fb8e075784c27952f56b713c887a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022979fb8e075784c27952f56b713c887a9\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: Before I call the next speaker, I remind members that we are dealing with Part 1, which is the commencement, and we have already had 10 speakers on it. The Committee may wish to move on to the next part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022 data-id=\u00221bffc7ce315a43a68658f305061aeb41\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221bffc7ce315a43a68658f305061aeb41\u0022\u003EHon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You were not here during the discussion the last time we were in Committee, but it was pointed out to the Chair at the time that the two significant parts are this part and particularly Part 2. There was a little bit of leniency on the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022051018e428334e1ca8506adc07027c09\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for that. Does he seek the call?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e392c410ff1436f84f3c586150f8d9b\u0022\u003EHon BRIAN DONNELLY\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I seek the call. This debate concerns the commencement date. Obviously the commencement date is critically important in terms of this bill, because the moratorium comes off at 12 o\u2019clock on the night before the legislation commences. The legislation aims to put in place a whole pile of recommendations from the royal commission for when the moratorium comes off. The Green Party put up an amendment that would make the commencement date 30 October 2008, and I want to explore the implications and effects of the passage of that particular amendment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EThe first question is whether the moratorium would be extended for another 5 years. The answer, quite unequivocally, is no. The moratorium is going to be lifted. The amendment means that we would have no legislation in place to accommodate some of those things. There would be no conditional release category available for the Environmental Risk Management Authority to apply to those applications that it may assess as requiring certain conditions to be put against them. There are other implications too. For example, Ng\u0101 Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao exists at the moment purely and simply at the whim of the Environmental Risk Management Authority, as there is no statutory obligation to have this consultative body with M\u0101ori in place. This bill makes it a statutory responsibility. There would otherwise be no statutory responsibility for the authority to consult M\u0101ori in this particular way. It is the Green Party, remember, that is the guardian of tino rangatiratanga, yet it is wanting to take away for another 5 years something that New Zealand First would support because we believe that it is part of the whole process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EThe Green amendment would take away the extensive additional penalties for anybody or any organisation that is in breach of the rules of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. In other words, somebody who brought in GE organisms without authority would face huge increases in the penalties involved. The Green amendment would, for the next 5 years, put those large-scale penalties\u2014obviously with companies like Monsanto in mind\u2014on the back-burner. There is also the issue, for example, of streamlining the importation of low-risk GE organisms, which the royal commission accepted needed to be streamlined through the institution-based science committees. When the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Act was put in place, everyone agreed that we should try to get them in place as soon as possible, because it was certainly seen as an obstacle to some of the scientific progress in this way. This would be put once again on the back-burner for another 5 years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EThere is another thing that would be put on the back-burner for another 5 years, and it is very interesting that the Greens should be asking for this. This particular legislation extends the reasons for which the Minister can use his or her call-in powers to include cultural and spiritual values. We do not believe that it makes a whole lot of sense to have call-in powers on that basis, anyhow, and probably there should be an extension of the commencement date right out to infinity. But the Greens are saying that they want to put it on the back-burner for another 5 years. It seems so inconsistent with the Greens\u2019 position, to put up an amendment like this to put this legislation off for another 5 years, when many of the things in it comply with the very things the Greens have been asking for. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EThe rationale is that if we put in place conditional release, the chance of some commercial release increases. It does not make any difference at all to the field trials that are going on. They have been going on for the last couple of years, funded, I remind members, with money that has been voted in a Budget supported by the Greens. The Greens have voted for the money for field trials and experimentation in GE technology, and there has been no moratorium on those for the last couple of years. Development trials have still continued, and there has been no moratorium on those. Yet the money for funding those trials was voted for by the Greens\u2014not by the National Party, even though it supports this legislation. I suggest that the position taken by the Greens does not make sense. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u0022a8ddb991ae514ed897aec799b1ec416b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a8ddb991ae514ed897aec799b1ec416b\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (NZ National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E I am enthusiastic to talk about Part 1 but I must say, by way of your interest, Mr Chairman, and the interest of my colleagues\u2014who are heckling me more than those on the other side of the Chamber\u2014that the interest would have been greater if the purpose clause, which is in Part 2, had remained in Part 1, as we would also be debating that now. I would be interested to hear the Minister\u2019s thoughts as to why the purpose was shifted into Part 2. Perhaps she could make a comment on that after my speech, because I know that some members sit here with bated breath, wondering and worrying why the purpose was shifted to Part 2. However, I will speak on the commencement date. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EThis Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent, which is 30 October 2003. I would like to clarify some confusion in the Chamber and out amongst the public, which was brought about, not least, by some recent speeches made in the Chamber and by press releases to the public. The bill does not deal at all with the expiry of the moratorium. It only sets in place regulations that come into effect when the moratorium ends.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Act 2002 specified that the Environmental Risk Management Authority was not to approve any applications for the release of GM until after 29 October 2003\u2014and we are well aware of that. The fact that the legislation we are now debating will come into force the following day is simply a management issue. When that GM moratorium is ended, there will be regulations and guidelines in place to deal with applications of GM experimentation and release. At the time of the passage of that legislation back in 2002, just over 12 months ago, I recall that, without the passage of this bill now, the law would revert to the framework that was in place previously\u2014namely, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act of 1996. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EThere is no vote to lift the moratorium on GM, and that is a given. My suggestion to the Greens is that if they really wanted a vote on the extension of the moratorium, they might have tabled some legislation themselves. It could have been quite possible for them to table legislation. I remember their protesting and running out of Parliament. I recall their calling in protesters to show off their brassieres up in the public galleries. I know they paid their relatives today to stand and lie out on the grass in front of Parliament, stark naked. Apart from all the nudity and exposure, perhaps the Greens could have done something sensible like present legislation to the House extending the moratorium. That would have been the sensible way of doing it. That is the kind of action this Parliament has done for well over a hundred years. I would suggest that in the future, rather than the Greens reverting to streaking and all sorts of other ways of tackling legislation, they could do it the way everyone else does it, because it does tend to be successful. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EUnder the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, the Environmental Risk Management Authority can approve commercial release of GMOs after notifying various authorities, and it is that legislation that would come into play on 30 October, if this bill is not passed and if it did not have a commencement date of 30 October 2003. That is why Part 1, dealing solely with the commencement date\u2014that being the day the moratorium lifts\u2014is so significant. Normally, a commencement date is not so significant, but this one certainly is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022 data-id=\u002266ed0b5a33be4dc887ec687c23d896d8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002266ed0b5a33be4dc887ec687c23d896d8\u0022\u003EBERNIE OGILVY (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I am pleased to speak in support of the commencement clause. The entering into law of this legislation on 30 October this year will be the culmination of a very long process, when one realises that the gazetting for the whole thing started way back on 11 May 2000. So it has been before the House for over 3 years. This process\u2014which has taken more than 3 years\u2014has been stalled for most of that time, because of the moratorium. There has been a stalling, and I think it has been well worth it. It will ensure that we have an environmentally regulatory regime that is among the most cautious and robust in the whole world. So it was time well spent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EWhen it comes to protecting our environment, our public health, and our economic well-being, every effort must be made to do those things. I believe the process has been as cautious as it can possibly be. It has been as cautious as possible, short of stalling progress altogether. We note that the necessary partner for our cautious approach has been\u2014and must always be\u2014progress. The potential of genetic technology is too great, I believe, for our largely agriculturally based economy to be left by the wayside. The royal commission concluded that we should proceed with some caution, and I believe 30 October 2003 is high time for us to begin. That is why United Future supports the commencement of this legislation, which will impose the regulatory regime that will oversee all applications that come into effect after that date. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EThere are some who still argue that we have not done enough and that the moratorium should be extended for yet another 5 years. In my view that is nothing but a blatant stalling tactic. There will always be something to which the opponents of GE technology can point and claim that we do not yet know enough about, because we want it 100 percent safe. There will always be a reason that someone can give as to why the moratorium should be extended just a little bit longer. The tests of proof that the opponents of GM are demanding to have in place are so high that practically no technology would have been passed if we had applied this rule in the past. I am talking about developments that we all enjoy today, such as electricity and even the motor car, for that matter. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003EI support the commencement of this legislation on 30 October 2003. Failure to do so would be a sign that we are no longer interested in either scientific or economic progress. As long as it is done in a considered, cautious manner\u2014which it is\u2014I see no reason to delay this progress any longer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022 data-id=\u0022e5555374c83a47d5ab10d75e880eb257\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e5555374c83a47d5ab10d75e880eb257\u0022\u003EJILL PETTIS (Junior Whip\u2014NZ Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022 data-id=\u00226c38e38c9b144017b747b12649033469\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226c38e38c9b144017b747b12649033469\u0022\u003EDr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National\u2014Port Waikato):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just to reiterate what the Hon Brian Donnelly pointed out to you earlier on, that we did over a considerable length of time have reassurances from the Chair that Part 1\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022 data-id=\u0022644d24871e8c41c59497d4a41a45769e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022644d24871e8c41c59497d4a41a45769e\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: There are no reassurances, but I understand fully what the member and Mr Donnelly are talking about, and we do not have a problem. