Tuesday, 1 April 2003

Tuesday, 1 April 2003

Tuesday, 1 April 2003

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Points of Order

Messages from Governor-General

Mr Speaker read to the House messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations for various bills.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Governor-General sent us a message before, and we listened appropriately to that message, but was that to ask the House to afford an appropriation for a bill that has not yet been passed?

Mr SPEAKER: That has to be done, or the bill cannot be passed.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Student Visa Scheme—Accountability

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Is she satisfied that New Zealand’s student visa scheme is operating satisfactorily; if so, why?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration): I am largely satisfied, given that there were over 80,000 international students in the country last year. I have to say that the scale of abuse is small. However, where such abuses do occur, we investigate. At present we are investigating allegations that a so-called training provider in the Wairarapa has brought in workers as students.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why do we have yet one more example of students from abroad being abused, misused, exploited, and used as cheap labour, all, of course, granted admission by this Minister by way of visa, and given that she was spoken to late last year—and this is not a laughing matter, Minister—what has she done about it?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: We are investigating that matter. A number of issues arise, and they are not all related to immigration. I should advise the member that the institution concerned has, in fact, offered Samoan workers jobs that have enabled them to gain residence through the Samoan quota. That means there are some serious issues relating to conditions of work, and I am advised that these are being investigated by the Employment Relations Service.

Taito Phillip Field: Are international students in New Zealand on a student permit entitled to work; if so, under what conditions?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, but only if a variation to the student permit allowing for work is granted. Students may apply for permission to work to fulfil course requirements—which was what was attempted in this particular instance, but has not met the standard required—and up to 15 hours per week if they are tertiary students undertaking a long-term course of study, or during the Christmas and New Year holiday period.

Pansy Wong: How does she ensure that the New Zealand Immigration Service can monitor students’ continued enrolment, attendance, and performance under the new policy provision that provides for the issue and granting of student visas and permits for the length of a student’s course of study, regardless of the period for which that student has paid course fees—especially in light of the fact that Australia has tightened its immigration law, making prospective students provide better evidence of financial stability?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: They also have to provide evidence of certain other things in Australia. With regard to monitoring, I make the point that we are very dependent on tertiary education providers and schools providing information to immigration that students are not complying with the provisions of their permits.

Larry Baldock: Is the Minister entirely confident that her proposed amendments to the Prostitution Reform Bill will ensure that no overseas students will be trafficked to New Zealand for prostitution under the guise of a student visa; if not, why not?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The amendments I have tabled by way of Supplementary Order Paper are designed to ensure that any work permit that is used for the purposes of prostitution will lead to that permit being revoked and the person removed from New Zealand.

Larry Baldock: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was whether the Minister was confident that the amendment would ensure that no prostitutes were brought into New Zealand. Could she answer the question?

Mr SPEAKER: No, the Minister addressed the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How does the Minister think that this so-called training institution conforms to any requirements she might have with regard to policy, when the education consisted of a single 1-hour lecture per week, where Samoans were promised $14 to $15 per hour but paid piece rates and went home with $170 per fortnight in their pockets, which is less than the dole; how is it that a whole lot of Chinese entered that training programme and went AWOL, and where are they now?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: They were not Chinese. They were from Nepal. A little bit of extra work would have found that out.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is giving an answer. She is entitled to do so. The member is entitled to have further supplementaries.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The point of order cannot relate to that particular point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I should not have to give the Minister a geography lesson, particularly when she is in charge of people coming into this country from all around the world. Her opening statement is demonstrably and palpably wrong.

Mr SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am not satisfied with the circumstances at the Fernridge Institute of Training Ltd. It is not registered with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority, the Immigration Service, and the Employment Relations Authority have serious concerns, and it will be investigated by the Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, how did they get in here; was it just like the Japanese programme in Auckland, or is the Minister responsible for nothing in the ministry any more?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Given that the Japanese establishment in Auckland was established in 1994, that matter is hardly relevant to my role as the Minister of Immigration. There might have been an error with regard to the issuing of student visas when this particular establishment did not have New Zealand Qualifications Authority approval.

Unemployment—Transition to Work

2. JUDY TURNER (United Future) to the Minister of Social Services and Employment: Is he satisfied that enough is being done by his ministry to move long-term unemployed from the benefit into work?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment): The number of people on the unemployment benefit for March 2003 is at a 15-year low, which mirrors the official unemployment rate. Last year, Work and Income New Zealand achieved a record result, helping 55,922 people into stable employment. The number of people on the unemployment benefit for over 6 months fell by over 15 percent in the year to February 2003. Those are very good results, but we are not complacent, and we will continue to apply common-sense answers to help the unemployed.

Judy Turner: Is he concerned that the decline in the number of those on the unemployment benefit has been accompanied by a 17.3 percent increase in the number of sickness beneficiaries since the end of 1999, and by a 7.4 percent increase over the past year, and can he confirm that some lifestyle beneficiaries are seeing the sickness benefit as a better option than the dole, now that they do not have to have an excuse for the lack of jobs?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is worth knowing that the people who are on sickness and invalids benefits are on them because they are sick or have a disability. There has been no migration at all from the unemployment benefit to those forms of benefits, as implied by that question. Among the things we are trying are the new employable strategies, which are pilots designed to see people who are on the sickness and invalids benefits back into the workplace. The early signs are very good, and we hope to expand those pilots.

Georgina Beyer: What initiatives are being taken to assist people who have experienced long periods of unemployment into work?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Nationwide and regional initiatives to help people back into work include working with younger people to prevent them from coming on to, or staying on, a benefit; assisting mature unemployed people into work; assisting people with disabilities who can work to find suitable employment; training and support for those who lack basic employment skills, such as literacy and numeracy; and partnerships with industry and community organisations to help long-term unemployed into jobs. Once again, I say that we will continue to apply good common sense.

Mr SPEAKER: That answer was too long.

Katherine Rich: If things are so rosy, why is Treasury predicting the number of invalid, sickness, domestic purpose, and unemployment beneficiaries to rise significantly by 2007, with the cost of the invalids benefit doubling to $1.2 billion between 1999 and 2007?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The situation is not rosy, and the Government would never have claimed that it was. Just as the National Government experienced problems arising from the deinstitutionalisation of mental health patients, the mature ageing of our working population, and the accident compensation tail being moved from accident compensation on to sickness and invalids benefits, so are countries throughout the OECD having to deal with those kinds of issues. We, however, will do something about them—unlike the National Party.

Barbara Stewart: What explanation can the Minister give for the drastic 28 percent increase in those claiming the invalids benefit since 1999, and is that the solution for the long-term unemployed?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I repeat that no one is migrating from the unemployment benefit through to an invalids benefit. The answer to the member’s question is very simple, and probably edifying for people in the National Party, such as Dr Brash, who likes to understand these issues. Obviously, people are migrating on to the invalids benefit because we have an ageing population. We have more older people now moving on to a benefit from a job they can no longer do, we have deinstitutionalisation, and we have accident compensation people moving on to a benefit. Those are the kinds of reasons, and they would be the same for any Government.

Dr Muriel Newman: In the light of the fact that thousands of able-bodied New Zealanders have been on the dole for more than 10 years, has the Government considered introducing time limits to ensure that the long-term unemployed take personal responsibility for their future livelihoods, thereby reducing the tax on working families; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is worth noting that the number of people who have been unemployed for 10 years or more has dropped by 25 percent under this Government. Those people, of course, were 7 years unemployed under the previous Government, which was supported by that member.

Judy Turner: Will the Minister commit to reviewing the sickness benefit system to ensure that its recipients are indeed worthy when the 1999 census of prison inmates shows that 11.8 percent were on a sickness benefit prior to their conviction, and in those cases illness clearly was not a barrier to committing some rather energetic crimes?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: This Government constantly monitors the use of the benefit by all New Zealanders.

Barbara Stewart: I seek leave of the House to table the number of people on the invalids benefit.

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

United States—Gore Presidency

3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she believe her comment that a Gore presidency in the United States would have had a different consequence for Iraq was an appropriate statement for her to make, and what benefit does she think this view of United States domestic politics will have for the New Zealand - United States relationship?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, and neither here nor there. Leaders can occasionally make a difference, as the National Party is contemplating at the moment.

Hon Bill English: Has the Government changed its policy from staying close to our friends and allies, despite differences over the war, to an approach where the New Zealand Government is trying to distance itself from those friends and allies now that the war is on television?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Government is clear that it has not supported this war. We are waiting to hear what Mr English’s position is.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Putting aside the Government’s position in respect of this war in Iraq, does the Prime Minister think it is wise for her to think off the top of her head and to give vent to her mind on matters on which she is thoroughly unqualified to speak?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would assert a little more expertise on foreign policy than the member.

Hon Richard Prebble: How does the Prime Minister reconcile her statement on Sunday: “I don’t think that September 11 under a Gore presidency would have had this consequence for Iraq”, with her armchair generalship yesterday by publicly contradicting General Tommy Franks’ claim that the allies are on time, and with her statement to Parliament in February: “We have stepped up our promotion of free-trade negotiations with the United States”—or should that be Syria?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I cannot see any link between the statements. Further, I point out to the member that Mr Howard was reported only yesterday in the Sydney Morning Herald as conceding that the United States’ belief, on going into the war, that the show of overwhelming coalition force would inspire a popular uprising against Saddam Hussein was misguided. The fact that Mr Howard is in negotiations for a free-trade agreement does not stop him from telling the truth as he sees it about what is happening.

Keith Locke: Why did the Prime Minister not express confidence in the Green presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, whose anti-war stance both before and since the election has been much more evident than that of Al Gore and other Democrats, and does the Prime Minister agree that her anti-war stand is enhancing New Zealand’s relationships with the many millions of Americans who are against Bush’s war?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Ralph Nader’s position on these issues is well known. For the record, I say that this country values its relationship with the United States, and we are determined that this difference of opinion will not harm that relationship.

Hon Peter Dunne: Is the Prime Minister aware of any interest in, or notice taken of, her comments by the United States media?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I cannot say that I have had any reports drawn to my attention of my comments in the United States media, at all.

Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister intend to revert to her previous policy of not criticising the US in any way, or will she continue to make comments about the war as if she were some kind of foreign correspondent—and continue to offend our friends and allies?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition was challenged to give a single anti-American statement by the Prime Minister, he could not give one because there has not been one.

Hon Ken Shirley: Is the Prime Minister aware that her public comments, made yesterday, opposing the war effort against the Saddam Hussein regime are heralded in today’s issue of the ArabNews; and are we to conclude it is now her intention to substitute a free-trade agreement with the USA for a free-trade agreement with Syria?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am aware that Agence-France Presse picked up some of the comments from the press conference yesterday—statements, I might say, of the bleedingly obvious.

Hon Ken Shirley: I seek leave to table today’s issue of the ArabNews, heralding Helen Clark’s comments.

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

Labour Market—Reports

4. LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Social Services and Employment: What reports has the Minister seen on the state of the labour market?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment): The recently released progress report on the Government’s employment strategy shows that in 2002 the number of people with a job rose by 44,000. That is a record for people who are employed. The unemployment rate fell to a 15-year low of 4.9 percent. Labour force participation remains therefore historically high. We are employing a whole-of-Government approach, and it seems to be working.

Lynne Pillay: How are these nationwide employment results reflected in the regions?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The rural regions had the highest percentage gain in employment. The Labour-Progressive Government’s focus on regional development, and on regional and industry partnerships, has seen tangible results creating opportunities that place people into real employment. For example, in Motueka, for the first time in at least 20 years, there are no unemployed people available for seasonal work, because there are no unemployed people available.

Katherine Rich: When the OECD, Treasury, his own ministry, and evidence from Australia and the United States, all acknowledge that work testing and work requirements play an important part in getting people back into work, why does the Minister continue to ignore these options and, in fact, do the opposite here in New Zealand?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Because I want to do a lot more for sole parents than the National Party did. It ignored them until their youngest children were 6 years old. We want to work with those parents every year, to make sure they build their capacity and get a job.

Peter Brown: Is the Minster aware that there are several thousand people employed casually in this country, with little or no job security; and can the Minister tell us what reports he has had on this aspect of the labour market?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, a number of people work in very casual forms of employment throughout the labour market. It has been one of the things that member has been interested in—and so have we—to try to ensure we regulate the labour market in order to minimise the number of people who are in such insecure jobs.

Question No. 1 to Minister

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave, at this first opportunity, to table the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s registered providers list, which shows that Fernridge Institute of Training Ltd is listed on page 3 of those three pages.

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

Question No. 5 to Minister

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call Question No. 5, Dr Lynda Scott has advised me that she has a slight rewording, which I have looked at. I would like her to indicate what the rewording is, and I will then take the leave of the House that she is allowed to ask the question accordingly.

Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura): I wish to insert the words: “regarding the spread of SARS” after the word “population”, as this was inadvertently missed from the original question.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is not. Please read the question as amended.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome—Rugby Sevens, Hong Kong

5. Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) to the Minister of Health: What level of risk do the New Zealanders returning from the Hong Kong rugby sevens pose to the rest of the New Zealand population regarding the spread of SARS and what extra precautions are being taken, given a Hong Kong doctor described the sevens as “a huge incubator for the rest of the world”?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): I want to thank the member and other health spokespeople for their continuing engagement on this important public health issue. There is some concern, of course, about those attending the sevens, but I am advised there is a level of risk from anybody coming from any affected country. Rugby supporters, however, are not likely to represent the same level of risk as those who have lived in Hong Kong. Most cases have occurred among close contacts of people who have developed severe acute respiratory syndrome, including family members and health-care workers. For people who have not had contact with the disease and do not have any symptoms, the level of risk is considered low.

Dr Lynda Scott: Now that the World Health Organization is recommending screening of airline passengers, is she still “flabbergasted”, as she said 2 weeks ago, at this suggestion, and what is being done to identify people with symptoms?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The World Health Organization has recommended that authorities in affected territories screen passengers before they depart from their destination, so there is not a lot I can do for people who are leaving from Hong Kong. However, we have done a lot in New Zealand in terms of passenger arrivals, and, as the member will know, yesterday severe acute respiratory syndrome was made a notifiable disease. We have also upgraded the travel advisory for travellers travelling overseas. This morning, staff of the Auckland District Health Board met two flights from Hong Kong to ensure that passengers were given appropriate information. As there is no screening test and the disease has an incubation period of 3 to 10 days, it is very difficult to screen people as they arrive, unless they are showing symptoms.

Steve Chadwick: Are any other precautions being taken by health authorities to manage potential risks posed by travellers from affected countries?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, the Ministry of Health is monitoring this on a daily basis and is in close contact with the World Health Organization and other countries where severe acute respiratory syndrome is occurring. As I said, we already have an Order in Council to be able to detain, assess, and isolate suspected cases. We have the travel advisory, and we also have information being provided in five languages and being distributed in New Zealand to people who arrive back from overseas and to visitors to New Zealand. There is an 0800 number so that people can get information before they travel. We are fortunate that New Zealand did undertake a pandemic exercise last year, which helped us to set up mechanisms to ensure that we are ready, as much as one can be.

Pita Paraone: Has her ministry made any recommendations to the Minister of Immigration regarding short-term and long-term arrivals entering this country from countries at a high risk of sudden acute respiratory syndrome, such as China and other Asian countries, which make up a large proportion of our arrivals; if so, what are they; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I have not received any information, but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Ministry of Health are considering issuing an advisory request for tour groups and others from affected areas to postpone travel to New Zealand. It is an issue that is being dealt with at Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade level, rather than at immigration level.

Dr Lynda Scott: What powers will the Ministry of Health have to identify and contain infectious patients now that severe acute respiratory syndrome has become a notifiable disease, and does the 0800 number give advice on symptoms and action if New Zealanders are worried?

Hon ANNETTE KING: In relation to the last part of that question, New Zealanders who are worried can get information on the symptoms. In fact, that information is provided to all New Zealanders and other travellers as they arrive back in New Zealand. The Order in Council that makes the disease notifiable under the Health Act does set out quite specific powers that the medical officers of health have. There are quite a number, and I am happy to provide the member with them.

Ron Mark: I seek leave of the House to table information that shows that at 11.30 a.m. today in Auckland some 300 people arrived from Hong Kong, and not one was screened, given advice, or in any way checked for severe acute respiratory syndrome.

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

Question No. 6 to Minister

ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue raised in this question is of national domestic importance, crossing many portfolios, and as the Prime Minister spoke on this issue at her press conference yesterday, I seek leave for this question to be transferred to the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.

General Agreement on Trade in Services—Negotiations

6. ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Trade Negotiations: Will the Government heed calls by the Green Party and the Council of Trade Unions to publicly disclose its initial offer in the current General Agreement on Trade in Services negotiations?

Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations): The Government has previously stated it would consider making public its initial General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) offer. We intend to do so.

Rod Donald: Has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade told the Minister of the concerns of the Forest and Bird Protection Society that measures to restrict the number of tourist operators on conservation areas, such as limiting the number of hotels in a sensitive area, may breach New Zealand’s GATS commitments under the market access rules, and how will he modify our commitments to avoid that possibility?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I have not been told of that particular assertion, but it is clearly nonsense because the Government will retain its powers to regulate.

Tim Barnett: Is the Government obligated to respond to all the requests that have been made of New Zealand, particularly in areas of sensitivity to us?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The answer is no. The fact that other countries have made requests of us in any given sector does not mean that we are going to offer what they have asked for. As members will see in due course from the initial offer, New Zealand is being very cool-headed in deciding what should be put on the table.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: What differences in principle does the Minister see between the Greens’ and trade union opposition to liberalising trade in services and the European Union’s and Japan’s opposition to liberalising trade in agriculture, a position that costs New Zealand and the world hundreds of billions of dollars a year?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I note that most of the Greens’ complaints about trade in services are taken directly off the Internet, from European websites. The trade union movement in New Zealand, on the other hand, has been faithfully reflecting its members’ concerns and has been a very constructive interlocutor on this matter.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Will the Minister give this House a cast-ironguarantee that his Government’s signing of GATS will not have any deleterious effect upon public education in New Zealand?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The currency of cast iron deteriorated considerably during the coalition Government, of which that member’s party was a part. I can, however, give the House an assurance of the nature he seeks.

Rod Donald: Is the Minister aware of the views of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee that GATS will be of no benefit to them as education exporters and that it may enable foreign education bodies to apply for funds currently available only to the domestic research funding pool, thus threatening public research funding; and what is his response to these concerns?

Hon JIM SUTTON: It would be news to me that the Vice-Chancellors Committee is not capable of speaking for itself. But if that is really its view, obviously it has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. New Zealand education exports are one of the most successful parts of our external economy and going from strength to strength. The vice-chancellors would be aware of how much their universities have benefited from the opportunities to trade internationally.

Rod Donald: Why are we rushing into making a GATS offer when the gains for our largest service export sector, tourism, are virtually nil, and does the Minister concede that GATS will in fact only make it easier for foreign firms to buy up New Zealand – owned tourist ventures, further increasing foreign ownership of the New Zealand economy?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I do not concede any of that. The GATS makes New Zealand’s access to service sector markets around the world more secure and more reliable. It is entirely good for New Zealand.

Rod Donald: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is the submission from the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee.

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

Rod Donald: The second is the Dominion Post article in which Helen Clark expressed a dim view of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s performance on consultations.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that newspaper article. Is there any objection? There is.

Rod Donald: The third is the letter from the Christchurch City Council refuting the claims made.

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

General Agreement on Trade in Services—Negotiations

7. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) to the Minister for Trade Negotiations: What progress has the Government made in finalising an initial offer in the current General Agreement on Trade in Services negotiations?

Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations): Cabinet has carefully considered the recommendations on New Zealand’s initial offer to the World Trade Organization General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations, and our offer was submitted to the World Trade Organization yesterday. I will be holding a media briefing on our GATS offer later this afternoon. I will table our initial offer immediately following this question, in the form in which it will appear on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website later this afternoon.

Russell Fairbrother: What service sectors has the Government made offers on?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The initial offer included some new sectors, such as postal and courier services, credit-reporting and collection agency services, environmental consultancy, urban planning consultancy, landscape architecture consultancy, and services relating to the placement and supply of personnel. In addition to these new sectors, New Zealand has offered to strengthen its existing commitments in areas such as engineering, computing, veterinary, financial, telecommunications, and transport services. The inclusion of these sectors reflects broad discussions with key stakeholders.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Will the Minister assure the House that in pursuing New Zealand’s interests in liberalising trade in services, the Labour-led Government will neither bow to pressure from its friends in the trade unions nor kowtow to the Greens, as it has on other important issues such as toll road legislation?

Hon JIM SUTTON: This is not a kowtowing sort of Government, nor will we succumb to pressure from people on the opposite side of the House who want us to send our armed forces to war in order to earn negotiating coin for trade negotiations.

Stephen Franks: Given the announced reservation of powers to limit GATS so as to discriminate in favour of Māori, precisely what kinds of projects involving Māori are contemplated as needing that reservation, and why is that not forbidden by article 3’s guarantee of the same rights and privileges, under the same British law, for all New Zealanders?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I am aware of the member’s desire to stop honouring the Treaty of Waitangi and stop addressing historical grievances. All that the Government’s reservations in this area do is allow us—

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two objections. Firstly, the Minister has no responsibility for the ACT party’s policies. Secondly, the Minister cannot authenticate that. In fact, Mr Stephen Franks is actually in favour of upholding the treaty—not the made-up one, but the real one.

Mr SPEAKER: The first part of the member’s point of order was valid. I now ask the Minister to continue his answer.

Hon JIM SUTTON: All that the Government’s reservations in this area do is allow us to honour the Treaty of Waitangi, and to address legitimate historical grievances.

Rod Donald: Does the Minister have even the slightest misgiving about the fact that New Zealand’s initial offer was tabled at the World Trade Organization in Geneva before the New Zealand public had become aware of it and before this Parliament had had a chance to debate it, and does his offer include any new reservations to protect exposed non-commercial services?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The offer does include a declaratory statement on New Zealand’s interpretation of article 1.3 of GATS, which provides protection for the Government’s ongoing right to regulate, supply, and, if desired, subsidise public services. I have no reservations whatever about the wisdom of the Government’s initial offer.

Darren Hughes: What steps have been taken by the Government to ensure that public services are not included in this GATS offer?

Hon JIM SUTTON: Firstly, we have adhered to article 1.3 of the GATS treaty, which makes that clear. Secondly, we have included in our initial offer a declaratory statement of our interpretation of that article that we believe is shared by all other members of GATS. Finally, the whole scheme of GATS is designed to preserve the sovereignty of Governments and their right to regulate services in pursuit of broad public policy objectives.

I seek leave to table New Zealand’s new and improved commitments under GATS. This document will be made available on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website later today.

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

Electricity—Generation

8. GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: What did he mean when he said in relation to electricity generators, “There is no benefit in the generators bringing the country to its knees because the Government would bring them to their knees.”?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy): I was repeating the Government’s position that electricity generators must ensure that they manage any forthcoming difficulties this winter to minimise any disruption. In other words, generators must make the market system work or the market system will not survive. That is a position the industry understands very well and freely accepts. It has remained unchanged since it was first given in the winter of 2001.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister aware that similar comments from the Prime Minister last week wiped millions of dollars off the capital value of Contact Energy; can he tell us whether he has discussed those threats with the Minister for State Owned Enterprises; and can he also tell us how bringing generators to their knees helps the current crisis?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The point that I made in my primary answer, and that I will make again—and that I made in the media interview that the member has decided to become excited about—is that if the competitive environment is the one in which the five generators wish to play, then they ought to play. It needs to be made to work. The generators well understand that. That is why they are active with the demand-side management, that is why they are active in finding more winter fuel, that is why they are active in cross-insuring, and so on.

Mark Peck: Has the Minister received any advice recently about Government planning for more electricity generation?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Indeed I have. Two pieces of advice come to mind. The first says that the Government should be more involved in planning future electricity generation. However, the second says that the market is working perfectly, and that a return to more central planning and State control would be a backward step. Unfortunately, both these suggestions come from the Opposition spokesperson on energy.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister accept that to ensure the necessary security of supply, the electricity industry needs—in areas—more regulation, more enterprising ideas, and more investment; if he does accept these assertions, what is he doing about it?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Those are sufficiently broad and good ideas that it would be hard to disagree with them.

Hon Ken Shirley: What, if any, steps does he intend taking to address the regional monopolies of the State-owned enterprise “gentailers”, which allow them to price gouge major electricity users on spot-market prices, while offering very unattractive hedging options? Will the Minister introduce more markets and more competition, or will he retrench into ever-increasing regulation?

Mr SPEAKER: Two of those three questions can be answered.

Hon PETE HODGSON: It is a very good example of why the industry needs to make the competitive market work. About this time last year I drew generators in and said that we need to have more retail competition around the country. As a result of that, the proportion of New Zealanders who have access to only one retailer has dropped—from memory—from about 30 percent 18 months ago, to about 3 percent now.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister agree that what would bring the country to its knees is a continuation of the present 5 percent annual growth in electricity use, which requires a doubling of our whole power station capacity every 14 years; if so, does he think that the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy can bring demand growth under control before it bankrupts the country?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not accept that demand growth bankrupts a country. I do, however, accept that 5 percent growth, if it were to occur year on year, would be contrary to the idea of trying to de-link economic growth and electricity growth. The important thing about the 5 percent or 4 percent—or whatever it is—growth this month over March 2002 is that if we go back 2 years, we find that growth was also about 4 percent. That is to say, growth in March 2002 compared with that in March 2001 was modest indeed.

Gordon Copeland: Does the Minister believe that market forces alone will supply New Zealand’s electricity demand, even in low-water years, or will it, in his view, be necessary for the Government to provide a reserve generating capability?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have never believed that market forces alone work in the electricity system, and they do not work anywhere in the world. The question of whether we need extra capacity clip-on—a regulatory clip-on to the system—is one of the many issues that is being studied by the infrastructure committee of Cabinet.

Gerry Brownlee: In relation to his statement regarding electricity markets and generators, where he said: “This is your sandpit. You make it work or the political process will take it off you.”, in what way does he intend the political process to take it off the generators?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The competitive model bequeathed to me by that member’s predecessor, Max Bradford—

Gerry Brownlee: It was supported by Labour for 4 years.

Hon PETE HODGSON: —indeed it was—needs to be made to work by those people who operate in it. I have said repeatedly, on any number of occasions, that the system needs to be made to work by those major players. What has happened is that we did get ourselves through 2001, though only with intervention—if you will—from a political source. We did get ourselves better competition, but, probably, Ken Shirley would say it was still not good enough—and so would I. That is the situation we are in. We are in some form of transition, and whether the market will work adequately without some further intervention is a question before Cabinet’s infrastructure Ministers.

Gordon Copeland: Does the Minister agree that the current lack of new investment in electricity generation capacity has more to do with uncertainty about future fuel sources than with the wholesale electricity market structure?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I rather suspect that it is a bit of each. I rather suspect that if the Maui field were running out—if you will—on time, instead of 2 years earlier, we would not be talking about a capacity constraint.

Columbus Academy—Investigation

9. JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) to the Minister of Education: What progress has been made in the multi-agency investigation into the Columbus Academy?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): All students have had their immigration permits revoked, or their permits have expired. The students under 17 years of age who do not have parents in New Zealand, and several older students, have returned to Japan. Those students have gone home voluntarily, acting on advice and assistance from the broad range of New Zealand agencies involved with the academy.

Jill Pettis: What communication has there been with the parents of the students?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The New Zealand Embassy in Japan has been in contact with parents through the Japanese Government and directly at meetings, so that the parents can understand why our Government considers it is in the students’ best interests for them to return home.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Government do nothing in response to serious concerns about the Columbus Academy when they were first raised with the Immigration Service in November 2001 by Waitakere College, and when they were again raised late last year, by the Waitemata District Health Board, which noted “major human rights concerns at the academy”, and why did it take the death of a young person before any Government agency decided to do anything at all?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think that if the Waitakere City Council had referred the concerns to the Government rather than to the Human Rights Commission, we would have made some progress.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister consider that additional weekly payments to State school teachers who have foreign fee-paying students in their classes is appropriate in our public education system; if not, what will he do about it?

Mr SPEAKER: That is very wide of the original question, but the Minister may comment.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I certainly do not. I think it is a most inappropriate and, probably, illegal method of paying students. It is being investigated, and I think that a number of agencies are looking at that one, as well.

Health, Associate Minister—Overseas Representation

10. NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) to the Associate Minister of Health: Is he representing New Zealand at any international forums or conferences in the coming month; if so, which ones?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health), on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health: Yes, he is. As the Minister representing New Zealand, he will be attending the ministerial segment of the 46th session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna from 15 to 17 April.

Nandor Tanczos: Will he be following the example of his predecessor at that convention, the former New Zealand First MP Tuariki Delamere, who criticised the delegates for “the hypocrisy in which many adults openly and legally abuse alcohol and then turn around and condemn youth for using marijuana”; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, he will be outlining the Government’s commitment to approaches to dealing with the problems caused by illicit drugs and alcohol, particularly in relation to young New Zealanders.

Dianne Yates: What is the role he will be taking at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs?

Hon ANNETTE KING: He will be outlining that one of the goals of the Government’s national drug policy is to support international efforts to control the supply of, and reduce the demand for, both legal and illegal drugs.

Dr Lynda Scott: Will the Minister be discussing the recent articles in the British Medical Journal on the clear links between cannabis use and various psychiatric illnesses, and what is his opinion on Wellington Coroner Garry Evans’ warning to this Government to be cautious over cannabis decriminalisation, because young people who take their own lives are commonly users, often very heavy users, of cannabis?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I cannot comment in detail as to what the Associate Minister will be discussing at that conference, but in relation to the report from the coroner in relation to cannabis, I think that warning is for the whole of Parliament, because when a decision is made, if it is made, it will be made by the whole of this Parliament not by one or two individual members.

Hon Peter Dunne: In the event that Mr Delamere’s comments are raised at the conference, will the Associate Minister be advising that conference that the New Zealand Government’s position now, pursuant to its agreement with United Future, is that it will not be introducing any moves to change the legal status of cannabis?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I would expect that would be the case.

Nandor Tanczos: Is the Minister aware that the only country recorded to have at least partially met the goal of that body, which is the elimination or significant reduction of illicit drugs, was Afghanistan under the Taliban—a role model that I am sure the Minister does not want to emulate—and will the Government support a review of United Nations conventions on control of illicit drugs, on the basis that they actually hinder control, as called for by a declaration signed by hundreds of parliamentarians around the world calling for a review of United Nations conventions?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I cannot confirm any of those things.

Nandor Tanczos: I seek leave of the House to table an appeal addressed to all Governments and the United Nations.

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

Dr Lynda Scott: I seek leave to table the British Medical Journal articles “Cannabis use and mental health in young people” and “Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis”.

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

Mental Health—Patients in Cells

11. HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Health: Does she stand by comments made on her behalf in the House on 26 March 2003 that “keeping patients in police cells, when they should be in health services, is an unacceptable situation in isolated parts of Auckland” and “it does not represent a crisis in mental health services”; if so, how long is she prepared to allow this practice to continue?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): I stand by my comments that keeping patients in police cells when they should be in health services is an unacceptable situation. The police are a legitimate pathway into mental health services, but patients should not be held for more than 6 hours before transfer. District health boards are being monitored, to ensure they are using the additional money the Government has provided to put in place appropriate services as fast as possible.

Heather Roy: In the light of the Minister’s answer, is not the real reason that 32 out of the 360 prison inmates under psychiatric care and treatment within the last 6 months are awaiting beds in psychiatric forensic units that the politically correct drive to deinstitutionalise has been a complete failure, or is it her opinion that it is acceptable to have the mentally unwell handcuffed in their cells because their conditions cannot be controlled in prison?

Hon ANNETTE KING: There are people in prison who have mental illnesses, but they have also committed a crime. Some mental health services are provided in prisons. Those who are seriously mentally unwell ought to be held in appropriate facilities. However, one of the key issues for mental health, and it has remained a key issue for a number of years, is the lack of a trained mental health workforce to be able to provide all the services that are required. I am pleased to say that there has been some improvement in that area, but there is still some way to go.

Dr Lynda Scott: What words of advice does she have for a mother with a depressed and suicidal son in Auckland who, when the crisis team could not get there soon enough, was advised to call the police—who held her son in a prison cell and treated him like a prisoner rather than a patient—and who now has absolutely no confidence in New Zealand’s mental health system?

Hon ANNETTE KING: It is unfortunate when that happens. It is certainly not a new thing in New Zealand. If one reads back over the years, one finds it has happened for decades. What we are doing, as fast as we can, is providing the appropriate health services for people. However, I am glad that the police do work with the mental health services, because I can only assume the member would prefer that the person had no help, at all.

Ron Mark: Who is responsible for mental patients who have committed crimes and ended up in our prisons: the Ministers who place them in the community without the proper mental health services to support them, due to the unrealistic expectations of the deinstitutionalisation process, or the patients themselves?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That member consistently makes comments about mental health patients. There are thousands of mental health patients who live in the community and who do not commit crimes—they do not murder, rob, or beat people up—but there are thousands of New Zealanders who are said to be sane and who do so. What we do need is for those who are seriously mentally unwell to receive the appropriate services to help them. We have a deficit in New Zealand in terms of those services, whether they are in institutions or in the community, and I am pleased to see that considerable resources have been put in by this Government over a short period of time.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked who is responsible.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If she did, she took three-quarters of the question to get to an answer that was not to do with the question. She began by attacking my colleague for making speeches. She then moved on to what she called innocent mental health patients who had not committed any crime. None of that was asked of her. The question she was asked was who is responsible: the Minister or the victims themselves? She still has not answered that question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has addressed the question.

Heather Roy: Does she find it acceptable that, due to a lack of psychiatric beds, patients are discharged into the community only to commit murder and then to be imprisoned, as has happened on three occasions in the Wellington region in the last 9 months, with one of those patients going on to kill himself in his prison cell; if not, why does she refuse to address the problem of the lack of psychiatric beds?

Hon ANNETTE KING: This Government is addressing that lack—and not just of psychiatric beds. There have to be people to treat psychiatric patients when they are in the beds. This Government has put in an extra $257 million in the last 3 years. The National Government, when it was in power, neglected mental health. This Government has not.

Heather Roy: I seek leave of the House to table a document printed in the Dominion Post on 12 March, outlining how patients with psychiatric illnesses in prisons are handcuffed in their cells.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that newspaper article. Is there any objection? There is.

Ron Mark: Noting that the Minister has said, on numerous occasions, that sane people who are not mental patients commit crimes, and that there is exaggerated comment about the numbers of people who are mental patients who commit crimes, can the Minister table in the House the exact crime statistics that show how many crimes committed in this country were committed by people with a psychiatric illness or problem that had been identified; can the Minister give us those numbers, to verify what she is saying?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I believe I can give the member the number of people who have committed murders and who are seriously mentally unwell. I am unsure—and perhaps the Minister of Police could be asked this question—whether that can be done for other crimes, but we do keep statistics on mentally unwell people who have committed murder. That member might wish to ask a question of the Minister of Police.

Drugs—Ecstasy Seizures

12. DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) to the Minister of Customs: What is the Government doing about the burgeoning problem of synthetic hard drugs crossing into New Zealand’s borders, which has seen an unprecedented 3000 percent increase in Ecstasy seizures by the New Zealand Customs Services from 2000 to 2002?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs): Concurrent with the release of Project Horizon, a wonderful document put out by the Customs Service that outlines the problems of the increasing imports of amphetamine-type substances, I am delighted to announce the Government has allocated a further $1.9 million to the Customs Service for a proactive drug enforcement strategy. That is in line with the actions of the ministerial action group on drugs, and the Government’s objective of harm minimisation from drugs and alcohol.

David Parker: What will the taxpayer get for the additional $1.9 million granted in this year’s Budget?

Hon RICK BARKER: The additional funding will ensure that we have 12 front-line specialist investigators in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. We will also be able to employ four full-time intelligence analysts to target transnational organised crime groups trafficking in drugs in New Zealand, and we will give those investigators the resources and support necessary for them to operate effectively.

Shane Ardern: In the light of the Minister’s focus on imported manufactured drugs from overseas, why has his department not given him any advice on controlling or monitoring the bulk chemicals used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, arguably a more dangerous drug than some of the drugs that are being targeted?

Hon RICK BARKER: The document Project Horizon, which I commend to the member, lists all the precursors to drugs and outlines the fact that many of those precursors are used legitimately in this country. Part of the resources of the Customs Service will be used to make sure that the legitimate imports of those precursors go to be used for their intended purpose. We will be making sure that they are not siphoned off.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through its remaining stages of the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill; the first readings of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3), the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill, the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill, the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Corrections Bill; the second readings of the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill, the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3), the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Bill, and the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill; and the passing through their remaining stages of the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill, the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2), the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill, and the Social Workers Registration Bill, and any bills into which those bills may be divided. I move this motion in order that a number of bills can be referred to select committees this week, to advance four bills to their Committee stages, and to pass four bills that have been widely supported or that address immediate and pressing issues.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 62

Noes 57

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 9.

Bills

Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport): I move, That the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I would like to thank the Law and Order Committee for the careful consideration it has given to the legislation. This has been a high-profile issue that has attracted a lot of media interest. I congratulate the members of the committee on coming to grips with a difficult matter, and on working together in a spirit of constructive consideration. I am most appreciative of their efforts, particularly as it was a new committee with three members on it who were new to the House. I would also like to thank the 72 organisations and individuals who made submissions on the bill, and in particular those who took the time to travel to Wellington to present their submissions in person. I understand that the committee was impressed at the care that had gone into the submissions. Finally, I would like to thank the member for Waimakariri, Clayton Cosgrove, for the hard work and effort he has put into bringing this bill into the House, Martin Gallagher, the MP for Hamilton West, who went to New South Wales to have a look at the enforcement procedures there, and the various mayors and councils around New Zealand who have brought their concerns to the Government.

The bill was originally a member’s bill promoted by Clayton Cosgrove MP. It was introduced by the leave of the House on 14 May last year as a Government bill, and was referred to the Law and Order Committee. The purpose of the bill, which is inspired by successful New South Wales legislation, is to combat the problem of unauthorised racing and related dangerous stunts on public roads. That is often more than a road safety problem; it is a community and public order problem. The races take place mostly on Friday and Saturday nights. They attract large crowds of often-intoxicated spectators and passengers. Local residents have reported acts of vandalism, theft, assaults, acts of violence, intimidation, and, tragically, a growing number of fatalities. Substances such as diesel and liquid soap are poured on the road to facilitate skids, wheelspins, and other manoeuvres. That damages the road surface, and can create a major hazard for other vehicles. Further, racers’ vehicles may be illegal modified, with lowered suspension, non-standard exhaust systems, and changes to the brakes and driveshafts. Those modifications can turn a car into a death trap. The problem is not confined to the main centres, although south Auckland, Hamilton, and Christchurch seem to be the most badly affected places.

Attempts by local authorities to deal with the problems have had only mixed success. Councils have passed by-laws targeting the areas favoured by racers, but that has only displaced the racing and disorderly behaviour from one area to another. Some councils have, at significant cost to ratepayers, provided safe off-road facilities for racers, but many racers have preferred to continue to use public roads and streets. For some time now, local government has been calling for a national solution. The bill aims to provide that solution.

Overseas experience shows that the most effective way to deter that kind of behaviour is to target the racers’ pride and joy: their cars. The policy of on-the-spot impoundment of vehicles involved in street racing has been successfully adopted in a number of jurisdictions, such as New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, British Colombia, and California. Under our own Land Transport Act, a vehicle driven by a disqualified or suspended driver, or by an unlicensed driver previously warned not to drive, must be impounded. Since the police were given the authority to impound vehicles in 1999, there has been a 30 percent reduction in the number of persons apprehended for driving while disqualified. Clearly, the threat of impoundment has been an effective deterrent. Accordingly, the bill proposes that the police be empowered to impound a vehicle for 28 days where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a street racing offence has been committed.

A street racing offence means, broadly speaking, one of two things. It can mean operating a vehicle in a race, or an exhibition of speed or acceleration. An exhibition of speed or acceleration has been held in the United States to mean an individual’s deliberate drawing of public attention to the vehicle’s quality of swiftness. “Street racing offence” can also mean operating a vehicle in a manner that causes it to undergo sustained loss of traction—that is, spinning the wheels of the vehicle. The select committee has endorsed that proposal, and has further recommended that the bill be amended to clarify the new street racing offences and make them subject to the same penalties as reckless driving offences, to require all impounded vehicles to undergo a full warrant of fitness inspection, to refine the rights of appeal against impoundment, and to clarify the courts’ powers in respect of the permanent confiscation of a vehicle. In addition, the select committee has recommended targeting racers’ support crews, by creating an infringement offence for the pouring of diesel or other lubricants on the road. I would now like to deal with those issues in more detail.

The select committee has recommended certain changes in order to address concerns that the bill might unintentionally apply to legitimate motoring competitions. In particular, the committee has recommended that where the activity is authorised by law, it is not an offence. In the case of races, “authorised by law” can mean that the vehicle complies with the speed limit and is operated in accordance with all other aspects of traffic law. It also includes a race on a road where it has been closed by the council for that purpose. Acknowledging that some racing activities may be authorised under the bill, the committee has also recommended the bill be renamed the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill.

The bill as introduced would have created a new set of penalties for street racing offences. Those penalties were inconsistent with the existing penalties for reckless or dangerous driving. Some submitters, such as the Legislation Advisory Committee, were concerned about that inconsistency, since racing is essentially a type of reckless or dangerous driving. In recognition of that, the select committee has recommended that the bill be amended to empower the courts to apply the penalties for reckless and dangerous driving to persons convicted of street racing offences.

The select committee was concerned about modifications to vehicles, and in particular those that increase the noise of the vehicle. Because of that concern, the committee has recommended an amendment that requires the officer impounding a vehicle to issue a direction that the vehicle must not be driven before undergoing a full warrant of fitness test. That measure will require unsafe and illegal modifications to be rectified on the vehicle’s release from impoundment.

The select committee also considered the offender’s rights of appeal. The bill as introduced provided a separate appeal regime for the impoundment of vehicles involved in street racing activities. The committee felt that there was no need for that. The committee has instead recommended that the appeal provisions in the existing impoundment regime under the Land Transport Act be applied to street racing impoundments. The committee has also recommended two new grounds of appeal that are specific to the offences targeted by this bill. In summary, those are that the owner did not know, or could not be expected to know, that the operator of the vehicle would commit a street racing offence, and that the owner took all reasonable steps to prevent the operator from committing a street racing offence.

The select committee also recommended that the courts’ powers to confiscate vehicles be in line with the existing legislation. The bill as introduced would have empowered the courts to permanently confiscate a vehicle used by a person on conviction for a second street racing offence. Submitters pointed out that that was consistent with the existing powers of the courts to confiscate vehicles for other serious driving offences under the Sentencing Act. Recognising that street racing offences are a type of reckless or dangerous driving, the committee has agreed that the bill should be amended to be consistent with the Sentencing Act. That Act gives the courts discretion to confiscate a vehicle for a first offence, but makes confiscation mandatory for a second offence except in cases of extreme hardship.

In addition, the select committee has recommended an amendment so that to pour on to a road diesel or any other substance likely to cause loss of traction may be dealt with as an infringement offence. That will provide a more immediate alternative to court proceedings. The select committee has recommended that there be a defence of reasonable excuse, to acknowledge submitters’ concerns that occasionally substances may legitimately be poured on roads. For example, detergent may be used by the emergency services to clean up after accidents.

The Attorney-General has issued a certificate under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act advising the House that the empowerment provision in the bill is inconsistent with the right to secure against unreasonable search and seizure. In considering the bill the committee reviewed the balance between the concerns raised by the Attorney-General and the concerns raised by the community in respect of the public disorder and criminal offending associated with racer activity. The committee is satisfied that a fair balance has been achieved within this bill as reported back. The select committee has redrafted the bill extensively, and the bill is better for it. The bill has now achieved a balance between recognising the rights of law-abiding road users and responding effectively to those antisocial and irresponsible elements who have shown that they have no concern for the rights of others. I am satisfied that the bill as reported back will help to make our roads safer, and will also address the public disorder problems that have caused so much concern to communities throughout the community. It sends a clear message that antisocial and reckless behaviour on our roads and streets will not be tolerated.

In conclusion, may I go back and congratulate the member for Waimakariri, Clayton Cosgrove, who, as a Government back-bench member of Parliament, took up an issue that was of concern to communities, not only in his own area but also in other parts of New Zealand. He decided to do something about it, instead of whingeing and whining—which is typical of the National Party Opposition—and as a result, he decided to bring to the House a good piece of legislation that has been improved through the select committee process. Once again, I congratulate the select committee on the work that it has done, and the mayors and councils who have added their weight and support to this legislation. It is a good piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty): It is with some irony that—I think it was the Acting Minister of Transport—rushed through his pre-prepared speech at some knots. He then sought to make some politics at the end of it. I remind the House that the only reason that this bill is in the name of the Acting Minister of Transport, Mr Paul Swain, is because it was the shadow Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee, who sought the leave of the House to transform the bill produced by a private member into a Government bill. While Government members—including the Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice—were beating their brows about what they were, and were not, going to do about boy-racer bills, they took absolutely no action on progressing the agenda on to the legislative timetable. That did not happen until the National Party joined with New Zealand First and ACT to get leave to transfer the bill into being on the Order Paper and off to a select committee for consideration. That would probably explain the reason that the Acting Minister of Transport sped so quickly through his pre-written speech.

I would like to bring the House back to another point that Mr Swain made—that is, his comment that this bill has been substantially rewritten. It has indeed been substantially rewritten. My colleague Mr Connell and I were just talking while the Minister was speaking, and we cannot recall a clause of this bill that was not unchanged as a result of the select committee hearing. In the Minister’s own words, the substantial rewrite of Mr Cosgrove’s bill is for the better, and we certainly agree with the Minister on that. We also want to record yet again our gratitude to the National Party shadow Leader of the House for making sure that this bill was accelerated on the parliamentary agenda when this Government decided not to do that.

The National Party in Opposition is still concerned about the ability of the police to enforce these laws. There is no point in giving the police new powers to confiscate vehicles and apply substantial new fines when there are no police on the streets to actually do that. We know that on a Friday and Saturday night in greater Auckland there is a police force that is understaffed by between 130 and 160 staff. We know that on some nights in south Auckland there are only two patrol cars for the several hundred thousand people who live there. We say that if there is to be a burnout and a drag race, then just one cop car in the whole of south Auckland will not fix the problem. While the National Party is happy to support these new powers coming from the select committee in its multiparty recommendations, we would give one word of caution—that is, the public should not expect a huge and immediate change as a result of this legislation, because there are simply not the police numbers to mount a sustained attack on boy racers. It is sure that there will be an immediate flurry as the police use the new powers granted to them to deal with boy racers—and that might last a month or two—but because of the considerable underfunding, under-resourcing, and understaffing of police, particularly in Auckland, this legislation will not necessarily be the long-term fix that New Zealanders have been seeking.

The select committee did a very good job in listening to over 72 hours of submissions and deliberation, and it has substantially rewritten the bill from its original form. The police could use other powers against those boy racers. There is no reason that they could not be issuing fines up to $150 for noisy vehicles with exhaust problems, or issuing fines up to $600 for vehicles causing an annoyance. Those are some of the powers that the police have at the moment. Similarly, if fines were unpaid, there is no reason that the Department of Courts could not seize the vehicles involved and have them realised, pending the non-payment of those fines. But we have a dysfunctional Department of Courts that is unable to collect enforceable penalties against the public, and so the police and the public cannot rely on the laws that are currently there. I would draw members’ attention to the commentary from the select committee that says that while there are sufficient powers at the moment, particularly for confiscating vehicles, there are some limitations on those powers, which usually relate to drivers who are unlicensed or who have had their licences suspended, and also to difficulties in enforcing vehicle noise standards.

I want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the select committee spent some time in clarifying rule changes that the Land Transport Safety Authority is making in respect of excessive vehicle noise. The problems with boy racers are not limited to burnouts and racing, but to the associated noise of boom boxes and excessive exhaust noise. That is all part of what irritates and concerns the public about the whole boy-racer issue. While we have provided some strengthened powers for the release of vehicles once they have been confiscated and are due to be returned upon the payment of a penalty, it will be the responsibility of the Land Transport Safety Authority to enforce stricter rules with regard to boom boxes or stereos, and similarly with exhaust systems. The draft vehicle equipment rule being worked on by the Land Transport Safety Authority under consultation is expected to contain requirements to ensure that the level of noise emitted from new or modified exhaust systems is less than, or similar to, that of the original exhaust system. I think that that will fix a substantial part of the problem. What is of concern is that these changes, particularly those related to devices such as boom boxes and exhausts, may not come into effect for some time.

We know that the Minister of Transport was previously the Minister of Commerce. It has been reported that one of the reasons that he was dumped as Minister of Commerce was his inability to progress anything through his department. What concerns me about Mr Swain as Minister of Transport is the question of how long it will take him to do anything about the excessive vehicle and boom-box noise associated with the boy-racer problem. He has a record of not being able to deliver speedily in areas like that, and that is another concern that the National Party in Opposition wants to raise with Parliament.

Concern has also been expressed about the role the Attorney-General has played with her opinion in respect of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I disagree completely with the advice of that Minister, Margaret Wilson, that this bill was a breach of that Act. Many of her opinions have become a suitable device for imposing her politically correct views on the House. In fact, I cannot recognise one member of this House who would think that the rights of the community should be stomped on, in order to protect the rights of boy racers to speed up and down the country, to create mayhem, and to disrupt communities. Margaret Wilson’s opinion was specious, completely unjustifiable, and totally unnecessary. I cannot understand the logic that would lead her to want to table such an opinion.

In conclusion, National Party members are pleased to have been able to work with other parties to rewrite this bill completely and make sure that it is more appropriate than originally proposed. It was the National Party - led Opposition that saw this bill accelerated up the parliamentary agenda, turned into a Government bill, and debated today. Without the National Party and the other Opposition parties pressuring the Government to bring this bill to the fore of the parliamentary agenda, we would still not be debating this topic today. It took the National Party in Opposition, with the support of the other parties, to bring this legislation to Parliament.

Finally, we also want to bring to Parliament’s attention the fact that there is no point in giving the police these new powers if they are insufficiently resourced to enforce the laws we are giving them. We must say that we have that very real concern.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri): It is with great pleasure that I rise to support the bill. As I have said on a number of occasions, this is one of those rare occasions in Parliament when to some extent politics—apart from parts of the previous speech—have been put aside. As MPs, we have done what the country wants us to do, and that is forget about who thought of the idea, forget about which party thought of the idea, put all the politics, the rhetoric, and the showmanship aside, and do what is right.

I start my speech today by acknowledging, in fairness, the way Opposition parties and Government colleagues—apart from the Greens—have assisted in facilitating this bill. I think it is right that we acknowledge parties, because we have done what people wanted us to do, which is to get on with the job. Today we are putting in place a measure that has overwhelming community support. In that regard, I also want to acknowledge United Future. The truth is that United Future also assisted in a major way in facilitating the promotion of this bill.

I refer to Mr Ryall’s comments. He is a bit like a general. He arrives at the battle after the war is won and bayonets a few wounded. I remind Mr Ryall that his party had 9 years in Government. I am no genius, and I acknowledge that. I do not think of all the good ideas—no one person does—this problem has been around for many years. I just remind Opposition members that they were in Government for almost a decade and could have produced a member’s bill or a Government bill to fix this problem. Unfortunate though it is, I think the real reason that this bill has been promoted the way it has is that Parliament is attempting to save some lives.

In my city of Christchurch on the weekend—apart from the chaos, which is unacceptable, and the beer bottle through the back window of a police car the night I was out—we had the tragic death of a young man, but, God willing, hopefully the three other occupants of the car will survive. A large number of people—brothers and sisters, wives, husbands and loved ones—have been killed in this country as a result of this activity. When I started campaigning on this issue 3 years ago—and this is no disrespect to the fourth estate upstairs—it was considered to be a bit of a giggle. I had the odd media commentator say to me: “Oh, you’re just a killjoy. What are you doing this for? It’s been around for years. It’s a bit of a giggle.” That stopped the day two young people were killed in Motueka through drag racing. Suddenly, someone in the fourth estate realised this was not a stunt; this was not a bit of a politicking; this was about saving lives.

I want to thank a couple of people. A lot of the credit goes to a uniformed police officer in my patch, Sergeant Geoff Kenna. I mention him at the introduction of this speech because Sergeant Kenna, head of the North Canterbury highway patrol, went to New South Wales, found the legislation, brought it back, thought it was a good idea, and flicked it to myself and the Minister of Police. That was the germ of the idea that has brought us here today. I want to take the opportunity to thank Sergeant Kenna and his team in Christchurch, and around the country, for what he and they did to create this idea. I want to thank Hugh Hannah, a senior lawyer with the Ministry of Transport, who provided a lot of assistance in the drafting of this legislation, together with Superintendent Steve Fitzgerald and his police officials, and also Martin Gallagher. I launched this bill with Russ Rimmington, the then Mayor of Hamilton, in Mr Gallagher’s electorate, because he had a huge problem with this activity, and still does,.

I also thank Sir Barry Curtis. Probably the catalyst for getting the bill into the House and to a select committee was the shooting in Manukau City, where groups of these lunatics shot firearms at each other. That was a sad day for Auckland. Every time we have had a debate about this bill, another local authority has given myself or colleagues, on either side of the House, a call and said: “We have a problem here, as well.” The objective of this bill is about saving lives. It is about giving back to our communities their roadways and properties—releasing them from the siege they are under through this lunacy.

As I have said, the origins of this bill are to be found in New South Wales, where the legislation has been effective. I travelled there, and I know that members of the select committee travelled there also and talked with senior New South Wales police officers. The legislation there has knocked the problem on the head. The bill, however, will not be a panacea; it will not solve everything. We have laws on murder, but, tragically, we still have murders and killings in this country. But I think the bill will go some way to alleviating the hoon problem. What is the difference between this activity now and 20 years ago? When our dads or mums, or whoever, had a beer and went out and did a donut on the footy field, they were not driving souped-up, high-performance motor vehicles; they were not in numbers of 200 or 300; they did not assault people, and they did not engage in property damage. Sure, there were probably a number of deaths—more related to alcohol, I would say—but the carnage in which young people are being killed was not as frequent as we have today.

To my Green colleague across the aisle, I say that when he is talking about human rights, I will be amongst the Green Party members and others in this House who will stand up for the human and civil rights of any community. But the innocent people who are killed, and the innocent people who are victims, also have civil rights. Their families also have civil rights. Every sister, brother, mum, or dad who has had somebody killed or injured as a result of this activity also has civil rights. Every person who has been done over, or whose property has been done over, or who has been assaulted, also has civil rights. Where I part company with my Green colleague is that he never seems to speak about the civil rights of the victims and the responsibilities of the offenders. He never completes the circle of the argument. That is where I draw the line with him.

Last night I opened an art exhibition by Senior Sergeant John Robinson. My colleague Ron Mark attended, as well. Senior Sergeant Robinson is a highway patrol member in Rangiora, who has spent many hours taking photographs of the white crosses we see on our roadways all around this country. There are 450 of them in his exhibition. I want to pay tribute to him and all the uniformed folk, because as I said last night, they are the people who, literally sometimes, have to go and pick up the pieces—in some respects, grotesquely, the body parts. They are the people who have to knock on the door of a mum or dad, a wife or husband, and say: “ I have some bad news.” I pay tribute to those officers.

The clear objective of this bill is to lessen that work, but it is only one part of the whole road safety issue. It will not be a panacea, as I have said, but as New South Wales police told me, the thing that will strike fear into the heart of a hoon, the irresponsible driver, is when the tow truck rolls up, the car is hooked on the back and rolled away. The big, flash, souped-up $20,000, $30,000, and in one case, $80,000, vehicle—the prized possession of the hoon—goes. I believe that will have an impact. All the advice we have from the Ministry of Transport, police, and the officials is that that will have an impact, and the international evidence agrees with that.

The clear message to these people is that if they are going to act irresponsibly on our roads, where they endanger the lives of themselves and other people, then they do not have the right to a motor vehicle. I will be the first person to put up my hand and advocate more burnout pads and resources for these people—if they act legitimately. Football players do not play football on State Highway 1; they join a club. If these drivers join a club and act lawfully, I will put up my hand—as will other colleagues—and advocate facilities for them. But I am not having my community and other communities around New Zealand stood over by these people. We saw it on the news on Saturday night: traffic through the Lyttelton tunnel in Christchurch was brought to a standstill. I am not having communities stood over and placed under siege by these people. The clear message to the hoon is: “Stop the activity while you have got a car to stop with.”

I conclude by again thanking our United Future colleagues and the National Party, New Zealand First, and other parties in the House that have supported this bill. I make a plea to my Green colleague that when he stands to speak, he will remember the 450 crosses on the roads down my way, and the young people who have been killed. He is the youth spokesperson for the Green Party, so he should also stand and be an advocate for the mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters of the young people who have been killed. I commend the bill to the House. It is a good bill.

RON MARK (NZ First): I rise firstly, of course, to express New Zealand First’s ongoing support for this bill. But first there are a couple of things that need to be done, and I want to start with the credits. I congratulate the member for Waimakariri on bringing the bill to the House. It is disappointing that on an issue that was felt so passionately about by a Government member—an issue where quite clearly there was a need to act, and act promptly—it had to be a member’s bill that brought the issue before the House. It is disappointing that this Government, for whatever reason—I still do not understand why—did not act with the resources it had. The Government had to be pushed and prodded by one of its members, a new member, who had to resort to the lottery draw of a member’s bill in order to have the issue brought to the floor of the House.

We must remind ourselves that this Government sat on that bill, let it languish in the ballot for a year, 18 months, and then 2 years. It was not until there was a shooting in the Auckland district and the member, Clayton Cosgrove, got the lead item on television, that the Government became embarrassed into realising that it had to do something. The question to the Prime Minister, to the Deputy Prime Minster of the time, Jim Anderton, and to the Minister of Police, George Hawkins, still remains unanswered. Why did they not act on this issue the moment their colleague brought it to their caucus? Why did they wait until a young man was shot? Why did they wait until successive accidents took place and young people were killed? I can accept every word that the honourable member, Clayton Cosgrove, has said, but it does not let those Government Ministers off the hook. They are culpable. They are responsible through their tardiness, and their inability to come to grips with this issue the moment it was brought to their caucus.

It is sad and tragic when a Government member brings an issue like this to the House, and his or her bill has to go in the queue of the lottery draw before it can come before the House. It was a tragedy for the Government—and, I have to say, a sharp move by the shadow leader of the House—that the shadow leader of the House had to stand and seek leave for the bill to be introduced as a Government bill, so that Government members were embarrassed and had to follow.

My congratulations to the member for Waimakariri on bringing the bill to the House. My congratulations to Gerry Brownlee from Christchurch on forcing the issue here, on the floor of the House, and, in doing so, making the bill a Government bill. My congratulations also to the following people: Superintendent Dick Trimble, John Sutton, from the New Zealand Police, Hugh Hannah, and Ian James, again from the New Zealand Police. I also congratulate the good assistance given to the select committee from the Australian side: Chief Superintendent Ron Sorenson, Inspector Dave Evans, Sergeant Craig Price, and Ron Dyer, all from the New South Wales Police.

Those of us who were on the Law and Order Committee met those people. I notice from the select committee report that the names of the select committee members who saw the bill through its final stages and produced the report are mentioned. But there were a lot of other people involved, because the bill took so long. It went over two terms of governance—into the second term—and had been referred to the previous Law and Order Committee.

I have to put this on the record. I was appalled at the cheap political stunt that was pulled by the Minister over this bill when it came time for the Australian trip. An offer was made for someone on the select committee to go to New South Wales to have the opportunity to talk with the New South Wales police, who enforce the Act upon which this bill is based. What happened? No one from the Government side of the select committee—and this is more evidence of those members’ total lack of support for Clayton Cosgrove—could go, or wanted to go. So I was asked whether I wanted to go. I stuck up my hand and said: “Yes, I’ll go.” At the same time Ken Shirley said: Hang on. If there is one seat available, I want to go.” That was a fair comment. But suddenly, mysteriously, in the blink of an eye, over a weekend, the chair of the select committee, who said she did not want to go, who told me on the phone that she did not want to go as she had other things to do, suddenly was required to go. Oh, yeah? And that was all about shutting out an Opposition member from taking the opportunity to go to Australia to talk to the New South Wales police.

Guess what happened? The upshot was that I decided I would go to Australia, at my own cost. I, Ron Mark, the New Zealand First member on the Law and Order Committee, decided that it would be a valuable trip and that I would go at my own cost. I arranged to stay in the same hotel with the team that had gone over to visit the New South Wales police; so did Ken Shirley from ACT. But here was the ripper. This one rips the nightie. When we arrived there, where was the Government member? Not a sight to be seen anywhere. She did not go. If that is the way in which this Government is going to behave, then God help this country. This is the way that the Government behaves on an issue that affects young people’s lives and affects families, and on which there is cross-party agreement in support of the Labour member who brought the bill to the House.

Government members played cheap political games in order to shut Opposition MPs out from an opportunity to visit the New South Wales police. But I have to say that the trip was valuable. It was worth the personal dollars I spent. The trip was at my own expense; I was not refunded. The trip gave me an insight as to how good the New South Wales law is, and how it is lacking. There is a view in New Zealand that New Zealand’s traffic laws are somehow inferior to Australia’s in that respect, and we found out that the Australians were looking at our laws and saying they wished they had our powers of confiscation right now. They wished they were not held responsible and accountable for the safety and security of the vehicles that they impound. They want the same system that New Zealand has, whereby people are contracted to take the vehicles, and the onus does not fall on the police to be responsible for securing the vehicles or to be accountable for any damage or deterioration that might occur whilst vehicles are impounded. It was a very valuable trip.

We also met the chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety in New South Wales. We listened to numerous people from organisations, such as the equivalent of the Automobile Association in New Zealand—the name has gone out of my head at the moment. Again, it was a very valuable meeting.

I reiterate that this bill has been rewritten quite substantially, and it has taken some time to come to this point, partly because of the political shenanigans that have been pulled, and the Government’s total lack of support for Clayton Cosgrove, and also in part because a very good team from the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Transport has spent quite some considerable time making it workable and just. I congratulate the entire select committee—the Labour and National members who sat on it. I remember, of course, that some National members of that committee are not in Parliament any longer. I thank them all for their very good work. We will have more debate during the Committee stage on the finer details of the bill.

I want to close on this note. I am one of those members who visited the opening of the Crossroads photographic display that Clayton Cosgrove spoke of, and spoke at so well. No doubt other members went, as well. I saw the fine work of the New Zealand Police, particularly John Robinson, and I had to walk out of the display. Those crosses reminded me of my nephew whose cross is at St Arnaud, where he was killed in a motorbike accident. It was a Boxing Day death. There is one thing that we must always remember. When people are drawn into playing stupid political games and mucking around with select committee personnel over the politics of an issue, they should stop and think why the member brought the bill to the House. He brought it to the House because it involves real people. He brought it to the House because it involves tragedy. He brought it to the House because he knows that the antics of young people who are out of control in this country need kerbing. I agree with him that the way to deal with those young people is to take their cars, their prized possessions, the things that they value more than anything else in the world. If I had my way I would crush those cars in a public crushing in Christchurch, in Cathedral Square. Maybe we can work on a Supplementary Order Paper that will do that. If those young people saw their prized possession crushed, after an illegal burnout at McLeans Island, it might have a greater effect.

I congratulate the member for Waimakariri. I also congratulate the select committee and the members of the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Transport on fine work well done. I look forward to the third reading, because then, I know, we will definitely be on the way to enactment.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): United Future members support the bill wholeheartedly. I personally do not care how the bill got here—I just want to know that it will be passed speedily before there is another death. I want to acknowledge the work of Clayton Cosgrove in bringing the bill to the fore, and the Law and Order Committee for doing such a fine job in giving some teeth to it. I am stunned to learn that the Greens and ACT have climbed into bed together and will be against this bill. Quite frankly, I cannot wait to hear their version of things.

Martin Gallagher: That can’t be true.

MARC ALEXANDER: It is true, and I cannot understand it. Nandor Tanczos comments in the New Zealand Herald that he does not think anyone would accuse him of being a petrol head. There is no room for petrol in his head, not with these quite dopey ideas.

Let me say once again that the debate surrounding the bill comes at a time of tragedy. At the first reading of this bill, a shooting had recently taken place amongst a group drag racing in south Auckland, and this time, at the second reading, a 24-year-old, Peeravet Suwannarat, died in Christchurch over the weekend after losing control in a high-speed inner city drag race in wet and dangerous conditions. Three other occupants were seriously injured, and remain so in Christchurch Hospital. There have been many other incidents in the interim. It was United Future that instigated this bill being advanced under urgency this week and put it up on the Order Paper, following on from the initiative of Clayton Cosgrove.

Street and illegal drag racing is a national problem. It is a people problem. It does not discriminate amongst parties, and I am glad to see that Labour, National, New Zealand First, and United Future have put aside this political party nonsense to put this bill together, and are keen to have it passed speedily. Local bylaws have had limited success in controlling unauthorised street and drag racing. Bylaws have displaced the problem to other suburbs, other streets, and other residents and communities. As a Christchurch MP, I am very familiar with the problem. I have had contact in my electorate with both public and the police, who are concerned about this issue. Both are frustrated by the inability to adequately address the problem within current law.

The problem is beyond the realm of reckless driving. These drivers are, for the most part, sober. It is not incapacity that warrants immobilisation of their vehicles; it is the reckless disregard for the public. Infringement notices have been nothing more than badges of honour, worn by the people who perpetrate these crimes. Often it is impossible to identify the driver in order to issue these infringement notices and impoundment notices, at night, in large crowds—something this bill does address. As deputy chair of the Law and Order Committee, and working with my colleagues across the House, I applaud the significant changes that have strengthened the bill. I believe it is good legislation, which should be pushed through.

Changes to the principal Act include the creation of offences aimed at unauthorised street races. Police are able to impound vehicles at the roadside when they are involved in unauthorised street and drag racing and related stunts. There is an extension of the length of impoundment to 28 days, which includes the right of appeal. There is a strong deterrence here. Most of these cars are a huge investment and the pride and joy of these thugs on wheels, and having the vehicle removed from them will be a strong deterrent.

The appeal rights are important. We have to recognise that the police are making subjective decisions on occasion, and that the car may not always be owned by the operator at the time of impoundment. There is protection for those vehicles that are stolen. We support the amendments that have outlined contributing factors in unauthorised street and drag racing. For example, it is now an offence, which can be enforced, to intentionally pour, place, or allow to spill, petrol, oil, diesel fuel, or other substances that are likely to cause a vehicle to lose traction, without reasonable excuse.

These people can, and will, incur fines of up to $3,000 and infringement notices of $600.

It is important to note that United Future is aware that the Attorney-General has reported that impoundment for 28 days is not a proportionate response and is a breach of human rights. Again, I echo the comments made a little earlier by Clayton Cosgrove, in asking whose rights we are talking about. It ought to be the rights of communities, the rights of the public, and the rights of those people who are most at risk that are put to the fore, not the rights of these thugs on wheels. In response, we continue to support this period of impoundment, based on the deterrent effect that it will have—and it will—recognising that fines alone will have little effect, and that there is a right of appeal. It is also possible for police not to follow through with prosecution if they find reason against doing so. We strongly believe that having a vehicle automatically out of service, once green-stickered, is a window of opportunity. This forces impounded cars to undergo warrant of fitness checks and to comply with noise standards, though not to the extent that we would have liked to see—but we understand that we will be addressing this in other legislation later.

This provision specifically addresses the submissions concerned with cars being placed back on the road at the end of the seizure period without addressing residents’ concerns about modified exhaust systems, and so on. It also follows for other modifications to be equally checked—seating, for example. In other words, to be reclaimed, these cars will have to undergo warrant of fitness checks all over again, at additional cost to the offenders.

Of particular importance in this bill, and reflected in the submissions, was the need to recognise authorised street racing so that it would not be captured. This bill has made the necessary distinctions. It is of paramount importance to distinguish motor enthusiasts, car shows, and motor club events from unauthorised events. Obviously United Future is very supportive of organised motor events. Our president, Inky Tulloch, is the Australasian supertruck racing champion, and our own MP Paul Adams was New Zealand’s first professional rally driver. It was hard to get him to look at this bill, to be honest.

But United Future is disappointed that the bill did not coordinate efforts with the Land Transport Safety Authority to have simultaneously developed policy on the road-user rule and the vehicle equipment rule to introduce with this bill. It is unsatisfactory that noise, which many submissions complained of, is not effectively addressed in this bill, particularly with regard to boom boxes, etc. But we will be following this up in the consultation process, with rules regarding the latter.

Originally, at the bill’s first reading, we were concerned that confiscation alone would not contribute to an increased feeling of public safety, but we have changed our views, and we are confident with the strengthening of this legislation. United Future supports the second reading of this bill. We believe that the new powers for the police will help to control unauthorised street and drag racing, through infringement notices, court fines, and the ability to impound at the roadside. We intend to continue working with the Land Transport Safety Authority to ensure policy is developed to standardise noise levels, to address residents’ concerns more directly. Again, we say thanks to Clayton Cosgrove and the Labour Party for bringing this bill forward, and thank you to National and New Zealand First. I now hope that everybody can have a very good laugh at the new relationship between ACT and the Greens.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): The ACT party did support this legislation going to select committee. We believe that that is an important part of the democratic process. It allows the public to have their input. But we do not support this legislation now. We see the bill as a stalking horse for increasing the powers of the police. That is what it is doing. There is no doubt that these so-called boy racers, so-called hoons in motor vehicles, so-called thugs in cars—whatever these people like to label them in this sort of discriminatory way: bogans, petrol heads—do cause problems in some parts of the country. But we already have legislation to deal with them if they break the law. Nothing under the laws on reckless driving or dangerous driving prohibits the police from arresting these people and convicting them.

Marc Alexander: So why did the police ask for more powers?

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Because this Government gives the police only $6 a day, as opposed to giving the Department of Social Welfare $72 a day. So members should ask themselves why the police cannot cope with these problems when there are problems.

But let us get back to this legislation. Yes, nuisance, noise, offensive—a lot of people out there upset us and disturb our peaceful lives. But do we pass laws to ban them when they have not even broken the law? This is what we are doing here. How do we define a boy racer? How do we define a bogan? Is it someone who wears a mudflap hairstyle, a mulletee in black jeans? One member said he wanted to ban boom boxes. Are we going to ban people wearing stonewashed black denims? I can remember a few years ago, when we were all getting up in arms about window tinting.

If we turn to page 3 of the commentary we see that the bill does define who these boy racers are. It states that they come from middle-class or affluent families. Well, we cannot have that, can we! That is fine—the Labour Party can pass laws to ban people if they come from affluent families; that is all right, then!

We have a problem in this country that occurs in various sectors of the community, and the whole country throws up its hands in horror and says: “Let’s pass a law under urgency to ban it.” It is an unseemly rush to increase the powers of the police. It is not even clear in this legislation what we are seeking to ban. This Government would happily pass laws making us criminals if we discriminate against thin, pretty, female, young, heterosexual secretaries. It is happy to be the thought police when it comes to our private lives, but it now wants to pass a law that discriminates against those whom we might not like and whom we might find offensive.

I did a very quick search this morning and there is evidence that people who break these laws are being dealt with. In South Canterbury in March, just this last month, a 19-year-old Timaru youth was sentenced to 9 months in prison when Judge David Holderness said he wanted to send a stern warning to boy racers. The youth was charged with dangerous driving causing injury. There is legislation to deal with this. The judge said the community was becoming increasingly concerned with the dangerous conduct of young speeding drivers in city and country areas.

Just in case Government members thought they were not being discriminatory enough, it is not just boy racers, it is girl racers as well. In a recent Christchurch court case a 19-year-old girl was jailed for 15 months for being a street racer and breaking the law. So I get back to my point that there is already legislation. We do not have the right to speed up and down the country, break the law, and drive at excessive speeds. The bill acknowledges that the current laws can deal with that. The bill deals with something called “difficulty for the police in identifying the offenders”, and that is one of the reasons the Government wants this bill passed.

Nothing in this legislation makes identification of the offender any easier. What will happen is that if the car is seized for 28 days—which the New Zealand Law Society and the Automobile Association have said is far too excessive in terms of the crime we are talking about here—all the police have to have are reasonable grounds to believe that the person, first, is the offender, and, second, is breaking the law. The police are there to enforce the law. Under this legislation the police become the law. That, to me, is a glimpse of a police State, and I think it is a very, very dangerous road to start going down.

A third party should be involved in the right of appeal. That does not happen, so we will have the police acting as the enforcer of the law, the judge, and, in a way, the executioner of the law in terms of seizing the car. The person is guilty until proven innocent.

What about after the 28 days when a person is proven innocent and the car is returned to that person? It is a serious breach of the property rights of people going about their legal business if they have their car taken off them. Often it is a tool of their trade. Even under the bankruptcy laws, people are allowed to keep their tools of trade. As somebody pointed out, these are expensive pieces of property and this seems to be a justified way of, as someone said, hitting people where it hurts.

Let us take the analogy of the Resource Management Act. Under the Resource Management Act one might have reasonable grounds to believe that someone is doing something with his or her farm that breaches the Resource Management Act. Should we then seize that farm off that person and hold it for 28 days until he or she proves that the Resource Management Act is not being breached? [Interruption] I think the member is saying that I should not say that too loudly in case the Government gets ideas and passes a law stating that. The bill that the State can seize the property on reasonable grounds.

Clayton Cosgrove talked very passionately about people in his electorate who had died as a result of people breaking the law. He talked about people being shot. I congratulate him on being moved by that, but there is already legislation in place. Is he telling me that if I go out and do a drive-by shooting I will not be breaking the law? Is he telling me that if I go out and drive dangerously and kill someone, I am not breaking the law? Is he telling me that if I go on to Lambton Quay and pour petrol, diesel, or oil on the road, I will not be arrested? Hello! I think I would get arrested.

Is he telling me that if I go out there and do a doughnut on Lambton Quay I will not be arrested? Of course I would be arrested. Of course I would be breaking the law. I would be driving in a dangerous or reckless manner, and there is already legislation to deal with that. Nothing in this legislation defines things like “sustained wheel spin” or, as I said, “reasonable grounds”. The danger is that we will get ease of discrimination. Who will be prosecuted? Will it be the hoon in his WRX revving his engine and goading the police? Obviously he would be targeted. But I doubt whether a member of the Wadestown set on the way to the opera or the symphony orchestra in his or her Saab 9000 who is a bit late and who races off at the lights and does sustained wheel spins without traction, or whatever the legislation states, would be arrested. It is absolutely essential for there to be a third party in the right of appeal.

I believe that this legislation will increase contempt for the police amongst youth. I am not surprised that at the moment we have youth who—

Marc Alexander: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is just a question as to whether Deborah Coddington has been reading the same bill that everybody else seems to have.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a point of debate.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: New Zealand youth are contemptuous of the law now because we have a useless youth justice system whereby youth are not held accountable. They have endless family group conferences. Out of 40,000 young offenders, 2,000 are taken through the court. This Government is not interested in fighting real crime and keeping citizens safe. If it were, it would increase the Police vote and give them more than the $6 a day of our taxes that it spends on police. It would increase front-line policing so that it is able to enforce the current legislation against people who do break the law and it would not go around arresting people who just look like they are about to do so.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West): Rarely have I been so stunned in this Parliament. I had assumed that the ACT party was some kind of law and order party. This afternoon we saw the ACT party go back to one of its roots, which Deborah Coddington well knows—that is, the Libertarian Party. I believe that the Libertarian Party is well known to that member. Where is Stephen Franks? Was he at the caucus on Waiheke Island? Rodney Hide had obviously popped out of the room when this issue was discussed. The previous speaker talked about picking on people in black jeans.

This bill is all about preventing mum and dad wearing black to their kid’s funeral. This bill is about stopping tragedy before it happens. It was my privilege and pleasure to talk extensively with the New South Wales traffic police in Parramatta. Far from gobbling up and absorbing extra police resources—as suggested perhaps by the previous speaker—this bill is about releasing police resources for other areas of crime. It gives a clear message to people not to use the roads of our country as some kind of speeding track and put other lives at risk. As the chair of the Law and Order Committee I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill. We will get this bill through under urgency. I thank all the other parties, except ACT and the Greens, for their cooperation. Let us get on with this bill, and save a few lives in the process.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): The Greens opposed this bill at the first reading, and we continue to oppose it. That is not because we support car racing, but because it is bad legislation, it is unnecessary, and it is dangerous. I have been appalled at some of the previous speeches that have failed to address the issues, the genuine concerns raised about this bill, but have relied on personal insult and on emotional manipulation to try to make the point.

The select committee says that it has substantially rewritten this bill—Ron Mark made reference to that as well. I would say that it has not so much rewritten it, as tidied the drafting. Unfortunately, it has retained the poor policy intention of the bill. Ron Mark said that the select committee attempted to make the bill just. It absolutely failed. He then went on to talk about targeting young people and crushing their cars—does he mean all young people? This bill overturns a basic principle of justice that one is innocent until proven guilty. The select committee recognised that the advice it received from the Attorney-General was that this bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Basically, the select committee said that it did not care that this bill breached our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, based on international conventions developed to protect the human rights of people around the world. It did not care. It did not think that that was important.

The select committee did not care that it breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and that is in the report. The select committee said that a right of appeal was sufficient protection against the misuse of these draconian powers to confiscate vehicles. How was that a protection against the misuse of those powers? It is seriously inadequate. There is no remedy for the loss suffered by a person who might have his or her vehicle improperly impounded or confiscated. There is no penalty—there is no deterrent to the police whatsoever to make sure that they do not improperly use that power.

What is more, when people go to appeal against the impounding of their vehicle improperly, what authority do they appeal to? The appeal goes to the police themselves. We are expecting that the police will police themselves, and we think that that is adequate protection against the misuse of these powers! [Interruption] John Carter may think that. Sometimes I wonder what planet some members of Parliament live on.

Then people can appeal to the District Court if they are not satisfied by the outcome of appealing to the police. By that time the car will probably have already been returned to them, and it would be a moot point.

The select committee should be ashamed of this report, and this House should be ashamed of itself in seeking to pass this bill under urgency. I know that some members of the Government and members of the Opposition are ashamed. I know that some of them do recognise that this is deeply flawed legislation. They are not allowed to say so in their votes in this House, but they know that, and they will talk about that privately. This bill is deeply flawed.

The select committee said that the police powers were inadequate—it took the word of the police for that—but it presented no credible evidence that that was the case. As Deborah Coddington has pointed out, all of the behaviours designed to be covered by this bill are already covered by the offences of careless and reckless driving, and those offences already carry serious penalties, including a potential prison sentence. Under that legislation, there is already a power to confiscate vehicles for people found guilty of those offences. The point is that the power exists after someone has been found guilty. The difference in this bill is that the police now have the powers to impound a vehicle before someone has been found guilty of an offence.

Ron Mark: Yes!

NANDOR TANCZOS: Ron Mark applauds that. Ron Mark thinks the principle of being innocent until proven guilty does not matter. It is not important to Ron Mark. He thinks that is fine. There are cases where the police already have such powers to impound for certain breaches of the law, but those are of a different nature. Those are quantifiable breaches of the law. They are things like driving while disqualified or suspended. There is no subjective test. That is an objective breach of the law. The police can incapacitate a vehicle for driving that occurs while over the breath-alcohol limit. Again, that is a quantifiable breach of the law. For people who breach the laws relating to careless or reckless driving, or commit offences covered by this bill, there is a subjective test of guilt—someone has to judge whether someone is guilty of taking part in a legal race, or one of those kinds of things. That should be up to a judge or a court to decide. It should not be up to the police. This bill makes of the police the judge, jury, and executioner.

As I have said, under the Transport Act all of those kinds of offences can already result in a vehicle confiscation, after guilt has been properly found by a judge. That is appropriate. If those powers were used, those powers would provide an adequate deterrent, which is what this bill was intended to provide. The problem is, the powers are not being used by the police now. The police say that it is difficult to identify offenders. This bill will do nothing to address that. It will do nothing to make it easier to identify offenders. This is about making the Government feel good—and about making Clayton Cosgrove feel good.

Clayton Cosgrove said this is not about politics. This is all about politics. This is about responding to a media-driven hype. The media told us we had a massive problem with boy racers, and the police were caught with their pants down. When they looked at it, the police were doing nothing to address the problem. What did the police say? They said: “Oh, we need more powers. That is the problem.” [Interruption] Marc Alexander said “Why did the police say that?”. When did the police ever say they do not need more powers? That is the police response to everything—that they need more powers. The problem is that the police have not been using the powers available to them.

Tony Ryall made the point—and he was absolutely correct—that if there is not resourcing for the police to deal with these kinds of offences, nothing will happen. Whether or not we pass this bill, if the police are not resourced to deal with the issue, the issue will not be dealt with.

Ron Mark: The police don’t have enough resources to deal with violent crimes.

NANDOR TANCZOS: Conversely, if the police put the resources into investigating the offences, they would deal with the problem. Ron Mark raises a question. I tell Ron Mark that the point is that if the police are not investigating crimes of violence, the answer is not to change the law, the answer is to resource them adequately to address the problem. That is exactly the point being made. It is not the law that is at fault, it is whether the police are putting the resources into addressing the problem. If the police would use the powers available to them, we would not have to pass this unnecessary legislation. Clayton Cosgrove says that this bill is about saving lives, and he talks about over 400 people who have died. Those people did not die in drag racing.

Hon Richard Prebble: Not boy racers.

NANDOR TANCZOS: Exactly. Those people did not die in drag racing. It is part of the emotional manipulation. We all feel bad about people who die in road accidents. There is not a person in this House who does not. But passing this draconian and unnecessary legislation is not the answer.

I received an email today, as I am sure probably all members of this House did, that put forward the figures of people who have died as a result of racing, wheel spins, intimidating driving, etc.—responsible for 0.4 percent of injuries, and 0.7 percent of fatalities on New Zealand roads. The person who sent the email told us that those figures are less than those that attribute death or injuries solely to the poor condition of New Zealand roads.