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022 data-id=\u0022282b9ff30985465582e0dc55b589df9c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022282b9ff30985465582e0dc55b589df9c\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader\u2014ACT NZ):\u003C/span\u003E The ACT party supports this legislation, and in particular Part 1, which has but two clauses\u2014that is, the commencement and the purpose. We support the bill, though with some considerable reservation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EOur position is that we did not favour the moratorium in the first instance. We believed it was unnecessary. The Government of the day sought to put in place a moratorium, which is actually an admission of political failure\u2014an inability to grasp the issues before the Parliament or the Government. It is a kick for touch, and it was done, as we all know, as a political manoeuvre in this instance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003ENotwithstanding that, I acknowledge the very good work that has been done by the select committee, and I acknowledge Mr Donnelly, because I have heard some very good reports on the very thorough job done on this bill. I am sure that it has been improved in many respects.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThe commencement clause, of course, is very critical when one talks about legislation that is effectively coming out of a moratorium situation, so commencement becomes very important indeed, and I see no reason whatsoever to delay it further. I know there have been all sorts of campaigns, and the Green Party and others have been deeply involved with those, trying virtually to have an infinite moratorium. I think their preferred position would be to have the moratorium extended forever. That clearly will not happen. Others are lobbying hard to have food exempted, and that would require qualified moratoriums that were ongoing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EI have looked at that position rather closely and spoken with the many groups, and it seems that they are really coming from a position of marketing and labelling\u2014market perception. The people I have spoken to have no objection to the science at all, but they fear that their customer base, either in Europe or Asia, may be averse to it. They want to paint themselves with, and ride on the label of, the clean, green New Zealand image. They feel that if the GM-status of New Zealand changed, it could jeopardise that image.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EI do not believe that is so. An interesting marketing survey that was recently done\u2014I think Otago University carried it out, as I recall\u2014clearly showed, in fact, that that is most unlikely to be the case. As we know, Europe has substantial GE-food products and, indeed, has a threshold level, I think, of 0.5 under the European standards, so it really becomes a labelling issue as much as anything. It is time for New Zealand to move on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EOn that point, I say that this Government has been exposed for its ridiculous policy of zero tolerance. Zero tolerance is a nonsense. The Minister knows that. I know she does, and, in appearances at the select committee, has made it quite clear that the Government has put itself in a very awkward position by trying to cling to the pretence that it has zero tolerance, when that clearly defies scientific reality.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EI note the streamlining of the importation of organisms of low risk. That is a useful improvement to the bill. I think that a lot of other measures could have been streamlined, also. There is also an extension to the call-in provisions on cultural and spiritual grounds. ACT certainly opposes that. We believe that the provisions in the bill, and the weight put on spiritual, cultural, and metaphysical issues, are totally inappropriate and will be very problematic. I note there are a number of amendments in various Supplementary Order Papers that we will be discussing during the debate on this issue. We will certainly be supporting the Supplementary Order Papers that propose to drop those cultural and spiritual references, which, clearly, are not appropriate in the context of the bill we have before us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EACT is supporting the legislation overall, although we would like to see less prescription. We think that the regulatory regime to be put in place, and the compliance costs, are over the top. They could have been streamlined further, and any future Government of which we are part will be looking to streamline them. We know that the New Zealand economy is based on our biological resources, and that the new GM technology is critical for us and for our future. Therefore, we believe that we should have a much more favourable regime than will be delivered under this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022 data-id=\u0022227c92b10a204624957bc80ef1755ffb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022227c92b10a204624957bc80ef1755ffb\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I was not planning to speak again on Part 1, but, as it happens, statements have been made by a couple of speakers that cry out to be rebutted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EI start with Mr Heatley, who needs to read the bill. It is, perhaps, not surprising that he has not picked up on clause 39A, which repeals the moratorium, because it was not in the bill as introduced. It snuck in at the select committee without the select committee even being aware of it or discussing it. It just went through as part of what the officials brought to us in that last, hasty meeting. Clause 39A does repeal Part 5A of the principal Act\u2014quite unnecessarily so, as Part 5A expires naturally anyway, as a result of last year\u2019s Act, but they decided to have a belt and braces approach and expire it again in this bill. That is what that clause does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EI turn to Mr Donnelly\u2019s very elegant attempt to criticise the Green amendment in the name of my colleague Mr Ewen-Street. Mr Donnelly said that if the commencement of the bill is delayed for 5 years, a number of terrible things will happen. First of all, he says, delaying the commencement by 5 years does not extend the moratorium. Legally, of course, that is true but, as I pointed out in my speech, in practice it does extend the moratorium, because without conditional release there will be no releases. That is all the Green Party has ever tried to achieve. The moratorium is a means to an end. It is not an end in itself. Preventing release of these organisms into the environment is what we have always been on about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EHe then went on to say that it would prevent the legal establishment of Ng\u0101 Kaihaut\u016B Tikanga Taiao, and that is true, too. But ng\u0101 kaihaut\u016B exists now. I do not think the Environmental Risk Management Authority is on the point of abolishing it if the bill does not go through. So I do not see that there is any great practical effect from that one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EHe then said that the very severe penalties would not be available, and that is also true. However, those very severe penalties are needed only if releases into the environment are approved and they do harm or break their consents. So there is much less need for severe penalties if this bill does not go through and there are no releases.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EHe also pointed out that the streamlining of low-risk approvals would not take place, either. That would be a shame, because the Green Party\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222030c28b77ac43a98e15dc431e474d46\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: Would the member please come to the commencement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c86990d641c481d9c31e263b407491c\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS\u003C/span\u003E: This is all about the commencement, Mr Chairperson. I am speaking to the amendment in Mr Ewen-Street\u2019s name. If the streamlining of low-risk matters has to wait 5 years, that is unfortunate, because the Green Party does not oppose streamlining of provisions for low-risk work in contained laboratories\u2014we never have. But if that matter is put in the same bill as provisions that lift the moratorium, then that is unfortunate and it just has to suffer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EFinally, Mr Donnelly said the call-in powers would not be extended. Well, the call-in powers will not be needed, either, if there are no releases.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003ESo, in fact, Mr Donnelly\u2019s objections to our amendment do not stand. I commend the amendment in the name of my colleague Mr Ewen-Street, and I hope the Committee will vote for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022 data-id=\u0022d851c94c873442919cad012e1e8e6b5f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d851c94c873442919cad012e1e8e6b5f\u0022\u003EGEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour\u2014Wairarapa):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022 data-id=\u0022d713fd7537d14edc9674da4281b1b650\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d713fd7537d14edc9674da4281b1b650\u0022\u003EDr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National\u2014Port Waikato):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak on the commencement, in Part 1 of this very important New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. Undoubtedly, the commencement ushers in a new era of change from the moratorium that was imposed, somewhat blindly but certainly bluntly, by this Labour Government. It welcomes in an era in which there is a glimmer of hope that there will be an evidence-based, scientific approach to new organisms in New Zealand. I say there is a glimmer of hope; National is supporting the bill only because of this fundamental, scientific, evidence-based approach that Labour is attempting to achieve, but the glimmer of hope is somewhat shadowed by the fact that the bill is entangled in compliance costs and hurdles, with particular reference to medium and higher-risk research. As I said earlier on, the bill does streamline low-risk research, but that should have happened 2 years ago, when there was an opportunity with the earlier amendment bill. The Labour Government chose not to do it then, which is very regrettable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EHowever, what is important is that one of the fundamental recommendations of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification was that it was critical for New Zealand\u2019s future that research is continued. Here is a bill in which medium and higher-risk research is entangled in compliance costs and other such hurdles that are reminiscent of the difficulties that organisations like AgResearch had when they came to put in their applications.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EBut the commencement of this bill has also highlighted the way that the Greens get themselves into a huge frenzy\u2014a more or less maniacal, morris-dancing mentality to which they have certainly risen on this occasion, with some extraordinarily extravagant claims and, often, some very inaccurate claims. This is absolutely related to the commencement, because in Jeanette Fitzsimons\u2019 speech on the second reading we heard her say that there had been no testing done on GE foods. That is patently absurd. In fact, the European Commission in its report pointed out that GE food is as safe as, if not safer than, conventional food, because of the evidence of 400 different trials taken over 15 years. That statement was countersigned by 3,500 scientists, including 13 Nobel laureates, and further countersigned by such organisations as the World Health Organization, the United Nations, the Royal Society, and a whole host of other highly reputable organisations throughout the world.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E I think that, despite Jeanette Fitzsimons making these somewhat absurd and superficial claims, it is important that she does look to mainstream, peer-reviewed, international literature for the evidence. It is quite clear that mainstream, peer-reviewed, international evidence shows that there have been no problems with food safety over the last decade. The evidence is quite clear in this country, where we have been eating GE foods for 10 years, that there have been no food safety problems.