If Clayton Cosgrove is serious about addressing people dying on the roads, why does he not do something about better funding for maintenance of roads? Even better, why does he not do something about the overwhelming car culture that exists in our country? If we had an adequate public transport system, and we got people out of cars and into trains, buses, and other means of alternative transport, we would then start to address deaths on roads seriously. The majority of people who die on roads do not die from drag racing and those kinds of things. They die from our dependence on a fossil fuel - guzzling, outmoded means of transportation. As Tony Ryall said, this bill will do nothing to address the problems it is intended to address, and this Government should be ashamed of trying to pass it under urgency.

DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn): I rise to speak as the chair of Labour’s Auckland caucus committee to support this bill and to recognise the member who has brought it forward. This is the very model of how a member’s bill can work. I compliment the Government on giving it the priority to get through all its stages today. I am fascinated to see that curious combination of ACT and the Greens confused with some perverted sense of liberalism.

Before the election, when this bill was topical, the Hon Ken Shirley said as follows: “The ACT party supports the introduction of this bill. We welcome tougher measures to deal with illegal street drag racing. Indeed, this bill is in keeping with ACT’s campaign for zero tolerance in crime.” Or is that something they say before an election? Now, “Deborah Mollycoddlingthem” has changed their view. Nandor Tanczos always stands up for the criminal, and never the victim.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member should use the correct name of the member.

DAVID CUNLIFFE: I do apologise. Mr Tanczos has defended the criminal and not the victim. The argument here is in favour of the families who have lost family members, and the people of Endeavour Street, Taunton Avenue, Halsey Drive, and The Avenue, Lynfield, who cannot sleep, whose babies are woken in the middle of the night, because of hoon cars running up and down their street. I have news for those “better than thou” ACT folks. My west Auckland constituents want to get beyond the reputation of black jeans and mullets. They want neighbourhoods where they can sleep at night. They are sick to death of hoons on their streets. Seventy-five of them met in Blockhouse Bay to call for this bill to be expedited, and that has been done.

BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia): I have to say that I am scratching my head after having listened to members of the Green Party and the ACT party speak in total accord. It must be something of a red-letter day. I am taken back a little bit, and, yes, Mr Prebble should hang his head.

I am pleased to say that I was a member of the Law and Order Committee, which helped to draft this legislation. We took a unified approach to it. It is only fair and reasonable that I acknowledge the contribution made by Clayton Cosgrove in bringing this bill to the House in the first instance. The bill is a good initiative, and deals with an issue that is causing great consternation across the country. It is a good example of an issue that has been elevated to a governance issue, and, for once, we have been able to leave the politics behind. The bill has been substantially rewritten and I think it is the better for that.

I also need to acknowledge my colleague Mr Brownlee. It was through his efforts that the bill got the full force of the officials by being put on the Order Paper, and it would be inappropriate if we did not recognise that.

I also note that this legislation is based in significant part on the New South Wales legislation. Although I acknowledge that that is its genesis, it would have been inappropriate just to pick up that model and try to impose it on this country. The work done by the select committee in that regard has been first class.

The bill is known around the countryside as the boy racer legislation, and Deborah Coddington did make the point that that is a little bit of a misnomer, because 25 percent of supposed boy racers are actually female. I will say that this activity is not just about illegal racing. It is about curtailing activities that have a dangerous and social impact on law-abiding citizens. Boy racers congregate in large numbers to bait police, destroy property, cause traffic congestion, harass members of the public, and destroy people’s quality of life by road congestion and excessive noise. I have to say to the ACT party that I thought it was the party for zero tolerance. Maybe it is appropriate that its members get their heads together and have a little chat about it, because it is probably not too late for them to reconsider and take another call, particularly in the Committee stage.

I note that the legislation amends the Land Transport Act, and some submitters who came to the select committee thought that was not necessary. I put on record that they were in the minority by a very large measure. Some of the submitters who did not think that was necessary thought that the current Act contained prohibitions against dangerous driving and reckless operation of a motor vehicle. However, that Act is ineffective because it was not drafted with empowerment powers for street racing offences. Current penalties are not adequate deterrents, and there are practical enforcement difficulties. By example, I use identification of the driver. One might be able to take a licensed driver off the road and give him or her a penalty, but that does not go to the root cause of the problem, and that is the car. Unless the vehicle can be taken off the road, we are not sending any sort of message to those louts whatsoever.

In the end the select committee decided to use the word “Unauthorised” in the bill’s title. We wanted to send a very clear message to submitters that we were determined to deal with the boy racer problem, because it is an issue that is concerning the public of New Zealand in very large measure. This is a classic example where the rights of the community should be put before the rights of the individual.

Having said that, I do want to take a little bit of a swipe at the Government. I am sorry but I have to be true to form. The bill was reported back to the House in November 2002. The Government made big play of the fact that it would rush this bill through the House in urgency. When I sought leave of the House for this legislation to be put up the Order Paper I got a resounding no. Dr Cullen in particular was the person who objected the loudest. What he was saying to me, this House, and to the people of this country was that he had an arrogant disregard for the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who are concerned about the activities of boy racers because they are destroying their quality of life. I have been petitioned in droves by constituents in Rakaia, asking me to ask the Government to do something about this with urgency, and I have had to say to them—

Hon Annette King: You got urgency.

BRIAN CONNELL: We have urgency now! I have had to say to them that, yes, the legislation has been amended by the select committee, that it is in a form that I know members of the House will support, and that all we now need to do is to get it back before the House and get it passed. To be fair to Clayton Cosgrove I think he, in essence, actually said that, behind closed doors. Maybe we should give Dr Cullen some credit. Maybe that is why the legislation is now being heard under urgency. If that is the case, I am glad that Dr Cullen has woken up and smelt the coffee. I suppose we should really be thankful for small mercies. It is just a pity that this legislation did not come soon enough to save the life of a boy racer in Christchurch City last weekend. It is a pity that someone had to die.

Let us be clear about the activities that these people engage in. They have no real intention whatsoever to be law-abiding citizens. They congregate in large numbers to bait the police and members of the public. Their idea of fun is getting together in large numbers, blocking off a road, and posting scouts at both ends of the road. When the police come along to do their job, the boy racers are tipped off by telephone and disappear. If the police could stay at both ends of the road, apprehend people as they were coming by, and impound their cars, they would be able to enforce this law. The boy racers damage roads, and damage buildings with graffiti—

Ron Mark: We need a tank!

BRIAN CONNELL: Yes, we need tanks. Graffiti is one of the by-products of this type of activity. The spectators are generally unruly; they are the people who drink and engage in lots of violent activities. I am looking across at the Greens, and I would not be surprised if they were lining up, as well. Boom boxes are another issue that cause people to live under great distress.

Hon Richard Prebble: What?

BRIAN CONNELL: Mr Prebble is wondering what boom boxes are. They are the instruments that these louts use to make a lot of noise. These instruments keep young children, mums, and dads awake at night, so they cannot enjoy a good quality of life. They have got to such a point of frustration that they are saying they will take the law into their own hands. Is it not a sad day for this country when we are encouraging law-abiding citizens to take the law into their own hands just so they can protect their property and their families from these louts? The civil libertarians, and maybe the ACT party, which I am still scratching my head over, are saying that we are taking a sledgehammer to crush a nut. If that is the case, then I say “Tough!” because that is what we need to do. I am sick and tired of these louts having their rights put ahead of those of the majority of law-abiding citizens in this country.

Councils have bent over backwards to try to accommodate these people. Councils have provided off-road racing facilities, but only about 20 percent of these people are interested in them. Unless they have an audience, unless they can disturb people, and unless they can bait the police, they are not interested in using those facilities.

I conclude by saying that I strongly support this legislation, and look forward to discussing it in more detail during the Committee stage.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill): I support this bill, which was introduced to the House by my colleague Clayton Cosgrove, and wish him well with it. I have only one thing to say to the House about this bill. One knows one is right on a matter when one has the libertarian Deborah Coddington hopping into the exact same political bed as Nandor Tanczos.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): A few weeks ago I attended a meeting in Katikati on law and order issues, and Ken Shirley was there. The meeting was interrupted by some road racers, for want of a better term. Ken Shirley made it quite clear to that meeting—and I should add that the police were present and they made their view known—that the ACT party is 100 percent behind the police. Ken Shirley was absolutely categorical. A member of the community present at that meeting would have had no doubt that ACT would support this sort of legislation.

Hon Richard Prebble: No.

PETER BROWN: That is what I understood. We can expect the wishy-washy response from the Greens, but I am personally disappointed in ACT’s stance on this bill. I cast members’ minds back to a Saturday—I am certain it was a Saturday—just prior to the last election. The Greens encouraged people to go to the parks all over New Zealand and smoke cannabis. They forgot that the majority of those people would have to drive home. I was at a public meeting with Rod Donald, and he was bragging about it. He stopped short when I asked him how those people were going to get home after smoking cannabis in the parks, probably all day.

I read this bill with some interest, and I notice that neither the ACT party nor the Greens had any representation on the Law and Order Committee at all, not even in a non-voting capacity. There are fine noises outside the House, and fine noises inside the House from time to time, but when it comes to the detail, ACT could not front up with one member at the select committee to query what was going on.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just as it is out of order to refer to a member being absent from the House, it is out of order to refer to a member being absent from a select committee, and especially in this case, as the House had not put the ACT party on the select committee. It is very unfair.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is absolutely correct.

PETER BROWN: I am no way implying that ACT did not take its rightful seat. I am saying that ACT was not on that committee, and did not even ask to be put on the committee in a non-voting—[Interruption] I tell Mr Prebble that it goes before the Business Committee, and we are all aware of when people ask to be on a committee in a non-voting capacity.

Driving on our roads should be regarded as a privilege not an absolute right.

Hon Richard Prebble: That is nonsense.

PETER BROWN: Mr Prebble says that is nonsense. He believes that every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be able to drive on the roads, never mind what condition they are in, what attitude they have, or what condition their cars are in. I am saying to this House that we have to have stringent transport laws, and to ensure that people honour and respect the road code, if we want to save lives on the roads.

We heard the same wishy-washy arguments from many people in this House when we tried to introduce the photographic driver’s licence. We were told we were impinging on people’s rights and goodness knows what. But at the time of the introduction of the photographic driver’s licence legislation, approximately 50 people a year were dying as a result of being in a collision with a non-qualified or disqualified driver. The police came to the select committee and made it quite clear that if they had a better licensing system where they could identify the drivers, they could keep, to a considerable degree, non-qualified and disqualified drivers off the road. If my memory serves me correctly, that 10 percent has now gone down to something like 6 percent. That represents something in the vicinity of 20 people per year alive today who would not have been alive had we not changed that licensing system. If one takes 5 or 6 years, one finds that the number is getting into the hundreds. Frankly, my party pushed for that legislation, and we are proud that it went through.

Equally so, we are pleased to support the honourable member Clayton Cosgrove’s initiative. We compliment him on taking the initiative. But before his ego gets too big, I want to say I have just read this bill, and I cannot find much left of the honourable member’s first bill. Even the title has been changed. I think the first bill had eight pages, and eight pages have been struck out and replaced by a further eight pages. But if it were not for his initiative—and I do recognise that he had the initial desire to push this issue—we would not be here debating this bill now. So I do compliment him on presenting this bill, and I compliment my parliamentary colleagues on this side of the House for supporting it.

Drivers who want to get involved in street drag racing should know that the practice is anti-social, with all the noise and the carry-on. They should expect that sooner or later society and, as a result, Parliament will want to do something about it. It is not acceptable. I have had several people contact my office, and I know that my leader has had even more, particularly in respect of the events over Christmas—the drag racing type of carry-on that occurs in Mount Maunganui on fine summer evenings. It is a dangerous practice, and it should be stopped. Roads generally are dangerous places. This sort of carry-on makes them very dangerous places.

Some mechanics tell me that cars used in drag racing become less than safe in themselves, and should not be used on the public roads. Therefore, it is debatable whether people who get involved in that sort of activity—even if special tracks were set up—should ever be allowed to use a car in drag racing, then drive it on a public road. We have some real concerns about that, and people with greater mechanical expertise than myself have made that view very clear to me.

New Zealand First introduced legislation that gave the police powers in 1998 to impound vehicles and suspend drivers’ licences. Society has benefited from that sort of legislation.

Hon Richard Prebble: How many cars have been impounded?

PETER BROWN: Several hundred cars have been impounded, most of them deservedly. A few might have a question mark over them as to whether they should have been impounded, but the Act has provisions for people to appeal, and I notice that the same sorts of rights to appeal are in the bill that we are debating today.

We support this bill. New Zealand First supports tough, fair laws that “encourage” proper and safe driving, and a responsible attitude towards driving on our roads. We cannot stress strongly enough that people get only one chance on the roads when things go wrong, and if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time and a drag racer comes by, they are likely to pay the penalty with their lives. That is not acceptable to us, at all. We believe that if we are to err, we should err on the side of caution. In other words, if we think somebody is going to be up to this sort of drag racing carry-on, we should give the police adequate powers to deal with it. The police have asked for more powers to deal with it, and New Zealand First is a firm supporter of the police having the powers that they need. I have spoken to many police. I have a policewoman in my family, and I do not envy the task that those folk have when they go out on a dark Friday or weekend night and have to deal with youngsters who are, sometimes, the worse for wear from alcohol or drugs, and think they own the world and can get away with anything and everything. New Zealand First supports this bill.

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

Ayes 100

Noes 17

Bill read a second time.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8.

ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.

Name changed to Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill

Instruction to Committee

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia): The National Party supports this title. We see very little that we can disagree with. In fact, we would like to talk more about what we do agree with. I say to members that the word “Unauthorised” was carefully chosen and carefully considered, because this bill is about protecting law-abiding road users. People who are engaged in authorised activities have nothing to worry about. In particular, I am thinking about car enthusiasts and people engaged in authorised rallies. It is those people who engage in unauthorised activities who should be concerned. I say to members of the Committee and to members of the public listening that if they are not engaged in illegal activities, then they have nothing to worry about. If they are not breaking the law while in charge of a motor vehicle, they have nothing to be concerned about.

This legislation is not—and the title reflects this—about catching drink-drivers. We have law for that. It is not about catching unlicensed drivers. We have law for that. It is about stopping people who are hell-bent on breaking the law in a reckless manner and putting lives at risk in a manner that will destroy the quality of life of people who, generally, should be able to have a quality of life that is undisturbed. For example, people who move on to lifestyle blocks should not be subjected to these types of louts racing up and down the streets or the roads and causing considerable distress. We support the title. “Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing” is exactly what we are targeting. With that, I commend it very firmly to the Committee.

RON MARK (NZ First): Once again, New Zealand First notes that the bill as presented to the House in its first draft was entitled the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill. It was interesting to read the second select committee report and to note that the second select committee, which had taken on the responsibility of dealing with the bill, came back to the House with the recommendation that the title be changed. I glanced through the rationale for the change of title to the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill. Within that, there is a further explanation, not only as to why the Law and Order Committee came to that decision, but also as to the part we will be debating next, which is the purpose. It is, after all, the purpose that must be reflected in the title of the bill.

It is quite clear to most people out there who, like me, own property in a part of the country where street racers gather, that those races are unauthorised I own property out at McLeans Island, behind the Christchurch airport, and I have never ever known of an authorised drag race or burnout event there yet. The only burnouts that we have seen out there have been illegal and unauthorised, and they have always resulted in damage to property and the roads. I note that that is quite clearly what this bill is designed to put an end to.

It is interesting to read through the select committee’s report. I particularly note the discussion about clause 4 and new clause 5 on page 6 of the commentary. There was a lot of discussion about making sure that the bill did not capture legal or authorised events, be they motorkhanas or legal street racing like the type of street racing we used to have here in Wellington—sadly and disappointingly Wellington does not host the V8 racing any more. Fund-raising events and sporting events that are run by legitimate car clubs and racing clubs are not intended to be caught up in this bill. The new title makes it very, very clear that those people are not the people who are being targeted, and the necessary amendments in the bill from that point again reinforce that provision and ensure that those legitimate, legal racing events are not in any way entrapped by this legislation.

The title could well have been changed by many people who have been subjected to the antics of hoons and street racers over the past 10 or 15 years. Some of those people have recommended to me that the bill should be called the “Boy Racers (Car Crushing) Amendment Bill”. Those people came to me with those recommendations because they have had an absolute gutsful of the antics they have had to put up with at McLeans Island. There might well have been those who, had this bill not appeared, would have taken the law into their own hands, in which case we might have had a bill entitled the “Anti-Vigilante (Because We’re Out to Deal to the Problem on Our Own) Bill”. Those views were very, very well expressed to me on numerous occasions by people who have had a gutsful of the antics of these young people.

At the end of the day, I think that common sense, logic, and good advice from the advisers to the select committee have produced a workable bill with a meaningful, realistic, targeted title, and there it should stay.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): There has been a lot of maligning of the ACT party and its stand on this legislation. I notice that a number of members are conveniently avoiding the issue we are addressing here. The title, Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill, should be the “Land Transport (Increasing the Powers of the Police) Amendment Bill, because that essentially is what this legislation does. At least Mr Ron Mark is honest and acknowledges that that is what it does—and good on him for acknowledging it and for standing up for what he believes in. I wish that other members of the Committee would be so honest, because they will not address that issue.

If people want to have a street or drag race, they have to get authorisation. They have to get permission from the authorities, because they will be doing things that in ordinary circumstances would be breaking the law. Measures therefore have to be taken to make a street or drag race an authorised event. Because people would be breaking the law in terms of speed, dangerous driving, and reckless driving, such events have to be authorised.

The key words in this title are “unauthorised” and its opposite “authorised”. This is why I object to this legislation. If a street race or a drag race is unauthorised, it is therefore already—before we even pass this bill—against the law, because it would involve excessive speed and breaking the speed limit. I see that Clayton Cosgrove is shaking his head. Does he not have any respect for the speed limit or for traffic regulations that already prohibit excessive noise? Those regulations already prohibit nuisance in terms of people who drive motor vehicles. We are not actually totally in bed, as some members so crudely put it, with the Green Party. Members of that party would probably have train drag racing, bus-dragging, or whatever—as long as it does not involve motor vehicles; if it is in trains or buses, it is OK.

I come back to the title, which is what I really object to about this legislation. If the title honestly reflected what this legislation is to do, it would state that it increases the powers of the police. Anybody in a democratic society should be extremely careful when they do anything to increase the powers of the police.

Brian Connell: Zero tolerance.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: We are the party of zero tolerance—for those who have broken the law, not for those who look as though they are about to break it, or, as that member said, for those who are hell-bent on breaking it. We do not increase the powers of the police for people who are thinking about breaking the law, or for those who look as though they might break it. That is excessively dangerous, and I caution this Committee to think very carefully about it.

Sure, the bill will go through—I accept that. But that does not mean I am not prepared to make myself unpopular by sticking up for those who are acting with authority—for those who are not breaking the law. That is why I say that the title of this bill is a misnomer. It should be the “Land Transport (Increasing the Powers of the Police) Amendment Bill”, and I challenge all those other members in the Committee who support this bill, apart from Ron Mark who is the only honest one in here—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, that is out of order. The member will withdraw and apologise.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I withdraw and apologise. I challenge all those other members when they debate this title to think about that word “unauthorised” as it relates to street and drag racing, and about what the opposite is. If a race is authorised, it is already authorised; if it is unauthorised, it is already outside the law, and we have legislation to deal with that. We should not be increasing the powers of the police.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport): The ACT member struggles with the title. Maybe she might reflect on a couple of points before she comes to speak on further aspects of the bill. As I recall, when the bill was introduced, Ken Shirley said: “The ACT party supports the introduction of this bill. We welcome tougher measures to deal with illegal street drag racing. Indeed, this bill is in keeping with ACT’s campaign for zero tolerance on crime. Members of the House have probably seen our billboard campaign around the country—colourful, striking billboards calling for zero tolerance in crime. That is ACT’s message to the country and to Parliament. It will certainly be at the forefront in the election campaign.” I ask the member to reflect on those comments, which were made prior to her becoming a member of the House. Maybe she will then reflect on that further, as we go through the legislation. One would assume, from comparing the speech she has just given with what Ken Shirley said, that that is the reason the ACT party is at 6 percent in the polls, and hovering.

MIKE WARD (Green): The name of this bill should be the “Let us Treat Our Disaffected Youth Differently Than We Treat Other New Zealanders Bill”. Do we Greens not care about street racing, etc.? Of course we do. I have been out there. I have seen the playing fields that I had responsibility for, as a councillor, chewed up by hoons in cars. I have attended meetings with disaffected citizens who have been kept awake until all hours. I have sat out there on the streets and heard the noisy vehicles. If we need a law to deal with that, then I think we already have it. However, if we cannot enforce the laws that we already have, what makes us think we will be successful in enforcing this one?

I have attended residents’ meetings. I have heard the talk, and I know what those residents are saying. They focus on this group of young people and say that those young people are the ones who are causing them problems. I say that if the police need more powers, then by all means let us give them those powers, but not the power to make the decision that those people deserve a penalty, and the police will impose it right now. Let us give the police the power to arrest—which they already have—and to put those people in front of the courts. The courts should then have the task of deciding on the penalty. If we think the penalty should be confiscation of the vehicle, then we should apply that to all such similar events.

This bill targets one narrow group of people in the community—the young. That group is no more responsible for deaths on the roads than anybody else. Those young people are not the only dangerous drivers in this country, nor are they the only hoons, but this bill very specifically targets young people.

Hon Member: There’s no age limit on boy racers.

MIKE WARD: Yes, they are the ones. The message we are sending out to our young people is that they are the only ones who drive dangerously, so we should have the ability to impound their vehicles. We have a different law for drunken driving; we say that, yes, all drunken drivers can have their vehicles impounded. We also say that if a person’s vehicle does not have a warrant of fitness and should not be on the road, then we can take it off the road. But in this case we are being fairly specific in the target of this legislation.

I say that the laws are in place now to address this issue. If vehicles are too noisy, they can be stopped. I tell the Committee right now that the noise inspection officers simply go out and give a warning, and, if the warning is not heeded, they can then take the boom box from a party and tell the people there that they must do without it, and to go back and see the noise inspection officers on Monday. Maybe that is a reasonable way of doing it. [Interruption] I have sat out in the streets, and I have actually seen the same cars go past.

I come back to the title, which could be the “Let us Treat the Disrespected Youth Differently Than we Treat Other New Zealanders Bill”. Young people are the ones who have the noisy cars and go around annoying citizens with them. I grant members that that happens. I have seen those noisy cars go down the street one after the other over and over again, and down the same streets 5 or 10 minutes apart. I hear them and the police must hear them, but they do nothing. The laws are there, and the police do not impose the current laws. What makes us think the police are any more likely to enforce any new laws that we put in place? It is the courts’ job to decide on the penalty, and it is the courts’ job to impose it.

Green members are not unmindful of the concerns of citizens; they just do not believe that we need another law, when the existing law is not being upheld. They do not believe we need a law that places in the hands of the police the responsibility for imposing those penalties without the courts having their say on that.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 100

Noes 17

Clause 1 agreed to.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8.

ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.

Part 1

BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia): I thank the Committee for the opportunity to make another contribution to this debate. I note that the commencement date will be 28 days after the royal assent. That will allow sufficient time, following the third reading, for the police to print the required notices of empowerment, and for other necessary administrative preparation to be completed. In essence, this is really just a logical, common-sense administration clause. Therefore, I support it.

It probably does not really matter if this legislation takes another month to come into force, anyway. I made the point earlier that this bill has been around now since it was reported back in November 2002. I have to take issue with the Government again over its delay on this legislation. The Government said it would push it through under urgency, and if this is an example of the Government’s urgency, then it is no wonder that this country of ours is burdened down with red tape and bureaucracy. This legislation is an example of how this Government acts in a very ponderous manner.

Dr Cullen needs to take some of the blame for the delay. I have already made the point that if he had agreed to have this bill bumped up the Order Paper, it could have been dealt with. If he had agreed to that, we would not be sitting here in urgency dealing with this matter, and peoples’ loved ones out there might not have been lost. The bill was only moved up the Order Paper after I and my National colleagues told the people who had come to us in their droves—and I repeat, in their droves—asking why the Government was not moving on this legislation, that they should telephone or write to Dr Cullen, because he was the person who was holding this legislation up and that if he said yes, then it would be dealt with. I know that some of those people wrote to Dr Cullen or phoned him, and that has made the difference. Dr Cullen has got off his high horse and at long last he is listening to the people. He is getting back in touch with the grass roots of this country, is listening to the people who are desperately concerned about boy racers and their activities, and is now prepared to do something about that. On that basis, we commend him.

I noticed the purpose clause as I glanced through the bill. It states: “The purpose of this Act is to amend the Land Transport Act 1998 to combat the problem of illegal street and drag racing and the practice of performing wheel spins and other dangerous stunts on public roads.” Some members of this Committee seem to be driving a perception that there is a law in place to cater for those types of activities. But there is not. If the police could act now, there would not be tens of thousands of New Zealanders out there at the moment asking for legislation to take care of this problem. The police who are listening to this debate must be absolutely cringing. The party that the police probably thought they could rely on—the ACT party, the party that was most strongly going to support the police with its zero-tolerance stand on crime—is the very party that is letting them down. The police must be cringing, and like me they are probably scratching their heads at that.

There is a perception that the issue is just about unlicensed activities—drink-driving, or speed. People can do doughnuts—that is the terminology—burnouts, put oil the road, and kill people by going from zero to 50 kilometres an hour, without breaking the law. When police apprehend people, their defence is that that is not dangerous driving. The lawyers who came to the Law and Order Committee and said that we were using a sledgehammer to break a nut are the very people who stand up and say those activities do not break the law, and are skilful rather than dangerous driving. The people who do those things thumb their noses at the police, and off they go. When the police do apprehend someone and give him or her a ticket, that person goes into the police station and is out again in 5 minutes. Those people then hold their tickets up like badges of honour. They get in their cars and continue with their activities, or a mate drives the car and they continue with their activities. The only way to deal with this problem is to take the cars off the road.

RON MARK (NZ First): Therein is the point that counters the speeches made earlier on, and, in particular, the speech of the member of the Green Party. He said that this legislation was not necessary. He said that the police have all the powers that they need, yet during the time that I was on the Law and Order Committee we heard consistently—as did colleagues who took over on that committee for this term, and who continued to hear the submissions, to work their way through them, and to produce the report—that the law as it currently stands is not adequate. I will say that again: the law as it currently stands is not adequate.

I say to the good member of the Green Party that the people involved in this activity are not all young men. A lot of men in their 30s and 40s have hot cars and like to be out there displaying their driving prowess. They are not all men or boys, either. I say to the hoon over there on the Government side of the Chamber, Paul Adams, that he is a United Future party member and a road racer himself. The people involved get a buzz out of it. In a court of law, how does one prove that a car that is actually stationary—not speeding—on the road is being driven dangerously? The things that are moving are the back or front wheels; the car is stationary because it has no traction. What would we charge such people with? Would it be with exceeding the 50 kilometres an hour speed limit? They are not doing that! Would we charge them with driving in a manner that might have been dangerous? They would argue that the car was not moving, that they had full control over its front wheels, that they were doing a burnout in a static spot, and that they were in full control of the vehicle. They would also say there was no danger to anybody because they were doing that in a country burnout spot that they had chosen behind the Christchurch airport, where there were no members of the public present other than the other street racers, who were standing around watching, drinking booze, smoking dope, and having a great time.

They could argue in a court of law that they were not driving in a manner that might have been dangerous, and that the activity was not dangerous driving. The point is this: the law as it currently stands is not adequate for us to get the sorts of convictions that are required.

Let us go one step further. We already have laws, approved by this Parliament—I know Labour voted against them—that gave the police the power to confiscate the vehicles of unlicensed drivers. If it is OK for this House to give the police the power to confiscate the vehicles of people who are not licensed to be driving them, why is it not OK for the police to confiscate the vehicle of a hoon who is doing a burnout in a city suburb and keeping the neighbours awake?

This law has been redrafted and presented to us to give the police specific powers to deal with an issue that is vaguely interpretable. The bill has zeroed in on the offence of operating a vehicle in a position of sustained loss of traction. The purpose of the bill has been very clearly defined, and its terminology has been refined, to make sure that it captures only those people who are in the act of doing that illegally or in an unauthorised manner. The bill does not deal with, or aim to capture, rally drivers. It does not aim to capture the Christchurch City Council if it hosts a burnout competition on a street specially closed off for the event.

And here is the point: if people want to enjoy that activity with their specially tuned-up, hotted-up cars, then they should be able to go along and participate in any authorised, legal event that is hosted by a club. But they do not want to do that, because their very reason for being there on any particular night is to enjoy the illicit atmosphere that they indulge in. That is their culture—to be out there “sticking it up the nose” of authority, of society, or of whomever they got away with doing that to. What do we propose in response to that? Should we use the current law and give those people more fines, which they chuck in their glove boxes and laugh about? No. This law change allows the police to go that one step further, and, having caught the individual red-handed in the act, to execute straight away the law that allows them to impound the vehicle. That is what the country actually wants.

The purpose of this bill, as defined very clearly by the piece that is left—by that, I mean there has been a lot taken out of Part 1; there is only a very, very small part of it left—is to amend the principal Act, in order to address the problem of unauthorised street racing, drag racing, wheel spinning, and other stunts involving motor vehicles on roads. The other point that was very well dealt with is the issue of whether it is illegal for someone to tip diesel on a road. Can the police today charge someone who goes out and tips diesel on a road? After this bill is passed, they certainly will be able to do so.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I debate clause 3, the purpose clause, as a lawyer, and as one who came to the House from the background of a practice where I had not dealt with criminal behaviour for a long time. I look at the clause, therefore, from that background, to see whether the law can be clearly understood and whether the purpose is translated into the subsequent provisions. I am aware, of course, that in this part by part debate I cannot address the subsequent provisions, but when I see vague words like “combat the problem of unauthorised street racing, drag racing, wheel spinning, and other stunts involving motor vehicles on roads;” I see, essentially, political rhetoric, not law. I see, essentially, a series of slogans that are the sort of oratory or standard of English that people who work in these—

Brian Connell: Like zero tolerance.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Zero tolerance has not been written into law. I tell Mr Connell that when that is translated into law it will be translated into provisions that are readily capable of application. What is really meant by this clause is the giving of additional powers to the police, which may be applied in relation to illegal acts, but which also may be applied against people the police do not like, or who give them lip. They may just be applied—

Ron Mark: Do you support the police, or not?

STEPHEN FRANKS: Mr Mark asks whether we support the police. Of course we support policing. Of course we support using the powers of enforcement of proper law, but we do not support powers that entice the police into simply classifying a whole class of people as the enemy, and then harassing them.

Brian Connell: You don’t trust them.

STEPHEN FRANKS: I do not trust anyone who is given excessive power, not to abuse it. That is why we live in a liberal democracy and we do not simply say: “Let us give wise rulers all the powers they ask for.” We demand that the people who are given the coercive power of the State—the people who can seize property, the people who can fine, the people who can send a person to prison—work within a framework of rules that say they will confine those powers to those who are genuinely criminal offenders. What we have here is the opportunity to say that wheel spinning—which may be antisocial, but so is blowing smoke in someone’s face, driving a diesel vehicle that is burning too much oil, or driving too slowly or too fast on the road; we have specific offences for those things—now becomes a reason for car confiscation. Wheel spinning may have absolutely nothing to do with danger at the time, it may have nothing to do with hazard, even to the people in the car, and it may be perfectly safe, yet wheel spinning is now seen as a problem.

Hon Member: It is.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Wheel spinning is a problem to the people who spin their wheels. It is a problem of burning up rubber. There are all sorts of automatic sanctions. This law could have given enhanced powers of enforcement to the courts. It could, for example, have given powers that allow bailiffs and others to enforce fines. It could have allowed community work to mean something. It could have turned the stunts that involve young people, and that are criminal, into offences that could be taken through the courts. Only 2,000 of the 40,000-odd apprehensions of young people a year even get to the courts. No wonder there is an insolent attitude from so-called boy racers. No wonder the “stuff you” focus that has so enraged—and rightly enraged—New Zealanders is a feature of this conduct. It is just a symptom of an attitude that has been not just allowed, but encouraged, by this Government’s approach to youth justice.

This Parliament should do more than just run slogans. The purpose provision in this bill is just a set of slogans that allow Mr Cosgrove, and the members of the Committee who want to make capital out of looking tough, to avoid dealing with the real issues in youth justice—to avoid going back and asking why there are 6,000 family group conferences, many of them multiple, that have nothing whatsoever to do with families.

EDWIN PERRY (NZ First): Firstly I acknowledge my fellow MPs Peter Brown and Ron Mark for their comments. As we all know, New Zealand First supports this bill. Before coming into Parliament, and obviously when reading about the problems with boy racers, I sat back in my house in the Wairarapa and thought: “Why the hang is nobody doing anything about this?”. I would like to thank Clayton Cosgrove for putting this bill together and taking it to the Law and Order Committee to receive submissions. I, as a new member, also thank Martin Gallagher for the way he conducted the select committee, and I thank other members of the committee, fellow MPs, and advisers. New Zealand First supports the commencement clause—that the Act comes into force on the 28th day after the date on which it will receive the royal assent.

I would like to move straight to the purpose of the bill, which is clause 3 in Part 1. Comments have been made with regard to certain activities described in the purpose clause. I am an ex-supporter or promoter of rally driving, and I acknowledge Mr Paul Adams in respect of his ability to drive fast cars under an authorised regime. Listening to some of the comments from some of our fellow MPs, and from our fellow MP from ACT, I hear that wheel spinning is not seen to be a dangerous activity. But I can reaffirm to all members that wheel spinning with bald tyres, once the tread parts from the main part of the tyre, can be dangerous, and tyre parts can hit people. So I would bring that member back to the point that wheel spinning is dangerous.

The use of lubricants was also mentioned as a dangerous activity, in respect of the different types used, such as petrol, diesel, brake fluid, and dishwashing liquid. A number of lubricants are being used illegally. A number of people are participating in this activity: in Auckland at times over 300 vehicles have been participating in drag racing.

In regard to unauthorised activity, the challenge to most of these drivers is not having an authorised pad but carrying out the activity in an unauthorised area, to challenge the police to try to catch them in the particular stunts that they are involved in. In some cases these vehicles, with their specialised seating and specialised braking, are worth in excess of $30,000. The fact that some of these vehicles do not have the proper equipment to allow them to stop after wheel spinning is a real problem. New Zealand First supports the bill, and supports the non-authorisation of drag racing.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): We were questioned about the fact that the ACT party is opposed to this legislation. Let me reiterate that I am not at all opposed to the enforcement of legislation that already exists, and that is what zero tolerance means. It means the enforcement of things that are already against the law. If people want to talk about support for the police, why do they not talk about support for the police in terms of getting tough on bail conditions? What about support for the police in terms of getting tough on parole?

We are hearing a lot of talk about the purpose of the bill being to outlaw things like, as Stephen Franks said, the perceived problem of wheel spinning and other stunts involving motor vehicles on the road. What on earth does that mean? “Other stunts involving motor vehicles on the road” is such a wide definition. It could mean absolutely anything. It could mean just driving along in a convertible, with the top down, singing and having a great time. That could be a stunt. It could be dressing up as a Father Christmas and putting one’s head out the car’s sunroof. That could be called a stunt. That is what I mean. This legislation is so loosely worded that it covers all sorts of people whom we classify as people whom we do not necessarily like, whom we might not invite for dinner. We might not enjoy having people like boy racers, or hoons, or thugs on wheels to dinner, but we should not herd them all into a category and then pass laws to ban their activities.

With regard to getting tough on crime that already exists, the National Party member talked about people being taken to court and being let off their fines. I agree with him that that is appalling; it is dreadful. Just a week ago a person in the Hawke’s Bay had $19,000 worth of traffic fines wiped by the judge, because he was unemployed and unable to pay the fines. Instead, he was given 350 hours community service. That works out at $50 an hour. I would not mind a job like that. If we want to get tough on crime, if we want to support the police, we should be outraged at situations like that, but the ACT party was the only party that commented on it.

That is not the first time this has happened. Just recently a youth had $18,000 worth of traffic fines wiped. What happened? He racked up another $6,000 worth of traffic fines. As Stephen Franks said, it is no wonder these people have an attitude of contempt, of “up you” towards the police and towards society. They have been whacked on the back of the hand with a wet bus ticket and allowed to get away with it. Enforcing the law is all about upholding legislation—making sure people are accountable for their crimes and are held accountable.

There is a difference between the powers to enforce legislation, and having the resources to enforce legislation. A lot of people are confusing the two issues. Of course the police do not have the resources to enforce the legislation that we already have on our statute book. That is demonstrably shown every day. There is a severe shortage of front-line police in Auckland, and all we need is four homicides in one area, like south Auckland, and the police cannot deal with other important, urgent things that they need to send the target squad out to.

If we are talking about increasing the powers of the police, we should be talking about increasing the resources to the police and spending more of our taxpayers’ money on that. The State’s true and proper role is to uphold law, uphold contract, protect people’s property, and protect their rights. It is not there to seize their property just because a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that somebody has broken the law. Someone asked why it is not OK to do a burnout in a city suburb. Of course it is not OK to do a burnout in a city suburb. No one in this party is advocating that it is OK to do that.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I did not intend to take a call on this part, but after listening to two ACT speeches I feel I have to add a degree of common sense to the whole debate. Mr Stephen Franks is a guy to whom I listen intently on legal matters. I respect the way he approaches the law and makes it easily understood for many of us who are not trained lawyers. But perhaps he is not aware that some years ago, I think in 1996 or 1997, Parliament in its wisdom agreed to write law in everyday English that the ordinary person could largely understand. I think this purpose clause fits very well into that sort of language. Everybody who reads it will understand what it is getting at. It is simply the purpose for introducing this amendment bill, and the amendment goes into the technicalities of the law. In my opinion it is exceedingly well written. People understand exactly what it means—even the words “other stunts involving motor vehicles on roads”. It disappoints me that Deborah Coddington somehow thinks that that refers to somebody driving a sports car with the hood down.

Clayton Cosgrove: She’s out of touch.

PETER BROWN: She is clearly out of touch. I do not know whether ACT members know exactly what goes on. I do not claim to be an expert. I have a sports car with a hood, and occasionally I drive it with the hood down, but I do not want to get caught by the police.

Lindsay Tisch: You would look pretty good in one of those.

PETER BROWN: I do look pretty good, especially with my cheese cutter on and grey hair waving at the sides. It looks absolutely first class. The people who get involved in these activities very often have radios. They listen to where the police believe they are, and then when the police arrive they park their cars, as I understand it, in a very sane manner and say: “Well, what are we up for? What are we doing wrong?”. Large numbers of the police are involved in chasing these folk around, trying to pin something on them. This bill, when it passes and becomes an Act, will give the police sufficient powers to deal with the issue more speedily and more promptly.

There are—and I think Deborah Coddington raised this point—other things that we believe the police should be doing rather than chasing those sorts of people. But the way she spoke was that it was an option: either this or that. I have to say to Deborah Coddington that the police want to police everything. If a person gets a traffic fine and gets off that traffic fine, that is not acceptable to New Zealand First. I do not think that it is acceptable to the average police person who is actually pulling those people up and issuing the fines.

Stephen Franks: It’s acceptable to the Government, though.

PETER BROWN: It might well be acceptable to the Government, but that is no reason for saying that we should oppose this bill. I was in Katikati listening to Ken Shirley when some of the so-called boy racers came in, and I have to say that they were not boys. The Greens say that the boy racers are all young people, but some of them were well-established adults who should know a darn sight better, and they came in with an aggro-type attitude, challenging the meeting. I heard nothing from Mr Shirley that gave me any indication that the ACT members would be opposing this bill—nothing at all.

Martin Gallagher: When was the Katikati meeting?

PETER BROWN: It was only a few weeks ago, well after this bill came back to the House.

Clayton Cosgrove: Did the deputy leader get rolled then, in the ACT party?

PETER BROWN: I do not know what has happened to the deputy leader, but I would be interested to hear his comments with reference to the Katikati meeting. I would, sincerely, be very keen to hear Ken Shirley’s comments on this bill in the Chamber today. I listened intently to him, and he was certainly playing to that Katikati audience on how strong the ACT members are on law and order.

Martin Gallagher: And he had this bill?

PETER BROWN: I would not like to say that Mr Shirley referred specifically to this bill at that time, but he certainly gave the impression that those boy racers, their activities and what they stood for, were unacceptable to ACT. Some of the boy racers spoke to the audience. Some of them spoke very well, but some of them were very arrogant and used language that is unbecoming to this House. The good folk of Katikati put up some practical solutions on how they should address the problem, but nobody in that meeting, which was well attended, gave any indication that there was anybody there who would not support this sort of legislation.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West): I move, That the question be now put.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): I cannot, as an old boy racer, sit here any longer listening to this debate. United Future definitely does support this bill. It is a good bill. I have read the wording, and I think it is very good for the exact situation that it covers. I do get concerned, however, when I hear of all the young hoons mentioned, because, to be honest, they are not all young hoons. Everybody who runs a performance car, or a lowered car, or a fast car, is not a hoon. But unfortunately, there would be, as in most places, a 10 percent element that gives others an underserved bad reputation. I for one was very disappointed when they took the toll plaza down on our Auckland roads, not because I would not have to pay tolls but because I could no longer have a drag race out of the toll plaza, which, of course, I only did to 100 kilometres an hour.

Peter Brown: The truth’s coming out now.

PAUL ADAMS: The truth is coming out. The element that this bill deals with is a very dangerous element, and it is a great concern to a large percentage of the New Zealand public. I share that concern. Some people have good intentions, and they even have many good skills on how to build and prepare a motorcar, but, sadly, they do not use those in the correct places. Right throughout this country there are small car clubs and large car clubs that cater for all types of events. If people want to spin their cars around on the grass, I would encourage them to join a car club and learn car control skills at the correct venue. But likewise, as we grow older, we realise that some of the things we did in our younger years were not wise. As parliamentarians we have a job to protect the citizens of this country, and that is why I commend this legislation. I think it is very good. It is legislation that is necessary to cover the actual problem we are dealing with.

A lot is spoken about wheelspin. A lot of the cars that we are dealing with are four-wheel drive, and therefore have extremely good traction. To spin the wheels, they are set up in position with liquids on the ground. They then become very dangerous. They can easily come off the slippery surface, get traction on a dry piece of road, and just fire off into the crowd, or a lamp post, or anything else, at the drop of a hat. Unfortunately, many of the young people who are doing this can drive in the conditions they are in, but as soon as that condition changes, they have got a ball of fire that they have no idea whatsoever how to handle.

United Future members agree with this legislation, and we support it. I would speak to the young people of the nation who are, perhaps, listening to the passage of this bill, and tell them that we are not against them. We want to encourage them to go to the venues where they can use and even fine-tune their skills, and have a lot of fun. But the public roads of New Zealand are not the place for this to happen, and, therefore, United Future stands strongly behind this legislation. It is necessary legislation, and it disappoints me when I hear parties standing up and not supporting this type of legislation when they know that this activity is going on, and know that it is lethal and needs to be stopped. Sadly, the only way we will stop them is to take their vehicles from them. There is no other way. So if they choose to continue to behave this way on public roads, we will remove their ability to do so. We support this legislation.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question is—

Ron Mark: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to the member that under Standing Order 139 and Speaker’s ruling 54/2, I have decided to put the question.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I called for a point of order before you actually started to speak.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I will hear the member’s point of order.

Ron Mark: I want to point out to you, Mr Chairperson, prior to your deliberating on the motion that has just been moved, that we are taking this bill part by part. We are not taking it clause by clause. This bill has been in gestation for about 2 years. Two select committees have looked at it. A lot of members here have commented that they would like to take a call. New material has been introduced by various speakers, and it requires opportunity for members to counter those points. There are eight pages of deletions from this part of the bill. The committee has reduced Part 1 down, from eight pages, to half a page. I put it to you, Mr Chairperson, that before you decide to curtail the debate at this point, there is much more that could be discussed. I understand that if the debate is repetitive and if no one else is seeking a call, then you might well accept the closure motion. But right now I am getting a horrible feeling that there is an accelerated process here, which is about to curtail members’ right to speak to this bill, and to speak, in particular, to the eight pages that have been cut out of it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his contribution, and say to him that Part 2 adequately covers the opportunity to widely debate this issue. I have accepted the closure motion.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 60

Noes 57

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 9.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Substantive amendments to Land Transport Act 1998 and consequential amendments

BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia): I have listened to this debate very carefully, and I thought, when I came to the House this afternoon, there would be a very strong collective will to pass this legislation through the House. I am appalled—I have to use that word—at some of the comments I am hearing from parties I never thought I would hear them from. I have to say that it is nothing less than appalling that we have bleeding heart, lounge bar liberals who would rather stand behind boy racers who destroy families and people’s quality of life.

I use the example of West Melton in my electorate. Mr Mark referred to it before, but I have been petitioned by people in that area in their droves. They are not just concerned about people engaged in racing on the roads; they are desperately concerned about the noise and the damage to their property, and they are asking why they cannot have something done about it. They are also saying that if Parliament does nothing, they will take the law into their own hands and do something about it. That is an appalling set of circumstances, an appalling set of events where people who are otherwise law-abiding citizens have been driven to a point of desperation and are saying: “If you don’t, we will.” They say they know they will be breaking the law, but that we leave them with no choice.

I for one am prepared to do something about that, and I am desperately concerned that the ACT members are not. I will be interested to see Ken Shirley get on his feet, to see whether the views of some of the ACT members who have spoken are representative of what the deputy leader of ACT actually says to us.

Impoundment is the provision that I want to go to; it is the heart of the debate. My view is that unless we are prepared to take the vehicles off the road, this legislation will not have any teeth. Here is another appalling circumstance that I encountered in my home town of Christchurch. A boy racer with a known record of engaging in illegal street racing activities was coming down a main thoroughfare in Christchurch at 170-180 kilometres an hour, and he ran into a young Chinese girl who was out here visiting. Not only was she killed, as one would expect when someone is hit by a car at that speed, but her body was unrecognisable.

Ron Mark: Ripped apart.

BRIAN CONNELL: She was ripped apart, as Mr Mark says. Can members imagine the phone call that the people in Christchurch who were fostering that child at the time had to make to her parents in China? From the way it was reported in the Christchurch Press, they had to tell the parents they thought their daughter was dead. They had to say they could not be absolutely certain, because the police could not recognise the body.

That did not have to happen. If this law had been enacted some time ago, that person’s car would have been off the road. It is an appalling indictment on this House that we could not have done that, and could not have done it more quickly, and it is an appalling indictment on the ACT party. I am not surprised at the Greens, but it is an indictment on the ACT party members that they are now prepared to stand up and say that they would rather support people who engage in that type of activity, and that they are not concerned about the victims. I never thought I would hear it coming from that party.

Despite the general view, boy racers are mainly from middle-income New Zealand families. They have vehicles that are valued, conservatively, from $15,000 up to $60,000—in fact, I think someone even mentioned an example of a car worth $80,000. The only way to hurt these people is to take their pride and joy, and their pride and joy is the vehicle. They are not 15, 16, or 17-year-olds, and they are not just male. Twenty-five percent are female, and they are aged in their mid-20s to their 30s. They know better. They know they are baiting the police. They know they are disturbing members of the public. They know they are damaging property. They know that what they are doing is inciting trouble, and it is incumbent on members of this House to stand up and say we will deal to them.

RON MARK (NZ First): To carry on from that, although this bill will not stop sad and tragic accidents such as the one Brian Connell has described, it will act as a deterrent. I am absolutely gobsmacked that some of my colleagues from the ACT party are not supporting this bill, because so often during the elections, when I was out there on the hustings, I could look to the ACT candidate or spokesperson there to be a staunch person behind the zero tolerance approach.

Martin Gallagher: Remember the Hamilton meetings.

RON MARK: I did not go up to Hamilton for the meetings. The point I want to make is that not only will this bill, this part, and these clauses give the police the tools to enforce these laws and to prosecute people who behave in this manner, but I am adamant that the law itself will act as a deterrent.

There are numerous facets to law enforcement. Law enforcement is what we have to do when we are dealing with those who do not want to follow society’s standards and norms. We also deal with punitive measures, with rehabilitation, and with information in terms of informing the public of what is good, what is right, what is wrong, and what is illegal. But there is an element in every piece of legislation such as this that is there to deter young people and, in this case, elderly gentlemen who own soft-top cars and who might for a moment decide to go and burn out their tyres somewhere. It is there to deter. If this bill does one thing, I will be happy; if it deters these people from performing these acts on our highways, on our back streets, and in our suburbs, then even if not one person is prosecuted under this law from here on, it will have done its job and I will be very happy. I will be very pleased about that. If the deterrent that is posed in this legislation is such that all these people join car clubs and attend Sunday afternoon burnouts at the Ruapuna racetrack, I will be happy. This bill will have done its job.

But for those who just cannot learn, those people whom we continually read about who boast on nationwide television—when they get that wonderful platform, thanks to Holmes—that they have racked up $20,000 worth of fines and it is a big joke, this law will now give the police the weapon they need to hit them where it hurts, by taking their prized possession away from them. Some of us would rather crush it. The member who introduced the bill had a good suggestion—that the car be sold. That would go some way towards resourcing the police. Unfortunately, we know that would not happen. Unfortunately, we know that the money would go into the consolidated account and probably be wasted on some beneficiary scheme somewhere.

The points that members have made are valid. Youth crime is out of control. But that is not a reason not to pass this bill. Police are under-resourced. They have a shortage of manpower, of personnel, they have a shortage of finance, and they have a shortage of legislation. Well, this legislation is one more step that will address at least one of those shortages. Yes, I do not agree with the placing of priorities. I heard comments the other day about the highway patrol being out there picking up the pieces. Well, excuse me, but I know of more front-line bobbies—who are not in the highway patrol—attending road accidents and picking up the pieces than highway patrol people. That is a concern to me, because it tells me that the priorities might well be focused on revenue gathering as opposed to enforcing traffic laws and dealing with the traffic-engineering problems that the old Ministry of Transport cops used to deal with. But that is another issue.

This bill aims to deal with a problem that has been with us for 15 or 20 years. I go back to the days when I hotted up my Mark III Zephyr, put big wheels on it, lowered it, bored out the pistons to 3 litres, put in oversized valves, and got that thing doing 120 miles an hour; I guess I have to accept that the problem has been around a very long time. But there are bigger dangers now, and the consequences today have got to the stage where the public has said: “Enough! We have zero tolerance for this now.” That is what this bill is here to deal with, and that is why we support it.

I accept all the arguments that have been put up about youth crime and the flaky Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, which I would take a chainsaw to tomorrow. I accept all the arguments about young people who attend family group conference after family group conference, but let us face it: many of those people have been breaking the law in this manner on our roads. They have not been deterred. This bill and the provisions laid out in Part 2 will deter them. I will come back to the part that deals with petrol and oil.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I always listen to Ron Mark carefully, because I believe he is quite sincere. I think he is correct when he says that people are fed up and saying that enough is enough in this area, and that something needs to be done. However, that has never been enough of a reason for producing bad law that does not do what it says it does.

Let me quickly draw Mr Mark’s attention to the statement about what this bill does. It says that it is designed to combat the problem of unauthorised street racing, wheel spinning, and other stunts. In fact, it could have simply stated “to outlaw”, but it does not. It states: “aimed at combating”. That should have been the signal that the drafter did not think it was going to do very much.

When we look at Part 2 we see that the actions that are to be penalised are simply those that are not authorised by law. If we look at subsection (4) of the operative section, in clause 5, it states that in each case the operation of a vehicle is authorised if the speed is “within the applicable speed limit or speed limits”, and the vehicle operator does not break some other law. So, in other words, it will be perfectly permissible to continue wheelspinning away from the lights as long as one does not do it at over 50 kilometres an hour. People can wheelspin all the way to 50 kilometres an hour, or all the way to 100 kilometres an hour on the open road, and they can do a doughnut, if it does not endanger others, if it is not careless driving, and if it does not break one of the other existing laws.

I say that that is sensible. I say that those are proper constraints on this new law. They make this new law tolerable. But what they do say is that most of the rhetoric in this Chamber this afternoon is just that. This bill is just camouflage. This does not allow that public aversion to be reflected. What we in ACT say is that if we really want to change behaviour, we have to start right at the basis and ask why our law is treated with contempt generally.

The second element that ACT is concerned about is an issue of high principle. Punishment is for the courts. In our system of British justice that we inherited, punishment is for the courts. It is for the State to enforce by bringing people before the courts to get punished. The reason we are opposed to this law is that it is an extension of a very bad principle that turns police officers into commissars. The big difference between States like the Soviet Union, which had a very low crime problem because the State was all powerful, and States that inherit the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition is that in the latter it is judges who impose punishments. The fact that punishment is now so completely useless—because this Government will not bother to uphold the orders of the judges—is the thing that the Law and Order Committee should have been looking at. The select committee should have been asking itself why young people can scoff at the courts. As my colleague Deborah Coddington says, $19,000 in traffic fines gets written off—or $9,000—and the guy is in the courts 2 weeks later, giving the finger to the law. That is what should have been looked at.

This power to confiscate, in the hands of the police, is a punishment power. This is the Government that would not even put punishment into the Sentencing Act. It would not even allow the Parole Board to take into account punishment as one of the factors for keeping someone in prison. This Government is just writing slogans, and they are intended to mean nothing. There is nothing in this law that outlaws wheelspinning, street racing, drag racing, or any of those other stunts, as long as the person stays within the existing law. In other words, this law was intended to do nothing. ACT stands for quality in law. We do not think there is anything to be achieved by this bill. Who remembers “Take the bikes off the bikies.”? Mr Cosgrove’s great guru—his early idol—made one of his slogans “Take the bikes off the bikies.” Has it happened? Have the bikies lost their bikes? No, because it was law that was badly conceived in principle, and, quite correctly, sensible police do not set out to antagonise the public by using powers that might tempt them into overuse.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri): It is a rare occasion when I stand and support National Party colleagues, but I have to say I agree with them. It is interesting and astounding that the ACT party, which says it is the party of zero tolerance, is opposing this bill. Its deputy leader—at Katikati, I think Mr Brown said, and before the election, of course—said that ACT supported the bill. Mr Shirley said: “ACT supports the introduction of the bill. We welcome tougher measures to deal with illegal street racing. Indeed, this bill is in keeping with ACT’s campaign for zero tolerance on crime.” That is what he said on 14 May, and we had an election a month or so later. For the life of me I cannot work out who ACT is trying to appeal to now. Even its rich mates, whom it does support, have written to me and other members of this House saying that they have had an utter gutsful of this problem.

Mr Franks talks about the police being commissars. What an utter insult to the men and women who protect that member and his fat-cat mates! What an insult to the law-abiding Kiwis around this country! I say to Mr Franks that one cannot be tough on crime and campaign for zero tolerance, then drop a bucket on the boys in blue. He cannot have it both ways. I am looking forward to the next election when I can ram the words of Mr Franks and Ms Coddington back down where they came from—down their throats.

Ms Coddington spoke about how discriminatory this bill was. She spoke about some victims. The only victims she did not speak about—no one in that party has spoken about them—are the people who have been killed by this activity. Mr Mark made the point that what this bill is trying to do in essence, and what I believe it will do—it will not be a panacea, as I have said—is provide an ambulance at the top of the cliff. It will provide a deterrent so that we will not have another death like the one we had on Saturday of a young Thai fellow, and, possibly, his mates in the car. This bill will deter that behaviour.

Yet, of course, these people from ACT parade around the country saying they are tough on crime. Every party in this Parliament, apart from the Greens—who do not believe that common sense is trendy—and apart from ACT, supports this bill. The police around the country, man and woman, side by side, support the bill. The overwhelming majority—the vast majority—of Kiwis around the country support the bill. Even some of the ACT fat cats support the bill. Yet Mr Franks and Ms Coddington get up and oppose it. Work that one out! I do not know. I say to Ms Coddington that maybe she wants to have a register of boy racers! Maybe Alister Taylor could publish the register. Maybe this time, after he has published it and people have paid for it, he might actually deliver the register to them.

I say to the ACT people that they should take an example from most of the members in this Chamber—United Future, New Zealand First, the National Party, and others—who have treated this bill with a high degree of seriousness. On the weekend we saw a vast number of examples of lawlessness—of bottles being thrown through police car windows, of, tragically, another death, and of utter lawlessness. I think this bill goes a long way to knock those problems on the head. Ms Coddington says that the bill will not work. Well, look at New South Wales; it has worked in New South Wales. Queensland, which has this problem, is begging for the New South Wales legislation, as are the Australian Capital Territory and other states.

I will be the first person, as I said in another speech, to stand up for law-abiding people. I think that 80 percent of the boy racer types are law abiding. With this deterrent they will join clubs and act lawfully. But there is a hard core of people who, even if we gave them the facilities—the 10 percent who are nutters—would get their jollies from having the police chase them around, like some sort of Dukes of Hazzard movie. They know that the current deterrent that the police have is an infringement notice and it is not working.

I will say one other thing to Ms Coddington. She and others talk about a lack of police resources. Well, here is an eye-opener for her. I went to New South Wales and talked to the police there, and asked: “Look, what if we threw another 1,000 police at the boy racer problem?”. The police said that with the current laws we have it would not work, and that all that we would get is another 5,000 or 6,000 infringement notices. They said that what we needed was a real deterrent.

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

CLAYTON COSGROVE: I make one final point to Ms Coddington and the ACT mob, who talk about the police lacking resources. The New South Wales police told me that if we have a decent deterrent, we can pull police out of this duty, and they can fight real crime. The problem at the moment is, even if we threw 1,000 extra police at the problem, we would get only 5,000 more infringement notices, which would do nothing. If we have a better deterrent, we can release the boys and girls in blue from this duty, and they can go out and protect our homes and our livelihoods.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 1 to Minister

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration): I want to correct a misunderstanding or mistake that may have been made in answer to question No. 1. I may have implied that Fernridge Institute of Training Ltd was not registered by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. However, it was the course that was not approved at the time the permits were issued. A 1-year course was subsequently approved in December last year.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for her explanation.

Bills

Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Substantive amendments to Land Transport Act 1998 and consequential amendments (continued)

JIM PETERS (NZ First): In speaking to the bill I just want to cover some aspects quite quickly. Firstly, this issue does concern local authorities greatly. Therefore, it was no surprise to me to find that 25 local authorities had made submissions to the select committee. Secondly, I also know from discussions that took place at that time that a number of those local authorities were not happy with what they thought was light-handed treatment with regard to the possible consequences of street racing.

The Hon Dover Samuels and John Carter, like myself, will have received over recent months a great deal of correspondence from the Kaitaia district relating to these very matters. At the end, the inability, for various reasons, of the local police station to act, in the minds of people, correctly resulted almost in their taking their own actions with regard to matters of this nature, and similar. Therefore, I find it very surprising to come to the House and hear a determined call by the ACT party—which has some adherents in our district, for some reason, particularly in the Kerikeri district—to adopt a completely laissez-faire, hands-off, no-action approach. In fact, its zero tolerance is zero tolerance in relation to any ability to carry out what seems to me to be very sensible consequences, as outlined in the select committee.

There is nothing in clause 4 or clause 5 that should cause anyone any concern. There is no great attack there upon anyone’s liberty. In fact, with regard to the earlier debate about the purpose clause, the substituted clauses pick up exactly what was intended. In clause 5, subsection (2) of section 22A, which is about preventing persons from engaging in unauthorised street or drag racing, states: “A person must not, without reasonable excuse, intentionally pour . . .”—it covers that aspect —“any other substance likely to cause a vehicle to undergo loss of traction.” Again, subsection (3) states: “A person must not, without reasonable excuse, operate a motor vehicle on a road in a manner that causes the vehicle to undergo sustained loss of traction unless the operation of the vehicle in that manner is authorised by law.”

Some of the issues that were raised earlier, and are implicit here, are ones that should not cause any sound, right-thinking person any problem with regard to the retention of one’s personal liberty or one’s person. So I speak on behalf of New Zealand First to give further support to Part 2. Again, I express my surprise, living and working in the Northland district as I do, where the ACT party has some support, and had support at the last election, to find that ACT opposes this bill. I believe that its supporters, particularly those in Kerikeri, would be quite shocked at ACT’s extreme, liberal, no-care attitude in respect of an issue that in our district has caused great concern, and needs an appropriate remedy such as this bill intends.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West): I move, That the question be now put.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): I wish people in the Chamber would debate the parts and stop making pathetic political points. I would like the Minister of Transport to stand and answer a question I have. It relates to Part 2, where section 96(1A), in clause 8(2), states: “An enforcement officer may seize and impound, or seize and authorise the impoundment of, a motor vehicle for 28 days if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person—(a) operated the vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, on a road in contravention of section 22A(1);”, then goes on to talk about loss of traction. I would like the Minister to answer whether this provision relates just to those people whom this bill identifies and defines as boy racers, or whether it will be applied to anybody who is exceeding the speed limit. Obviously, if one is exceeding the speed limit, one is exhibiting speed or acceleration that is not authorised.

This is going to catch everybody. There may be people in this Chamber who have never broken the speed limit, but I will be honest and say that I have, and I have had speeding fines, and I have paid them. I have accepted responsibility for those, because I accept the upholding of the law. I have given in gracefully—not without a bit of grumbling, I must admit—and I have paid them. I challenge anyone to say they have not broken the law, in terms of breaking the speed limit, whether or not they have been caught.

What does concern me—and I would like the Minister to stand and answer this—is whether this legislation will apply only to those people whom people in this Chamber dislike because they think they are bogans, or hoons, or thugs on wheels, or whatever; or will also apply to people like my mother, who is 82, who received a speeding fine the other day, too, and paid it.

Hon Paul Swain: Was she in a race?

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: She could be called a “Go-Granny-Go” but she could not be called a boy racer. Seriously, though, this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. If the police have the ability, instead of issuing people with a speed camera fine, which is the normal course of events at the moment, to go further and take their vehicles off them and impound them for 28 days, then have them prove that they were not breaking the law before they can get their property back, that brings me back to this issue of compensation for property rights. If these boy racers do have their vehicles impounded for 28 days just because an officer believes on reasonable grounds that they were breaking the law—it has not been proven in court; it has not been shown that they were breaking the law, that they committed an offence—if they have their property taken off them, then they go through the system of proving that they were not breaking the law, and they get their property back; who will compensate them for that breach of their property rights? Will we see increased claims against the State? That is the second question I would like the Minister to answer. Will this open the way for more action against the police, and therefore against the State?

If it does, I think it is not too late for those who say they support this bill to pass an amendment. I must say that I think that National Party members would be surprised—those old codgers who are still alive, who remember that the National Party was founded on the principles of individual liberty and respect for the law—[Interruption] When was the National Party founded? The member cannot answer. I wonder what those people think now when they see that the National Party is supporting the Labour Party in terms of a person being guilty until proven innocent.

I ask the Minister if he could take a call and answer those two questions: one, whether this legislation allows the police to do away with prosecuting, with issuing traffic fines, and, instead, to use their discretion to take a vehicle—

GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa): I move, That the question be now put.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I would like to pick up on some of the points raised by Deborah Coddington, because I think that she has identified a very serious point in the bill that the select committee seems to have failed to pick up. She talked about the clause that allows a vehicle to be seized and impounded for 28 days, in certain circumstances. Clause 8(2)(1A) states that an enforcement officer may seize and impound a vehicle if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person operated the vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration on a road, in contravention of section 22A(1). It does not just state a race, but also an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, and that is a very broad understanding of what we are talking about here.

Section 22A(1), which clause 8 refers to, simply states that a person must not operate a motor vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, on a road unless the operation of the vehicle in that manner is authorised by law. If a person is speeding, clearly that is not authorised by law. If a person takes off from a traffic light a bit quickly and breaks the speed limit, then he or she has broken that clause. According to the bill, that person’s vehicle can then be impounded for 28 days.

There is a limitation on this in section 96(9) of the principal Act, inserted by clause 8, which states: “Nothing in subsection 1A applies to a person operating a motor vehicle in a manner that is authorised by law within the meaning of section 22A(4).” I know that the select committee was concerned to make sure that people engaged in legitimate motor races were not picked up by this bill, and I think that is very good. However, all it does is say that if a person is involved in a race or exhibition of speed authorised by law, then that subsection does not apply. It still does not pick up on the point identified by Deborah Coddington, which the select committee, with all its consideration, obviously did not pick up at all—that is, that a person taking off from a traffic light a bit quickly, and who breaks the speed limit, can have his or her vehicle impounded by the police for 28 days.

Members are saying: “Don’t be pathetic; the police will not do that.” Of course they will not do that to a member of Parliament or a lawyer in a BMW, but when we listen to the rhetoric of members in this House talking about hoons and thugs and we think about the way in which this bill is deliberately designed to scapegoat a certain section of the population, then undoubtedly those powers may well be used against certain sections of the population—not the ones who are the friends of members of Parliament in general, but some sections of the population; the same ones who are targeted by the police in many of their operations.

Once again, let us remind the Committee that this is what was identified, in terms of advice to the select committee. The advice to the select committee was that this bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Some members in this House seem to think that the Greens are very quaint. We think that if we have a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we should adhere to it. There is a quaint notion in relation to human rights—that we can take or leave some people, when we choose to.

The reality is that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is legislation based on international human rights conventions, designed to protect the human rights and civil rights of people on this planet. This Parliament should think very, very carefully before making an exception in this case, when there is not a proven case that warrants that kind of activity. If we make an exception in this case, what are we prepared to make an exception for the next time? That is what this Parliament has to come to grips with.

We pass legislation, knowing that we are contravening the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act at our peril. [Interruption] I tell Lianne Dalziel that the difference with the breath-testing laws is that they relate to an offence for which there is no subjective test. If a person’s breath-alcohol reading is over the limit, that is clear, and if a person is driving while disqualified or suspended, that is clear also. There is no question of subjectivity. If a person is guilty of one of the offences under this bill it is a subjective test, and it should not be for a police officer to decide whether someone is breaking the law, and then punish that person before his or her guilt has been established.

The other point, which I raised in the second reading debate, is about who does a person who feels that he or she has been unfairly targeted by the police appeal to.

Clayton Cosgrove: The courts.

NANDOR TANCZOS: To the police. I ask Clayton Cosgrove whether he has read the bill. That person would apply to the police. The bill states that that person should apply to the police.

DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, and before I call the next member I say to members on the cross benches that it is a longstanding convention in the House that they do not interject across the cross benches because it muffles the microphone.

BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Being a new member here, I do not understand what you mean by the cross benches.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The cross benches are at the back of the Chamber.

Hon Paul Swain: Those ones that go across.

BRIAN CONNELL: I thank the Minister for his help. I have a question for him, so he should stay in the chair. People are tending to read this legislation or history backwards. District councils and city councils have bent over backwards to try to accommodate boy racers, by providing off-street facilities. What has become very clear is that these hoons have very little interest in driving their cars in a dangerous way, unless they have an audience. In fact, the police in New South Wales report that the threat of impoundment has resulted in a reasonable uptake of alternative venues provided by clubs and local authorities. I think there is a message here for members of this House—if a deterrent is put in place, if councils provide off-street facilities, they may not be doing that in vain.

I have a question for the Minister, and it is not a question to try to trap him. As I was mulling over this legislation during dinner, it occurred to me that I did not know what would happen if the impounded vehicle is leased, subject to a hire purchase agreement, or financed through a bank.

Hon Paul Swain: It doesn’t matter.

BRIAN CONNELL: Maybe the Minister could take a call and tell me why it doesn’t matter, because I do not know the answer. Just how will that situation be dealt with?

The second issue I would like to raise is that the police respond to public concern. That is where they put their resources. If they are overstretched at the moment it is because this issue has high public interest. If one thinks it is an issue just for urban areas, it is not. This is an endemic problem that stretches from the deep South Island to the North Island. I have an email that I would like to quote from: “Vehicle noise pollution is becoming a very insidious problem nationwide. What on earth would a scrubby-arsed 1.3 litre car need a 150 to 200 millilitre tailpipe on a car other than to make lots of noise and be more of a damned nuisance?”. That is an issue of public concern and something that needs to be addressed.

As I cast through the commentary on the bill from the select committee I note that it states: “We note the New Zealand Law Society and the National Council of Women submitted that, if the police were resourced adequately and if they treated the issue as a priority, the existing law would be sufficient to deal with the issue. However, the police note that street racer activity tends to peak during the hours of darkness at the weekends, when other, more serious crime is also peaking.” The issue, then, is whether the police are resourced adequately. On reflection, notwithstanding the commentary on the bill, which I accept I was a party to, I am not certain that they are. It might be something that we need to address in this Chamber, to make sure that the police do have the resources to deal with an issue that has, as I said, become endemic.

I said that councils have bent over backwards to try to assist these people to pursue a legitimate interest in drag racing, and of course some have taken up that opportunity. Councils report that around 20 percent have taken up that opportunity. The bulk of the facilities though are left unused, and particularly when this activity is peaking there is no one on these drag strips. They prefer to go to town, harass people, block off roads, and cause huge problems. They destroy people’s quality of life. As I said before, people have petitioned me in their droves to take action to do something about this problem.

The commentary also notes that penalties imposed for these offences do not seem to act as a deterrent. People tend to get their fine, deal with it at the police station, and come out and wave it around as a badge of honour. Current law does not easily identify offenders.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 60

Noes 54

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 9.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question now is that Part 2 stand part. A party vote is called for. Just before we have the party vote, can I remind members that we need silence during the taking of the vote. If members look at Speaker’s ruling 56/4 and Speaker’s ruling 8/2 in the Supplement to Speakers’ Rulings they will see that silence is required.

RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think probably one of the things that brings issues of disorder to a head is when members feel somewhat aggrieved that the debate has been truncated. We are in the Committee stage and have already forgone the opportunity to debate this bill clause by clause. There is considerable dissent within the Committee amongst the parties. New material is being raised consistently. Nothing in the debate has been repetitive. For the record, and for good order, maintenance, and discipline, could you tell the Committee precisely how long we have spent on the Committee stage of Part 2 at this point in time.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member and refer him to Standing Order 139.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 97

Noes 17

Part 2 agreed to.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8.

ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.

Schedule

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport): I wish to bring members’ attention briefly to some amendments in my name, which are, in the immortal words of the Hon Stan Rodger, minor technical amendments. They simply improve the schedule of the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next member I would like to inform the Committee that the debate on the schedule is very narrow. It is confined to the consequential amendments set out in the schedule. Members should not range over the contents of the bill, except to the extent that these amendments are consequential to those provisions. The consideration of the schedule is not an opportunity for a summing-up debate on the bill. That happens in the debate on the third reading.

RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have taken your advice and read Standing Order 139, which states that if the Speaker accepts a closure motion, the question is put on the closure and decided without amendment or debate. Can I ask you, Mr Chairperson, to consider that many of the rulings given by Chairs and Speakers in the House are based on convention. One of the simple principles that determines how Committee stages are run is that the debate be allowed to continue in a timely manner, and in a manner that allows the debate to be adequately aired.

In the past, Speakers and Chairs have deliberately not allowed the debate to be seen to be rammed through. They have exhausted the time available, to ensure that all members have been given adequate opportunity to debate the clauses and the parts in a meaningful way. Can I once again ask you to consider that in future deliberations. We have had a very short Committee stage debate on Part 2. I would hate to think, and maybe this is something that could be reflected on by yourself and Mr Speaker, that we have now set a precedent by which future Governments that appoint Chairs and Speakers might seek to truncate Oppositions’ ability to debate bills.

In the time that I have been a Government whip and an Opposition whip we have gone out of our way to ensure that the conventions are adhered to, because their implications are great. I now see a debate that has been truncated, and I suggest that the implications of that, in terms of convention, are quite serious indeed.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): As a member of now 4 years’ standing I want to endorse that concern, because I need guidance on this. We have now had a warning from you in the Chair as to the relevance of debates on the schedule, in terms that imply that in some way we were discursive, repetitive, or off the point.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Chair is not creating any precedent whatsoever. This is the normal course, and has been for quite a considerable time. I take the opportunity now to recognise that both members have made a contribution. I have heard what they had to say, and I will take it into consideration.

RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand what you have explained to us. But the dilemma I have now is that with the feeling of dissatisfaction that I have, and it has now been supported by the member from the ACT party—

Sue Kedgley: And the Greens.

RON MARK: And the Greens now have also expressed the same concern. I know that behind the scenes there are discussions and arrangements between the Government whips and the various Opposition whips, and unofficial and informal agreements are entered into in the Business Committee, but I have not been part of any such discussions.

What I see right now is a situation that will lead to great dissatisfaction. If we are now to stick to the relevance of the schedule, there is no opportunity for the new material that has been introduced to be addressed on either the Government or the divided Opposition side of this debate. It leaves one in the position, in order to seek satisfaction, of possibly recalling the Speaker, because we in New Zealand First feel that our right to debate this issue fully and formally to a sensible conclusion has been rushed. To receive an arrogant response, which basically stated “Read 139 and sit down”, to my expression of concern is totally unacceptable if this is truly a House of Representatives and a democratic environment. I ask you to consider that and give me a sensible explanation before I am forced to consider my final option, which is to recall the Speaker.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I will deal briefly, first of all, with one of the points raised by Mr Mark towards the end of his comments. The whole issue of urgency and any agreement about questions in the coming week was discussed by the Business Committee today. It was not informal or in any way unrecorded. The whip of that party was a party to those decisions, and they will be recorded in due course.

However, having corrected Mr Mark on that issue, it has nothing to do with the issue under discussion, which, in my view, is the third occasion that the member has attempted to relitigate a ruling by the Chair. That is clearly a gross breach of the Standing Orders. He referred, in a previous comment, to the degree of contention surrounding this issue. The vote, including the way his party voted on the previous motion, shows that there is very little contention around this issue, and I think his point verges on the extremely frivolous.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I do not require any further assistance on this matter. The acceptance of the closure is entirely a matter for the Chairperson to judge in each case. Members must not seek to relitigate the ruling on the closure any further. I say to members that they are getting close to being grossly disorderly. I refer them to Standing Order 86.

DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not referring to your ruling, at all. I am raising a fresh point of order, based on the inaccurate statements made by the senior Government whip about what happened at the Business Committee. I was present at the Business Committee. As far as I was aware, the main things that were discussed at that meeting were first readings. Rushing this bill through the Committee stage was not discussed. I do not intend to take any further time, other than to correct that incorrect statement.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member. I caution members that there is no need for the House to become disorderly. I think that everyone has had a fair go at making his or her point.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek clarification of your comments about the breadth of the debate on the schedule. I say that because it appeared to me that it could have been prompted only by a view about the debate on the earlier parts of the bill. ACT was the main subject of attack in that debate. We were not given an opportunity to address the substance. We address substance only, and in the schedule there are matters on which we will be in a difficult position if the Chair is minded to take them as relitigation of earlier points, because the form of notice in the schedule raises earlier points.

The message I got is that we are not to be in a position to defend the statements that we made and that require elaboration, because they simply became the subject of a political counter-charge. There was no attempt made by other parties to debate the issue. There was simply a torrent of abuse against ACT and its notional supporters.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member. It was an observation that I had made about the nature of the schedule. The consequential amendments will allow members to voice those issues, so that does open it up a little bit.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): The schedule contains the machinery with which the police will impound vehicles. The form that the police officer will hand to the driver of the car will state, among other things: “…you operated that vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, on a road in contravention of section 22A(1)…”. The person getting that notice will not have a clue what section 22A states. He or she will not have the faintest idea that it gives them some defence. The person getting that notice will think the police officer is saying “I seize your vehicle because I think that you accelerated unnecessarily fast.” How often is there any room for a debate about that? From the Green perspective, anyone not on a bicycle is probably going unnecessarily fast or accelerating unnecessarily; any one who is driving an 8-cylinder car instead of a 4-cylinder car is probably using unnecessary force and power.

What this does is put the police in the same position that they have been put in by being told to go out and get quotas of tickets all over the country. Instead of building their relationship with a vital section of the public—namely, the most spirited young offenders; the sort of young people who are going somewhere, whose hobby, when they are young, is to drive and work on powerful cars, and who work hard—those young people will be getting a message from the police that says: “We want your car because you accelerated unnecessarily.” What we have here is legislation that is pure camouflage. In fact, if those young people go to a lawyer, they will find that the police cannot arrest them for that.

There is a tear-jerking set of pleas about people going home and getting notices of deaths or injuries. Will the next thing that Labour attacks be people who go climbing or skydiving, or people who smoke? It has already attacked the smokers. There are many, many activities that are strictly unnecessary, and it is quite within people’s individual rights to choose to do them. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Running commentaries are out of order.

STEPHEN FRANKS: The justification for giving a notice under Part 2 should have been very straightforward: “You are endangering other people who have not consented to run that risk.”

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Please do not bring the Chair into the debate.

STEPHEN FRANKS: The notice should have stated, and I quote: “You are breaking the law, driver.” The notice uses the form “you”; I have no option but to use that terminology. It should have stated: “You have broken the law. You have put others at risk.” But it should not be directed to people who have simply chosen to risk themselves, because that is a right that every New Zealander with any spirit should be trying to protect.

This is pitiful law. This is slogan law. It puts the police into a position in which the result can only be that another group is against them. This law is absolutely typical of the meaningless law that Labour promotes instead of dealing with law and order. This schedule should be amending the penalties for giving the fingers to a court order. This bill says that Labour regards the Attorney-General as a wally. This schedule allows seizure that the Labour Attorney-General has correctly said is utterly inappropriate and unjustified. What it does could easily have been done by enhancing the powers to enforce ordinary court orders, to make sure that the police are tackling the people they are too scared of. How many really menacing folk will have their cars seized under this legislation? It will be the same as the people with menacing dogs; this Government will pass a law against dogs that really hits only the inoffensive—the people who volunteer to submit to the law. The really gross offenders—the people whom this Government sucks up to and curries favour with—will thumb their noses at this law in the same way that those people do who just do not bother to pay their fines under this Government. There are $457 million of fines owing.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): As the member of Parliament for Nelson, I want to put on the record my support for the schedule. I invite the member who has just spoken to reflect on the practical situation in three areas of my own electorate, in Branford Park—[Interruption] Get a life, mate! I just ask the members opposite to be a little more mature and allow a member to participate in the debate without being interjected on with smart alec comments.

I invite the member who has just spoken to come to Branford Park and say that the police are able to confiscate a vehicle only when there is endangerment of life. I have a group of 300 people who live in that particular valley who time after time, including this last weekend, have put up with boy racers destroying their quality of life. I ask the member who spoke before me whether we have to wait until lives are in danger for those people to have peace of mind. If the people in the Matai Valley in Nelson wound up the noise of a stereo, causing noise harm, then the law of the land says that the police can remove the cause of that noise.

Stephen Franks: This doesn’t touch it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I tell the member that the noise is coming from the tyres squealing. I happen to know the practical effect of this. Mr Franks is incorrect.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I bring the member back to the schedule.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The schedule deals with the issue of the notice that is to be given to those motorists.

Hon Member: Read the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have read it. I invite ACT members to come to Branford Park with the police who are dealing with the real, practical situation. [Interruption] I listened to the member with some dignity; why does he not just sit up and listen for a bit to a local member of Parliament who actually listens to his constituents and knows what goes on?

Right now, the police have tried their very best to deal with these problems. I have confidence that our police, with the powers in this bill, will be able to hit boy racers where it hurts—by serving this notice on them and taking their cars from them—because residents deserve to live in peace. I do not want them to have to wait the 4, 6, or 8 weeks for the matter to go to a court hearing. Whether people live in Branford Park, Victoria Heights, or Waimea Road, this Parliament has to err on the side of the law being in their favour. That is why I say that the provisions in the schedule are quite sensible.

The second thing I want to say is that the Law and Order Committee did a good job. It made these measures align with the Summary Proceedings Act; that is provided for in the schedule. To me, it is perfectly sensible to have the same set of provisions apply to boy racers as apply to drink-drivers, and as apply to those who have their licences confiscated and repeatedly drive. It is perfectly sensible to put the boy racers on exactly the same basis. We should hit them where it hurts and take their cars off them. The notice that is provided for in the schedule is pretty sensible. I think they will get the message, and that it will make the difference. I think it will need to be combined with some other local initiatives in each of our communities. It is not a magic bullet. It is not all of the answer, but it is a large part of it.

I challenge the ACT party. I appreciate its academic, legal argument, but those members should be practical. In the practical, real-life situation out there in real world New Zealand these are the sorts of provisions we need for the police to be able to get on and do their job.

The last thing I have to say is that I have great confidence in our boys in blue. [Interruption] I have great confidence in him too; he is going to be a great Prime Minister. Unlike that party over there and unlike that member over there, this party consistently backs the police. Those members are fair-weather friends. We back the police consistently, because we have confidence in them. I know that they will use these provisions sensibly so that the communities in my electorate that have been terrorised by irresponsible boy racers will see them dealt to.

Darren Hughes: Enjoy your retirement.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Long after that member has begun his! It is pity that members opposite do not want to address the schedule and the issue we are debating. They want to play political games. The reason I will be here long after that member has gone is that I focus on the job and on looking after my constituents, not on playing silly political games.

RON MARK (NZ First): I welcome the chairman’s comments about the wideness of this debate, and his recognition that the schedule contains elements that should allow us to expand the debate into Part 2 in particular. I want to make one point. One of the things I like about this bill is that it restores to the men and women in blue who work on the front lines—

Darren Hughes: Come on!

RON MARK: It is a bit sad when young members come to the House and display their contempt and arrogance. Hopefully, in time they will grow up. I hope the young man learns. Particularly when Opposition parties are trying to support the Government, a little bit of magnanimity in victory is always a quality that is admired. Arrogance, contempt, and puerile behaviour are not. [Interruption] There he goes; grow up, young man!

One of the things I like about this bill is that it returns to the men and women who police our streets one thing that has been lost over recent years—that is, the ability to use a little discretion. Although some parties look at some of the wording in the schedule, and in the purpose clause in Part 1 in particular, and say that it is too broad and too vague, I look at it in a positive sense and say that this bill gives some discretion to the police. I remember the day when policemen and policewomen had the ability to look at a situation, and decide that it was high jinks or nonsense and that a kick in the butt and a twist of the ear would likely set a young fellow on a straight path. I thank the member on the other side for his nod; it is encouraging. Such treatment would set a young fellow on the straight and narrow again, without blemishing his record. But we have got into template law, and I have to say that our friends in the legal fraternity make their money out of defining each and every little aspect of law. That is how they make their money. It actually hamstrings the boys in blue.