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EBut this commencement also ushers in what one could describe as the era of the mediaeval Druid approach of the New Zealand First Party. Once again, that party has almost reflexly chosen the populist road and wanted to extend the moratorium. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Ian Ewen-Street to clause 2 be agreed to:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003Eto omit the words \u201C30 October 2003\u201D and substitute the words \u201C30 October 2008\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002284f884291f604684aca3e9c9585ba9c5\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 104\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225bd0ba1600754a43a965351976b36582\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 104\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00229f9ba8eafa4c4d78acf69f15b046db19\u0022\u003EPart 2  Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1966\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022 data-id=\u00229283dbc073e04b889daf543140287045\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229283dbc073e04b889daf543140287045\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER (NZ National\u2014Rangitikei):\u003C/span\u003E Now we are into the meat of this bill, the biggest chunk\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0dc3e0247f945a3a3371fc305f08a41\u0022\u003EShane Ardern\u003C/span\u003E: What, GE meat?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad55f0fe568c4289a5af524275b8830c\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014no, not GE meat\u2014of the legislation, and I look forward to this being one of four calls I will take on this part. This is the complex and detailed part of the bill, and it needs the close attention of the Committee. I want to raise two very important points in my short contribution\u2014but the first of many contributions\u2014to this part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EThe first relates to the Minister\u2019s power to call in applications. We see in the bill that the Minister may direct that he or she will decide an application if the Minister considers that the decision on the application will have \u201Csignificant cultural, economic, environmental, ethical, health, international,\u201D\u2014I am not sure about the grammar there actually, I say to the Hon Brian Donnelly from the select committee; I am not quite sure that that flows properly\u2014but, most important, \u201Cor spiritual effects;\u201D. This clause 36 is, in effect, the GE-voodoo clause, because it is just nuts to be putting into legislation phrases like \u201Ccultural\u201D or \u201Cspiritual\u201D impacts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EWe spoke at length about this issue in the second reading debate, and it is going to become a focal point of this part of the debate. I ask the Minister in the chair to take a call on it. She has been very quiet during the course of the Committee stage. An important and critical point to make is this: how are we as a country to measure objectively those types of criteria? I say to the Minister that the amendments offered by the National Party to omit the words \u201Ccultural\u201D, \u201Cethical\u201D, and \u201Cspiritual\u201D from that clause should be voted for across the parties in this Committee, to ensure\u2014[Interruption] There goes Jill Pettis again, scaring all the wildlife. The simple fact of the matter is that these clauses are unworkable. As a lawyer, I say to this Committee that they are exactly the type of thing that only one group in our society will benefit from\u2014the lawyers. Lawyers will make a fortune out of this stuff\u2014so some good will come of it!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EI say to members opposite in the Labour Party that they should vote for Paul Hutchison\u2019s amendment and get rid of this nonsense. They should show that they are credible and that the line they are taking is one of scientific reason, and they should get rid of this nonsense. New Zealand First is offering an amendment similar to that offered by us on this side of the Chamber in the form of Dr Paul Hutchison\u2019s amendment\u2014the removal of the word \u201Cspiritual\u201D\u2014but it wants to keep the word \u201Ccultural\u201D in the bill. I say to that party that it should get some backbone and should take out \u201Cspiritual\u201D, \u201Ccultural\u201D, and \u201Cethical\u201D. Let us start dealing in science. Let us start dealing with rational thought.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EWith the greatest of respect to the Minister, I say that what she believes is spiritual and what the rest of us believe is spiritual could be worlds apart. I suspect that that is probably right\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222a849ed4-a817-45a7-8b86-dbc9dd210193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223cf94a8f6a364615a120101f155c62f4\u0022\u003EJill Pettis\u003C/span\u003E: You have been corrupted by the National Party. You used to be such a nice young man.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee4e4800470a4a6896f952bd12ca1aef\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER\u003C/span\u003E: Lord knows, there has got to be a better place on this earth than having to listen to that! Maybe we do have something common on the spiritual front. But the simple fact of the matter is that those of us who are wound up about this coming Rugby World Cup may consider it to be spiritual. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283d5a1daed6746a78373c952433e7d3b\u0022\u003EHon Brian Donnelly\u003C/span\u003E: I do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263da3965d0f0424a8a412b1241ac4c65\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER\u003C/span\u003E: Of course the member does\u2014and rightly so. Others, of course, have quite a different view of what is spiritual. This clause is nonsense\u2014absolute nonsense. If we are to have legislation proceed on the basis of reason, science, and logic, then clauses like this must be removed. They will be nothing but trouble, and are worse than those currently contained in the Resource Management Act. These clauses will create nothing but trouble and nothing but uncertainty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EI turn briefly to the issue that, I have to say, has most concerned me personally, which is the issue of the shifting of burdens of proof. In Part 7A, the pecuniary penalties and civil liability clauses, the shift that the select committee agreed to worries me greatly. New section 124B(3), inserted by clause 48, previously stated: \u201CThe Court must not make the order if it is satisfied that the person did not know, and could not\u2014\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022 data-id=\u00221739d912cc204d0d95796d6b89f2a55b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221739d912cc204d0d95796d6b89f2a55b\u0022\u003EHon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Just referring to the comments of the previous speaker about the call-in powers and the criteria, I say that New Zealand First certainly has an amendment ready. It does not go the full way of National\u2019s amendment, but we will be voting for National\u2019s amendment, and then there will be a back-up. If National loses the vote on its amendment, that party can back ours. These provisions are a nonsense. I think I mentioned Druidism, and that is basically what we are talking about here. That makes a mockery of this particular law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EPart 1 of the bill is the guts of it, and it has so many different, quite critical parts that need to be discussed and debated here as we go through the Committee stage. I want to focus upon one area that is so important to New Zealand First. I would like members to remember that it was New Zealand First votes that ensured that the moratorium went on in the first place. It was not the Green votes. If members recall, the Greens walked out and did not vote. New Zealand First voted to put on the moratorium, because we believed there was some critical work to be done. We believed that the royal commission had implied that certain other things needed to be done before New Zealand started to progress any commercial applications. We said that, come the time when the moratorium would cease to exist, we would reassess the situation to see whether the Government had got its work in place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EIn some respects we are satisfied, to a degree, with the element of conditional release. We believe that that is a step forward in risk management\u2014very much a step forward. Therefore, we would be very supportive of this. However, throughout all the submissions and throughout this whole process we have been looking very carefully at the evidence, to ask ourselves whether the Government has got itself ready at this time to be able to do all the risk management around this new technology. We largely believe that it has got itself there, except that what has come through very clearly is that once we start getting higher up the human food chain, there is more and more economic risk. It is not that any real risk to health has been demonstrated, but there is a risk in terms of consumers\u2019 perceptions, and consumers\u2019 perceptions obviously make a difference when it comes to their decision making.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EI want to make the point that Ashraf Choudhary had one question that he continued to ask everybody. He asked whether there is any evidence that GE is doing any harm to human health. Every one of the submitters he asked said there was no evidence that he or she could put on the table. The Greens would argue that that is because the research has not been done. But we have to take as a reality that there is no empirical evidence, or even theoretical evidence, that there is harm. However, what we do know from research is that there are fears within certain parts of our export markets that GE could possibly do harm, and that we do not know all about it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed2f9126e7884e05be18e92f337e5e15\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: Fearmongers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e46f771456f24aeb810fbec689a7a336\u0022\u003EHon BRIAN DONNELLY\u003C/span\u003E: There are all sorts of fearmongers out there. We know that the most sensitive markets to this are Europe and also Japan, and some of the modelling that has been done certainly shows there are some real concerns in terms of whether we proceed down the path of commercial release of anything higher up the human food chain.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EThe Government will argue that it does not really matter, because in the next 2 years it is highly unlikely there will be any applications; certainly, it will be at least 5 years before any ryegrass applications. So we are talking about quite some time into the future before any applications for commercial release of anything close to the human food chain happen. New Zealand First therefore argues why we are risking the image of New Zealand by saying we can go ahead with foodstuffs. We have no objection to our going ahead in some of the other fields. One of the things we picked up in Australia was that Ingard cotton has obviously not had any implications in terms of Australia\u2019s exports of non-GE foodstuffs. So consumers are able to separate those things out, but certainly they do have fears.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EOne of the questions we asked of the Environmental Risk Management Authority\u2014and even the Minister today could not tell us for sure whether the authority will have its methodology in place by the time the moratorium is lifted\u2014is whether it can do an adequate risk-assessment of the impact on the New Zealand economy of an approval of release of a GE food into New Zealand. In looking at the model that is used, we would say that, yes, it could probably give an assessment of what effect the release of GE-modified onions here would have on the export of onions. What the model does not show is what the impact would be on dairy products. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3908b98d69747b6b84b39560e3ac9a7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3908b98d69747b6b84b39560e3ac9a7\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader\u2014ACT NZ):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to rebut some of the comments made by the New Zealand First member who has just resumed his seat. He started his speech, if members can remind themselves, saying he opposed everything that was not based on science and the evidential method, and opposed all the cultural references. He then went on to observe that there is no evidence whatsoever of anyone becoming ill, anywhere in the world, caused by GM food. So he accepts the science and the evidence of that, but he then says that, because of some sort of mystical marketing perception, New Zealand First did not support that position. That is a very strange stand to take, I must say. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThere is also the contradiction that people are happy to have medicine with GM, and we all want to see that, in order to fight some of those terrible diseases. For example, we know that the cholera GM organism is a living organism, and it is in the environment and has saved millions of lives, and that is great. But there is a difference between medicine and food. Medicine is actually in the body. One absorbs it internally into the bloodstream, into the systems of the body. Food is just in the alimentary canal, which technically is outside the body; it is in the tube that sort of runs right through the cylinder of the body. So there is no logic in saying, on the one hand, we will embrace GM for medicine, because that is good, but, on the other hand, we will not accept it in terms of food. There is no logic in that position, at all. I would urge New Zealand First to rethink that part of its position. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EI support the National Party\u2019s Supplementary Order Papers put forward by Dr Hutchison, dropping this humbug about these new \u201Ccultural and spiritual dimensions\u201D. Members will recall the Resource Management Bill where we had the huge debate, because this Government had introduced the term \u201Ccultural landscapes\u201D and \u201Cspiritual landscapes\u201D. Under the heat of the Parliament it backed down. Thank goodness it did. But in this bill these sorts of terms creep in again. The Government is trying to put in something that is not scientific. I am not debunking people\u2019s right to hold spiritual beliefs and cultural expression, but in passing law that is essentially science it should be based on evidential science. If people want to believe in tooth fairies, or leprechauns, or hobgoblins, or taniwha, or whatever, it is their right to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202447aa78dcd49daaeee8da5afbc36f6\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: What do you believe in?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221096ac5a43884f5fabb8734473791ff0\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY\u003C/span\u003E: I could sit down with the member and tell him what I believe. I actually believe in evidential science, above all. That is what this bill must be based on. Because once the Government starts getting into the secular and the metaphysical, how on earth can one objectively make determinations and decisions based on those broad sorts of concepts? It is really a licence for all manner of delays and frustrations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EI think the point was made by Mr Power that the lawyers are the ones who will make the money. We know that the law firms in Wellington already have whole floors specialising in this sort of \u201Cclipping the ticket\u201D, as do all the consultants. That is where the money goes. All that means is delays and upfront costs, which reduce New Zealand\u2019s competitiveness, because it is non-productive nonsense. But that is what this measure will be introducing into this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EI am not sure whether the officials recommended it. I would hope not. I think this stuff is actually of the Government\u2019s own doing,. It does not belong in this bill, and please, we would like the Minister in the chair to take a call to explain why it is there. I am just trying to catch the attention of the Minister, who seems to be engaged. I ask her to take a call and explain. Perhaps there is reasoning behind it. I cannot understand why there is reference to cultural and spiritual matters in this legislation. I do not believe that it belongs there. The ACT party says it does not belong there. There is no rhyme or reason for it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EOverall, we are supporting the bill. We are concerned about some of these measures, and I have just outlined a few of them. I would like to think that, as we pass through the Committee stage, even at this late stage we can make amendments, as we did with the Resource Management Bill. We did improve that by dropping those references that did not belong there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022 data-id=\u00225a62318fa7f64d6e879e05338d17c70b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225a62318fa7f64d6e879e05338d17c70b\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to speak on the five amendments in my name that are on the Table at the moment. The first is on Supplementary Order Paper 150. This amendment inserts new clause 6A, which rewrites paragraph (e) of section 6 of the Act. It is a relatively small and narrow amendment to the Act, but it fills, I think, an important gap. Section 6(e) is about matters relevant to the purpose of the Act, and it states that the Environmental Risk Management Authority must consider economic benefit. At the time that the 1996 Act was drafted, it was assumed that the environmental and health effects of new organisms might perhaps be negative, that the economic effects of new organisms would be positive, and that the Environmental Risk Management Authority was going to have to weigh up one against the other. It was not really envisaged at that time that the economic effects of releasing GE could themselves be negative in some circumstances, so we have only economic benefits and not economic costs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EWe know now that it is quite possible to have severe economic costs from the release of genetically engineered organisms, and that those costs to the economy are not the same as the financial effects on the person actually releasing the organism. So my amendment simply adds in costs to benefits, and requires the authority to assess economic benefits and costs, and in the process it applies to hazardous substances as well as to new organisms, and I think that is an advantage, as well. So I would commend that particular amendment, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 150, to the Committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EI refer now to Supplementary Order Paper 149. The first amendment inserts new clause 6B, which amends the section of the Act that deals with the precautionary approach. The Government has been talking about this constantly. If it has been saying anything about this bill it is that it is taking a very cautious approach, but the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act states that a cautious approach is optional. It is not actually required that the Environmental Risk Management Authority take a cautious approach, at all. It actually states that the authority should take into account the need for caution. If ever there was a prevarication, that is one. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe Act is actually based on an approach to risk that decides how much risk is acceptable, and it requires therefore an ability to calculate the likely consequences of doing something and the likely probabilities of doing something, and weigh up whether that outcome is acceptable. But one actually cannot do that if the risks are not known in advance. We are dealing here not with risk and probability so much as with uncertainty, and in fact ignorance. In the face of uncertainty and ignorance about the likely effects of a new organism, what we need is caution. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003ESo my amendment adopts wording from the Rio declaration of 1992\u2014signed by the Government of New Zealand, I have to say. It has similar wording to that used in the Fisheries Act, which is law in New Zealand now, and it makes the precautionary approach mandatory by stating: \u201Cwhere there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty must not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation\u201D. That is standard wording used for the precautionary approach in many parts of the world in many bits of legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe second amendment set out on that Supplementary Order Paper is to clause 18. The amendment addresses the concerns of the many local authorities who came and spoke to the select committee and said that they wanted to have a say about whether GMOs could be released in their area. So it simply provides that when the authority has agreed to a release, then the applicant must also get the consent of the local authorities administering the areas where they want to release it, before that can occur. That is in the spirit of the Local Government Act, which devolves authority and decision making to local authorities and puts them in charge of looking after the well-being of their people, which is what local government was asking the select committee for. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe third amendment simply extends the expiry clause of the moratorium and of the other matters that expire at the same time. It is not commonly realised that it is not just the moratorium that expires on 29 October but also a number of very important conditions around the use of living vaccines\u2014animal and human vaccines that are themselves living organisms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022 data-id=\u00229053dba1b1d34ccda0f69d27ccd55f4f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229053dba1b1d34ccda0f69d27ccd55f4f\u0022\u003EDr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National\u2014Port Waikato):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity to speak on this hugely important part of the bill. I hope that there will be opportunity for some repeated calls, particularly because, like Jeanette Fitzsimons, I have put forward a number of substantial amendments, which basically try to make this bill practical as well as scientifically rigorous. The Minister in her initial speech on this bill said that the Government decision in response to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification should take place by providing a practical framework for proceeding with caution in the management of new and genetically modified organisms while preserving opportunities. Yet we have a bill that is essentially, sadly, a Clayton\u2019s moratorium, because with the combination of the case by case analysis, the public consultation, and the ridiculous widened call-in powers, it is almost impossible for certain applications to have any hope whatsoever of getting in. That is particularly so when it comes to medium and high-risk research, which is the area that the royal commission made absolutely clear is vital\u2014in fact it used the word \u201Ccritical\u201D\u2014that New Zealand makes sure continues. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EI will make some comments on the widened call-in powers. When I asked the Minister the other day why she included \u201Ccultural, spiritual, and ethical\u201D she said it was because the royal commission had recommended that to happen. In actual fact, the royal commission recommended as one of its major conclusions the formation of the Bioethics Council. That has been put in place particularly to address those issues at a higher level. Secondly, it also supported the M\u0101ori consultation committee, which is attached to the Environmental Risk Management Authority. Undoubtedly, with those two underpinnings this bill addresses cultural, spiritual, and ethical issues probably more so than it needs to anyway. But then to add in this absolutely absurd suggestion of \u201Ccultural, spiritual, and ethical\u201D in a scientific method to work out risk analysis is clearly right out of place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EAt the select committee, Sir Paul Reeves was asked whether he could explain to us the principles of the treaty. He could not explain them to us. He had no way of explaining them to us. As people in my electorate have said, is it right that the spiritual, cultural, and ethical values of one group be given more importance that those of another group? I think that Simon Power made the point that the spiritual values of one person in New Zealand may be totally different from those of another. In the electorate that I am so proud to represent, there are M\u0101ori, there are Indians, and there are Chinese in large numbers, and their values are clearly vastly different, and hopefully will be addressed at a higher level by the Bioethics Council. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003ESo putting those provisions in the bill, as my colleague Simon Power pointed out, is only going to give a field day to the lawyers, and it is going to impose absolutely impossible hurdles on those sincere applicants who are trying to progress science and are trying to progress instruments that will help humankind and the environment. Instead, this Labour Government, as usual, cannot help but impose impossible compliance costs on just about every piece of legislation it sees.