The Greens can say that it is a breach of human rights, and I am pleased I am hearing that from them, because it is consistent with what they always say. I will never agree with them, but they are consistent. But what I like in this bill is the discretion that is open to an officer. If it is a flaw, if members want to say that it opens the law up to vagueness and ambiguity, well, I would rather put my confidence in the men and women in blue to make the right judgment.

I do acknowledge that the bill provides for the ability to appeal, and to appeal further again, if people feel they have been unjustly treated by the police. That is a good thing, and I congratulate the Government and the Law and Order Committee on putting it in the bill. But I say do not chuck the whole bill out, based on the belief that it is too vague. I welcome the ability for officers to look at a situation where a car has spun its wheels and gone away from the lights, and say: “Well, that’s just a person of a particular ethnicity who can’t drive, and has actually dropped the clutch.”, or: “That’s a hoon who is spinning his tyres to get away in a race.” That is the sort of discretion the police need on the streets to get common sense into law enforcement. I am pleased that it is there.

The only thing I am not comfortable with I will put on the record now. I will support this bill going through the House, but I will watch it. If in time I am not happy, then I will come back to the House with amendments, either via another bill or by amending the legislation when we are in Government. [Interruption] I do not believe we should be confiscating for 28 days the cars of people who have offended three times. We should not impound the cars; we should confiscate them—end of story.

Clayton Cosgrove: If they do it twice in 4 years the car is confiscated.

RON MARK: I understand it now. That is the sort of assurance I wanted. At the end of the day, there are those people who continue to push the outside edge of the envelope, and they never learn. That assurance has to be in there. I did not see it in the bill, so if the member wants to take a 5-minute call and explain it to us all, that would be very satisfying. The confiscation for 28 days and the $3,000 fine are good things, and the form seems to be fine, and in that respect we will continue our support for the bill. But we will be watching over time. I will be listening to the cops.

One of the things I do like about the form is that it is very brief. When I talk to police, I hear too much about the endless forms they have to fill out, keeping them off the beat for hours on end. The paper war is a distinct worry in the police force, and it is good to see that we are down to something more manageable.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I would like to address my comments to the schedule, and in particular to Part 2. I would like to begin by thanking Dr Smith for his contribution. He is always consistent when we are discussing these kinds of issues. He flagrantly and consistently has no regard for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He showed that with his attitude to the Local Government Act, and he is showing it with his attitude to this bill. At least he is consistent, and we should recognise that.

Dr Smith invited us to go to Branford Park to check out the hooning that is happening there. Once again, at the risk of boring the Committee, I remind the Committee that there is adequate legislation available right now for policing this kind of behaviour. It is called the Transport Act, and it includes charging people with reckless or careless driving. Dr Smith said that he could not wait for the courts to make a finding that a vehicle should be confiscated there and then. But what he was talking about is summary justice. If we cannot allow ourselves to wait for the proper procedures of law to take place, for a person to be found guilty of an offence before being punished for that offence, then we are sadly lacking as a Parliament.

This bill puts all people at risk, not just hoons or whatever name we want to use to scapegoat these people. If we look at Part 2 of the schedule, at the form that will be given to people when the police are seizing and impounding their vehicles, we see that it reiterates what we saw in Part 2 of the bill—that is, if an officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person has operated a vehicle “in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration”, he or she can, and will, confiscate the vehicle. The words “unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration” are very telling. We have been told repeatedly that this bill is about safety and protecting people, but when we look at the reasons that are given for confiscating a vehicle, we see that there is nothing about safety there. There is nothing about protecting the public. It is about an “unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration”.

Clayton Cosgrove: Which is unsafe!

NANDOR TANCZOS: It does not state “unsafe”. That member should read the bill. It states “unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration”. It does not state “dangerous speed” or “dangerous acceleration”. It simply states that if people break the law and they accelerate unnecessarily, the police can confiscate their vehicles. As I have already said, it is not only certain members of the public who are in danger of being caught by this; the bill potentially puts everyone in danger.

Ron Mark talked about the need for the police to have discretion. New Zealand First is a party that talks about one law for all, but what he was talked about was the ability to have one law for some and one law for others. That is not acceptable.

I would like to reiterate the comments made by my colleague Stephen Franks. He made some very good points. Once again, he made the point clearly that this bill is not about safety or protecting the public; it is about creating powers for the police that can be used in draconian and unnecessary ways. Also, let me reiterate that if the police are concerned about these kinds of behaviours, they should use the powers available to them under the Transport Act. Those powers allow someone to be charged, they carry jail sentences as their maximum penalties, and they allow the courts to confiscate vehicles—not just impound them. But this Committee is saying that it cannot be bothered with judicial process, with evidence, or with the need to prove a case. It would rather give the police the ability to impound a vehicle without their having to prove their case to anyone, because all they need is reasonable grounds to believe that someone has broken the law. That is entirely inadequate.

Who do people appeal to? They appeal to the police. They appeal to the body that confiscated their vehicles in the first place. How can we expect an impartial consideration of the fairness of that impounding?

MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West): I move, That the question be now put.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): I again address the schedule of this bill. I ask the Minister in the chair to show us where in this piece of legislation it deals with repeat offenders. I cannot see it anywhere.

I add to that that Dr Nick Smith should go back to the 300 people in his electorate he talked about who say they welcome this bill, and tell them to be very, very afraid. If people speed, they will no longer run the risk of just being fined; they will run the risk of having their cars taken off them.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Nonsense!

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: It is absolutely not nonsense. If the Minister looks at the schedule, she will see that the notice advises the driver: “I am seizing and impounding ... the motor vehicle ... for 28 days because I believe, on reasonable grounds ... you operated that vehicle in ... an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration,”. The only condition on that is that it was speed that was outside the parameters of the law. There is nothing in this bill that directs it to boy racers. Lianne Dalziel said that was nonsense. She may well remember when a Labour Minister said “Take the bikes off the bikies!”. There is nothing in this piece of legislation that protects people from not being simply fined for breaking the speed limit but having their vehicles taken off them and impounded. When I asked the Minister of Transport to take a call to explain where in this legislation it protects those people, he did not take the call and he did not explain. I presume from that that there is nothing to protect those people. The National Party, in its haste to pass this legislation, is prepared to let this schedule go through that extends the powers of the police to such—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Be tough on law and order!

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I am tough on law and order. I am tough on people who break the law. I do not agree with extending the powers of the police to people who they “believe” might be breaking the law. That is the crucial difference. It is an essential piece of liberal democracy that people are innocent until proven guilty, and this legislation makes people guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. Under this schedule—in the notice, under the heading “ADVICE TO DRIVERS”—the police just have to say, in effect: “I’m impounding your vehicle because I believe I have reasonable grounds to believe that you have used unnecessary acceleration or speed.”

While we are on the subject of unnecessary acceleration and speed, I note that Clayton Cosgrove can show very great acceleration in speed when he is running away from television cameras.

Hon Member: Why was he running away from the television cameras?

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: He was worried about his secretary. The Attorney-General has alerted this Parliament to the fact that this schedule is in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Either the Government’s own Attorney-General is wrong, or her colleagues are wrong. Both cannot be right. Some of us, in drafting laws, take the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act into account. We may not agree with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but we do not flout the law just because we think it is wrong. But this Government is absolutely flouting the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act with this schedule. I say to all those people who are so happy to give the police more powers that the ACT party and the Green Party were the only parties that moved to reduce the powers of the police in the Local Government Act; all the other parties were happy to increase the powers of the police. I say to those members that they will have to explain to their constituents when they go to them and say: “Because of this schedule—the notice giving advice to drivers—I’ve had my car taken off me for 28 days. I can’t get it back, and I haven’t even been convicted of anything.”

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

RON MARK (NZ First): Mr Chairman—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. My colleague Ron Mark won the call but I make this request, with the good nature of the Committee. An interaction occurred between Mr Mark and Mr Cosgrove about a vehicle being confiscated, in the event of there being more than one offence, under a 28-day notice. A substantive, very reasoned point has been raised by Mr Mark; I think it is reasonable that Mr Swain, the Minister in the chair, Mr Cosgrove, or one of the other Government members provide some explanation, rather than us just simply rolling on. I ask a Government member to take a call and provide some explanation.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No. It is up to the Minister or the member to reply, if they so wish.

RON MARK (NZ First): I thank the Hon Dr Nick Smith for that comment. I did take the opportunity to confer with the Minister and with Mr Cosgrove. When one goes back to the original bill as drafted, one sees that it was very prescriptive in terms of offences and the sentences that might have been available to be used by the judiciary.

What does get a little confusing is that when one reads through Part 1 of the schedule, one sees that it specifies the amendments to the Sentencing Act. That legislation is a timely jogger, because it serves to remind us how far we have progressed with some of the land transport safety law, and gave me cause to go back a little further and remind myself of what happened in 1998. Many of the Acts we are now using to supplement and complement this legislation are ones we have passed previously, and that is what I was reminded of. So I say to the Committee, is it not curious how far we have come?

I congratulate the Labour Party—I really do. The heart and soul of the effectiveness of this bill lies in the ability, within the schedule, of the police to be able to impound vehicles. That is the deterrent. That is the punitive measure. The next step, for those recidivist offenders who just cannot get their heads around it and learn from the first time, is to confiscate the vehicles, sell them, and recover that money into the coffers. It might help ACT party members to know that those outstanding fines they have talked about all through the evening, might in some way be addressed through the sale of those confiscated vehicles, which belonged to the recidivist offenders who could not get it into their thick skulls that burning out at McLeans Island is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated any more. But we would never have got to this point without the Labour Party—or, at least, without elements of it—accepting that this bill is necessary. At this point in time it is timely to remind the Committee of how far that party has come, because on 5 November 1998 the Labour Party voted against the impoundment of vehicles. That was legislation put up by New Zealand First.

Clayton Cosgrove does not know how far he has moved his party. Senior Cabinet Ministers, who have passed over him for positions of higher authority, higher salary, and all the perks and privileges, voted against the very principles he advanced to this Parliament. That says a lot for the member. It also says a heck of a lot about his senior colleagues who gave countless speeches—they are in the Hansard volumes I have here—and on 5 November voted against the Land Transport Bill, which gave provision for the impounding of—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Tell me why—read it out.

RON MARK: The Minister who is so highly paid can stand, take a 5-minute call, and tell us all the reason. I will just point out that the Ayes were 72, and the Noes were 48. Labour voted 37 against the bill, the Alliance voted 10 against the bill, and some other chap by the name of Kirton voted against the bill. It was the passing of that bill that finally gave the police the powers to impound vehicles, and now we are going to the next logical, sensible step in respect of hoons, boy racers, clowns, and idiots on the road, who would burn up their tyres and create public nuisance and public disturbance.

Once again, I thank Mr Swain, the Minister, and Clayton Cosgrove for pointing out that the Sentencing Act contains that area, but maybe the Minister would like to stand and take a call merely to clarify for us all, and again help the Committee to understand, why Labour voted against the impounding of vehicles in 1998. Lianne Dalziel is obviously very upset by the whole thing, despite the fact that she voted against that bill. It would probably help us all to become a little more enlightened once again. I know what the Hansard record says, but if there is a new, modern-day reason, Labour members should feel free to tell us what it is.

STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put

Ayes 60

Ayes 54

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 9.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hon Paul Swain to the schedule be agreed to:

to insert, after the expression “36A(1)(a)” in the paragraph relating to the Summary Proceedings Act in Part 1, the expression “and (2)”;

to add, after the expression “22A(1)” in the paragraph relating to the Summary Proceedings Act in Part 1, the words “, and by that act or omission causing an injury to or the death of another person”;

to insert, after the expression “36A(1)(c)”, in the paragraph relating to the Summary Proceedings Act in Part 1, the expression “and (2)”;

to add, after the expression “22A(3)”, in the paragraph relating to the Summary Proceedings Act in Part 1, the words “, and by that act or omission causing an injury to or the death of another person”;

to insert, before Part 2 relating to the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999, the following item:

insert in Part 1 of the form, after the words “ADVICE TO DRIVER”, the words “OR OPERATOR”;

to insert, after paragraph (b) in Part 2 relating to the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999, the following item:

insert in Part 1 of the form, after the words “THE VEHICLE DRIVEN”, the words “OR OPERATED”;

to insert, before Part 3 relating to the Land Transport (Ordering a Vehicle off the Road) Notice 1999, the following item:

insert in clause 12 in Part 2 of the form on page 17, after the words “against the person who drove the vehicle”, the words “or operated the vehicle”.

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

Ayes 97

Noes 17

Amendments agreed to.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8.

Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8.

A party vote was called for on the question, that the schedule as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 97

Noes 17

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8.

ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.

RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I might be too late, but I have been looking at the legislation in respect of—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No—I am reporting now.

RON MARK: Regarding the legislation dealing with impounding vehicles, I noticed that the Greens and ACT voted for it last time. I wonder whether they are confused. Maybe they might like to recast their votes.

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

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport): I move, That the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Sometimes Parliament comes together in a united way and does the right thing, and it has done that today. Sometimes Parliament acts to address a public concern and does the right thing, and it has done that today. Sometimes there is a practical solution to a social problem, and today we have found that solution. I think it is good that the House has shown incredible common sense by enabling this legislation to move forward.

The bill needed some leadership, and it had that from Clayton Cosgrove, the MP for Waimakariri. We do need somebody who is able to take up an issue, bring it to the House, and steer it through. He has done that, and we should all be thankful. A bill like this needs community support, and that has been demonstrated up and down New Zealand. Of course, it also needs Parliament’s support, and it got that, by and large, from most parties. The great exception during the evening was the grand coalition between the ACT party and the Green Party—the coalition made in hell. The “New Liberal Party” is what I think it could be called. There was probably too much psychedelic puha drifting across the cross benches, and it has got in the way of some clear thought from the ACT party. As far as the Green Party is concerned, I note that it parades itself around as having philosophy and principle—and the Greens do have those qualities. There is no question about it. But sometimes the Greens are going to have to work out that there are competing rights to consider when one comes to this House. It is not always about the rights of the criminal. The victims and the people who go about their normal daily business in New Zealand have rights, too. Sooner or later the Greens will have to wake up and find out that sometimes we have to do the common-sense thing. Sometimes we have to support victims of crime, as well. If not, the Greens will continue to stay on the fringe and be recognised as a bit of a “loony tunes” around the edges, and they will never get beyond the 5 or 6 percent polling that they currently have.

I come now to the ACT party members. What an extraordinary performance from them! In May last year, before the last election, Ken Shirley supported the introduction of this bill. Not only did he support it but he fulsomely said that ACT supported the introduction of this bill. He said that ACT welcomes tougher measures to deal with illegal street drag racing, and that, indeed, this bill is in keeping with ACT’s campaign—wait for it—for zero tolerance of crime. Now, less than 12 months later, Mr Franks and Ms Coddington have come to the House and said that they are opposed to the bill. Ken Shirley, who I always thought was a more sensible, common-sense, down-to-earth kind of person, has been rolled by a couple of liberal lawyer types who want to talk about legal niceties. They want to talk about outrage, presumably because lawyers are not going to get such a good deal out of this bill, and they want to go on about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is all in the waffle, in the ether, and it is part and parcel of this new-look, liberal ACT Party. What it shows is that the ACT party is in absolute meltdown. It cannot sort out how many people it is voting for, and it cannot work out where its electorate offices should be based. ACT is a party in meltdown, and its performance tonight will be shown. There is going to be some great interest when we start mailing out the speeches made by Mr Franks and Ms Coddington to ACT supporters.

Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that this is the debate on the third reading of the “boy racer” bill. I have not heard any reference to it, or about any provisions in it, for some time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that point.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I was simply pointing out that ACT supported this bill when it was introduced to Parliament, and talked about zero tolerance. Those members from the ACT party who spoke to oppose the bill walked away from it and from zero tolerance. There is no question about that. That is why they will not be around this place for much longer, and I say “good riddance” to them. This bill is a very, very good bill. I congratulate the House. I also want to congratulate the United Future party, because it was the party that pushed for progress on the bill, and I want to give it some credit for that. I particularly want to congratulate the MP for Waimakariri, Clayton Cosgrove, who went into an area where no one had ever been before, did the hard yards, did the work, and came up with legislation that Parliament has supported. I urge its continued support through the House.

BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia): It is a pleasure to be able to speak on the third reading of the bill. I say, for the record, that I am proud to be a member of a select committee that was prepared to stand up and do the right thing—to deal with a problem that is endemic across this country and is causing distress to tens of thousands of New Zealanders.

I find it ironic that the ACT party, which says it is the party of zero tolerance, would not support this legislation. That party has let its supporters down. [Interruption] Labour members cannot escape this, either. In November 1998 Mr Swain and some of his colleagues voted against impounding vehicles, and now he is standing up and grandstanding. Politics is about integrity. I am confused, however, about the Greens and ACT coalition. I have respected ACT in the past and I still do, but with this small exception—because ACT is generally a party of integrity. I am not surprised about the Greens one little bit.

I want to acknowledge the part that Clayton Cosgrove played in dealing with this issue, because he put politics aside and dealt with a governance issue. He raised the debate to a level where New Zealanders and their concerns came first, and I respect him for that. However, I think it only fair to point out that the legislation was dramatically redrafted in the select committee, and the members of the select committee should also take a pat on the back.

I also acknowledge the part that my colleague Gerry Brownlee played in getting this bill on the Order Paper. If it were not for his ability in the House to take the issue head on, I doubt that it would have got this level of support.

The legislation is well considered. It was modelled on the New South Wales legislation, and it works. I am glad that we have taken the time to learn from it. I am not saying for a moment that we can pick up legislation from someone else’s country and impose it on ours as a model, but at least we took the key components of that legislation. Now there is something with which we can say to the people of New Zealand who are concerned about boy racers and loutish activities: “Here is something for our police to grab hold of, so that they can enforce the law.” Our police have been telling us for some time that if we want the issue dealt with, we should give them the legislation that will allow them to do something about it.

I am not concerned about the civil libertarians who stand up and say that we are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I say to them: “Tough!” The people of New Zealand have had a gutsful. They have petitioned me and other members of this Parliament in their droves, saying: “Please, help us. Please deal with this problem so that we can sleep in our beds at night and are not disturbed by this loutish behaviour.” The people of New Zealand want to be able to sleep in their beds without being concerned that their property is being damaged. As law-abiding citizens, they do not want to be concerned that out of utter frustration, they will have to take the law into our own hands. It is a problem that stretches the length and breadth of this country, and I am proud to say that I was prepared to stand up with colleagues in this House and deal with the issue. I am just dumfounded by the actions of ACT.

Hon Chris Carter: So is the nation.

BRIAN CONNELL: In my view, on this issue they have every right to be. I have made the statement before and I am going to make it again: the Government needs to accept that it has dragged its feet on this issue. In particular, Dr Cullen displayed arrogant disregard for tens of thousands of New Zealanders who were desperately concerned about their standard of living, and about this loutish behaviour. They asked, through me, whether the Government could bump this bill up the Order Paper. Dr Cullen’s response was to say no, which tells me and those people that he was absolutely out of touch with what is happening across New Zealand in respect of this issue. It is something that we needed to deal with. Thankfully, my colleagues and I directed people who approached us back to Dr Cullen by phone or email, and to be fair to Dr Cullen—I give him the benefit of the doubt—he has responded in a positive way, and that is why we are now debating this bill under urgency. The issue, though, is that people have since died, and that probably did not need to happen.

Boy racers are not just 18-year-old thugs. Generally, they are aged from 25 to 30. Their life savings—and their student loans, as someone has added—are invested in the vehicles they have throbbing under their bums, and the only way to deal with this loutish behaviour is to hurt them by taking away their vehicles. If that sounds tough, then I say: “Too bad!” This is a problem that the people of New Zealand are just not in a mood to tolerate any longer, and we are prepared to stand up and help them. The life savings of these boy racers are invested in their vehicles, and the evidence from what has happened in New South Wales and other jurisdictions across the globe is that if we want to add a real deterrent that will make these people take notice, then we need to impound their vehicles. Taking away licences and giving fines does not take the cars off the road. The loutish behaviour continues, and no one is better off.

A huge number of submitters came to the select committee, and in overwhelming numbers they said: “Please help us.” District councils, city councils, and members of the public said: “Please help us.” Nick Smith has already spoken of some. I could mention people in Ashburton and West Milton, in particular, and people in other centres around Auckland. The Manukau City Council was frustrated to the point of distraction. It has bent over backwards trying to do innumerable things to give these people an outlet to express their passion for their vehicles, but it all came to nowt. Do members know why? Those boy racers were not concerned about driving vehicles; they were concerned about upsetting members of the public, being more than a nuisance, and engaging in criminal activity to a point where they were driving people to distraction. People going about their lawful business were stopped on roads at 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning and could not get through. The congestion caused by hundreds of people gathering was more than just a public nuisance—it was horrific. People feel threatened. People have died. How much more do we need to take before the issue is dealt with? That is why my colleagues in the National Party are quite clear about what our duty is around this issue. We have listened to the people of New Zealand, and we are prepared to take action. Accordingly, the National Party strongly endorses this legislation.

I would like to finish by saying that I acknowledge the way that members of the select committee worked together to deal with an issue that is of critical importance to people right across the country. I also want to say that, generally, I respect the way that the House has dealt with this issue this afternoon and evening. Despite hiding behind technicalities, it gives me hope that we are prepared to stand up and do the right thing.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): New Zealand politics is seemingly no longer a line from left to right, but a circle. Who would have imagined the Greens and ACT together! That ACT wakes up with the Greens in its bed should have alerted it to just how wrong it was. Could anyone imagine Deborah Coddington and Nandor Tanczos in agreement about anything, let alone a position against the rights of the law-abiding, against the demands of the police, and against ACT’s supposed law and order priority? Ranting by the Green-ACT double act about people being innocent until proven guilty flies in the face of preventive policing. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has been dredged up time and time again, but whose rights are we talking about? It has been mentioned once or twice in the House that the rights of the public, who have every legal right to be on the road, and the rights of the boy racers themselves—whose health we are trying to protect, and whose deaths we are trying to prevent—are part and parcel of this issue. They take precedence over the property rights—and nothing more than property rights—that the ACT party, in particular, is trying to uphold.

If people look like they are about to commit a crime, that should be enough for us to jump in and prevent it. Is the “ACT-Green Party” suggesting that we wait for the body to drop before we do something about it? The Greens have suggested that the law is not the issue; it is the resourcing of the police. It might come as a surprise to the Greens, but no matter how well-resourced the police are, it is the laws that dictate the rules of the game. I suggest that members spend a night in a squad car and see the kinds of things that the police have to deal with night after night. Those who place the rights of these thugs on wheels above the rights of the community, the law-abiding and responsible drivers—like ACT and the Greens seem to do—are not the ones who will be there to pick up the pieces. That will be left to our hospitals, our police, and the families who lose their loved ones. When we put property rights first—car property rights—before the rights of people, as ACT seems to have done, we have lost our way.

The demand for this bill comes not only from the police, who are sick and tired of being undermined by inadequate laws, but also from communities that are fed up with living with excessive noise, abusive behaviour, and smoke from burn-outs—to say nothing of the injuries and death that accompany illegal drag racing. It is endemic. That is why there has been a call for action. The ACT party, which has stood as the party of influence and zero tolerance for crime, is now joining its new-found “buddies”, the Greens, in opposing a bill that has the capacity to prevent the crimes associated with these thugs on wheels. It will have a deterrent effect, and allow communities to reclaim their roads and save lives.

We will support this bill, and we will support it speedily. We again thank Clayton Cosgrove, and both National and New Zealand First, for their efforts. We thank the select committee, which put teeth into the bill and ensured that the initial idea from Clayton Cosgrove was brought to fruition. Let us hope that this bill saves lives. That is its importance and its significance, and that is the reason we want to see it passed now.

RON MARK (NZ First): It has been a very interesting evening. I guess that is the great thing about having a bill come in and the House being able to go through each stage immediately and wrap it all up in an evening, because we actually see the whole thing played out over a matter of hours. There is a great deal more satisfaction seeing that than having things dragged out over weeks at different sittings. This whole bill has been great.

What is the need for this bill? Why is it here? It is here because, frankly, New Zealanders across the country have said “Enough!” It does not matter whether we are talking about the problem up in Auckland, in Tauranga, in Hawke’s Bay, in Nelson, in Christchurch, or in Gore—and, by crikey, we do not have to think too hard about Gore and the loss of life we have seen down there—the problem of boy racers, hoons, and street racers has been with us far too long. There is no more tolerance for it—end of story. People want it resolved, and Mr Cosgrove has brought the matter to the House.

In the third reading, I need to give the Minister and his Cabinet a bit of a flick around the ears, because it is sad, and an indictment on the Labour Party and the Labour Government, that it took Gerry Brownlee forcing the issue by a motion to the floor to have Clayton Cosgrove’s member’s bill brought forward to No. 1 on the Government Order Paper. Otherwise, we would still be sitting here talking about the bill and wondering when it was going to be passed. Regardless of all the rhetoric about saving lives and the number of people killed, maimed, and injured, this Government sat on its hands for over 2 years, happy to see the bill languishing in the lottery draw, with the member, being a good party member, very frustrated and wondering why he was not getting the backing from his tough-talking Ministers on law and order. That should not be forgotten, but it is history, and the bill is here today. Why is it here? It is here because people like myself who own property in the McLeans Island area, in the same area as Brian Connell’s constituents, have had a gutsful of the antics of boy racers and their illegal activities on the road.

I want to talk about the issue of pouring diesel on to a road. There is a corner out the back of McLeans Island, at the intersection of McLeans Island Road, Buchanans Road, and a gravel road called Miner’s Groyne. That corner is a sweeping corner, and with these people running illegal burnouts at that corner, it was only a matter of time before the diesel that had soaked into the road and mixed with a downpour of rain, was going to cause an accident—and it did. Days after the burnout activities, a lady going through that corner lost control of her car and went into the fence. Did I see the Greens out there championing her right to be allowed to drive down that road safely? Did I see the Greens out there saying that that lady had the right to drive on New Zealand’s roads in wet conditions without having to worry about some bunch of hoons who had tipped diesel on that road and removed the traction she depended on to manoeuvre safely round that corner? No, I did not see that. What I see, once again, is the same old rantings and ravings about the individual rights of a minority bunch of lawbreakers over the collective rights and responsibilities of law-abiding New Zealanders.

Excuse me, but clearly I have something wrong here, because I do not agree with that argument. I believe that the collective responsibility of us as a community of New Zealanders rides right above individual human rights. I do not give a rat’s bottom about that sort of argument. I do not care about it, I do not want to hear about it, I do not want to know about it, and I do not want to have any part of people who would stand up and champion the human rights of a bunch of lawbreakers over the collective rights of a law-abiding community. I think everyone who lives on Buchanans Road and McLeans Island Road, and who frequents Miner’s Groyne, has the right to go about his or her business.

Many years ago—we are talking 1992—my son and his mate were out at our property for an overnight camp. One of those young lads has since done two tours of East Timor, so they have grown up a bit. But they were very young then, and we were a bit worried about them, so I gave them a cellphone and told them that if anything happened that they were not too happy about and they wanted to come home, they were to give me a call. They gave me a call that night, all right, because there were something like 100 cars full of young people at that intersection, no further than 400 metres away from where they were camped, ripping the place apart, acting like a bunch of dopeheads, boozing up, spinning their wheels, blocking the road, and generally being rowdy, disorderly New Zealanders.

Stephen Franks: Having fun.

RON MARK: Having fun, says ACT. They were burning up their tyres on the road, disrupting the traffic flow, stopping law-abiding New Zealanders from driving down the road, and terrorising two young boys who were just out on a quiet overnight camp. They were having fun, says Stephen Franks.

Stephen Franks: Did you ring the police?

RON MARK: No, I went out and picked them up and took them home. The point is that we have a bill here now that defines that they were breaking the law. They were operating their vehicles in a manner that sustained loss of traction; they were performing stunts and clownish acts, and when this bill is passed, that will be illegal. Now they will be prosecuted, and I am happy with that.

I raised the issue earlier of the inconsistency of some people’s debating positions, and I have to bring the House to Hansard, Volume 572, at page 12941—the Land Transport Bill, dated 5 November 1998. How ridiculous! In this bill, we debated in this very Chamber such things as the police being empowered to impound a motor vehicle for 28 days if the driver is apprehended driving whilst disqualified.

Brian Connell: How long?

RON MARK: For 28 days. Impounding a vehicle at the roadside for 28 days, but what have I heard? Let us go to the back end of this debate, at page 12960.

Hon Dover Samuels: Who voted for it?

RON MARK: New Zealand National; ACT New Zealand; New Zealand First; United New Zealand, one vote—something went wrong there, because there are more of them around, so we must fix that up sooner or later; Independents—there were a whole bunch of them, including the Greens. No? We have New Zealand National, ACT New Zealand, New Zealand First—oh no, the Alliance, which had the Greens in it in those days, voted against it, and Labour voted against it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I have to assist the member. Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald voted for it.

RON MARK: Oh look, there they are; they are listed as “Others”. Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons voted for the impounding of vehicles at the roadside for 28 days. Is life not a wonderful thing? Here we now have the Labour Government, a party that voted against that measure, proposing that we expand that law to catch hoons and riff-raff who want to boy-race, and the Greens, who voted for it, are now voting against it, and ACT, who voted for it, is now voting against it. I have to say to Jeanette Fitzsimons that her name is right here on page 12960. Did she change her name? Is it still Fitzsimons? It is.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: There is a big difference between the two bills.

RON MARK: It clearly states the confiscation of a motor vehicle for 28 days. That member should not come to me crying crocodile tears about human rights violations and the inconsistency of this bill with the Human Rights Act when she, the co-leader of the Greens, voted for the very same sort of legislation in 1998. There is a word for that that I cannot use in this House, but people out in the street would say it has something to do with bovine excreta.

I offer congratulations to the MP for Waimakariri. It has been a long, hard battle, but he got the bill through to the House. The bill will be passed and, in time, enacted. Congratulations also to the chairman of the Law and Order Committee, Martin Gallagher. He did a good job, and it is noticed across the House that he is able to work with people. Can he educate some of his young members about working with people? Could he help impart a little maturity to some of them? I say to the ACT party that we are looking forward to its explanation in the next speech of how one can jump from the right side of the bed to the left side and end up in bed with Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Green Party. I am looking forward to hearing that.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Before I take the next speaker, I want to refer to a matter here. It is a correction to the vote, and I have to report to the House that in the Committee stage of this bill, on the question of the closure for Part 1, quite some time ago, the result was announced as Ayes 60, Noes 47. It should have been Ayes 60, Noes 57.

Bills

Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West): As the chair of the Law and Order Committee, I will not take long to, if one likes, finish the job. I pay tribute to Marc Alexander and Georgina Beyer as the deputies, and to all the other members of the select committee. Brian Connell has made a very good contribution to this debate, as have other members. I think we worked well together. Nandor Tanczos made some implications about our sincerity. I do not for one moment question his sincerity. I believe that he has been consistent on this bill, and I respect that. The committee was very sincere in wanting to get a solution to what is a very, very serious community problem. However, what I do question—I am stunned and shocked and still cannot quite believe it—is the absolute double back-flip, somersault, forward-flip, of the zero-tolerance ACT party, which now opposes giving the police more power. I say that, yes, we do want to give the police more power. We want to give the police more power to make our roads and our communities safer.

Finally, I acknowledge former mayor Russ Rimmington from my community for his leadership. It was good to see that he was recently given a Queen’s honour. He led this issue in Hamilton. I also acknowledge the motel owners and the other members of the community who came to me. I also pay tribute to Clayton Cosgrove, who did great work on this bill. Sir Barry Curtis gave an impressive submission to the select committee. I only wish that Stephen Franks and the other ACT members had been there to hear that submission. Give the police more powers? You bet, if it is going to make the community safer!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The next call from ACT will be shared by two speakers. A 5-minute bell ends the contribution.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): I am proud to stand and oppose this extremely bad legislation, which is nefarious in what is actually breaking the law in this bill. I am also proud to represent a party that does have strong principles on law and order, and zero tolerance of crime. That means zero tolerance of criminals; it does not mean total disregard for the courts, which is what this legislation is doing.

Every time we have a debate under urgency we see an incremental breach of individual rights. We saw it with the Local Government Act 2002 in which the police were given greater powers under that Act than they have under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It was only Stephen Franks who managed to insert some curbing of the powers of local authorities and the police by reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in that Act.

Ken Shirley said over tea that he was happy to be mentioned in dispatches, but he wanted to point out that, yes, he did support the introduction of this bill, as no doubt many members opposite have often supported the introduction of a bill and its going to a select committee so that the public can have their input. That does not mean to say that one supports it all the way through. It has never been an indication that one would support a bill all the way through.

He said in relation to his quotes that we need to get tough on those motorists who pose a danger, who drive recklessly, and who are unsafe drivers, that he has absolutely no problem with that. But that is not what this bill is doing. This bill does not deal with people who cause death. We already have legislation for people who cause death and injury on the roads, and I have no problem with impounding the vehicles of those people, which is what Mr Ron Mark rather mischievously referred to.

There is a total difference between someone who has had his or her licence revoked or cancelled, and someone whom the police believe is breaking the law. They have not been convicted. We are not concerned with the rights of criminals. We are not talking about just criminals here, we are talking about people who have not been convicted, and that is the big problem that we have with this legislation. There is a difference between impounding the vehicles of disqualified drivers, and impounding the vehicles of those who look like they might be about to break the law.

Dr Cullen once said to me—people go on about the left and the right—that on issues of individual liberty, often the left and the right converge. I know that there are individuals in both parties who are uncomfortable with certain aspects of this legislation, because they know, as I do, that this is a stalking horse for increasing the powers of the State. I have no problem, as I said, with dealing with those people who break the law. But this legislation, first, does not deal with repeat offenders, as has already been highlighted by Mr Mark, and, second, does not distinguish between those people who are breaking the law and those who are not breaking the law. They are all dealt with under the same legislation.

I bring it back to the words in the title—we should always be very careful when we say that those who are innocent have nothing to fear from legislation. That phrase was much used in certain parts of Europe in the 1930s. Doughnuts on the road—reckless and dangerous driving—are against the law. Excessive speed is against the law. Unauthorised racing on the road is already against the law. These are the people we should be coming down heavily on, with the legislation that we already have in place. We should be giving more resources to the police and more numbers to the police so that they can deal with that. We should uphold the courts. We should not disqualify people’s fines and let them off the collection of $18,000 in fines when they have breached the law, just because they are unemployed and cannot pay it. That is what zero tolerance for crime is about. It is about making youth accountable for what they do when they break the law, not putting them through endless family group conferences where 2,000 out of 40,000 get rapped over the back of the hand with a wet bus ticket. I say again to all those people who support this law, what will they say to their constituents when they say, instead of getting a $500 speeding fine, which was bad enough, “I had my car taken off me for 28 days. At the end of the 28 days I proved that I wasn’t actually breaking the law. Now who is going to compensate me for that confiscation of my property?”

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I believe that my colleague Deborah Coddington put it exactly as it is. ACT supported the impounding of vehicles of disqualified drivers because as an objective fact a driver is either disqualified or not. There is no excuse for driving a vehicle if one is disqualified. It is perfectly appropriate and consistent with policing, for convicted criminals to have their vehicles taken. What we now have is a law that pretends to say, and encourages the police to think, that they can impound a car for someone who is accelerating unnecessarily. Can someone please tell us again? Accelerating unnecessarily! Anyone in a V8 is doing that. People could have a four-cylinder car. The United Future party says that this is preventive policing. That was a phrase that the Gestapo quite liked: “We are arresting you and giving you a little bit of torture because you were thinking about being bad.”

What this does may seem trivial to those who want to throw things like rights of victims, rights of the public, and references to deaths, but when there are deaths we have very longstanding law about liability for deaths. We have law about careless driving. We have law about speeding. We have law about all the elements that are concerning people. What we do not have is any commitment on the Government side to enforce existing law. What we have is a great rush to pass new law every time there is a bit of criticism, because that is much easier than putting on a few policemen to enforce existing law. It is much easier than collecting fines. It is much easier than getting rid of a youth justice system that tells young people that they can be insolent with impunity.

We know what this does. This is a sham. This is slogan law. It does one new thing. It says that putting oil on the roads is now an automatic offence. All the rest only work if there are other offences already being committed. It is an absolute sham to say that this deals with wheelspinning. It does not. People can wheelspin all they like up to 50 kilometres an hour. It does not deal with drag racing. People can drag race all they like up to 50 kilometres an hour—unless, of course, they are involved in dangerous or careless driving, in which case they are already culpable. It does not deal with burnouts, as long as people stay within 50 kilometres an hour if they are in an urban area, or 100 kilometres an hour if they are outside the town. It does nothing about boom boxes, I tell Dr Smith. It does nothing about trashing of parks. It does nothing about private property. It does nothing, generally, about enforcing the existing law.

So ACT knows that this does not get us a single vote. ACT does not come to this legislation in the populist way that parties that are willing to be utterly insincere about the law do. We oppose this because we stand for law that works, and this does not. We stand for law that means what it says. In fact, it is very hard to know whether any member in this House even has a clue what it says, because none of them even bothered to refer to it during the debates at any stage. I do not think that any member supporting this law referred to any of the words or attempted to deal with the legitimate questions or arguments of ACT.

We oppose it because we stand for punishment for crime, not for upsetting a policeman, or for giving a policeman room to attack a person because he or she has an unnecessarily powerful car, and can unnecessarily accelerate. We stand against this law because we are tough on crime, not on breaches of etiquette, not on the clothes people wear or the size of their mufflers—as Mr Martin Gallagher suggested, or was it Mr Connell, they sounded the same? We are tough on personal responsibility, and accordingly we oppose law that is simply a slogan. We are tough on lawbreakers, and driving while disqualified is lawbreaking. We think zero tolerance should mean exactly what it says, that there should be a consequence for every crime, not bulk discounts, not wiping off of fines, not community work that has no work and does not do anything for the family, not family law conferences that do not involve any families and do not mean a thing. We are tough on this because we think that the police should be upheld and supported in enforcing existing law.

When Parliament rushes through in one evening the stages of a bill that are supposed to be separated by Standing Orders by enough days for a little bit of prudent reflection, possibly even a bit of embarrassment when members hear their own speeches, then we believe that that law can be supported. In this case it is a scandal.

STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua): I rise to support this bill. I have listened to the speeches in the House. I have to say that when people have got passionate and strayed off the patch here, they have all talked about young people. That is one thing that has made me quite sad, in that young people are being stigmatised by this bill. I think what councils have to do—and we have to take great caution—is consider the needs of young people with the enaction of this bill, which I do support. I think councils need to look to their youth policy and give young people a place to go where they can have fun.

I support this bill because I am an electorate MP and I have had many people come to me, really concerned about what is happening on the streets, down at the lakefront, on high-density roads, and it is for that reason that I support this bill. I would never stigmatise our police, either, who were looking for an excuse to take people who know what they are doing on the roads, away from them. I am proud to support this bill. It has not been rushed through. It has taken 3 years since it was first introduced.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I would like to begin my speech with an apology to Martin Gallagher. Apparently I questioned his sincerity, and I certainly did not intend to do that. I would just like to give him my apologies. I do question his judgment on this issue, but not his sincerity.

I make the point that has been made before: that this bill is being rushed through the House under urgency—urgency agreed to by the United Future party. That shows a real lack of regard for the basic democratic process. The House does need urgency from time to time. It needs extended hours now and then so that we can deal with some of the backlog of legislation that builds up. The Greens have been known to give the Government urgency now and then, as well, but only for one reading at a time of a bill. To ram poorly thought-out legislation through all the remaining stages—the second reading, the Committee stage, and the third reading—under urgency is a travesty of the parliamentary process. As Stephen Franks has said, that does not allow Parliament to properly scrutinise and consider a bill, and does not allow us time to reflect. Perhaps that is why Ron Mark likes ramming legislation through under urgency so much.

This bill is poorly thought-out, and is unnecessary. Of course, the bill will pass this evening, but the inability of its supporters to argue their case in a rational fashion, and their reliance on personal abuse, put-downs, straw arguments, and generalisations has proved to me beyond all doubt that the bill is ill-conceived. Maybe the supporters of the bill just do not quite understand what it states. It certainly seems to have been easier for the supporters of the bill to put up a straw argument, to say the opponents of the bill are saying something and then to demolish that argument, than it has been for them to grapple with the issues that have been raised.

I have not yet heard a supporter of the bill deal with the issues—the real problems—that have been raised both by members of the Green Party and members of ACT. The supporters of the bill have been reduced to saying that if people do not like road deaths, they must support this bill. That is a pathetic argument. No attempt has been made to address the issues, and no answer on those issues has been forthcoming from the supporters of this bill except derision and ridicule. It is interesting that there has been more comment about which parties are opposing the bill than there has been about the arguments they have put forward. For the benefit of those who have not quite grasped the issues, I will reiterate some of those concerns. I challenge the supporters of the bill to stand up and refute these arguments.