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022 data-id=\u0022ca65c64a1d704d1f9bad2f45402bf6ae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ca65c64a1d704d1f9bad2f45402bf6ae\u0022\u003EIAN EWEN-STREET (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The explanatory note recognises that there are \u201Cenforcement and liability issues\u201D associated with the release of new organisms. The key point of this is that GE release may potentially result in harm to individuals or the environment that is not covered by present law. The explanatory note also goes on to describe how a new statutory strict liability regime will be put in place. It sounds great, but it is just rhetoric. If members look at the bill they will see that it does not happen. It fails to deliver. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EThe strict liability regime described in the explanatory note is limited to compensation for harm caused by activities in breach of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. If a GE release goes feral in some way, there is liability only if the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation has been breached. If the law has not been breached, there is no protection under statutory liability. In the event that, say, an application was in some way defective or, perish the thought, the Environmental Risk Management Authority made a mistake, or there were unexpected adverse effects, there is no liability. The applicant is within the law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EThe effects, however, on individuals or the environment are just as serious irrespective of whether they were foreseen or admitted by the applicant. Why should the Environmental Risk Management Authority provide what is effectively an insurance policy to private individuals who put in an application and gain consent to release genetically modified organisms for their personal gain, when innocent members of the public have no protection? I think that that is a very reasonable question, and members of the Committee should vote in favour of Jeanette Fitzsimons\u2019 amendment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EThere are lots of types of damage that can be serious to the individual, and one that I am not sure has been addressed is the idea of brand name. The wine industry, for argument\u2019s sake, has spent millions of dollars promoting its \u201Criches of the clean, green land\u201D brand. If there were a GE release in this country that for some reason went badly awry, and this country became known as a GE country, which it is in danger of doing, what happens to the clean, green image? It is very difficult to put a figure on that, but it is, none the less, easy to establish that people have suffered damage. People have not broken any law, yet they are being damaged and they have no protection in a legal sense. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EBasically, the odds are stacked very heavily against the innocent. There is not even a requirement in this bill for the applicant to be a person of substance. It does not have to be a big company, or a person who puts up a bond. The most likely scenario is that the people who put up the application will be a shelf company\u2014\u201CMonsanto No. 22 Shelf Company 1999 Inc.\u201D So when something goes feral it goes out of business and that is the end of the story. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003EI want to turn to section 124H(2)(c), which allows companies and directors to absolve themselves from liability if they \u201Cdid not know, and could not reasonably have known\u201D of a breach. We have occupational health and safety legislation in this country. Surely, the very least that a company engaged in GE release can do is to have a very, very strict risk management programme.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245e0a656e59846cc8e304976132287ee\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: They will!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dae33c90a5e249b1bd265471e12eeadb\u0022\u003EIAN EWEN-STREET\u003C/span\u003E: According to this legislation they will not. It needs to clearly identify all of the risk and set out the responsibilities, the audits, the staff training, and the reporting requirements. It is not good enough for a company to say that it did not know of a risk because it did not bother to look for it. It is simply not good enough. The Minister should also pause and ask herself for a moment why it is that big companies want to do this in New Zealand. Why do they not do it in America? If they put a GE release out in America and something went wrong they would be sued to blazes. The liability regime in New Zealand is pathetic. That is why people want to do it here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf7e1caf49004d3d9a354f66645b579e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf7e1caf49004d3d9a354f66645b579e\u0022\u003ESHANE ARDERN (NZ National\u2014Taranaki - King Country):\u003C/span\u003E It is with great pleasure that I stand to speak in favour of this bill, but with some very deep reservations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022588a9d659fdf4e2088a6be752fe577a9\u0022\u003EHon Rick Barker\u003C/span\u003E: Remember Myrtle!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022574117f3a31f453a8819eb176d9f44ae\u0022\u003ESHANE ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: Clearly, an agricultural piece of machinery is a new organism for that Minister over there! He has never seen anything like it in his life. [Interruption] I would love to participate in the debate with the Minister opposite, but I had better come back to the bill. I am disappointed that he left the chair, because I am sure he could explain some of the questions I am about to ask the Minister with regard to this part. Is it not true that when Henry Ford first opened his factory the good residents of the area rose up and beat on the side of the factory with sticks, wood, and all manner of machinery because the machine that he would mass produce would kill thousands of people and frighten the horses? Is that not true? Can the Minister answer that question? The answer to that is that it is true. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EAre we are not in exactly the same situation here today where we are looking at high-tech, modern, state-of-the-art, science-based technology, and there is a fear of it\u2014 and, justifiably, there is a fear of it. It is the fear of the unknown, and a fear of where it might go, but at the end of the day will we become like those citizens way back at the time when Henry Ford manufactured his car, who beat on the side of the factory because it would kill thousands of people and frighten the horses? That is where this Government is at with this issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EI would like this Minister present now to stand up to explain to us what \u201Ccultural, spiritual, and ethical\u201D means with regard to this bill. It is simple enough. One can usually explain these things without too much effort. I am sure the Minister will be able to explain it in very simple language so that those of us from the country can understand it. I am sure that she will, but so far she has not, and it is still a question. Nobody actually knows what it means. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EThe royal commission spent months and months, and $6.5 million I am told\u2014at the request of the Green Party, as a deal done with the incoming Labour Government and the Green Party\u2014pondering over this question, and what did it come up with? Nobody actually knows. It said that it is a difficult issue to resolve. The Environmental Risk Management Authority has turned itself inside out over this question. It has spent hours going through what it means. It has spent months and, no doubt, thousands or millions of dollars, I am not sure, but it is certainly a huge resource being employed to try to figure out what this means, and it does not know. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EI am sure the Minister will be able to answer this riddle. I am sure that Simon Power, my very good colleague, has got it bang on when he stated that this is the \u201Cmost likely to buy the new Mercedes for the lawyers\u201D part. I am sure that is what it is. I am sure it is out of concern for our poor, hungry, starving lawyers around the country that the Government has inserted this part. I am sure that that is so. I know that the member for Tukituki has a particular concern about the profitability of lawyers. I am sure that that is the reason that he insisted that this should be in the legislation, but the rest of us really do not know why it is there, and we would like that answered. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EI have one theory, and the Minister can tell me I am wrong if I am wrong. I think it is a typical Helen Clark Prime Minister outcome, where one can go around the country and tell businesses: \u201CWe\u2019re lifting the moratorium. We\u2019re going to do what the businesses want.\u201D Then they can go across to the Green supporters and say: \u201CWe\u2019re lifting the moratorium, but we are tying it up in so much mumbo-jumbo hocus-pocus that nothing will ever go anywhere, so you\u2019ve got nothing to fear.\u201D It is a typical Helen Clark Prime Minister outcome. She can also go to M\u0101ori and say: \u201CWell, we\u2019re looking after your interests. We\u2019ve put into this part of the bill that the M\u0101oris are well taken care of. We\u2019ve no idea what the hell it means but we\u2019ve put it in. So you have nothing to fear from this Government. We will look after your best interests.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022 data-id=\u00220f3aad6e2bcf4367a3eb7b2e830b4756\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220f3aad6e2bcf4367a3eb7b2e830b4756\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER (NZ National\u2014Rangitikei):\u003C/span\u003E When I left off\u2014[Interruption] The member for Tukituki yells out. He has a big workload signing all those JP nominations. He should get back to his huge workload, which will consume him for months. Before we were interrupted I was talking about the issues of liabilities and penalties, and changing burdens of proof in respect of issues in this clause. I want to say\u2014[Interruption] The member has shifted his seat to gain an advantage, Mr Chairman. Members on this side of the Chamber just want a fair go. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EI refer members to the comments in the minority report of National and ACT, in which we noted the advice from officials that there was nothing sufficiently different about genetic engineering, from a liability perspective, to justify a liability regime that is different in principle from those applied in other scenarios. That is an extremely important point, and it is a point that the officials ran us through many times. The GE situation is no different in principle, when designing a liability paradigm, from any other legal scenario. Yet what do we see in the bill? We see new section 124B(3), inserted by clause 48\u2014a small but significant change, which, I have to say, has not only worn me down but has, I am sure, worn the officials down with my going on about it. I tell members that this is what the section did say. It stated: \u201CThe Court must not make the order\u201D\u2014that is, a pecuniary penalty order\u2014\u201Cif it is satisfied that the person did not know, and could not reasonably have known, of the breach.\u201D That is the original standard that was applied, which is a fair, reasonable standard, with a burden that lies more or less on the court, actually, to satisfy itself that a liability or a breach had not occurred. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003ENow, what has gone in by way of amendment is this: \u201CThe Court must not make the order if the person satisfies the Court ...\u201D. So the burden shifts from the court being satisfied in its own mind\u2014those sitting on the bench\u2014that the applicant did not know or could not reasonably have known of the breach, to the person\u2014the applicant him or herself\u2014having to satisfy the court that that test had been met. That is a significant change in the application of the burden. That is a substantial lifting of the hurdle of the burden on the applicant. There is no explanation as to why that amendment occurred, when the officials told us in the Education and Science Committee that GE of itself does not demand a different liability regime from that which would otherwise apply in any other legal scenario. Government members have not satisfied members on this side of the Committee as to why that change has occurred. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EI say this to the Minister. I have been in this House now for 4\u00BD years, and on each occasion I have spoken on a bill when that Minister has been responsible, she has taken a genuine interest in the course of the legislation that was proceeding through the House. I have watched that Minister listen carefully to submissions and contributions that have been made in the range of the portfolios that she has held, and I cannot believe that on an issue as important as this\u2014an issue that will lift this moratorium and, in the minds of some, create a very difficult situation\u2014the Minister of the Crown responsible for this legislation has not once got to her feet to explain to this Parliament and to the people of New Zealand why those clauses relating to cultural, ethical, and spiritual values, which we are all so worried about on this side of the Committee, are in there, and why the liability regimes imposed in this particular piece of legislation are different from others, despite the advice of the officials. I say to the Minister that previously she has been prepared to stand up and make a contribution on pieces of legislation like this. I know the member is an honourable member, and I ask her to take the next call, make a contribution on those two points\u2014which have been covered so many times by members speaking in this Committee\u2014and enlighten us as to why the Government has made those changes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022 data-id=\u0022cefced6470cc4e76b8586f8dcdb513de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cefced6470cc4e76b8586f8dcdb513de\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I am taking this call not because I have been invited to by the honourable member over there but because there are three issues that I want to deal with. First of all, there is the issue to do with call-in powers. I can hear members commenting, and there are obviously amendments saying please remove the words \u201Cspiritual, cultural, and ethical\u201D. I think it is fair to say that this Government has spent a lot of time listening, and it has obviously expended money, as Mr Ardern pointed out, in setting up the royal commission. The Government listened to the royal commission, and, but for one or two, it accepted the 49 recommendations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EThe royal commission, on whom was put a bishop, \u00E0 la an ethicist\u2014at least I hope he is an ethical bishop\u2014asked us to consider, and expressly recommended, this particular amendment, which the Government agreed to. A call-in is a discretionary power for the Minister for the Environment. That is all that has happened. It is not how one makes the decision. A call-in is when probably something might arise that in generic terms has been alerted to me by the Bioethics Council. It might say: \u201CThere are a whole lot of things happening overseas in this particular area, particularly with ethics, and we are worried about them.\u201D, then one particular example of that generic one arrives in New Zealand in terms of an application. My ability as a Minister is to add one or two specific people, if I call it in, to the authority to consider it, and I either reject their answers or I do not. So this is not about hocus-pocus. Ethics is, for those of us who have been brought up by Dominicans, something fairly serious, and I know that spiritual matters can be difficult in a society that is largely not so spiritual\u2014I cannot think of the opposite.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a871a7bb8ad74f9ca1f4798b79c9e061\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: Secular.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d0f002f0aa845019423d779aaa7330f\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member. In a secular society it is difficult. But that is the reason. It is not actually the decision-making process; it is just adding two people to the authority\u2014just as we had an ethicist on the royal commission. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003EThe member asked about the definitions. They are the ordinary, standard dictionary definitions, and I will not pull them out because there are probably about 10, and they can have fun. Now I will try to give an explanation on the reverse burden of proof, which is an issue the member raised. The Government policy is that this provision, requiring the defendant to satisfy the court that he or she did not know and could not reasonably have known of the breach of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, is akin to a defence to pecuniary penalty proceedings. It is appropriate that the defendant establish the elements of the defence to the civil standard of proof in the same way that the defendant is required to prove any of the defences in the proposed section 124. I will leave it at that, and, again, if there is an argument on it, I am listening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022 data-id=\u0022da708860dd1e4a71bd91583af8ff841e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022da708860dd1e4a71bd91583af8ff841e\u0022\u003EHon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E While we are talking about liability, I want to run through the speech given by Ian Ewen-Street. I put to him this scenario: he buys himself a car\u2014I presume that even though he is a Green he has a car. He buys a car that has met\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3657952-0eec-4a34-918d-677d93c1b281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f196bbce2ae8410fa8aea219f6ca5036\u0022\u003EIan Ewen-Street\u003C/span\u003E: I have a bicycle.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b726b6e2bcb4438b822ee99adfdabf95\u0022\u003EHon BRIAN DONNELLY\u003C/span\u003E: Well, a bicycle then, that has met all the specifications. But he does not have one\u2014I had better use the car example. He makes sure he has a warrant of fitness, he does everything right, and he goes on the road and is completely within the Road Code. He does not break any of the rules\u2014nothing. Then, for some ungodly reason, the steering wheel, or another part, completely shatters, and he hits somebody. Here is the question: I ask Mr Ian Ewen-Street whether he should be liable\u2014because that is exactly what he is saying to people who put in an application through this process and who follow all the rules and all the regulations. He is saying that if some unforeseen thing occurs, then they should be fully liable. Now, that was explained to us by the officials.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022326d008cb0554bf0b0795d57883b96cb\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: He does not bang cars. He would understand that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022981415e27e174702bf6e17e12dcd3da8\u0022\u003EHon BRIAN DONNELLY\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, he would argue that the way to get cars off the road is to make sure that those people could be sued for $10 million. That is it, basically, if one is in breach of the rules, and that was explained to us. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EHowever, I want to raise the issue of local government t, because I think the local governments of New Zealand have been treated very shabbily with regard to this particular bill. On the one hand the Government is saying to local governments: \u201CYou look after the environment, and not only that, we want you also to consider the economic considerations, educational considerations, and all those things, but when it comes to GE we are going to ride completely roughshod over you. We have made a policy decision\u2014the Environmental Risk Management Authority is the body that makes those decisions, and once the authority has made a decision, then you will have no say about it in your rohe.\u201D One would think that the Government and officials would have said: \u201COK, this is a high-level decision, a policy decision, but we will sit down with local government and ask what the implications are in terms of how and what should go into this legislation to make sure that it\u2019s very clear where authority lies, where liability lies, and where responsibility lies.\u201D Instead, the Government did not even sit down with local government. That is why the Minister of Local Government is saying to local authorities that they should make applications on every particular case, and that is an absolute and utter nonsense. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EThe reality, as was clarified to us by the officials, is that local governments do have the powers to make by-laws regarding GMOs, but if they ever tried to enforce them, their backsides would be sued off them, and they would almost certainly lose. That was not 100 percent certain, so the only way it could be absolutely clarified is if a case were taken to court, and, as my colleague Simon Power quite rightly pointed out, that is not a satisfactory procedure. It is up to Parliament to ensure that we clarify what the situation is, and by the time it got to that stage and it was pointed out to us exactly\u2014because we went on and on about this\u2014what the lie of the land was, it was really too late for us to do anything about it without all the policy work that was required around a decision like that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EIn the end, all we have ended up with\u2014and this is one part we are very unsatisfied with\u2014is that local territories, we believe, have been treated shabbily in the processing of this bill. It is most unfortunate, but it is the reality, and, as a result of that, we will be supporting the Greens\u2019 amendment along those lines, purely and simply to make the point that this is not the way we should be developing legislation. [Interruption] No, we have to make the point; we have to stick with what we believe in. It is a matter of principles. In this particular case, local government came to us and said it wanted better clarification and wanted to know where it lay. We will have a situation where local governments put through by-laws that will have no effect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002212f01718-dc1f-4307-b0b3-451098ab73df\u0022 data-id=\u00227fc91a2a84984c10a39d5af4e3ad4683\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212f01718-dc1f-4307-b0b3-451098ab73df\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227fc91a2a84984c10a39d5af4e3ad4683\u0022\u003EDr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u002206bc894e12424261aeab7425fbb7952e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002206bc894e12424261aeab7425fbb7952e\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (NZ National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E I raise again a matter that has been referred to on a number of occasions. It relates to concerns about the provisions allowing M\u0101ori to object to, and have influence on, the Environmental Risk Management Authority\u2019s decisions on genetic modification and releases. The Minister did take a call and we thank her for that. She did that without needing to be invited by Simon Power, although she addressed every one of his questions and looked at him the whole time. We appreciate that. However, she did not address the key question raised in this debate by my colleague Paul Hutchison who represents a whole lot of people in Port Waikato, whom we have heard about tonight. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EThe key question was put to the Minister and I shall rephrase it: \u201CWhy are M\u0101ori getting three bites at the cherry in this bill?\u201D. Members will notice that clause 8 contains a change in the eligibility criteria for appointment as a member of the Environmental Risk Management Authority. I shall read out the clause to the Minister to remind her: \u201CSection 16 of the principal Act is amended by adding, as subsection (2), the following subsection: \u2018(2) In subsection (1), matters\u2019\u2014and we can go back and look at what \u2018matters\u2019 means\u2014\u2018includes matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi and tikanga M\u0101ori.\u2019 \u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EThat is the first bite at the cherry whereby the values, spiritual beliefs, and cultural heritage of M\u0101ori are taken into account in this legislation. But they get a second bite at the cherry, and we see that in clause 10. The National Party and others have raised these concerns before about special provisions for M\u0101ori. Clause 10 provides for the establishment of Ng\u0101 Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao, a committee with the express purpose of giving the authority advice and assistance, from the M\u0101ori perspective, on matters relating to policy and process. I am not arguing about that, but it is a second bite at the cherry. However, as if two bites are not enough, M\u0101ori are allowed to have a further go. The third bite at the cherry is provided by clause 36. I believe that Paul Hutchison raised this matter with the Minister. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227360f74b8f22448d91b42becb3156b10\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: Must be a big cherry!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc7d89a792c94c43aa837c642723d277\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY\u003C/span\u003E: Do not be surprised. This Government gives M\u0101ori plenty of big cherries, but Minister Samuels keeps rolling up for more. Clause 36 is titled \u201CMinister\u2019s power to call in applications with significant effects\u201D, and we heard about the call-in powers for cultural and spiritual effects. Subclause (1) states: \u201CThe Minister may direct that he or she will decide an application under this Act if the Minister considers that the decision on the application will have\u2014(a) significant cultural, economic, environmental, ethical, health, international, or spiritual effects;\u201D. Basically, that gives the Minister carte blanche, but, of course, M\u0101ori again get the opportunity by means of a complaint about the cultural or ethical approach of the Environmental Risk Management Authority, or the ethical effects of any decisions made by the authority. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003ECan the Minister tell us why M\u0101ori get the opportunity to have effect, through membership of the authority, and their qualifications; why they have an opportunity to have influence through Ng\u0101 Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao; and why they can have influence by going cap in hand to the Minister to see whether he or she will intervene under the provisions of clause 36 in terms of cultural, ethical, or spiritual effects. We want to know why M\u0101ori do not get just one chance, like everybody else, but get three chances. Can the Minister answer that question? I do not see anywhere in the bill where the Chinese community\u2014and I know that the Prime Minister has apologised to the Chinese community, so it is very close to her heart\u2014gets an opportunity to have three bites at the cherry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022 data-id=\u0022b387c92786604ea0b99ac11234499dc1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b387c92786604ea0b99ac11234499dc1\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022 data-id=\u00225afdc95f171c4a298cdd40f264ac27a1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225afdc95f171c4a298cdd40f264ac27a1\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I draw the Committee\u2019s attention to a very important statement made a short time ago by Shane Ardern. He is a straightforward sort of bloke. He \u201Ccalls a tractor a tractor\u201D, and when he says something straightforward we should listen to him. He said that the introduction of genetic engineering technology is like the introduction of the motorcar. People objected, because it would kill thousands of people. So if we have a technology that has the potential to kill thousands of people, surely it is incumbent on those proposing it to show that there is some corresponding benefit. Everybody tells us that it was completely unreasonable for people to oppose the introduction of the motorcar, even though it would kill thousands of people\u2014and it must be millions by now\u2014because the motorcar provided considerable benefit to society. Maybe we should put\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263383fb9f9024e889af90b28720625a2\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but interjections are getting a bit out of hand. I remind members to look at Speaker\u2019s ruling 51/5, which provides that interjections are to be rare, reasonable, and relevant; and, I might add, restrained. It is beginning to sound like a hen house.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002228e2d8c02e4548cdbc4c53d9f12fb6b8\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS\u003C/span\u003E: I think it is incumbent on those who wish to introduce this technology to show us where the enormous benefit will be from the release into the environment of living GMOs that would offset that very considerable risk. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EI want to return to the matter I was discussing in my previous contribution, which was around the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 149. I was saying that when the moratorium expires, the expiry clause applies not just to the moratorium but also to some very important protections that were put in place in last year\u2019s amendment Act and that are also about to expire. Those are about the question of animal and human vaccines and medicines, which are themselves living organisms. They were exempt from the moratorium on release, but last year\u2014as a result of our efforts, I have to say\u2014two important conditions were included. One was that the GMOs could not exist viably outside the body of the animal or person to be treated, so that we do not get a population building up, in the soil, of living GMO bacteria or viruses that will then be ingested by every other animal that comes along, whether or not we want to dose it, and so on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe second condition was that in considering such a thing, which clearly has greater risks than just a chemical, its efficacy for treatment ought to be compared with the alternatives. If there is no greater efficacy of a living GMO as a treatment, then it should not be approved if something else will do the job as well. Both of those very sensible provisions expire at the same time as the moratorium, and that is why I recommend my amendment to clause 39A, which actually prevents that expiry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EMy amendment to clause 48 provides for strict liability if the organism causes harm, even if the law has not been broken. It has been said many times that GMOs pose a risk no greater than other risks. If that were the case, then it would be possible to insure against them. At the moment it is not possible, at the retail level, to get any insurance against harm from GMOs. That is the reason they must be treated differently. In fact, when the Law Commission examined this matter last year it also said that these organisms do actually present different and potentially greater risks than other technologies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EFinally, I want to welcome an important, although small, change made by the Education and Science Committee to clause 13, which responds to many of the submissions. As introduced, the bill states that an organism is not a new organism if it is an organism of the same taxonomic classification with the same genetic modification. That would mean that if the Environmental Risk Management Authority had approved a potato with a Bt gene in it, and somebody else came along with a potato with another Bt gene as part of quite a different construct, inserted in a different transgenic event, lodged at a different place in the genome, and potentially with vastly different effects, then under the original wording that could have been held to be not a new organism. The amendment that has been made, which adds \u201Cas specified in the approval\u201D closes that loophole and only transgenic organisms produced from that particular transgenic event and covered by that particular approval will be regarded as not new. That I think is a move forward. It is one of the very few small improvements that were made in the select committee, and I welcome it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022 data-id=\u0022d74afec512f141659323fec6c299e369\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d74afec512f141659323fec6c299e369\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022 data-id=\u002239a87cf2144a4f008a9a82f4b205984c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002239a87cf2144a4f008a9a82f4b205984c\u0022\u003EDr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National\u2014Port Waikato):\u003C/span\u003E It is welcoming to hear Jeanette Fitzsimons say that the amendments to the taxonomic classification are an area where the Education and Science Committee members did work together and achieve a small, constructive improvement that everybody agreed on. But when the Minister got up and spoke on the call-in powers, I was concerned that she skated over the reality of what they are. I think she has said pretty well in this Chamber that if there were an application for commercial release of a GE crop in the next few years, then she would almost certainly use her call-in powers\u2014and she sees that as almost impossible. I would like her to get up and explain to the Committee the real extent of those call-in powers, if used in the fullest sense. As I say, when she spoke on them she was very, very peripheral and superficial. She skated over just how extensive they might be, suggesting that they were of minimal importance. I think it is important that the Minister explains to the Committee just how potentially enormous those call-in powers can be, even on some of the most well-researched applications that come through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EThe other thing I was interested in was that New Zealand First seems to have difficulty distinguishing between principle, populism, and the Greens\u2014and I must say that that is an awfully difficult thing to have difficulty with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EI refer now to the Supplementary Order Paper I have submitted, on which I suggest that paragraph (c) be added to clause 4A in order to provide a practical framework for proceeding with caution in the management of new organisms while preserving opportunities. I think it is important for this provision to be placed in the bill. Certainly it is the rhetoric of the Minister, but unfortunately she has omitted to ensure that this practical framework, which was recommended by the royal commission, has been placed in the bill itself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EI go on to clause 18, because this provision indeed deals with one of the hugely complicated and almost impossible requirements of this bill, in terms of compliance. It inserts new section 38A, \u201CApplication for approval to import or release new organism with controls\u201D. It states: \u201C(2) An application for a conditional release approval must be in the approved form and must include\u2014 \u2026 (e) all the possible adverse effects of the organism on the environment;\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EWe discussed this at length in the select committee, and, clearly, a case went to court and was ruled on. However, to ask anyone to describe all the possible effects is nigh on impossible, and I suggest to the Minister that my amendment to replace the word \u201Cpossible\u201D with the words \u201Creasonable and practicable\u201D is eminently sensible. I urge her to take note of that because, as I have said in the explanatory note to my Supplementary Order Paper: \u201CTo include \u2018all the possible side effects\u2019 imposes an unrealistic requirement on an applicant. The High Court ruling in the case between \u2018Mothers Against Genetic Engineering Incorporated\u2019, the Minister for the Environment, ERMA and AgResearch, noted \u2018to apply a literal meaning to the words creates an absurdity, it would include effects known and unknown\u2019.\u201D The judge also went on to say: \u201CThe interpretation is to be approached with two principles of statutory interpretation clearly in mind: (a) the meaning of a statutory provision is to be ascertained from the text, in the light of the Act\u2019s purpose; and (b) Parliament is presumed to legislate in a manner that produces a practical, workable and sensible approach.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe159701072947bf985013087c8f3bbb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe159701072947bf985013087c8f3bbb\u0022\u003EHon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022 data-id=\u00226a233a8fb66347c586c06f87b1dff08b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a233a8fb66347c586c06f87b1dff08b\u0022\u003EHon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I am just following on from Dr Paul Hutchison with regard to the wording of that particular clause. Members on this side of the Chamber argued very, very strongly when the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Act went through that it was worded very poorly and would lead to litigation. It did lead to litigation in this case, and the judge ruled that a literal interpretation would be an absurdity. In other words, members of the Opposition were right all along. However, now that we actually have a judicial ruling on it, it would be another absurdity to put some other wording in there, because it could be relitigated. We could be opening up the thing again. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EI want to refer quickly to the ministerial call-in power. People have not seen that this is a two-edged sword, and that it is not there just to create additional risk management elements. We could have a scenario whereby a Minister was very keen to see certain applications proceed. Under the interpretation of an application having significant economic effects\u2014and one would assume that any commercial application would have significant economic effects\u2014the Minister could call it in, put whomever he or she wanted on the Environmental Risk Management Authority board, then ensure that the decision that came out at the end was in line with what he or she had really decided upon. That begs the question of why we have the Environmental Risk Management Authority in the first place\u2014if the Minister has call-in powers to that extent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EI go back, however, to the amendment that is very critical to New Zealand First. We would support this legislation, and support the conditional release category being brought in if it did not apply to foodstuffs high in the human food chain. At this stage, for applications along those lines, we ask why we should add to the risk. When asked in the Chamber, the Minister herself said that the first such application will be called in automatically. If it is going to be called in automatically, then there has to be something special in the particular case for that to be done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EWe ask why we do not clarify the situation, put it off for a couple of years, make sure the methodology is correct, make sure that we have done some of our research in terms of market perceptions, then make a decision on it. It is not necessary at this point in time to rush ahead, when we are dealing with some unknowns. Economists like Caroline Saunders have raised some of these issues, and they have been ignored. New Zealand First has said that we should be sensible about this matter and go along those lines that we know will not have a negative impact upon our overseas markets, but in areas where there could potentially be risk, let us make sure that we proceed with extreme caution. In this case, it seems that the Government is rushing ahead on an ideological basis\u2014and it has had fights with the Greens on that\u2014rather than on what the evidence seems to be suggesting. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First has taken a position on what the evidence is suggesting to us at this time, and it has come through with this amendment. We will not be able to vote for Part 2 if the amendment is not supported, because we believe that we would be putting New Zealand\u2019s best interests at risk under those circumstances. We in New Zealand First have always said we should proceed with extreme caution, and the Environmental Risk Management Authority did not convince us that it has the methodology in place. The Minister herself knows that as of this date the methodology is not in place, yet the legislation is going to open up applications on 30 October for the commercial release of foodstuffs. We do not believe that that makes good economic sense, so New Zealand First will be voting against this part if our amendment does not stand up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u00222f43eaa6346844d5ad6fee132f5dc7d0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222f43eaa6346844d5ad6fee132f5dc7d0\u0022\u003EDAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip\u2014NZ Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ee4210f18bfe4df6a08511638e9ab4da\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5;Green Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000640\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to insert new paragraph (c) in clause 4A be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002210eacf63690e49acb58392b45e4235f3\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 31\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000641\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to insert new clause 4B be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00224f31af5981de4d7abd8ce4406ebfc153\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 31\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000642\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 143 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to clause 5 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000643\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000644\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 150 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new clause 6A be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a9c6c02e01464d16bb4fee0af0478059\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 31\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000645\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 149 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new clause 6B be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00229fdca2fcef904febb55d895bc8f74529\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 104\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000646\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to section 11(2) in clause 7 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002204a016d6ebc041ae80cce24b22bec4f3\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 31\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000647\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 17 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000648\u0022\u003Eto insert the following new subclause:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000649\u0022\u003E(4)\tSection 38(1)(b) of the principal Act is amended by inserting the following subsection:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000650\u0022\u003E(iv)\tThe organism is genetically modified and is likely to directly or indirectly enter the human food chain.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002271f92dfb41354785a44fbc9772f7effc\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 104\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000651\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to new section 38A(2)(e) in clause 18 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002282f4812967e94e0dbae108043dfce1d0\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 31\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000652\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 142 in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to add new subsection (5) to new section 38A in clause 18 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00224b3fe9e4551340e5aee8fab2202d8cad\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 24\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 91\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5;United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000653\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 18 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000654\u0022\u003Eto insert, after section 38A(4), the following subsection:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000655\u0022\u003E(5)\tNo application for a conditional release of a genetically modified organism which is likely to directly or indirectly enter the human food chain, may be determined by the Authority.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002240b2cab0332c4fcaa6a246acd0863963\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 104\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000656\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to add new subsection (3) to new section 38(D) in clause 18 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227ee8e93abfa3403a91431df725e52c63\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 44\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000657\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 149 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to add new subsection (3) to new section 38D in clause 18 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e91725493a644af7a7e791bd1f38c5af\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 24\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 91\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5;United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000658\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to omit new section 38E(1) in clause 18 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222b56793e2d364d02985928732c6b6e27\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 31\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000659\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to omit words from new section 38E(2) in clause 18 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225b7f1205ea9846f5a69940deabd54a52\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 31\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000660\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to add new subsection (3) to new section 38J in clause 18 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00229e7e5d2098474faf9a8b0a9513b1295c\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 44\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000661\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the first amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to new section 42A in clause 20 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022406579cf50b149a3af9d07206a2ff5a0\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 31\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000662\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the alternative amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to new section 42A in clause 20 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00224ca46b21d47740eb8e4d21be84306320\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 31\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000663\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to insert new clauses 50B and 50C be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f64f7185863447c2b89b1be34c3777c2\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 44\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000664\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 27 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000665\u0022\u003Eto omit paragraph (b) of section 50(2) and substitute the following paragraph:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000666\u0022\u003E(b)\tadd a new organism, or group or groups of organism, that have adverse effects on the health and safety of people or the environment, or are likely to harm New Zealand\u2019s economic interests.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002287c46fc788b54ca2b1a16ef751269947\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 104\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000667\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to clause 36 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000668\u0022\u003Eto omit paragraph (a) of section 68(1) and substitute the following paragraph:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000669\u0022\u003E(a)\tsignificant cultural, economic, environmental, ethical, health or international effects;.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000670\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000671\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 36 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000672\u0022\u003Eto omit from paragraph (a) of section 68(1) the words \u201Ccultural\u201D, \u201Cethical\u201D, and \u201Cspiritual\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b984c2d94b9c4b4386cfbaed312d0c86\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 44\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000673\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 149 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 39A be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002260e7b89df3674256aa7d07f1c03f4363\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 104\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000674\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 149 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to section 124G(1)(a) in clause 48 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022762a76bdc002488496d3d460a6a949e5\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 104\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022342976ee4d224f48bfa4a93689faf203\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 91\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ELabour 52; New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 24\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226c5308da49554d7d9bc7595739c72ac7\u0022\u003EPart 3  Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000676\u0022\u003EProgress reported.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20031007c4be0d8b80694a42a0bcade2768258aa000677\u0022\u003EThe House adjourned at 10:01 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n  \u003C/body\u003E\n\u003C/html\u003E"