The first concern is that the bill is unnecessary. As Deborah Coddington has said very clearly, all the offences covered by this bill are already offences under the Land Transport Act. The police already have the power to charge people for all those behaviours. Far from the police only issuing an infringement notice, as has been put forward so often by members of this House, the courts have the ability to both jail people and confiscate their vehicles when they have been found guilty of an offence. The difference between that power and the provisions of this bill is that under the current Act they have to be found guilty of an offence. Some members of this House want to do away with judicial process; they are not worried about having to prove guilt. But some of us do find that a serious issue. The Law and Order Committee stated that the only limitation the police have on the use of their current powers is the inability to identify offenders. This bill will not address that. If it is difficult to identify an offender at present, it will be just as difficult under this legislation.

The second concern is that the bill is an unwarranted breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Ron Mark clearly has not listened to the debate on that. Again, he has put up specious arguments. He said that the Greens were inconsistent in supporting the impoundment of vehicles driven by disqualified drivers, but, as has been pointed out, a disqualified driver is guilty of a quantifiable and clear breach of the law. Under this bill we are talking about someone having his or her vehicle impounded simply because an officer believes that the person has committed an offence.

Brian Connell: We trust the police implicitly.

NANDOR TANCZOS: Mr Connell says he trusts the police to get that right, so why do we not just do away with all our courts? Why bother with the courts at all? Let us just say we believe that someone has committed a theft, so we will lock that person up without needing to prove his or her guilt. That is the implication of the member’s arguments, and it shows just how specious and flawed that position is.

Brian Connell: No defence in the corporate fraud.

NANDOR TANCZOS: I would like to ask Mr Connell what he and his National colleagues would say if we removed the necessity to prove guilt or intent in cases of fraud or breach of trust. In cases of corporate fraud, what did the member say then? Would he have the same disregard for the same basic principles of justice and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? No, he is shaking his head. We are seeing a double standard in this case.

The third point is that the bill is dangerous, because the provisions are so broad as to be ridiculous. Again, it has been mentioned numerous times that a police officer can impound a vehicle because that officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person operated it in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration. As has been pointed out by the ACT party, what is an unnecessary exhibition of speed?

Hon Richard Prebble: Clayton Cosgrove running away from the television cameras.

NANDOR TANCZOS: I think he would probably consider that very necessary. The bill has the potential to be used to target people who should not be subject to the quite serious consequences of having their vehicles impounded. In a country where public transport is so pathetic and where many people are reliant on their personal transportation to work and earn an income, that is a very severe penalty for someone who is just suspected by a police officer of having committed an offence. That is one of the most problematic issues—OK, an officer believes that a person has committed an offence.

Clayton Cosgrove: They see them with their eyes. They use video cameras and take pictures; wakey, wakey.

NANDOR TANCZOS: Clearly, Mr Cosgrove does not care what the bill states. He has not read the bill. He is not concerned about what it states; he is just concerned about what he thinks will happen. The bill states that if an officer believes on reasonable grounds that an offence has been committed, he or she can confiscate the vehicle. It does not state that the officer has to see the offence being committed or to videotape it.

Hon Richard Prebble: It sounds like Nazi Germany.

NANDOR TANCZOS: Exactly. One of the most problematic aspects of the bill is that a person who has been unjustly deprived of his or her vehicle has to apply to the police. If someone thinks a vehicle has been taken unjustly, he or she has to apply to the police. So the people who took the vehicle off that person in the first place are to be the people who will adjudicate as to whether that person’s vehicle has been unjustly impounded. One has to question what chance those people will have. To my mind, it is just inconceivable that Parliament is seriously considering passing this kind of legislation. In the unlikely event that the police do find that a vehicle has been unjustly impounded by one of their members and they return the vehicle, who will pay the towage and storage costs? The bill is silent on that. We have to assume that the aggrieved party—an innocent person who has had a vehicle taken off him or her for no good reason, and had that vehicle towed or impounded—has to pay for the privilege—

Hon Richard Prebble: $160.

NANDOR TANCZOS: Obviously Mr Prebble has had more recent experience of that than I have. However, that sounds like something out of the movie Brazil. We are to charge people for the privilege of having their cars impounded by the police, all because when the media created the hype about boy racers the police were caught with their pants down, because they had done absolutely nothing about boy racers. Instead of the police saying that they would put more resources into that issue, they said that they would need more powers. As I have already asked, when did the police ever say that they had plenty of powers and we should take some away? That just does not happen. The police’s response to any criticism is that they need more powers.

Hon Richard Prebble: It’s a bit of a worry; you’re talking sense.

NANDOR TANCZOS: I thank Mr Prebble. That is a rare compliment from him. I reiterate to the House that this bill is unnecessary, unwarranted, and dangerous. I finish my speech by expressing the forlorn hope that members of this House will have some sense and oppose this bill.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South): I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. I join my colleagues who have spoken previously in congratulating Clayton Cosgrove on the effort he has put into this bill. I also congratulate my colleague Martin Gallagher, who has done a lot of work, along with Mr Cosgrove, with local government leaders throughout the country.

Like most members of the House and a large number of the members of the community, I am very grateful to the ACT party for showing its true colours. We should all be grateful for the dazzling display of policy acrobatics that ACT has shown since the earlier statements of Mr Shirley’s that were quoted so accurately. I do not think that anyone who saw the television coverage in the last couple of days of extraordinarily stupid, dangerous, and inconsiderate behaviour—uncharacteristically, of course, in Christchurch—would have any doubt that this bill will provide a really useful deterrent, enabling the getting rid of, and modifying, of totally unacceptable behaviour. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): National supports this bill as a matter of principle.

Stephen Franks: Which principle is this?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I tell Mr Franks that it is a very simple principle. I shall tell members what it is. The principle is that the right of people to live in peace is more important than the right of people to hoon. If Mr Prebble wants to take a call, he is free to do so. However, I want to go systemically through each of the six points raised by Mr Tanczos and to comment on them.

The first point raised by Mr Tanczos was that the bill is unnecessary. He is wrong. I have been out in my community with the police and the neighbours who put up with the nonsense of the hoons who are disrupting communities up and down New Zealand. People do doughnuts and wreck public parks, and are out there disturbing the peace through the squealing of the wheels of their cars, and the Greens and ACT say the law is adequate to deal with that at the moment. I say it is not; it is not working. Some members here in the Chamber want to believe that the police are hopeless and that Parliament has the law right. I do not believe that. I believe that we are providing legislation that is, indeed, necessary.

The second point made by Mr Tanczos is that under this legislation one is proven guilty before one gets to court. Somehow there is the absolute, pure view that we cannot do anything until such time as the courts rule. Members should hang on a minute and remember we have a law that states a person can be arrested if there is reasonable cause. That is a lesser test than that provided in this bill. Then we go to the issue that a person can be locked up before he or she is found guilty by a trial. The ACT party says we should not give people parole; it says they should be locked up, even though they have not yet been found guilty in a court of law. Why is that? Mr Franks takes the extreme, silly view: the sort of immature view that either it is all absolutely one position, or—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Richard Prebble has been continuously interjecting, and I think the Standing Orders prevent that. I was challenged by Mr Tanczos to go point by point through his speech. I allowed him to make his contribution without that sort of interjection. I ask to be given the same right that he had.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I take the point.

Hon Richard Prebble: The member said to the House that I should take another call. Of course, the House knows that the ACT party has used its call. If the member directs personal remarks to me, then of course I will reply. If the member would stop making such an inflammatory speech, then of course—[Interruption] The member is saying that people should be put in jail without court cases, and he then expects members to sit in the Chamber quietly. Would any Parliament put up with that sort of rubbish?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Is not that contribution from Mr Prebble interesting?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I have to dispose of that point of order first. I will not take it any further. I thought that the volume of the speaker’s voice was so great that he was enjoying the debate—and I am sure he is.

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member for interrupting his speech. I thought that now would be a good time to do so; I did not want to interrupt the member in mid-flow. I make the point that the pronunciation of my name is Tanczos.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I just want to make this point about Mr Prebble: he could not be bothered to get himself down to the Chamber to participate in any part of the Committee stage of this bill, but he is happy to shout another member down. I say this House should be able to expect better than that.

This Parliament has to be practical. Just as Parliament is practical when it comes to people who are charged with serious crimes, and allows our police to lock them up until such time as they have a trial, so we need to be practical in exactly the same way on this issue. That is why National supports those provisions of this bill.

Hon Richard Prebble: Joe Stalin!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, Stalin! Well, let us hang on a moment, while I ask—and this is the key point—whether it a great loss for a hoon to have his or her car locked up. Is that somehow Stalinist? Is that not interesting? I refer Mr Prebble to 5 November 1998, when we had the legislation that provides for the confiscation of people’s cars because a police officer on the side of the road has found out that they do not have a driver’s licence. That has not been proved in a court of law. Where were ACT members on 5 November 1998? They were in the Ayes lobby then; they thought that was a good idea. So I do not know what sort of principle the ACT party has now found that states it can accuse us of Stalinism. Is that what ACT was up to in 1998?

Then we come to the big issue that was raised by Mr Tanczos about the loss of cars. Somehow that is a great crime. But let us hang on a moment, because this bill states that someone can go to court the very next day and challenge the decision of the police, by saying that they took that person’s car unfairly. The very next day he or she can go to court and challenge the police on that matter, and I say that that is a sensible, practical provision. That deals with that great injustice that the ACT party and the Green Party have made so much of.

Then we are told that this bill is all about the media. Well, was it the media that got 150 people out in Branford Park just over 9 months ago? Was that just because of the media? Maitai Valley in the Nelson region has a population of 200, and over 100 people turned out there for a public meeting because they have had a gutsful of their neat community being disrupted by those sorts of hoons. That was not a media creation but happened because the problems that hoons have caused are a real issue for the people of that small community.

This legislation is a matter of balance, in terms of relative rights. I say that the loss of a hoon’s car for 28 days is not as big a loss as the peace and quiet that communities should rightfully be able to have. I said earlier in my speech that there were matters of principle and consistency.

Hon Richard Prebble: We are waiting!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I ask Mr Prebble again: how come he could not contribute in the Committee stage?

Hon Richard Prebble: I was here.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Why did the member not contribute?

Hon Richard Prebble: I did, by interjection.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, that is the level of integrity that we have from the ACT party; Mr Prebble wants to pip-in, pip-out, but he cannot contribute to the debate. I ask which parties have been consistent? Do the Opposition parties just get up and oppose things for the sake of it? No, National and New Zealand First voted for the legislation in 1998 that provided for the confiscation of cars. Where was the Labour Party, including Martin Gallagher and Phil Goff? They were in the Noes lobby. We had speeches then from Labour MP after Labour MP, running the sort of argument that we have heard from ACT about the purity of not taking cars off people. Why has Mr Gallagher changed his mind on that? Well, those members throw their hands up in horror; they have no idea why they have changed their minds—no idea, at all. I say again that at least the people of New Zealand can rely on consistency from the National Party, which puts the argument of law and order ahead of other things.

As part of the report back of this bill, there was also the report back of a petition. I want to put on the record my thanks to Bob and Cathy Bowley from my own area, who collected hundreds of submissions and who came to the Law and Order Committee hearing at their own expense to support this bill, as part of getting a sensible change made in the law.

The last point that has disturbed me relates to what some parties believe of our police. I have great confidence in the integrity of the men and women who serve in the New Zealand Police, almost without exception—but they are human. I find the way the police conduct themselves to be one that every New Zealander can be proud of. I have seen those police officers—sympathetic to the views of my constituents who have their sleep disturbed night after night, and who find their park ripped apart by hoons every weekend—struggle to try to deal with that. I have seen a huge amount of taxpayers’ resources disappear as the police try to contain that problem. The difference in this debate is between those who trust the police and those who do not. I trust the police. I believe that they will use the powers that this legislation provides responsibly to confiscate cars from hoons who do doughnuts, squeal their wheels, and ruin neighbourhoods, and that they will ensure that the citizens who live in the neighbourhoods where that occurs have the right to live in peace.

EDWIN PERRY (NZ First): Shall we get some common sense and some professionalism into the presentation? I want to refer to the bill again. [Interruption] I will have some words for Mr Prebble later. The commentary on the bill states: “Growing concerns about street racing activities relate both to the destruction caused by the activity itself, and associated crime. These events often involve large numbers of people, both participants and spectators, who occupy areas of road for the purpose of performing unauthorised high speed races and dangerous stunts such as ‘burnouts’ and ‘doughnuts’. … Local councils and residents report that the damage and disruption caused by street racers is significant, including damage to roads, signs and street lights as well as excessive noise and health issues, particularly distress and lack of sleep. There are obvious safety concerns due to the nature of the activity, the large number of spectators, and the likelihood of loss of control on the road,”.

We heard tonight from our fellow MP Paul Adams about drivers picking up speed, then releasing the clutch at high speed. Once the vehicle has travelled over the substance that has been poured on the road, the driver can lose control of the vehicle, which then makes its way over to the spectators on the side of the road. Also, the vehicles with unmodified brakes and suspension are not up to road safety specifications, and that causes problems, as well. Vandalism, graffiti, drunkenness, and litter are also problems. The current laws are not adequate, as the Law and Order Committee has recognised. The commentary on the bill states: “The Police report that their existing powers do not appear to have been adequate in dealing with the problem of unauthorised street racing and associated activities.” As the commentary on the bill also notes, research indicates that the so-called boy racers come from middle-class or affluent families, and can afford to own expensive, high-performance vehicles. As was mentioned this afternoon, vehicles worth up to $80,000 are currently being used in that activity.

The commentary further states: “As a result, a number of members of Parliament, namely Ron Mark MP (NZ First), Hon Ken Shirley MP (ACT)”—that party is now voting against the bill—“and the current chair of the committee, Martin Gallagher MP, have liaised with authorities in various Australian states to obtain a better understanding of the comparative problems experienced in Australian jurisdictions, and the success of legislative measures taken in those jurisdictions.” I say to Mr Prebble that I am mystified as to why a member of his party went on that trip to Australia and why ACT is now voting against the bill.

Opposition Member: Probably to learn from it.

EDWIN PERRY: The member may have, but the Hansard that was read out today by my fellow MP Mr Ron Mark states something different. The commentary states that the original initiative to address the problem of unauthorised street and drag racing in a bill came from Clayton Cosgrove, and I congratulate Mr Cosgrove on bringing the bill to the House. I finish by saying that New Zealand First supports this bill.

Hon Richard Prebble: No one’s complaining. You speak for your whole time.

EDWIN PERRY: I say to Mr Prebble that during the election campaign ACT presented its “zero tolerance” law and order policy outside Mount Eden Prison. Now ACT is going against it, so I am sure that ACT supporters will be mystified at its stance on this particular bill. I am mystified by the Greens’ stance, but we cannot expect anything else from them. What can we expect from someone who has problems wheel-spinning his skateboard and plies himself with a substance so he can be effective?

CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri): I thank the House for the privilege of the final call. We have had a very interesting debate tonight, and I thank those Opposition parties that have made, throughout the whole process, over 3 years, a very constructive contribution to facilitate this bill. I also thank the United Future party, which only lately came into the House; it actively promoted this bill last week to get it up the Order Paper.

I turn to the ACT-Green coalition. I listened to the contributions of Ms Coddington, Mr Franks, and Nandor Tanczos. It was very interesting that none of them have had the time to go out—or, if they did, they never mentioned it—with the police on the streets to see what happens. Mr Franks, who is a bush lawyer, expounded all night on high-minded theories of what might be happening to our communities, but he did not go out with his local police to see the carnage that occurs on the road—the carnage that occurs when a family member is killed.

Stephen Franks: Why don’t you do something about it?

CLAYTON COSGROVE: I have done something about it—we are doing it now. Before Mr Tanczos of the Green Party made his first contribution to the debate, I asked him to say something about the victims, like the victim in Christchurch who was killed. I asked him to say something about the families who grieve when a family member is killed as a result of these hoons. There have been many such deaths throughout New Zealand. Mr Tanczos failed to do that. He bleated about human rights and about civil rights. I agree with human and civil rights, but they go both ways. I repeat what I said in my opening speech: the innocent who have been injured or killed as a result of these hoons have civil rights. [Interruption] Maybe we ought to get the breathalyser out for Mr Prebble. He should shut up and stop disrespecting those people who have died as a result of hoons.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That comment is grossly out of order.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Richard Prebble: I am still speaking on my point of order. That comment by the member is grossly out of order. I know he is withdrawing and apologising, but the sort of speech he is making is ridiculous. I draw to his attention that under his argument we should ban beds. Most people die in beds.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: I withdraw and apologise. I want to address a couple of points made by ACT party members. One is their calling the police commissars. I will not say any more than that insult; I think we dealt with it, on both sides of the Chamber. Also, Mrs Coddington tried to compare a death resulting from a legal activity, such as rock climbing, with a death resulting from the illegal activity of street drag racing. I do not think that adds up.

I think we have done something in this bill—and many speakers on both sides of the Chamber have repeated this—that the community wants us as MPs to do. I am new in this place, and I do not have the knowledge of other, more senior members. But one thing I do know is that in our communities and in our electorates this issue is hot. People have said that they want this bill to go through, and the parties have, in large part, reacted well. In a bipartisan way they have put the politics aside, forgotten about who thought of the bill, and refined the bill, as the deputy leader of New Zealand First said—

Hon Richard Prebble: I said “rewrote it.”

CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, with some new ideas, too. That is a good thing because it proves that the select committee process works. The shame tonight is that certain parties have not listened to their communities or to the overwhelming view of New Zealanders, the experts, the police, and the Ministry of Transport. They have decided to make political capital out of this issue.

My objective when I drafted the bill was to save lives, and again I thank people like Senior Sergeant Geoff Kenna of Rangiora, who found the New South Wales legislation; Hugh Hanna, who worked tirelessly on the issue, and gave great advice from the Ministry of Transport’s point of view; Ian James of the police, and others; and George Hawkins and Paul Swain, the respective Ministers.

Parents and family members who have lost loved ones through this activity have telephoned me, and they wanted something to be done. I was out with a television camera crew on Saturday night, and one of the television people said to me that she was petrified because her daughter was 14, coming up 15, and coming up to getting her licence. She wanted this bill to go through so that it sent a clear message to her daughter that that sort of behaviour is unacceptable. She did not want her daughter to be part of the body count.

I conclude by thanking the various parties for their assistance and contribution. Unlike some members, most members of Parliament have taken this issue very, very seriously and want to see it resolved. I agree. I do not think this bill will be a panacea, or a total, 100 percent solution, but it will go some way to solving the problem. If it saves one life or one innocent person from being injured, then that is good. If it changes behaviour, then that is a good thing. If it stops one white cross from appearing on a lamppost somewhere around the country, then that is a good thing. I thank this House for its indulgence and for the cooperation from most members—there have been a few exceptions. I thank the Ministers and the officials for their assistance.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will be very brief, but I think it is a matter that needs to be corrected in the House. The impression that has been left by several speakers this evening is that Labour voted against—

Dail Jones: That’s not a point of order!

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: It is a point of order. The Assistant Speaker will determine whether it is a point of order. The issue is about Labour’s vote in 1998 against the impoundment provisions. We made it very clear at the time that it was not about that. We supported the bill. The vote was about the issue of licence costs.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, that is not a point of order.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 97

Noes 17

Bill read a third time.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8.

ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

Tuesday, 1 April 2003

(continued on Wednesday, 2 April 2003)

Bills

Counter-Terrorism Bill

First Reading

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): I move, That the Counter-Terrorism Bill be now read a first time. This bill reflects the need for New Zealand, in a new, more dangerous era of international terrorism, to ensure that we have a comprehensive legislative framework in place to help to prevent, and to deal with, terrorist offending. This bill complements the Terrorism Suppression Act, which came into force on 18 October 2002. That Act put in place legislative powers enabling New Zealand to ratify international conventions on the suppression of terrorist bombing and the financing of terrorism, and to implement Resolution 1373 of the United Nations Security Council, passed following the World Trade Center bombing on 11 September 2001.

This bill allows New Zealand to ratify the final two of the twelve conventions on terrorism passed by the United Nations that were not already implemented by New Zealand. Those conventions relate to the physical protection of nuclear material, and the marking of plastic explosives. The bill makes it an offence to improperly deal with, or obtain, nuclear material, or to threaten to use such material to cause death, injury, disease, or damage. It also makes it an offence to knowingly possess, use, manufacture, import, or export unmarked plastic explosives. The aforenamed offences carry maximum penalties of 10 years’ imprisonment, and a $500,000 fine. The bill provides for extra-territorial jurisdiction, extradition, and mutual assistance requirements, to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the nuclear material convention.

The bill also creates a number of new terrorist-related offences and penalties deemed necessary by an extensive review of existing law, and of potential gaps that might be exploited by terrorists. It becomes an offence to infect animals with disease, intending to cause serious risk to the health or safety of an animal population or major damage to the national economy. The maximum penalty for that is also 10 years’ imprisonment. A similar offence and penalty is created in relation to contaminating food, crops, water, or other products intended for human consumption. Threatening harm to persons or property, or falsely communicating information about danger to persons or property, intending to cause significant disruption to commercial or Government interests, also becomes an offence with a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.

It becomes a crime to harbour or conceal a person with the intention of enabling that person to avoid custody or conviction, knowing that or being reckless as to whether he or she intends to carry out a terrorist act or has already done so. It becomes a crime to import, acquire, or possess radioactive material with the intention of using it to cause injury or threaten violence. Both of those offences carry a maximum penalty also of 7 years’ imprisonment. Terrorism becomes an aggravating factor under the Sentencing Act. That will attract higher penalties for crimes committed for terrorist purposes. And the crime of murder, carried out as part of a terrorist act, will carry a minimum non-parole period of at least 17 years.

The third set of changes introduced by the Counter-Terrorism Bill gives new powers to the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Customs Service. The bill provides a statutory regime for the use of electronic tracking devices as an investigative tool. It requires police or customs officers to obtain from the court a warrant authorising the use of such devices. In circumstances where it is not reasonably practicable to obtain a warrant, an emergency procedure is provided for. The bill ensures that effective enforcement measures can be carried out, and that evidence lawfully obtained using those measures will be admissible. The judge, before issuing a warrant authorising the use of an electronic tracking device, must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect an offence is being, or will be, committed, that information relevant to the commission of the offence can be so obtained, and that it is in the public interest to issue a warrant, taking into account such matters as the seriousness of the offence and the likely intrusion on privacy and property rights. The select committee may wish to consider closely submissions on that issue, including those of the Privacy Commissioner.

The bill also creates powers for the police to require assistance from a person in the execution of a search warrant. Where assistance is necessary, such as providing a password in order to allow the police to access a computer system, a court order may be sought for that purpose, and will be granted if the assistance required is both reasonable and necessary. Failure to assist in accordance with an order will be an offence, if the individual could have reasonably been expected to do so.

The Customs Service’s powers are also enhanced by the bill. The Terrorism Suppression Act last year allowed the freezing of the property of designated terrorist entities. This bill expands on that, allowing the Customs Service to detain property, cash, or cash equivalents intercepted crossing the New Zealand border, if there is good cause to suspect that the owner is a designated terrorist entity, or an entity that may be eligible for designation. There are safeguards to ensure that the exercise of those powers is done in a reasonable way.

Finally, the bill amends provisions of the Crimes Act and the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978, so that evidence obtained under an interception warrant may be used in court so long as it relates to an offence for which an interception warrant is properly given. The definitions of security and terrorism in the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act are amended to make them consistent with the Terrorism Suppression Act.

In conclusion, the bill allows New Zealand to ratify the last remaining United Nations conventions on terrorism not already implemented under New Zealand law. It closes potential gaps that may be exploited by terrorists, by creating new terrorism-related offences and penalties. It gives necessary powers to the Police and the Customs Service to investigate and prosecute those offences. I intend to refer the bill to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to hear submissions from interested parties, and to move that the committee finally report on the bill by 31 July 2003. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore): The Minister’s exposition on and explanation of the bill is certainly laudable. He has thoroughly gone through all the tenets of the international fabric of law that protects our citizens from terrorism. I guess that reflects the whole tone of this Government, does it not? It places absolute confidence in the fabric of international law as being the sole means of our protection. That is how it seems to me. The Government will always see the United Nations rubric as the altar of excellence, and believe that all pronouncements from there must be obeyed, implicitly and explicitly, and that New Zealand can never exercise independent judgment. Yet anyone who has any knowledge of international law will know that it is an incomplete and an imperfect system. There is no global police force. Nation States, individually and collectively, have to enforce international law—and there is some recognition of that on the Minister’s part.

Our dilemma is that when faced with the great challenges of our time, this Government is unable to see clearly where our interests lie. It puts its complete faith in the network—important though it is—of international treaties, but will not do the heavy lifting, along with our friends and allies, that is needed to defeat the centres and sources of terrorism. We have heard in this House of the importance of Operation Enduring Freedom. We understand that; it is important. That was an example of New Zealand working with our friends and allies, but, naturally, it had to be under UN authorisation—as, indeed, this whole bill is about implementing international conventions. But I will ask some fundamental questions of the Government. Does the Government place all its faith in the network of international conventions to secure our freedom, or should we work alongside like-minded allies, as the final protectors of the law, to do so? We are talking about the final protectors of our freedoms.

I say that when faced with that clear choice—and we have been faced with it over the last few months—we need to understand where our protection ultimately lies. It does not lie solely and completely with the United Nations; that would have to be a truly false hope, given the state of the world today. We have seen—and it is right for me to talk about—the importance of the coalition that is currently defeating terrorism, which is one—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will come back to the bill, please.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I appreciate the importance of the bill, and this is actually a discussion that is related to the bill. The bill sits in a context, and that context is about States working together to defeat terrorism. But New Zealand, at this stage, has opted out of doing that. We have heard our Prime Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: There is no problem about using some arguments, as the member has been doing up to now, but this debate is not a general discussion of foreign policy. The question in this debate is that this bill be now read a first time.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Indeed, it is about the bill on counter-terrorism. That is why the diplomatic efforts that the New Zealand Government makes are so central and so crucial to what this bill is about.

I say that when a Prime Minister says that we prefer someone else to be the President of the United States, other than the duly elected President, then a gross breach of diplomatic etiquette has been made. The whole point of this bill is to support and defend a fabric of relationships and conventions. So when the Government cannot even understand that under international law, countries are supposed to respect the decisions that other countries freely make, how can we then trust the faith that this Government puts in this bill? I appreciate your injunction to stick closely to this bill, Mr Speaker, and I will, but that matter is a key issue that confronts this nation.

Mark Peck: What are you saying? Tell us what you’re saying.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I will answer that interjection because I believe that is my right, having been challenged. The member asked me what I am saying. I am saying our Government has turned its back on our traditional friends and allies—the true, ultimate ability for New Zealand to defend itself and its interests—and has placed all its faith in a UN system of protection. That is wrong, and this nation will pay for it because that is not the way to deal with security matters. So, in answer to Mr Peck, that is specifically and clearly what I am saying.

More to the point, I say that if the Prime Minister cannot understand that she is supposed to recognise the duly elected President of the United States, this nation will suffer badly because of that. Mr Peck knows that, which is why he asked that question; he wants that matter to be put on the record. That is apparently what he wants; he wants that to be put on the record. So is that a kind of betrayal by Mr Peck of his own leader? One has to ask that question.

I accept that the measures in this bill are important, naturally. Obviously, New Zealand has a responsibility to work in the United Nations to implement counter-terrorism measures. I commend the Government for its work in Afghanistan on Operation Enduring Freedom. But I say defeating terrorism and its source cannot lie solely in supporting international conventions. That is where the Government has made such a serious mistake in its foreign policy, and this country will suffer for it.

I have read this bill carefully, and I note that one of the key provisions is about the trafficking in nuclear material. Although I see it as important that New Zealand does implement these conventions, I guess in reality New Zealand will not be particularly affected by that issue. I have noticed, also, the amendments to the Crimes Act.

But I just say, in conclusion, that I taught international law for a number of years. While I understand its importance in the international framework, I also understand it is an imperfect system. There is no global police force. The enforcement of international law actually depends on nation States lending their sovereign forces to implement the principles of law. Today we are seeing a coalition of our most trusted friends and allies doing precisely that in Iraq. New Zealand is not there. We will pay a price for that, because we have said we put all our belief in the United Nations.

I just want to make a final point—

Jill Pettis: Dead sons are an awful price, too.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: No one has suggested that—

Hon Mark Burton: What’s your policy. What’re your underlying principles?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: The ethical issue is that international law has to be defended by States willing to work together, and New Zealand opted out of that 2 weeks ago. We will pay a price for that with our friends, for a long time.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): It was not possible to distil a great deal from that speech, but what it was possible to distil amounted to this: the member on the one hand criticised what he saw as the Government’s reliance on a UN-led rules-based international system, saying at the commencement of his speech that that actually compromised New Zealand’s sovereignty and freedom to make its own choices, and then on the other hand he said that because we are not with our traditional friends and allies in Iraq, we have somehow left ourselves in the international lurch. I say to that member that he cannot have it both ways. If, as he said at the conclusion of his speech, based on his vast international law experience, the issue is all about States working together to resolve international crises, and that we have put our faith in international law, then I say to him that he needs to sort out very clearly where he actually stands. At the moment he stands desperately astride both camps, and as they move further apart, all that I can say to the member is that he will find that becomes an extremely uncomfortable position to try to sustain for very long.

I want to return to the provisions of this bill that is before the House at the moment. I say that the Minister, in his introduction—and I think even the member who preceded me briefly conceded this point; he used words like “exposition and explanation”, although I thought they were broadly the same thing—talked about the scope of this bill. It is certainly true that it does broaden the net, in terms of our ability to respond to particular terrorist situations. It is certainly true that it enables us to complete the implementation locally of a number of international agreements that we have been party to over the years. It is certainly true that in the context of the war against terrorism, however it is defined, this legislation better positions New Zealand to respond. But, having said that, there are some issues in the bill that I believe the select committee will want to pay particular attention to. I speak as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which will be hearing submissions on this bill.

I will tell the House what issues I see as being of potential concern. In part, I base what I am about to say on our recent experience with the legislation regarding the Kyoto Protocol, where similar types of issues about the protection of individual rights at the expense of the broader rights of the community came into play. Let me explain what I am talking about. There are provisions in this bill regarding the evidence of private communications that have been lawfully intercepted for one purpose being used for another. Although, on the one hand it is arguable that we are codifying a situation that has previously not been properly explained, on the other hand there will be some significant issues about the scope of the changes that are proposed here, and about whether, in fact, there is the prospect of people who are genuinely innocent being caught up in this network. I refer specifically to the bill’s provisions to overturn what is known as the Aranui case, which will “ensure”—and I quote from the explanatory note of the bill—“that evidence of a private communication lawfully intercepted under an interception warrant will be admissible in court if it discloses evidence of any offence for which an interception warrant may be issued”.

In other words, under this bill, evidence obtained on one point can now be extended to include other points if, in other circumstances, a warrant could have been obtained to watch over that particular circumstance. The select committee will want to work its way through that very carefully. On the face of it, in the context of this bill, that is probably justifiable. But we need to be careful that in broadening the net to deal with terrorism issues, we are not broadening it unreasonably in respect of a number of other citizens.

I make a similar comment in respect of the provisions regarding the repeal of certain sections of the misuse of drugs legislation, concerning the use of tracking devices. A point that does need to be stressed is that at the moment there are actually no specific provisions regarding the use of tracking devices. Their use is virtually uncontrolled in that respect. Again, on the face of it, this bill will for the first time introduce some limitations on that. But thereby hangs the problem: defining adequately what those limitations might be, and whether a number of people who are innocent in terms of terrorism charges may well be caught up in that particular net. I think we will want to work our way through that very carefully.

The third area that comes into this category relates to the provisions concerning the accessing of computer data. I say to the House that during the hearing of evidence on the Kyoto Protocol legislation, that particular issue arose very strongly in terms of what might be held on someone’s computer regarding the emission levels of the animals on that person’s farm. Very heated evidence was presented about the level of the test being applied for access to that data, and about the rights of entry to property and the rights of seizure being greater than those applied in many other cases. I think it will be important, when we look at this issue at the select committee, to ensure that the balance is struck at about the appropriate level. We need to ensure that we do not create a situation where there are higher tests than those that apply in many other cases.

The fourth point—and I support this, because I had some discussions with the Minister about this—is that the select committee will be asked to report back on this bill by 31 July. That is a good objective, because it strikes me that it would be somewhat ironic to pass counter-terrorism legislation in response to an international terrorism crisis in a rather leisurely way. That would belie the urgency of the subject. Having said that, given the range of submissions likely to come forward and the timing of this bill, in terms of other priorities that are before the committee at the moment, I sound a warning to the House that it may well not be possible to complete the hearing of evidence within that time, though we will certainly give that every reasonable chance of succeeding.

In the broader context—and I will not stray as widely as the previous speaker did—I make these comments: it is clear that we live in an age that is unparalleled, in terms of the way in which traditional relationships have broken down and terrorism has become very much an unfortunate norm. The old style of conflict between and among States has changed for ever, and we see that portrayed on our television screens constantly at the moment. Therefore, a number of the old rules no longer apply. I do not think that that is an argument for saying we should no longer put our faith in a rules-based system and should revert to the “might is right” argument—and there seemed to be touches of that in the speech made by the member who preceded me.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I did not say that, and the member knows it.

Hon PETER DUNNE: He may not have said it explicitly, but, certainly, the inference that could be taken from his speech was that if we put our faith in a rules-based system, we on the one hand surrender our sovereignty, and on the other hand—

Dr Wayne Mapp: I did not say that.

Hon PETER DUNNE: The member did. He cannot deny what he said. The member said at the commencement of his speech that this Government had placed its faith in the United Nations—

Dr Wayne Mapp: Solely.

Hon PETER DUNNE: —solely, and that as a consequence of that, our freedom, which is, I think, the phrase the member used, has been compromised.

Dr Wayne Mapp: That’s right.

Hon PETER DUNNE: Well, the inference to be drawn very clearly from that is that that is a compromise of our sovereignty. The member cannot argue that on the one hand, and then on the other hand say that the only way of preserving that balance is for us to automatically—and this is my word, not his—join the so-called “coalition of the willing”. The two points are contradictory.

The terrorism issue is part of a broader framework, and it needs to be addressed in that context. We need to get law that is sustainable not only in terms of the immediate set of crises that we face but also beyond that into the future. I think that this bill sets us down that path. It will need to be carefully considered by the select committee, to ensure that we properly assess the balance between the rights of New Zealanders and the protection of our overall security. Then the bill can be passed, later in the year, into law.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): One of wonderful things about having been away from Parliament for 18 years is that one understands how ineffectual Parliament can be, and how highly Parliament thinks of itself. This bill is probably one of the classic examples of that. Here we have the Labour Government trying to legislate away our problems. This legislation will in no way resolve the problems that New Zealand faces today, yet somehow the Labour Government thinks that if it puts up a bill, all our problems will go away, the terrorists will go away, and everything will be sweet and rosy. What a load of nonsense that is!

Whether or not this bill is passed—and New Zealand First will support it—we do not have the means to counter terrorism in New Zealand. The Labour Government has made sure that our defence forces have been run down so severely that we could not prevent an incident like September 11 from happening in New Zealand. We do not have a plane fast enough to catch up with any plane that may be flying into the Beehive, and we do not have a plane capable of shooting down a plane that may be attacking the Beehive. What a load of nonsense this legislation is! The public of New Zealand want action, not just another Labour Government piece of paper saying that the Government will legislate terrorism away and there will be no more problems. Is that not the typical Labour way of doing things! If we have a problem, Labour legislates for it, and believes that is the end of it. That is absolute nonsense.

This bill has been lying around since 17 December 2002. It has no real link to the present state of affairs. This bill came out of the events of September 11, 2001, did it not? That is going on 18 months ago, and finally we are getting some more legislation on this issue. That shows the importance the Labour Government gives even to its usual stance of trying to legislate away a problem. This bill refers to the benefits that it will give us. On page 12 of the explanatory note of the bill, I see that the benefits include “the safety and security of New Zealand and its citizens”. We are talking about safety and security, and the problems that New Zealand would face if it were the victim of a terrorist attack.

I would suggest that the statements made by the right honourable Prime Minister that a Gore presidency in the United States would have had a different consequence for Iraq—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will come back to the bill.

DAIL JONES: That is very important, because I believe that that statement is more dangerous to New Zealand, in a terrorist sense, than would be a suicide bomber. That statement has caused more damage to New Zealand than any suicide bomber could possibly cause. It has damaged New Zealand’s international standing and its relationship with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia more than any suicide bomber could possibly do. In that sense, in that verbal, smart, academic sense, the Prime Minister has been more damaging to New Zealand than any suicide bomber could possibly be. She sits there smugly, thinking that was a nice, slick remark to make, the type of thing that one could say with a glass of Chardonnay in one’s hand at Auckland University, but really it is more damaging than a suicide bomber would be. The consequences of that comment will last longer than anything we are trying to protect ourselves from with this legislation. The Prime Minister does not understand that, and Mark Peck did not understand it. Wayne Mapp quite correctly made that point. We have to watch what we say, not just try to legislate away a problem.

We do not support the situation in Iraq, of course. We take the view that if we get rid of Saddam Hussein—he might even be dead already, but the Iraqis are still fighting—we must ask what we will get in his place. We will get another dictator, not democracy in Iraq. Democracy in Iraq is impossible. One has to live in the Middle East, or in South Asia, as I did—I was born and brought up there—to know that we will not get democracy in Iraq. The best that will happen in Iraq will be the replacement of Saddam Hussein by another type of dictator, at someone else’s behest. We will not get anything decent in Iraq, so we just have to remember whom our friends are. Although we are disagreeing with the United States and Britain at the moment, we have to look to the future, and that is what the Prime Minister has failed to do. She has the responsibility to make sure that her smart alec words do not do us future damage. But she is doing that. Anything that is in this bill is totally destroyed by the way in which the Prime Minister has behaved, in terms of her smart alec remarks recently.

Some of us have links with what is happening in Iraq. My grandfather was in Basra in 1917 and my maternal grandmother was on many hajj trips, so I have close links with the Middle East and with the situation there. New Zealand First has made it quite clear that we do not want to see the United States, Australia, and Britain going in there to try to find weapons of mass destruction that do not exist. Such weapons do not seem to have been found there yet; we will all wait and see whether the coalition ever finds any. But I say the smart alec remarks of the Prime Minister defeat the purpose of this legislation.

This legislation highlights the way in which we are moving away from our traditional ties. I well remember the lectures on foreign affairs given by Professor Sinclair in 1961 in his course on the history of New Zealand. We did not have much in the way of foreign affairs in 1961, and he was always trying to comment on whether we were breaking away from Britain. I think the events we saw in the House last week were probably the final cutting of the umbilical cord with the United Kingdom, and the Labour Government does not recognise that. The Minister of Defence does not recognise that; he cannot see that we are definitely now an isolated nation. We have to be careful what we say, and I say we do not have to start attacking the President of the United States. We all have our views as to whether George Bush should be re-elected, but those should remain our views. We should not, especially at the highest echelon, make the type of remarks that the Prime Minister was making, which were totally inept.

We have to look ahead to the future. This bill is just part of what we are looking at for the future of New Zealand. I see nothing from the Labour Government that tells us where New Zealand will go from here. Are we just to rely on the United Nations? New Zealand First is looking ahead; we have given close consideration to our view on Iraq. But New Zealand must take the next step, and I think Wayne Mapp was trying to ask where we are to go to, from here. There has been no response from Labour to that. We have had the Minister of Defence chipping away and making smart remarks similar to those of his leader. We have had Mark Peck asking what Wayne Mapp meant. What Wayne Mapp said was very, very clear. We say that we should not go around attacking the United States—or Britain, for that matter. All of us might say that Tony Blair is playing a very close game in a difficult situation.

This legislation is just a counter-terrorism bill. I note the comments from the leader of United Future that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee will look at it very closely. The bill is just symbolic of the state of affairs New Zealand faces today. When I studied international law, one thing that became very clear to me was that international law supports winners. All that international law does is to support winners. If Hitler had won the Second World War, the Germans would have somehow found a way of justifying what they did. International law is all about supporting winners, and we have to be very, very careful of where we go in this very difficult world.

This bill does nothing for the future of New Zealand in the very difficult state in which we find ourselves. The Labour Government would not have a debate on the Iraq situation in this House. It was forced into a debate. It would not put up a motion to the House; it was forced into the debate. This Government has no regard for the future of New Zealand. It was a minor Opposition party—I am sure the member concerned will not mind my saying that, because it highlights the fact—that forced a debate on Iraq. It was ironic, though, that a member of that minor Opposition party, whose ancestor fought so valiantly in the Second World War, did not have a vote cast on her behalf in that debate. I thought it was quite ironic that ACT, which put forward the motion, did not put forward the vote of the descendant of that former soldier, who is, I believe, a member of the ACT party.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to come to the bill, please.

DAIL JONES: I will just get back to the point. I appreciate the Speaker’s indulgence. New Zealand First will support this bill, but let us not exaggerate its significance. The bill is just a piece of paper. It will not stop a suicide bomber who wants to—

Dr Wayne Mapp: Commit suicide.

DAIL JONES: Commit suicide, yes. I am pleased that we have some improved security arrangements in this building. I look forward to more of them.

GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa): I rise to speak in support of the first reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill. The misguided burblings of the member who just resumed his seat may have confused some members and, indeed, the listening public, so I would like to clarify the purpose of the bill. The bill implements in domestic law the requirement of two international conventions, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, and the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection. As the commentary on the bill states, it does so “by providing for: offences involving the use and movement of unmarked plastic explosives: offences involving the physical protection of nuclear material: extra-territorial jurisdiction, extradition, and mutual assistance requirements in respect of those offences”.

Other matters that the bill will pursue, which people may be interested in, include infecting animals with disease, for which a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment is suggested; contamination of food, crops, water, or other products intended for human consumption, for which a penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment is possible; threatening or falsely communicating information about harm to persons or property; harbouring or concealing terrorists; and dealing with radioactive material. Also, terrorism will be an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes under the Sentencing Act. I hope this information has been helpful to members and listeners.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I rise on behalf of the ACT party to say that we support the Counter-Terrorism Bill. I say to the previous speaker that just reading out some notes is not actually participating in the debate. It leads me to believe that that member has not read the bill, and I am wondering whether the previous speakers have read it, either. Although I accept the point made by Mr Jones—that it seems counter-productive to be passing a counter-terrorism bill at the same time that we are breaking the relationships New Zealand has with other security organisations—let us look at the bill itself. Of course we need to pass legislation with regard to nuclear materials. I do not think that any MP—although one never knows what the Greens are going to say—is in favour of the importation of plastic explosives. So one can see that we need international cooperation to track down that sort of material, and, yes, we need to pass laws to make sure we can do something about it. But when I look at the bill, I realise that there are serious civil liberties issues involved, which no member has bothered to discuss.

I see that the bill is going to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Our foreign affairs committee is not known for its knowledge of the law, or for its industry, or for looking after the interests of New Zealand citizens. It has, for example, had a petition from the Chinese community sitting in front of it for months, and it has not bothered to look at it. It does not care about those sorts of issues. It is normally the committee that puts forward an argument as to why it should travel yet again to Australia. I do not believe that that committee, under Mr Dunne’s chairmanship, is a fit and proper committee to be looking at these serious issues.

I want to draw the attention of the House to some of the clauses. I do not know whether the Greens have read the bill, but I think they would be very wise not to vote for it, because it would appear to me that under this bill they are in danger of going to jail for 7 years. That is a very attractive proposition, I guess, for many of us.

Hon Member: What does the bill say?

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I will read it to the member. I am referring to new section 307A, “Threatening to do harm to persons or property’, which is inserted by clause 7. Subsection (1) of that new section states: “Every one who intends to cause significant disruption to commercial interests or government interests is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years if, without lawful justification or reasonable excuse, that person—“(a) threatens to do an act to cause harm to persons or property: “(b) communicates information about harm to persons or property.” Members should read the Greens’ website. I had it checked again this morning, and if members go to it, they will see that there are links to international organisations that boast about the damage they have done to various commercial interests.

Indeed, there are Green members of Parliament who have a string of convictions for causing damage to property and to commercial interests. The Green Party has boasted about how its members have pulled up genetically engineered (GE) crops, or crops that they thought were GE. I believe that the Greens would also be caught by the clause about contaminating food, crops, water, or other products. There is no doubt in my mind that that provision, as it is read, would have a grave effect upon the Green Party and its friend Greenpeace. It would appear to me, when I look at the description of a terrorist organisation, that even though the Government itself may not have decided to call the Greenpeace organisation a terrorist organisation, it fits the description. There is no doubt about that. The Green Party has broken the law. It has tromped all over commercial interests. Members of the Green Party frequently state that they do not think the law should apply to them, and that they are able to put their political causes ahead of the law.

There is another interesting little provision in clause 7. Section 307A(2), inserted by clause 7, states: “To avoid doubt, the fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy, or dissent, or engages in any strike, lockout, or other industrial action, is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for inferring that a person has committed an offence under subsection (1).” That is very interesting. It appears to me that the Government is saying that people who cause any property damage are liable to 7 years’ jail but that if those people say they are on a protest, then they are not. It appears to me that if people want to do a terrorist act in New Zealand, they can just shout: “Long live Saddam Hussein!” as they throw their hand grenades at the Devonport naval base, and cause damage. Then when they go to court they can say: “Well, I was just making a protest.” Is that the purpose of the clause? The clause is an absolute nonsense.

I ask the House whether anybody thinks there is anyone on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee who is capable of telling us what those two clauses mean. Tim Barnett would not have a clue. I say to the House that, yes, we need to look at the question of terrorism—and the ACT party is probably stronger on defence than any other party in Parliament—but that we have concerns. [Interruption] The member—I think her name is Georgina Beyer—just made a contribution to the House. She did not once comment on this clause. I do not think she has even read it. I ask that member, as she wants to interject, whether she is concerned about the civil liberties involved in that clause. There is a great silence now. I suspect that when the bill went to caucus she did not ask Mr Goff: “Well, what does this mean? Are we going to send Green MPs to jail for 7 years?” I know that that is a fairly attractive proposition. I realise that the cost of keeping a Green MP in Parliament is about $90,000. If we put one of them in prison the cost would be $60,000, so we would make a $30,000 saving. But the trouble with MMP is that we would just get another one, so what is the point?

Sue Kedgley: What about your MPs?

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: The member asks about my MPs.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I do not mind answering the interjection, Mr Speaker. My party is actually in favour of the rule of law and property—

Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member but there will be no interjections from that quarter. That is the rule.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I do not mind handling them, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Well I do.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: Righto—no interjections. I was looking forward to being able to reply. When I look at clause 15, I wonder what the House thinks about it. I am referring to the ability of customs officers to seize property, including cash, without any court order at all. Customs officers can seize cash, and cash includes cash equivalents, including bearer bonds, gemstones, money orders, postal notes, precious metals, and travellers cheques. The bill further states, in new section 47D (3), which is also inserted by clause 15, that: “ the Customs need not return the goods as provided in subsection (2), and may continue to detain them pending a direction by the Prime Minister under section 48 ...”. Do we really want to pass a law that allows the Prime Minister of New Zealand to hold and detain cash that has been taken from citizens? Do I trust the Prime Minister? The answer to that question is no, I do not. As Mr Jones has said, I think that our Prime Minister is capable of making extraordinary errors of judgment. I think that she has made great errors of judgment in the last week. Now we are passing a law stating that our Prime Minister can decide whether cash or material will be returned to citizens. Is the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee going to look at that provision? Obviously it is not, because not a single member of that committee has mentioned any of those clauses. Now that I have drawn them to the attention of Green Party members, I suspect that they might start to realise—because they are in danger. I do not think that they ought to be deciding this issue. We cannot have the terrorists deciding whether they want a counter-terrorism bill, can we? We know what their answer would be.

I believe that this bill has serious civil liberties issues in it. If we pass measures to protect liberty, and if those measures so strong that they take away our liberty, then the bill—which states that it is a counter-terrorism bill—might be a counter-liberty bill. I think that there are serious issues in the bill, and I am disturbed that it is being passed under urgency. I make this final point. Probably, the people who cause the most terrorism in New Zealand are the gangs. They also cause most of the drug problems. We have been told by the police for years that they want to have the drugs classified as class A drugs, and this Government cannot get around to it. Yet here we are, in urgency, rushing through terrorism measures. We are able to act in this area but we are not able to act on the gangs. This bill should be looked at very carefully, and it ought to go to a better committee.

TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central): I must say that I am deeply wounded by Mr Prebble’s suggestion that I am incapable of understanding the words in legislation. I can assure him that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has such towering legal minds as Matt Robson’s and Wayne Mapp’s to advise us on those matters. I also point out that ACT did have the opportunity, when deciding which select committees to go on, to be on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and it chose not to do so.

I want to make three quick comments. Firstly, that committee has dealt with other bills in this range of legislation that we are agreeing in order to make sure that we can effectively translate United Nations conventions into workable domestic law. It is a vital task that we are doing, and we are doing it well. Select committees take an increasingly muscular and rigorous approach to legislation, and I can assure the House that our committee will be inviting and receiving comments from right across the spectrum. I was pleased to hear the Minister say, in his introductory comments on the bill, that when he prepared the legislation he ensured that proper safeguards were in place to ensure that civil liberties were not unduly impinged on. I commend the bill to the House, and I look forward to further debate and to select committee consideration of the bill.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Greens will be voting against this bill, despite some good clauses in it, because it is a fraudulent bill. It is a fraudulent bill because although it is called the Counter-Terrorism Bill, much of the bill has nothing to do with terrorism or counter-terrorism. I am referring to the many amendments to the Crimes Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act, and the Summary Proceedings Act, which have nothing to do with terrorism. They have been sneaked into the bill because the Government knows that if a counter-terrorism label is put on amendments, members will be more reluctant to oppose them.

Let us go into some of those amendments. Clauses 8 and 26 amend the Crimes Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act, but not because of anything to do with terrorism. The explanatory note makes it clear that those provisions are to overturn part of the Court of Appeal’s decision R v Aranui 4 years ago. An element of that Court of Appeal decision was that one could not use interception warrants for fishing expeditions because they are an intrusion on our privacy. However, the two amendments in the bill before us will mean that warrants obtained to gather evidence on something like theft will be able to be used to fish for evidence on things not specified in the warrant, like drug offences, or vice versa.

Other amendments are to the Summary Proceedings Act, and they also extend police surveillance powers, with no special reference to terrorism. These involve giving the police broad powers—generally after a warrant is obtained—to use tracking devices to follow people. Most people will think that that is about tracking devices on cars, but it can be tracking devices secreted on any “thing”. Those “things” could be people’s clothing or their bags. Electronic devices are now so small that that is feasible, and the devices could be easily linked up with the global positioning system, so that a person under surveillance could be tracked everywhere he or she goes. This is a very intrusive provision, which up till now has been generally restricted to drug offences, and has now been generalised to cover police investigations into virtually any crime. We have to be very careful about giving police extra powers to invade the privacy of suspects in this way, even if they have to produce a good case before or after the fact to the judge handing out the warrant. We have not heard a good argument for granting this extension of police powers.

An extra search power is also being granted under the same Summary Proceedings Act. A constable executing a search warrant will be able to demand help in getting any information off any computer located on the premises being searched. Unlike what Phil Goff said, the police do not have to have a specific court order for that. If a person does not cooperate, he or she could be up for 3 months in jail. In practice, they will have to give over any encryption devices to the police, or get around any firewalls. Normally, people are not supposed to be forced to incriminate themselves. Here they are being forced to participate in perhaps their own incrimination. It is a big intrusion on our privacy to give constables that generalised power, because a large part of our lives is often on our computers.

One of the Green Party’s concerns with the Terrorism Suppression Act passed last year was that legitimate protesters might be convicted as terrorists, because the definition of a terrorist act was so broad. Under that bill, terrorism could involve causing serious economic loss, or seriously destructing an infrastructure facility in a way likely to endanger human life. This new Counter-Terrorism Bill confirms our fears that protesters are a more likely target of such legislation than terrorists. Clause 7, which amends the Crimes Act, has an even more general provision that could apply to protesters without any specific relevance at all to terrorism. To be liable for a term of up to 7 years, one only needs to intend to “cause significant disruption to commercial interests or government interests” and communicate “information about harm to people or property” in that regard. Surely, that provision would cover many—perhaps most—cases of non-violent civil disobedience, like we saw in the 1981 protests against the Springbok rugby tour. It could also apply to those anti-GE citizens currently talking about taking action against GE crops—the planting of which in New Zealand would so endanger our health and economic future.

No one is saying that people involved in civil disobedience should not be subject to the law, but why do we need this broad, harsh new provision governing what people say? None of the provisions I have mentioned have anything specifically to do with terrorism, but they do represent a serious undermining of our civil liberties. They challenge a number of provisions in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The provision on communicating information on harm to property conflicts with a freedom of expression provision in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That provision states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provision against unreasonable search and seizure should also restrain unreasonable demands that constables will be able to make on people, as regards people having to disclose all the contents of their computers. The provision should also mean that we want to limit the very broad and loose use of search and surveillance warrants. The clause in the current bill, whereby police can get an interception warrant for, say, drugs, and then use that warrant to fish for evidence on other crimes, is not compatible with the spirit of the “unreasonable search” provision in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It could also be used in some cases to persecute people—to keep them under surveillance until the police have something on them, allegedly for some crime. It also challenges our right to privacy under the Privacy Act.

That said, Part 2 of this bill has some good features. This is the part that amends the Terrorism Suppression Act with regard to New Zealand’s adherence to some good international conventions—such as the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection. The Green Party does not quarrel with those conventions. We are a nuclear-free country, so of course we should be implementing legislation controlling the importation, acquisition, possession, or control of radioactive material. We are also clearly against the use and movement of unmarked plastic explosives. These are practical measures against criminal behaviour, using plastic explosives and nuclear materials. It is important that New Zealand is at the forefront of the international campaign against the smuggling of nuclear materials, and adhering to all the appropriate treaties.

However, other clauses in Part 2 amending the Terrorism Suppression Act only reinforce the bad provisions of this Act, which the Greens opposed last year. If the wrong people or groups—that is, genuine political activists—are designated as terrorists, then the harbouring and related provisions in this bill will only reinforce the injustice that could flow from the existing Act. These result from the overly broad definition of terrorism in that Act. There is also the political nature of the process of designating terrorists and terrorist organisations, and the lack of full due process in the appeal system. People can be designated as terrorists without in subsequent appeal situations even having the right to see all the information being used against them—if it be deemed to be classified and secret.

I have focused on the problems with Parts 1 and 3 of the bill that do not relate at all to the Terrorism Suppression Act. The problem with this bill is that it is using people’s revulsion against terrorism to justify a serious undermining of our civil liberties. The Government should think again. If it wants to get us adhering to international treaties on plastic explosives and nuclear materials, it should do that in a separate bill devoted to them, and the Greens will support it. If the Government wants to do a completely different thing relating to general surveillance and search, it should do that in a separate bill, amending the Crimes Act, the Summary Offences Act, and the Misuse of Drugs Act, and let us have a proper discussion free of any scare talk about terrorism. We have to wake up to the fact that the so-called “war against terrorism” is being used as an excuse for a serious infringement of our human rights. That is particularly true under the Bush administration in the United States, but it is also happening in other countries, including New Zealand. The problem should not be made worse, as is being done in this bill. This bill is a compendium bill that mixes up the good bits relating to real dangers with bad bits.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier): I rise in support of this bill. I have listened to the various speeches and the complaints about the civil liberties aspects of the bill, but it is easy to criticise without advancing positive suggestions on how we balance the civil liberty interest with the overall attraction of having a bill that addresses the evils of terrorism.

The major aspect of this bill is the evil of terrorism. The mechanical processes may need refining, but we need suggestions, not criticisms built from ideology and vague dreams. I support the bill; it should go to its second reading. It is a bill that this whole House, in honesty, must support. The select committee is where those criticisms should be raised and addressed, because the overall purpose of the bill is one that this country longs for and needs.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): The National Party supports this bill progressing to the select committee for further consideration. It is with a degree of sadness that we do so. The need in New Zealand for a bill like this tells us that society, as we have known it, has definitely changed, and no New Zealander should be comfortable with that.

We have had some very good speeches in the House this morning. In particular, I refer to the speech of my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp, and to the very fine speech from the Hon Richard Prebble. I found myself agreeing with his speech in great substance. I also would like to make a few comments about the speech that we heard previously from Keith Locke of the Green Party. One of the things that I find amusing about the Greens’ position is that at times it seems to be exceptionally libertarian. The point the Greens do not understand is that every time someone commits an illegal act, threatens someone, or does something to disrupt society, it causes a place like Parliament to enact a law to counter that. What we then see on each occasion is a shortening, shrinking, or closing up of the liberty that we as citizens all experience, and that is part of the sadness I have in seeing this bill come before the House.

Georgina Beyer from the other side decided to give us a reading of the bill, rather than offer any particular thoughts on it. However, in so doing she highlighted some of the extraordinary situations that do exist in New Zealand. For example, it would appear that right now there is no law against infecting an animal with a disease, and sending that animal out into the community, presumably to spread that disease. For example, anthrax could be spread through the community by infecting dogs. Rabies is another example of a disease that could be spread through the community by infecting dogs. We are told in the preamble that right now that is not illegal. It seems to me only sensible that there should be some restriction on people doing that sort of thing. The next part says that it would appear that it is not illegal at the moment to contaminate food, crops, water, or other products intended for human consumption. That seems also somewhat awry, and is certainly something that we do need to correct, and I am pleased that this bill does so.

I want to tell the House about a small incident that happened in my own Christchurch electorate, where householders who turned on their taps were able to smell kerosene in their water. That caused a degree of angst and upset.

Hon Damien O'Connor: What’s that got to do with the bill?

GERRY BROWNLEE: The slow member from the West Coast asks what that has to do with the bill. I simply say to him to stay with it, keep his eyes open, and listen. I know he had a late night.

It is not a silly thing: people in my electorate recently experienced contamination of their water supply. When the investigations were done, it was discovered that a diesel pump had been serviced in the pump station, a small amount of diesel had spilled on the floor, and there had been some seepage through a very fine fissure in the concrete floor above the holding tank. The alarming thing about that is that it shows how very easy it would be for someone to put some very nasty stuff into water supplies throughout this country, and we should have legislation that stops that. As Mr Locke suggested, even if some of the provisions of this bill do not deal directly with terrorism, that would have to be, to say the least, a seditious act—if not a terrorist act by itself—and we should have that cover inside the law. The problem we have with bills like this is that it is very hard to define what terrorism is. If it were easy to define what a terrorist was, we would not have to put up with the sort of nonsense that the Greens put in front of us suggesting that all sorts of liberties are being curtailed because of a bill like this.

I now turn to some of the other benefits claimed for the bill, particularly the one that suggests that by being seen to cooperate fully in global attempts to combat terrorism, New Zealand will be able to maintain its international reputation. At the present time, we are seeing from the Government a complete obfuscation of the role that New Zealand should be playing in the Middle East. In international terms, I think the Prime Minister has let New Zealand down with some of her recent outbursts, described variously today as “ill-considered” or “smart alec”. For a bill like this to come before the House claiming that it is about New Zealand maintaining its obligations, although we have a Prime Minister who gets us out of them at every opportunity, certainly seems to me—we are not allowed to use the word in the House, and I will not—to be presenting a view in one place that is ignored in another.

I conclude my remarks this morning by simply saying that the National Party supports this bill. We do so because society has changed and New Zealanders are at risk. One final point I want to make, in which I am in total agreement with Richard Prebble, is that it seems sad also that we are able to put a bill like this in front of Parliament that deals with a problem that might or might not exist, but a real problem like gangs in New Zealand that—as Richard Prebble quite rightly said—does cause a lot of harm in society, seems to escape the legislative net quite easily.

On that note, I simply say that National looks forward to the select committee process, and it will be supporting the passage of this bill.

DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago): I rise in support of the bill, and I shall focus briefly on two issues that were also addressed by the prior speaker—that is, the importance of controlling those who might otherwise be interested in spreading disease, particularly amongst our animal herd. In reality, that is probably the biggest terrorist threat that New Zealand would face. For example, if foot and mouth disease were to be introduced into New Zealand and we suffered the loss of exports as a consequence, not only would the New Zealand economy be brought to its knees, but we would also suffer an environmental catastrophe in that millions and millions of litres of milk would flow into our rivers. That would be very serious. To the extent that those things can be prevented by law, it is prudent that we take the appropriate legislative steps, and we are proposing to do just that with this legislation. Legislation alone cannot stop those things, but it may act as a deterrent. Certainly, if such a terrible event ever did come to pass, it would be good to know that there were appropriate laws with which to punish those convicted.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Counter-Terrorism Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 110

Noes 9

Bill read a first time.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13,ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8, Progressive 2.

Green Party 9.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police), on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: I move, That the Counter-Terrorism Bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for consideration and that the committee finally report on the bill by 31 July 2003.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 20 February.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): This bill was introduced by the Government some 4 or 5 weeks ago—I have lost track of the time—and I have been waiting patiently for the opportunity to continue my speech.

When the bill was introduced, the Minister Steve Maharey conducted the introduction. In his speech, of which I have obtained a copy, he makes some comments that I think I should bring to the attention of the House so that we know precisely what we are talking about. He made it clear that currently the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has its own Act of Parliament, under which it is established as a limited liability company. It is the intention of the Crown to change the form of ownership to a Crown entity. The Minister indicated that “the bill signals the Government’s expectation that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra will provide the public of New Zealand with performances of symphonic music of an international standard. It will be required to seek to contribute to the development of a distinctly New Zealand cultural environment and to encourage New Zealand musical composition.” In his speech he said on the one hand that “Nothing in this legislation diminishes the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s artistic independence or integrity.”, and in the next sentence he stated it “will continue to act without ministerial or, indeed, parliamentary direction in artistic matters”. But he had indicated earlier in his speech that it must seek to contribute to the development of a distinctively New Zealand cultural environment. Indeed, clauses 8 and 9 of the bill make it quite clear that the orchestra must act within certain legislative confines.

I do ask why we are changing this New Zealand Symphony Orchestra structure from a limited liability company to a Crown entity. Why are we wasting the time of the House, in urgency, on this legislation? What is so important, what is so necessary, and what is the mischief currently being undertaken that requires us to get rid of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than a whim of the Prime Minister. There seems to be no point in it at all. The orchestra is carrying on perfectly well. It is doing its job brilliantly, and there is no need for the Government to interfere. But here we are, being forced in urgency, at 10 past 10 on a Wednesday morning—and being deprived of question time on Wednesday and Thursday—to look at a totally unnecessary restructure of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra.

Why must we have yet another Crown entity? Many years ago I ranted and railed against quangos—quasi non-governmental organisations. There is a cause out there for someone to rant and rail against Crown entities. These things are being set up with a view to not having any governmental ministerial responsibility on the one hand, but then the Government sets up Acts of Parliament that say they virtually must do what Parliament wants.

I enjoy the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. I actually do attend its performances. I read with interest its Wellington season programme for 2003, of which I have a copy here. In my last speech I read out some of its work. Of course, in the bill there is a requirement that the orchestra have New Zealand performers and New Zealand performances. We had one, David Farquhar’s third symphony, just last week. But apart from that, we seem to be struggling to get any New Zealand performers of any note. I know that in this year’s programme there are meant to be four performances of New Zealand work—work of people who won a prize in a local competition. But what happens if the winner happens to be from overseas? Will we limit the people who take part in New Zealand competitions? If the winner happens to be an overseas person, will that person’s work get the opportunity to be played, or will the performances be limited to work by a New Zealand person? Will we restrict, in effect, the development of classical-type music, and of music generally, in New Zealand?

The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra programme for 2003 is a wonderful one, a varied one. I noted the report on Monday, 3 March of its programme A Great Orchestra, A Great Journey. I listened to the radio programme where Peter Walls from the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra was talking about the wonderful programme the orchestra has this year. We are all looking forward to attending.

One must not forget that there are other orchestras around the country. In the overall scene, we must not forget that they also have needs. I will not go too much into the question of how they will be funded—for example, through the Responsible Gambling Bill—or how controls will be imposed on how that money is used. That will be a debate in another area. But I notice that a press release from the Christchurch City Council compliments, on the 30th anniversary of the Christchurch-Kurashiki sister city relationship, the work of the Christchurch Youth Orchestra and the Kurashiki Junior Philharmonia, of which 19 members were to be in Christchurch. We want to be sure that we continue supporting development of such orchestras in Christchurch, the Waikato, Auckland, Dunedin, or wherever they might be.

We in New Zealand must at this point also express our indebtedness to Klaus Heymann and his Naxos label. We all know the recent Lilburn work, which was put out by Naxos, and won great praise in the United Kingdom—I think it was top of the charts. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s work is now receiving international fame. I recall also that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra will be funded to go Japan—fully funded, I believe, by the Japanese. We must all take great pride in its work.

But again, as I say, we must not forget orchestras such as the Auckland Philharmonia and its wonderful Royal and SunAlliance series of 2003, which many of us will be attending, and groups such as Bach Musica with its 2003 subscription series, which is held from time to time at St Matthew’s in the City, in Auckland. It is attended, invariably, by a full house.

When we are passing this bill we must not ever overlook the fact that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra owes its existence, to a large extent, to all those young girls and boys who go along to their piano practice, their violin practice, their cello practice, and suchlike, and work their way towards being in an orchestra.

This bill also talks about the development of New Zealand performing art. I understand that once upon a time Dr Bruce Gregory, a former member for Northern Māori, gave us an exposition on an instrument called the nguru. It is an instrument that is inserted in the nostril; as the name implies, snoring or snorting through it gives a whistling sound. I wonder whether today’s Minister of Māori Affairs would give us a demonstration on the nguru, so that the development of this fine New Zealand instrument is continued by yet another member of this House. Maybe, with the size of our Minister of Māori Affairs, we might have a double concerto from the nguru—one from each nostril.

STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua): I rise in support of this bill. I would like to clarify that this bill is setting up the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra as a non-company Crown entity. That is what the orchestra itself has asked for. I make the point that this orchestra was one of our languishing icons. All the cultural devotees flock to the House to talk about their knowledge of the orchestra and the arts, but the orchestra was one of our icons that was floundering until we came into Government in 1999 with our cultural recovery package. We put $1.4 million into making a stable financial footing for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra to move on. I think this Government needs to be applauded for that. And it is remembered for that as we go out in support of our cultural institutions. The bill simply gives clarity to how the orchestra wishes to perform, and takes away that driver of it being a commercially driven entity. For that I support this bill.

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National): I would first like to make a couple of points about the previous speech given by the Labour member. I totally refute that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is, or was, a languishing icon. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has always been an icon of this country. It remains an icon, and it will always play a very important part in the cultural heritage of this country.

In terms of the creative process, however, I argue that it is not the role of the State to codify the creative process. We have a 31-page bill here that basically tells the orchestra how to suck eggs, how to play its instruments. It basically says that the orchestra’s job is to play symphonic music. Well, I say “Hello?”. I think we have always known that that is its role since it was first established. I think the orchestra has always been pretty clear that that is its role. We do not need the extension of regulation and legislation into these sorts of areas.

This is nothing more than a piece of symbolism. The Government is aiming to demonstrate its commitment to the arts. But I say it is not our role to stand here in Parliament and pass legislation to make a certain part of a sector feel good. We are here to pass laws that are necessary and useful, and have a role. The role of passing legislation is a very expensive one. The Parliamentary Library tells me that a piece of legislation can cost anywhere between $300,000 and $800,000; some estimates are up to $2 million. That is a lot of money to spend on passing legislation that is actually unnecessary.

If the Government wants to put its money where its mouth is, why not take that money and give it straight to the Symphony Orchestra? At least, the money then could be put into performance, into something that would make a difference to New Zealand people. The money that will be spent discussing this very large bill, which basically tells the orchestra to play music, should be put into a national tour by the orchestra, allowing it to play in some of the far-flung areas that it may not have been to in the past. That is a far more useful and far better use of scarce taxpayer resources than standing up here and talking about things that we already know.

I do not think the Symphony Orchestra has any concerns about what its role is, because it is stated in its statement of corporate intent: to play live orchestral concerts to the highest international standards; to contract top-level international conductors and performers within budget limitations; to promote and support New Zealand artists and composers, in both concerts and recordings; and to perform regularly in communities throughout New Zealand. Those are very important objectives, but they are already there. The orchestra already knows what it is doing. The Government is not fixing any problem here; it simply wants to demonstrate to a group that it is doing something for the arts. Well, I say that is not our role. We are here to pass laws that are necessary and will make a difference. The orchestra is doing an extremely good job in following the legislation that is already in place.

The next aim of the bill is to change the orchestra’s structure. Well, the approach of the orchestra could be changed without our putting through this legislation. I do not think the organisation has been run in a totally commercial sense. Yes, it does some popular things like playing the music of Split Enz, but if one looks at the orchestra’s schedules for last season and this season, one sees there is a fine mix between the popular and the particular, between playing some well-known pieces and supporting some less well-known artists and, in particular, supporting New Zealand music.

It is very interesting that this Government continues to talk about supporting New Zealand music, when among the key groups that do not support New Zealand producers and music are, not the commercial network, but Concert FM and the orchestra itself. I think the orchestra could do a better job of presenting and producing more New Zealand works, rather than just tried and true pieces from around the world. It seems that the Government is intent on imposing local content quotas, to which I say it should have a look at Concert FM. The last time I looked at that radio station’s annual report, I saw that between 3 and 4 percent of what it currently plays is New Zealand - produced music.

In addition, I do not think one can codify parts of the creative process. It is very difficult for any organisation to measure things like quality. Most New Zealanders already know the role of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. They know the part that it has played in our culture. They know what it is there to do. We do not need to waste parliamentary time, or the money involved in our doing this, just to tell the Symphony Orchestra that its job is to play music. The orchestra knows its raison d’être; it knows why it is there. When one looks at the costs of putting this bill through the House, one has to ask why the Government does not just give the orchestra that money for it to put it into performances.

Steve Chadwick: But you didn’t—that’s the reason.

KATHERINE RICH: I ask that member why the Government does not put the money into a performance in Rotorua. The orchestra should tour more places in New Zealand than just Wellington and Auckland. Yes, it does make a fine attempt at going to other places, but one could take the orchestra to a lot more New Zealand places with the millions of dollars that will be spent on this legislation, which we do not need.

Jill Pettis: We know you’re better than this.

KATHERINE RICH: I say to that member that I bet she thinks Pachelbel’s Canon is something being used by the Iraqis right now. When was the last time that member went to hear the Symphony Orchestra? In terms of a love of music and a love of the orchestra, I think the members who are speaking about this bill are the ones who really know how important cultural aspects are. We do not need a bill to tell us the role of the orchestra. We do not need 31 pages, which basically give a blow-by-blow account of what the orchestra is there to do. Most of us know that this is nothing more than a bill to make the Government feel good. It wants to hold this bill up, and say: “Look what we did for the orchestra.”

New Zealanders are not thick. They do not need a bill that tells the Symphony Orchestra that its role is to work with the New Zealand ballet and opera companies. We do not need legislation to set out the role of the Auckland Philharmonia. We do not need legislation to tell the Dunedin Symphonia what to do. We do not need legislation to set up pipe bands or brass bands around the country, or to tell them what to play or what the quality of their music should be. This is just absolute silliness. I think it will switch a lot of New Zealanders off, because they will be able to see through this 31-page bill.

Here we are, in urgency, and this bill is supposed to be the urgent order of the day, but I think there are many other bills on the Order Paper that we should be focusing on. If the Government wants to put its money where its mouth is, it should pull this bill right now. It should take the money that will be spent on putting the bill through the select committee process, and give it to the orchestra, so that it can use the money to take itself on the road and do more performing, because that is its job.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): Contrary to the previous speaker, United Future believes that art is important, and a necessary ingredient in the well-being of our country and culture. United Future supports the general thrust of this bill, and what it aims to do. We are therefore very happy to support this bill through its first reading to the select committee stage. We agree that, although New Zealand’s top orchestra certainly has commercial obligations, it is not really a company. To reconstitute it as a Crown entity is therefore entirely appropriate. However, in supporting this bill we do so with a note of irony, given the arm’s length at which the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra was kept by a Labour Government in the late 1980s; but having now changed its ideological pants and its musical tune, it is, funnily enough, a Labour-led Government that is reconstituting the orchestra’s status to become a Crown entity.

In terms of the previous legislation, the shares of the company were held by the responsible Minister and the Minister of Finance. The function of the orchestra is set out absolutely nowhere in the 1988 Act. It had responsibilities only in respect of the Companies Act. Its status as our national orchestra did not even warrant a mention. It is therefore conceivable that we could have had an orchestra company that ceased to function as an orchestra at all.

This legislation is necessary to protect our national orchestra as one of our cultural treasures. This bill provides exactly for that, and, in terms of the orchestra’s survival and stability, it is vital that we do that now, and into the future. United Future’s election policy also supports providing for the orchestra to be put on a sure footing for the long term. We are therefore glad to see steps being made toward that. However, we flag our concerns regarding the accountability of the tax money spent, and what the taxpayer will receive. The orchestra has made a $538,000 profit in the year 2001, and that is its first surplus since 1997—although it was helped by the Government’s cash boost in 2000 as part of its arts package—compared with the loss of $1.5 million in 1998-99.

Should there be a tighter definition of financial viability, so that the orchestra is more able to live within its means? We think so. On a related topic, some feel that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra already gets too much at the expense of regional orchestras and other arts. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has the biggest budget of the professional arts organisations, and is the only one to pay directors’ fees. The concern is that by drawing the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra so close to the State’s bosom, it will continue to suckle without restraint.

There are also suspicions in the music world that the orchestra is managerially top-heavy. The bill creates a new board, which is appointed by the Minister, but it is not clear whether it will be larger than the existing governing body of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. A cynic would suggest that this might create more opportunities for political appointments.

However, contrary to the older legislation, this new bill provides some principal objectives for the orchestra, including the provision of performances of symphonic music performed to an international standard, and the provision of an orchestra that is highly skilled and has strong community support. More important, the orchestra is to take a leading role in the performing arts industry in developing New Zealand’s cultural environment. It will encourage composition in New Zealand and it will provide opportunities for the development of our own musicians. United Future supports the promotion of, and the long-term provision for, our New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, and therefore is proud to support this bill.

HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ): I stand today to address the first reading of this bill with some surprise as to the speed with which it has leapt to the top of the Order Paper. If members look at the Order Paper, they will see several other bills, many of which have been languishing on it for some time—bills of some importance, such as the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill. But this bill has leapt to the top of the Order Paper.

As much as I love listening to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and attending its performances, I cannot help but feel like my colleague in the National Party who spoke earlier that there are matters of greater gravity to be debated in the House at this time. Internationally, we have a war. Domestically, we have seven district health boards under intensive monitoring, which means they are in such strife that they need to work very closely with the Ministry of Health in order to function on a day-to-day level. The New Zealand education system allows one in five of our children to leave school without basic numeracy and literacy skills. The recent Catching the Knowledge Wave conference had speakers of international note, who are experts in their fields, but because their recommendations are not what the Prime Minister ordered, she has declared there to be nothing resulting from the conference that cannot be put to the side of her desk. Instead, we have before us a matter of such international and domestic magnitude that it must be addressed promptly: the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill!

The explanatory note to the bill tells us that the bill’s primary purpose is to change the status of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra from a limited liability company to a non-company Crown entity. Minister Maharey in his first reading speech told the House that it is to ensure the orchestra’s financial viability. This, in fact, is code for “The Prime Minister won’t let it go broke.” One does wonder whether she knows something that we do not. As Mr Jones pointed out in his speech, many other orchestras around the country are performing well and to a very fine and high standard. The Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra and Wellington Symphonia come to mind. The Wellington Symphonia is so well regarded that it frequently plays for the New Zealand Ballet when it comes to town.

In times of doubt, it is often instructive to examine a company’s annual report, and I have here the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s annual report for the year ended June 2002. The chief executive states in his overview:

“In most months of the 2001-02 year we recorded better than budget income and lower than forecast expenditure. This reflects sound management, underpinned by sure-footed artistic decisions that have resulted in significant increases in audience numbers through the country.” We wonder then why change is actually necessary, if this is to be believed.

However, the chairman’s preface was not quite so rosy, and if we turn back a page and read what Sir Selwyn Cushing has said, we will find it very informative. He said: “The outlook for sponsorship has remained far from encouraging. The difficulties for arts organisations in attracting and retaining significant corporate support are even more obvious now than they were 12 months ago. The economic downturn, exacerbated by the effects of September 11, has promoted many businesses to retrench in this area. It is with particular chagrin that we accepted the decision of both Telecom and Air New Zealand not to continue their longstanding and greatly valued support for the orchestra.” Why was it possible for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra to achieve adequate sponsorship under the previous Government but not this Government?

Patrons will recall the BP summer pops concerts that played in packed venues around the country. Did they stop because the music was not of an international standard? The reason, I contend, was much more to do with corporates being subject to higher taxes and therefore not being in a position to support such ventures.

If we look at the principal objectives of the orchestra and its functions, we find that they too are quite instructive. Clause 8, “Principal objectives of Orchestra”, states: “The principal objectives of the orchestra are—(a) to provide the public of New Zealand with live and recorded performances of symphonic music performed to an international standard:”. What will happen to the violinist whose vibrato is not vibratory enough, or the pianist who accidentally confuses his upper and lower mordents? Will the individual musicians be held responsible for not upholding the international standard to which they are required to play? If so, how will they be punished? What of the conductor who fails to execute adequately the rallentando or the ritenuto markings on his musical score? Presumably, he will be expected to pass on his baton.

We read further down in the objectives and see that paragraph (d) states that the objective is: “to encourage New Zealand musical composition:”. Again, if we go back to the annual report, we read on page 7 that our commitment to New Zealand music is reflected in the inclusion of works by our own composers in our main subscription concerts. It is already happening. Why do we need a change? The orchestra thought it had already achieved this objective.

Another objective is to provide an orchestra that is highly skilled and artistically imaginative. I think the Prime Minister has discovered new resources in central planning undreamt of heretofore. Let us explore artistic imagination for a moment. Artistic imagination is not something one can legislate for. We in ACT believe that artistic imagination is a gift, a talent—something a person is born with and that can be developed with hard work. However, if the bill is passed, the Labour Government must be expecting a springing up of musical talent among the general populace. Imagine the boom—

Dail Jones: The unemployed ones.

HEATHER ROY: Absolutely—good work for them! Imagine the boom in the arts if the Royal New Zealand Ballet were also subject to legislation for artistic imagination.

This bill stresses that in all artistic matters the orchestra will be at arm’s length from ministerial direction. Again I suggest that that is code for something else—perhaps for “close enough to be told how to operate”.

One of the functions of the orchestra is to carry out any other functions consistent with its principal objectives, as agreed to by the Minister after consultation with the orchestra. However, clause 9 spells out the Prime Minister’s intent. It states that a function is to carry out any other functions. Will we perhaps be seeing a guest appearance, one wonders.

Given the central control, the legislating for artistic imagination, and the attitude pervading this bill that artistic talent is safest in the hands of this authoritarian Government, ACT New Zealand cannot support this bill. We want to see the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra there, and we want to see it do well. We want to see it compete on the world stage. We want to encourage creativity and the orchestra’s popularity within New Zealand, but this bill will not achieve that. To legislate for artistic imagination is an intellectual conceit that for sheer gall takes the breath away. We have an international crisis, domestically things are not looking rosy, but today the country can rest assured that the band plays on.

DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East): All I can say is what a miserable and negative Opposition we have! This bill is to change the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra into a non-company Crown entity. It is to put the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra on a positive financial footing. I find that the speeches made by the Opposition are entirely negative, totally uncreative, and totally unartistic. This is one bill that the Opposition could get behind and show a bit of spirit and patriotism towards New Zealand, and New Zealand artistic endeavours.

I also take this opportunity at this stage to both note and to pay tribute to Ted Carr, who I understand died last week, and thank him for his contribution to New Zealand music. As the chair of the Government Administration Committee I say that we look forward to having this bill come to our committee, to return it back to the House, to get it passed, and to put the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra on a firm and stable footing to serve members of both the adult community who attend the concerts and also members of the young community who benefit from their educational performance and instruction.

MIKE WARD (Green): I rise to support this bill on behalf of the Green Party. I would like to compliment the Government on its support of the arts. It has been brilliant, and the arts are doing very well as a result of it. The bill does not provide an excuse for sloppy management, nor does it suggest that management should be less than businesslike or that it should not grasp all reasonable opportunities to increase public patronage. The legislation does remind the orchestra that despite almost two decades of market-led decision, the orchestra’s prime job is to make music. All New Zealanders can take considerable pride in the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. Over many years it has established itself as one of the world’s great orchestras. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has been an important component in ridding this most talented country of the cultural cringe that for far too long saw us apologising for the quality of our artistic endeavours, on the assumption that the important products were superior.

So if the orchestra has achieved so much under the existing law, why do we need a new law? I suspect that the existing law is a bit of nonsense, anyway, and getting rid of bad law makes good sense. What did the current law expect of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra? It expected that it should act in a commercially responsible manner. That is not an unreasonable expectation. Clause 10 still expects the orchestra to operate in a financially responsible manner and to maintain financial viability. But its principle objectives are—and I will not read them again, because they have been read several times—basically to provide the public of New Zealand with live and recorded performances of symphonic music and to be a leading New Zealand performing arts organisation with a role in the development of a distinctly New Zealand cultural environment.

Why do we have to spell it out? I suspect, in spite of 15 years under the old Act, the orchestra never stopped acknowledging those responsibilities; it has continued to bring great music to New Zealanders and the world. While Lilburn may not be the top of the pops for most New Zealanders, our orchestra has ensured that his music can be purchased and listened to throughout the world. It is the music of Lilburn, the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, the work of Kiri Te Kanawa, the Colin McCahons, the Peter Jacksons, and the Boyd Webbs, the Kapahakas, and Neil Dawsons that has let the rest of the world know that in addition to being producers of fine wool, great food, talented athletes, and sailors, ours is a remarkably cultured little country.

While for many New Zealanders their taste in entertainment and enlightenment might lie elsewhere, we all benefit from being considered as a consequence of the activities of our artists. Our products have an added spice when it is known that they come from a country that has more than beautiful scenery and great rugby players. New Zealand is a more eagerly sought destination because of its rich culture.

The bill establishes the orchestra’s independence on artistic matters. This is important. It was this independence that was potentially threatened by the expectation that it would operate in a commercially responsible manner. There is always the chance that a more conservative Government may expect it to turn a profit. I like to think that under this bill the orchestra will not succumb to the temptation to neglect its responsibilities to New Zealand composers and the cutting edge, in pursuit of the popular and the more accessible that market forces might decree.

To those who begrudge the modest sums of money spent on our arts and label them elitist, I would remind them that never before have the efforts of our orchestra and artists been so accessible. Performances in parks, playing fields, and stadia have seen vast crowds turning out, and thanks to the leadership of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra many more young New Zealanders are aspiring to be musicians and can look forward to careers as professional musicians here and overseas. I refer to Dail Jones’ comment: “What about the other orchestras—the orchestras in Auckland, Christchurch, Nelson, or Wellington?”.

Heather Roy: Nelson is very good.

MIKE WARD: Indeed, they are very good, and because of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra these smaller orchestras provide a stepping stone for something greater and for a professional engagement as professional musicians.

We spend much too much of our time producing more and working harder. The Green Party believes that what we most need to do is to make life better, and to enrich the ordinary moments of our lives, as well as the special occasions. The arts have the capacity to make our homes, our workplaces, our schools, and our towns and cities, as well as the important events and occasions, richer and more fun, and uniquely us. This bill goes some way to ensuring that our orchestra will continue to contribute to that richness and uniqueness. I am aware that the orchestra, the creative communities, the creative audiences, and the artistic audiences in this country will have something to contribute to this bill. The Greens are happy to see it progress to the select committee process.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato): I ask the question: what is it in the genetic makeup of the Greens and the Labour Party that just causes them to want more and more State control? The National Party absolutely wants to see the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra flourish. We also want to see far greater freedom of artistic direction of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. We also want to pay tribute to the musicians and the incredible depth of talent, discipline, and creativity that surrounds the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra under its present legislation. The National Party does not support Helen Clark’s absolutely unnecessary New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill.

One thing that Helen Clark cannot help herself on is just putting a little bit more State control into everything that she can get her tentacles on. This is a perfect demonstration of it. I for one celebrate the increased funding of the arts in New Zealand, and I do not underestimate the huge contribution the arts make to our cultural, spiritual, and, for that matter, economic, life. Here is a bill that has been brought in under urgency, the stated purpose of which is to change the status of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra from a limited-liability company to a non-company Crown entity. One might ask what on earth that is. I certainly do know that it inherently does mean more State control, and given the success to date of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra I wonder why that is needed.

I learn that the Government’s desire is to move to a non-company Crown entity to enforce better lines of accountability. It sounds great on paper, but in actual fact it just means more blank cheques of money. It means, probably, that that is at the expense of other artistic organisations and orchestras around New Zealand. Undoubtedly, important tensions—and Clayton Cosgrove, sitting across on the Government benches, surely must agree—are created by a limited liability company, which bring a reality check to those directly involved in the organisation. I understand that there is absolutely no other country in the world where the Government enshrines one particular orchestra over all other orchestral organisations.

It is interesting to have a look at the general policy statement at the beginning of the bill, because it states: “The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act 1988 does not prescribe the Orchestra’s purpose and functions, nor government’s expectations of it. As a limited liability company, the Orchestra operates within the requirements of the Companies Act 1993. Consequently, it is expected to carry out functions that are commercial in nature.” Well, what is wrong with that? Some of the world’s greatest orchestras, which have been heralded as demonstrating the highest artistic performances, the greatest professionalism, and quintessential creativity, have organisations that owe their existence to obeying commercial disciplines.

These are not State-controlled orchestras, enshrined by a non-company Crown entity. I can think of the London Symphony Orchestra—independent since 1904—the London Philharmonic Orchestra, the Cleveland Orchestra, the Berlin Symphony Orchestra, and not to mention the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Here in New Zealand we have the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra operating extremely successfully, with no legislation and at about a quarter of the cost of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra.

Some of the world’s finest orchestras are certainly in the United States of America, and this is the prescription that encapsulates them: “… an organisational structure that canonises the musical director, a volunteer support system that creates serious tension between the art of music-making and the business of orchestral management in a reliance on community sponsorship that juxtaposes popular taste with the moral virtues of serious art.”

There are some utterly confused, diametrically opposed, control-freak, “Helen-speak” characteristics to this bill. Its general policy statement opines that: “The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act 1988 does not prescribe the Orchestra’s purpose and functions, nor government’s expectations of it.” The new bill, however, does prescribe, quite specifically, five objectives and seven functions. That is followed by a brilliant cadenza of State-controlled prestidigitation, because in the general policy statement, it states: “… in all artistic matters, the Orchestra will be empowered to operate independently and without ministerial direction.” I would ask anyone how it is possible—with five new specific objectives and seven new specific functions, one of which is “to carry out any further functions consistent with its principal objectives, as agreed to by the Minister after consultation with the Orchestra:”—to be free “in all artistic matters”, when there are five prescribed objectives and seven prescribed functions?

Helen Clark’s New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill is sophistry. It does not allow greater artistic freedom; it brings in unnecessary measures of State control and underpinning, and it is a waste of money.

The annual report of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra contains a clear statement of objectives. Those objectives do not need special legislation. Under the 1988 Act the orchestra can be much more responsive, fluid, and creative in its objectives than it can in having them enshrined in Helen Clark’s legislation.

A bill such as this, as my colleague Katherine Rich mentioned, probably costs from half a million to a million dollars to go through the parliamentary process. That money could undoubtedly be far better used on art and performance. That money could certainly make a huge difference to the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, which has no Government backing. That orchestra makes a superb artistic contribution, serving the largest population in New Zealand at about a quarter of the cost of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra—while having no legislation, let alone becoming a non-company Crown entity.

Today, undoubtedly, the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is highly regarded and revered throughout New Zealand. As far as I know, its existence and sustainability are supported by all political parties, and it travels throughout New Zealand. It prides itself on high-level artistic achievements, it inspires and educates hundreds of thousands of ordinary New Zealanders, it provides a priceless pool of talent to teach and help the budding musicians of the nation, and it supports ballet and opera. Mr Clayton Cosgrove might not know about that. However, the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra does not need to be shackled by a bill that, if anything, will only constrain it to a prescription of objectives and functions ordered by a highly control-conscious, megalomaniac leader of a minority Government. I end by saying that about 20 years ago I went to a concert in Auckland by the Shanghai State Orchestra. The first half of that concert was awful!

A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 84

Noes 35

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Government Administration Committee.

Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8;Progressive 2.

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.

Bills

Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3)

First Reading

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of State): I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. It is intended that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee. The bill amends 39 Acts administered by 11 different departments, and is a yearly vehicle for making technical, non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. It is important tidying-up legislation that allows for amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed. That is achieved with the support of all parties in Parliament. This year’s bill includes amendments to legislation governing a wide range of areas, such as coroner’s coinage, and even courts-martial.

Two of the more interesting amendments include those to the Ngāti Tūrangitukua Claims Settlement Act and the Tokelau Act. Very briefly, the amendments to the Ngāti Tūrangitukua Claims Settlement Act seek to remove the marginal strip from a piece of land gifted back to Ngāti Tūrangitukua as a part of the deed of settlement, and replace it with a statutory public pedestrian right of way. The amendment to the Tokelau Act arises as a result of similarly unusual circumstances—the making and issuing of commemorative coins as a significant economic opportunity for Tokelau. But in moving to recognise and implement that, as a result of an oversight, two coins have been made and issued prior to authorisation being granted. The amendment will have retrospective effect to validate the making and issuing of those coins.

I conclude by reiterating that although the amendments proposed in this bill may be technical and non-controversial, they are also important responses to international and domestic developments. This year’s bill, like others before it, illustrates the value of the Statutes Amendment Bill as a vehicle to advance those types of amendments. I commend this bill to the House.

RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom): National supports, unsurprisingly, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3), and, as the previous speaker has said, it is in 39 parts. What he described as the interesting parts of the bill, however, are perhaps not the most interesting parts. There are good reasons, in my view, for taking the position that there should be strict constraints on omnibus-type bills such as this. The Standing Orders give expression to that view by starkly limiting the circumstances in which omnibus bills may be introduced. Basically, there are five classes of case: finance bills or confirmation bills; local legislation bills; Māori purpose bills; reserves and other lands disposal bills, and Statute Amendment bills. This is Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3). I suppose one of the most striking things about this bill is that it just shows the incredible range of Government activity, from the Armed Forces Discipline Act to the Legal Services Act.

In the short time I have available, I just wanted to pick out some aspects of interest touching changes that are being made by this bill. But, as I say, it shows the incredible range of Government activity, and—I suppose as a counterpoint—it raises the question as to whether the Government should be involved in that range of activity. It also shows the need for care in parliamentary drafting, and the significant number of occasions when oversights in the drafting process occur. Finally, it shows the undesirability, in some cases, of placing in primary legislation issues that should more appropriately be found in secondary or tertiary legislation.

The first illustration I would like to refer to is evidence of that last proposition. In the Administration Act we have provisions that prescribe the rate of interest payable in certain cases on a legacy, or on arrears of an annuity, and in the primary legislation a rate of 11 percent is fixed. That follows practice that was in legislation like the Judicature Act, which fixed interest rates on money judgments at specific levels, and shows the undesirability, in fluctuating economic conditions, of fixing interest rates in that way. The rate of interest in the Administration Act has now been reduced to 7.5 percent per annum, but there is also an important provision for a different rate to be fixed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.

The second bill I want to refer to amends the Legal Services Act. It is an illustration of the proposition that in drafting legislation care must be taken, and care is sometimes not taken. A raft of changes are being made to the Legal Services Act, but suffice it for me to comment on just two of them. The first deals with section 10 of the principal Act and the uncertainty as to whether legal aid can be granted in respect of all the immigration processes that confront aggrieved migrants. That process starts with the involvement of the refugee status branch, leads on from there to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, leads on from there to issues of deportation review, leads on from there to the possibility of action in the High Court, and then, finally, leads to the discretions vested in the Minister. In reading the current legislation, it is quite clear the rights of migrants seeking legal aid have not been well-thought-out, and this particular bill seeks to deal with that. Significant criticisms can be levelled at the Legal Services Act; but it is beyond the scope of the comments I seek to make to do that. But I would say that where this Government has had an opportunity for innovation in the delivery of legal aid services, it has lamentably failed to take advantage of that opportunity.

I would like then, if I may, to turn to an illustration of old legislation that should have been taken off the statute book years and years ago.

Hon Chris Carter: What is that?

RICHARD WORTH: I am grateful for the close attention Mr Carter is paying to my comments. The legislation I have in mind is the War Funds Act of 1915.

Hon Mark Burton: It has come in handy in recent times.

RICHARD WORTH: The Minister says it has come in handy in recent times. It is quite true that there was some tampering with that legislation in the 1980s. If that is “recent times” in the Minister’s mind, so be it. But in 1980 there were some minor changes made with the updating of references to the High Court and the District Court. What is more significant about that legislation is that it was passed for a very specific purpose. The War Funds Act made provision for the administration and control of moneys raised wholly or in part by private subscription for the purposes of what was described in the title as the “present war”. That, of course, was the Great War of 1914-18, reflected in this debating chamber by the wooden wreaths of honour commemorating such events as Egypt, Gallipoli, and Messines.

What I would like to focus on just for a moment are the purposes of the Act, and the definition of “war funds”. The Government of the day was concerned to raise substantial amounts of money for the relief of distress occasioned by the war; for the equipment of the military forces; for what was called the supply of comforts or conveniences; for the acquisition of sports grounds, and the like. There is a provision in the War Funds Act for an annual audit of accounts, and since that legislation was enacted in 1915, one wonders whether the auditor has been diligent in carrying out—as he was required to do year by year—the necessary audit function.

Finally, I would like to refer to the Tokelau Act. Part 36 deals with that specific statute. The purpose of the bill is to amend the principal Act by inserting a new section that validates the making and issuing of two coins. What are the lessons that we can learn from legislation such as that? I would say that they are these: first, the wide scope of governmental activity, which raises the issue whether the Government should be involved in the full raft of activity that it is; second, the errors made in the drafting process by parliamentary counsel, which for a number of years are not noted; finally, the fact that we have on the stocks—and the War Funds Act is a really good illustration of that—much legislation that should not be there and should be promptly repealed.

BERNIE OGILVY (United Future): I stand to recommend this bill to the select committee. This omnibus bill covers many requirements for updates and changes, and for just making things tidy. I recommend that this bill go forward with approval from United Future.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): On behalf of the ACT party, I also commend this bill to the select committee. The use of an omnibus bill like this to collect up minor and non-controversial amendments is a handy way of getting rid of anomalies and fixing drafting defects—as Mr Worth, from the National Party, has just said. It is way also of encouraging people to take an active interest in the quality of the law, and to feel that things can be improved without having to wait for a specific bill on a particular matter.

I think that the concerns some have about omnibus bills have been proved over time not to be justified. There are attempts from time to time to put into them things that should not be put in. In this particular bill, I am very pleased to see that there are several things that it does not have. In Part 14, which deals with the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act, there is an amendment that does not have the provisions that the Government tried to push through in December, relating to the silver fern and the All Black emblem. I had, of course, looked very quickly to see whether there was anything there, and it is an assurance of the integrity of the statutes amendment process that because ACT raised an objection the Government is not now trying to deal with the matter by way of a statutes amendment bill. In other words, the statutes amendment process relies on acquiescence or agreement by all members for it to proceed, which is why it is a handy process.

I am a bit surprised that the bill does not include some of the business law amendments that business has been waiting for for so long. I am not sure whether there is a reason for that—perhaps the Minister in charge of the bill will be able to explain when it gets to the select committee. I know that there is a business law omnibus bill that has stalled. I think it is a shame that the same rules that have proved so useful with this Statutes Amendment Bill should not apply there, but I wonder why the things that have stalled were not then brought into the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3). Maybe there is a different criterion, and I should catch up with that.

The amendment to the Bail Act draws attention to the fact that a bill passed just 2 years ago to deal with something as fundamental to the administration of justice as bail has now had to be amended. It draws attention also to the relatively narrow set of amendments here. The Hon Phil Goff had started the bail reform process as a member in Opposition. He put a reasonable amount of energy into making sure that it proceeded, and the Bail Act was passed in 2000. That contrasts very unflatteringly with the lack of progress in other equal—or more important—areas of the administration of justice. There was a lot of data on breaches of bail, and on the offences that were being committed on bail. The Bail Act was calibrated to deliver about the number of remand prisoners that the Minister felt he could get the resources to cope with. What this amendment is now proposing probably does not change that, but it enables a variation of bail conditions to be made without necessarily getting the consent of sureties. I hope that the select committee look very closely at that, because I have a concern that the obligations of sureties are not actually taken as seriously as they should be. I am concerned that we are not using sureties in the way that they are used, for example, in some states of the United States, where bail bondsmen do most of the work that has to be done by the police here to make sure that people turn up for their trials.

As I understand it, the bail bondsmen system in most states that use it is far more efficient and effective in ensuring that people turn up than using the police. The police, naturally, can see that as a low-priority function, especially if they think that the court is just going to slap the offender with a non-custodial sentence, or in some other way frustrate them, so that they end up seeing the offender simply rotating again through the justice system because the penalty is not effective. I am sorry that this bill deals with sureties in a way that goes in the wrong direction. I am satisfied that it is suitable for this amendment to be in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3), and that it goes to the select committee for consideration, but I believe that this bill would have done a better service if, as far as section 57 of the Bail Act—which deals with the conditions of bail, and requires the consent of a surety to a change in the conditions—is concerned, the Government had instead put that amount of attention, or more, into giving bail bondsmen a better role.

It could also have looked at clause 9, which amends section 59, and allows the police to treat drug defendants who are picked up while on bail and deal with them without a warrant, in the same way that most others can be dealt with without a warrant. It raises the question as to why parole offenders are not treated similarly, and why there is much more rigmarole for recommitting people who breach parole. I am sure that the select committee will not be able to get into that, but it is a great shame that this whole area is dealt with under the Bail Act, which is reasonably firm. The initiative for it came from by Mr Goff before he became the Minister of Justice, and now that he has been the Minister of Justice for nearly 4 years, the Parole Act and the Bail Act are out of step. The bail system is simpler and more rigorous than the parole system.

There is a matter of some curiosity, to which there is probably a simple answer, but Part 9, which amends the Coroners Act, seems to give the Privacy Act more weight than it has had in the past. If a request about a coroner’s data is made by the individual to whom the information relates, then it must be dealt with in terms of the Privacy Act. That, obviously, cannot be intended to apply very often, because, plainly, for the coroner to have reported, much or all of the information will presumably relate to the person who is dead, and that person will not be asking for the information in terms of the Privacy Act. Presumably, there is a ready answer, and the select committee will get to explain why that provision is significant.

In Part 12, which amends the Domestic Violence Act, there is a proposed amendment to allow regulations that would facilitate the screening of programme providers. Again, I am sorry that that amendment is so limited. I have had correspondence with a number of people around the country over the last several years that suggests, to put it at its most polite, that the providers of restorative justice programmes around the country are variable, to say the least. I have had uncontradicted information from one court that a programme provided in its area had given incorrect statements to the court, and on being challenged on those statements, the judge was given a false reassurance. On writing to the Minister about it, there seemed to be nothing—and no one was accepting responsibility—for vetting programme providers for restorative justice purposes. The particular case I mention involved a trust that said it would offer a work programme under the supervision of a particular person. The court was prepared to make a sentencing decision that reflected the availability of that trust.

What actually happened was that the person they had nominated was dead, and had been dead for a year. It seems that the programme provider might simply have been running the photocopier or the word processor and not really paying attention to the obligations he or she was accepting from the Court. So it seems to me that Part 12 should apply not just to programme providers for domestic violence programmes, but also to programme providers for any of the justice processes where there is a need to vet, deregister, or disqualify some of the providers.

I see the Speaker moving as if to tell me my time is up, so I will not start on the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): I was slightly provoked into taking this call. I have enjoyed the process of this legislation for New Zealand First. The member who preceded me, though, started to talk about the business law reform bill, and that provoked me. There are five short sections in that bill that I have suggested to the Minister of Commerce should have been inserted in this legislation. Perhaps they will come in as a Supplementary Order Paper. The other eight items were very lengthy, some of them going to two and three pages, and would clearly not be suitable for this legislation. From a New Zealand First point of view, they should be matters of separate legislation, because even the New Zealand Law Society, in the information that has been made available to me—for which I am grateful—indicated there were errors of drafting and errors of understanding of the legislation. I just make that point in a brief reply, and trying not to be too controversial about it.

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Government Administration Committee.

Bills

Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce): I move, That the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I give notice that I intend that this bill should be sent to the Commerce Committee.

This bill will introduce a ban on the parallel importation of films, and make changes to the onus of proof in civil proceedings concerning the importation of specified copyright works, particularly films, sound recordings, and computer programs. This bill amends the Copyright Act 1994 and gives effect to the Government’s commitment, signalled in the Speech from the Throne in 1999, to support strongly our creative industries, particularly music, publishing, and film.

The Labour-Progressive Government has a special interest in the promotion of arts and culture, and we believe that New Zealand, as a small country in a globalising world, has to work hard to maintain and develop our own cultural identity. We also believe that our creative industries have much to contribute to our economy, to job growth, and to the promotion of our country. Worldwide, the cultural and heritage sectors are amongst the key growth areas for the 21st century. Creativity is at the heart of innovation, and creative industries have input into many other sectors. This is why we have made creative industries a target sector of our growth and innovation framework, along with biotechnology and information and communications technology. Within the creative industries, screen production, design, and music are key sectors with the potential to generate a great deal of further growth.

Our commitment to nurture our creative industries has been realised through the cultural recovery package of May 2000, and many other measures. This is one of them. We established the Film Production Fund to fund the next level of New Zealand films, and the benefits of this investment are already proven, with the first Film Production Fund film, Whale Rider, currently sitting at No. 1 at the New Zealand box office, and second only, in box office sales, to another New Zealand film, Once Were Warriors. We established the New Zealand Music Industry Commission, and increased funding to New Zealand On Air and many other programmes. Our concern is to have a vibrant, active creative industry where New Zealanders can tell, hear, and see their own stories and make a living from jobs doing that. We must have the environment in which New Zealanders can express themselves and pursue satisfying careers in the creative sector.

This bill follows a very extensive review and consultation process, which considered the impact of parallel importing on creative industries. We were very disappointed when the National-led Government in 1997 removed the ban on parallel importing, under urgency and with no select committee process, and after a New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report had stated there would be no effect on creative industries. The institute was wrong. As part of this Labour-led Government’s creative industries strategy, we undertook an extensive review of the impact of parallel importing on creative industries. The objective of the review was to determine whether parallel importing was having an adverse effect on investment in New Zealand film, music, book-publishing, and software industries. We carried out two rounds of consultation with those sectors. Some industry representatives made it clear that they did not like parallel importing, and that their businesses were often marginal in New Zealand terms and in international terms. However, we found no clear evidence that parallel importing was the central issue affecting investment in all creative industries. The consultation also made it clear that there were some benefits to consumers in the form of lower prices and greater availability.

Our consultation did, however, show up specific problems in relation to film. It appears that parallel importing might be harming the orderly and cost-effective distribution of motion picture films. Not only do the people who put a huge investment of time and money into films need to be able to manage the release of those films for the best return, but they are entitled to do so, because it is their property. Parallel importing meant that copies of major film titles were becoming available for rental in advance of the films’ theatrical release. Cinema owners were also concerned that this was contributing to a decline in cinema audiences. This, in turn, could threaten the availability of movie theatres, particularly in small and rural communities. The Government believes that it is important that these communities continue to enjoy access to film facilities.

We therefore agreed to introduce a ban on parallel importing of films for a period of up to 9 months from the titles’ first release. The 9-month ban will provide the necessary window of opportunity for theatrical release in New Zealand before copies become available for rental. The ban is specifically targeted at films made primarily to be shown in public. This is consistent with the Government’s policy objective of ensuring that the widespread cinematic release of films is able to continue. The ban will apply regardless of the format of such films, including videos and DVDs. The ban is intended to prevent the parallel importation of films for commercial purposes—that is, importation for the purposes of showing to the public, or sale, or rental. It does not prohibit importation for a person’s private or domestic use. Private individuals who wish to import a copy of a film for their own use ahead of the New Zealand theatrical release will still be able to do so, provided, of course, that they get it from a legal source overseas.

The bill provides for the ban provision to remain in place for a period of 5 years. This will enable the effects of the ban to be assessed in a changing environment. The Government has also announced that it intends to keep the effects of parallel importing on creative industries under review in the near future. This will enable us to determine whether our policies are working as intended, or whether they need to be expanded or changed.

I also wish to describe the provisions of the bill that deal with the onus of proof. The theft of intellectual property is a matter of increasing international concern. The Government has on many occasions stressed the importance of measures to combat the theft of intellectual property. We have already introduced a number of measures to deal more effectively with this issue; for example, in the Trade Marks Act 2002 new offences and increased penalties were introduced to deter the counterfeiting of trademarks and the pirating of copyright works. The bill I am introducing today contains further measures to constrain copyright infringement. It is targeted at those works that are most vulnerable to piracy—namely, films, computer programs, and sound recordings. Digital technology is making it easier to produce perfect copies of these works very cheaply, simply, and in large quantities.

The measures in the bill are intended to make it easier for copyright owners to uphold their rights through civil proceedings. The Copyright Act currently requires copyright owners taking civil proceedings for infringement to prove that the goods in question were pirated, and to prove that the defendant knew, or had reason to believe, that the goods were pirated. Our consultations indicated that copyright owners felt it was difficult to establish this level of proof. They indicated that it can be expensive and time consuming to do so, and, as a result, there is a risk that civil enforcement action will not be taken.

The bill therefore shifts some of the burden of proof to the defendant. It establishes a presumption that specified imported copyright works are infringing copies, and the defendant will be required to rebut that presumption. It is not usual practice to require a defendant to be a part of the onus of proof—it usually falls on the plaintiff. We considered that matter very carefully, and agreed to the changes to the onus of proof as we believe that importers, rather than the rights holders, are more likely to have access to information about the goods that establishes whether they are pirated or legitimate copies. That information generally relates to such things as the origin of the goods and the lines of supply. Because importers are more likely to have this information as a matter of good business practice, we believe that the bill will not impose undue additional costs on defendants, nor require onerous changes to current parallel-importing practices.

We have considered other risks—for example, the risk that copyright owners might take legal action against legitimate parallel importers in order to identify, then cut off, lines of supply. The bill aims to prevent that type of harassing action. It provides that the court must not require any person to disclose any information concerning sources of supply if it appears to the court that it would be unreasonable to do so. That provision will protect commercial confidentiality of information required to prove a defendant’s goods are not infringing copies. This amendment provides for an objective knowledge test, which aims to help address the problem of piracy.

I will now turn briefly to the issue of rental rights. Under section 9 of the Copyright Act of 1994, the copyright owner has the right to issue to the public copies of sound recordings and films. That includes the rental of copies of those works in public. A recent court case, Video Ezy New Zealand Ltd v Roadshow Entertainment, confirmed the question of public rental rights for both films and sound recordings. This amendment confirms that. It also deals with trademarks.

I look forward to this bill going to the Commerce Committee. I hope the committee will consider it carefully, listen to the public, and proceed quickly with it.

Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty): The National Party in Opposition strongly opposes this bill. That is because this Minister and this Government know that this bill will do absolutely nothing to fulfil the promise that the Prime Minister made to the people of New Zealand in her Speech from the Throne in 1999. This Minister and this Cabinet know that this bill is anti-business, anti-competition, and anti-choice. The National Party in Opposition says very clearly that we think consumers should have maximum choice. We are not going to be party to denying consumers the choice they would expect.

I want to take the House back to the genesis of this bill. In the Speech from the Throne in 1999, only days after the Government had dished out tens of millions of dollars to the arts sector—

Stephen Franks: $80 million.

Hon TONY RYALL: —$89 million of taxpayers’ money—the Prime Minister stood in this House and made a promise to the arts community. Let us hear what the Prime Minister promised she would deliver the arts community. She said that she would prohibit for 2 years the parallel importing of CDs, videos, films, books, and software. Well, let us look at this bill. Is the Prime Minister’s promise of a 2-year import ban on software in this bill? No. Is the Prime Minister’s 2-year ban on the importing of books in this bill? No. Is the Government’s 2-year ban on the importing of films in this bill? No. Is the Government’s 2-year ban on the parallel importing of CDs in this bill? No. Is the Government’s promise of a 2-year ban on the importing of videos in this bill? No. The only thing this Government wants to ban is DVDs. It wants to limit the choice of New Zealanders to have DVDs, until 9 months after their release overseas.

What we know is that this Government has been told time and time again, in official documents that we have managed to prise out of the Government on this matter, that the parallel-importing bans will not work and they will not achieve any of the Government’s goals. The Prime Minister stood up and said that banning parallel importing would expand job opportunities and wealth creation based upon the arts. That is what she said, yet at the time her own Deputy Prime Minister’s department concluded that the parallel-importing bans would not achieve the Government’s goals, and, although they might increase the profits of local operators, would have a negative effect on retailers and consumers, arising from increased prices and reduced access to titles. That is what the department of the Deputy Prime Minister at the time told this Government.

One of the reasons that the National Party is opposed to the bill is it just does not work. The evidence from Australia is absolutely clear that parallel-importing bans do not assist in the development of the arts industry. It has been estimated that as a result of the parallel-importing ban, consumers in Australia pay A$6 more than American consumers for musical recordings. That means that A$1.15 billion more has had to be paid for those CDs than would have been the case if the ban had not been in place. It is clear that there has still been a significant lift in investment in Australian musical culture. One needs only to look at the New Zealand pop music charts to see that there is very strong representation of Australian performers, and the CD ban there simply has not worked.

What is more, these Ministers were told by their Government’s own adviser—by the Deputy Prime Minister’s adviser—that there was a very real risk that no extra jobs would be created, that the ban would not meet the Government’s goals, and that it would just put up the prices for consumers. We have pages and pages of official information where the Government tried to meet the Prime Minister’s promise to the House, but it just could not do it. The Government was in such a lather that at one stage we had the previous Minister of Commerce, Mr Swain, proposing that there would be a parallel-importing ban on all books excepting those for libraries, and textbooks for universities and polytechs. So there was going to be a little group of exceptions there, but everybody else would have to pay more for their books and their videos.

What has the Government come up with now? In this bill it is proposing that there be a ban on the importation of DVDs and videos for 9 months after the titles’ first international release. The Government is so committed to the ban that it has a sunset clause. The Government thinks it is such good public policy that it is proposing that it will eventually be phased out in 5 years’ time. Well, if it is such good public policy, why will it be phased out? There is an internal contradiction there.

Apparently, the Government is proposing to have a ban to protect provincial cinemas from being put out of business as a result of people getting DVDs of the latest films. That is the logic of it. The Government will keep the picture theatre at Whakatane going, because it will not let DVDs come in. I tell members that DVDs have been coming in for at least 4 or 5 years, and the Whakatane, Gisborne, Tauranga, and Rotorua picture theatres are still showing the films that are being shown in Auckland, about a week after they are released in Auckland. There is absolutely no evidence that cinemas in the provinces are being put out of business by the fact that DVDs are coming into the country at the same time that the films are being released internationally. In fact, the evidence is quite the contrary. Open up the back pages of the provincial newspapers and members will see the exact same movies being shown in the provincial areas that they can see in the main metropolitan centres.

This is about protectionism for a very small group of cinema companies, and it has absolutely nothing to do with consumers having a choice about where they watch films. This is a slippery slide that the Government has got itself on. Parallel importing has lowered the cost of software, books, videos, DVDs, and films, in a way that New Zealand consumers want. This is another anti-business move by this Government that will do nothing to increase choice for consumers. All it will do is deny choice to consumers. It will deny the opportunity for New Zealanders to import or buy a DVD that they could whip across to some other country and bring into the country, anyway. It will be like the days when people could not buy a cheap transistor radio in New Zealand, but could go to Singapore and bring three of them back. That is the sort of protectionist, anti-business nonsense being proposed in this bill.

The Government knows—its own advisers have told its members—that this bill will not work. The Prime Minister was foolish to make her promise in the Speech from the Throne in 1999 to have a parallel-importing ban for 2 years on all these sorts of imports, when in fact she has failed to deliver a 2-year ban on any of them—and I say “Thank goodness!”. New Zealanders should have the choice. This bill is opposed by the vast majority of business interests in New Zealand. It is opposed by the vast majority of consumers, and when consumers have to pay more—

Georgina Beyer: Where’s the evidence?

Hon TONY RYALL: Read the official documents that we had to prise out of the Government. Read the official documents it did not want to release. We had to go trawling for these. Read the official documents from the Ministry of Economic Development and its consultation, from Treasury, and from the business community, and the Government will know that its ban will not work. It is anti-business and anti-competitive.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to support this bill. To a large extent this bill endeavours to ensure that those who have produced films, sound recordings, and, with certain restrictions, computer programs are able to receive a fair return on their investment. In many cases, such as the film industry, we are talking about substantial investment.

With the removal of the restrictions on parallel importing in 1998, some ambiguity arose with regard to the application of rental rights. This led to the High Court case in November 2001 that confirmed that Parliament had never intended that the scope of the rental rights under the Act should not apply to parallel-imported copies of works protected under New Zealand copyright law. This court case confirmed that rental of the parallel-imported DVD copies of two recently released film titles infringed the rental rights of the owner of the copyright in those films. This bill will now amend the principal Act to make clear the intended meaning of this provision, as confirmed by the High Court, and remove any remaining uncertainty concerning rental rights.

The purpose of this bill is, therefore, to introduce a ban on the parallel importation of films, which includes DVDs and videos, made primarily for public showing in cinemas, for 9 months after a title’s first international release. It is important to note that this primarily affects those who import films for resale or hire. It will not affect the ability of individuals to import single copies for private use.

United Future agrees that where people invest substantial amounts of money, as in the film industry, then plan a global release of their film, they should have protection to enable them to release the film throughout the world in a manner that allows them to receive the due return on their investment. One reason for this ban is to address these concerns, as the parallel importing of videos and DVDs could threaten the financial viability of widespread cinema release of films in cases where videos and DVDs of major films are imported from, say, the United States ahead of their New Zealand release date. United Future believes that this is a valid concern, and this bills protects the intellectual property rights of the copyright owners of these films, and their rights to market their product as they see fit. It is refreshing to see legislation that recognises that people who invest also have the right to protection of that investment. If we fail to do this, investment would stop, and the world would be a poorer place for us all.

United Future, as a true centralist party, recognises the importance of maintaining a good balance in the legislation for our nation, of caring for those who are unable to care for themselves, but also of appreciating where we receive the funding from to give the care, and that is from the income producers. Profit and protection of profit centres for those who are prepared to take the risk to earn will always be appreciated, supported, and protected by United Future.

This bill also amends the Copyright Act to clarify its meaning with regard to the scope of rental rights granted under the Act. The amendment makes it clear that Parliament never intended for the Copyright (Removal of Prohibition on Parallel Importing) Amendment Act to apply to parallel-imported copies of works protected under New Zealand copyright law.

The ban on the importation of DVDs and videos for 9 months after their cinema release date in New Zealand has a 5-year sunset clause. This will provide an opportunity to assess whether the ban should be continued, in the light of developments in the digital distribution of films and cinema projection technology. We all live in a rapidly changing world, especially technology-wise, so this is a sensible clause.

Another important feature of this bill is that it shifts the evidentiary onus, in respect of whether the goods—that is, the films, DVDs, and computer software—in question are infringing copies, from the plaintiff to the defendant in civil proceedings concerning the act of importation. This is to help reduce piracy in these areas. This reversal would ordinarily be considered a breach of the fundamental rule of civil procedure that the onus of proof for an action lies with the plaintiff. In this case, however, this very limited reversal of the onus of proof, complete with consequential safeguards, I might add, is justifiable because, amongst other things, legitimate importers will almost always have ready access to information concerning lines of supply that can establish whether goods are infringing copies—for example, receipts and proof of purchase certificates.

Consequential amendments are also made to the Trade Marks Act 2002 to ensure that registered trademarks cannot be used to frustrate legitimate parallel importing in line with the Government’s parallel-importing policy.

Therefore, United Future is pleased to support this legislation going to the select committee.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): New Zealand First will be supporting this bill’s referral to the Commerce Committee. We believe that this is a way of encouraging New Zealanders who may be affected to take an active interest in this matter, and to have some input. The bottom line is that we must ensure that all New Zealand audiences continue to have access to a wide range of films, videos, and DVDs. This is the type of environment that we must have here in New Zealand. We do not want to see that we are facing a loss of entertainment choices. We believe that we should continue to benefit from a wide availability of major film titles. We believe, too, that the people of New Zealand must have a say in this legislation. New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier): I am pleased to support this bill. It meets a commitment made by the Labour-led Government in 1999, and it follows a very extensive review and consultation process. The bill is in the hands of my very good friend the Hon Judith Tizard, and I commend it to the House.

MIKE WARD (Green): We are a country of movie-goers. I recall speaking to a friend of mine who started a cinema in Nelson. He said that Nelson was exceeded by only one other city in the world as far as attendance at movies is concerned, and that was Singapore. So Nelson is probably reflective of much of New Zealand. We like going to the movies. In fact, we are a particularly cultured country in all sorts of ways. We are great consumers and producers of culture, and, as such, we should respect that and take all reasonable steps to protect the cultural property embodied in those cultural experiences.

Most of the time we have little difficulty recognising that value and accepting that there is a reasonable expectation that copyright and ownership will be protected. Usually, copying is less than straightforward for most of the arts, and that in itself offers considerable protection from copying, and it is a deterrent to copiers. Clearly, with films and modern technology, reproduction is possible by a range of means that is easily accessible to do-it-yourselfers, and even more accessible to the sophisticated and the greedy. With most art forms, the initial production—be it music, the written word, or fine art—is a relatively simple and inexpensive process. They are difficult to copy but easy to do. But movies are extraordinarily expensive to produce and extremely easy to copy. When it comes to movies, even the most modest titles are likely to be costed in the millions, or at least in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and making money on movies is a fraught business at the best of times. However, pirating movies does not just deprive the investors and movie makers of the value of the pirated products. If those pirated products come on to the market before the movies have been released—and not just into the metropolitan cinemas but into the provincial and rural movie houses—then the viability of those provincial and rural operations is undermined, and the opportunity for people outside the major cities is threatened. The likelihood of people making money out of their movies is undermined, as well.

Although many New Zealanders will still prefer to see their flicks on the big screen, there is a minority who would, given the chance, hire the video, take it home, and skip the trip to the movies. They are likely to represent the difference between breaking even and making a loss. Does it matter? Well, if it means that some films may not get made, it matters. If it means that some New Zealanders are deprived of the cinema experience, which is as much a part of the New Zealand culture as Saturday morning netball or meat pies in baches at the beach, then it matters.

Is it reasonable that the onus is on the importer to prove that the imports are legit? I think so. The legislation is thin on detail as to what form the proof should take, but I do not imagine that copyright holders will have too much difficulty devising appropriate documentation and authentication procedures. The alternative runs the risk of yet another layer of bureaucracy. We Greens will be supporting the bill, because a trip to the movies can be a magic experience, and a magic experience cannot be replicated on the box in the corner of the living room. It needs the space, the crowds, the popcorn, and the ice cream. It is an experience that the folk in Motueka and Masterton are as deserving of as the folk in Queen Street and Courtenay Place. It is an experience in an industry that ought not to be threatened by the greedy and the dishonest who would seek to steal and profit from the creative endeavours and experiences of others.

JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui): Like my Labour colleagues before me, I too rise to speak in support of this bill. It is a good bill that addresses issues that have needed attention for some time. Indeed, the bill does meet a commitment made by the Labour-led Government in 1999, and I am pleased to support its, hopefully, rapid passage through Parliament.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this bill. It is important that we define what we are talking about, because we are not talking about movies and breach of copyright, or things that are pirated and imported illegally. We are talking about the banning of parallel imports. The United States hated our open policy on parallel importing and in 1999—[Interruption] Yes, this Government did offer that up to the United States as a sort of suck-up to it. Well, this Government may as well not bother now, because the Government has made our relationship with the United States totally irrelevant. Nevertheless, the United States wanted a ban reinstated, and that is what this Government has come out with.

There is absolutely no doubt that parallel importing has served New Zealand consumers really well. It has lowered prices for the New Zealand consumer for everything from underwear to cars. When the Government came out with its media release, I think in June 2000, Mr Anderton said that he thought the parallel importing ban would make New Zealanders pay more for creative industry goods, thus allowing Kiwi artists to charge more for their work. When has it been the Government’s role to make New Zealanders pay more for creative industry goods? That is a typical example of going back down the road of bestowing privilege on certain sectors of the community that effectively lobby Cabinet Ministers, and are good at employing public relations consultants and lobbyists to visit Cabinet Ministers’ offices and argue for the protection of their various industries.

The explanatory note states: “The availability of parallel imported copies of new release films for rental before or during the release of those titles in New Zealand threatens the viability of cinemas and the ability of local distributors … ”. I do not know whether people in this Government have noticed, but all around the country in the last 5 to 10 years, cinema complexes have been growing rapidly. Cinema owners have responded very swiftly and effectively to demands from consumers in supplying smaller and more consumer-friendly, customer-friendly cinemas. There is one in Auckland that I go to all the time, where one can buy wine, book in advance, and have a big wide seat. It is a great place to go. Having said that, why should consumers not have choice? Why should people not be able to rent a DVD, if that is what they want to do, and watch a movie in the comfort of their own home? That is what this bill is all about. It is about removing choice for the consumer.

Parallel importing goes something like this: a producer or manufacturer of a DVD or a video will produce that product so that it can be sold in Australia for $40, in New Zealand for $30, and in China for $10. So a parallel importer can go to China, buy the product quite legitimately for $10, bring it back to New Zealand, and pass on those savings to the consumer. There is absolutely nothing illegal or wrong with that. In fact it benefits consumers, because they have the choice to buy something.

Hon Judith Tizard: Who cares about property rights? Not ACT.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: There is no propery right breached in that.

Hon Judith Tizard: Are you serious?

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: The Minister is terribly confused, as is the speaker from United Future, because a rental right is not the same as a copyright. The owner of the copyright is quite different from the owner of the rental right. I own the copyright on several books. Libraries have the right to rent out those books. Libraries do not own the copyright. Libraries cannot republish those books. There is a difference between rental rights and copyrights—[Interruption] I might be a new member, but I thought that running commentaries were out of order.

As the Hon Tony Ryall pointed out quite correctly, when the Government came in it said that it would reintroduce parallel importing on books, videos, CDs, and DVDs. Now we have this bill that deals only with DVDs and videos, and introduces a ban that applies for 9 months after a film’s international release. Why has the Government restricted this ban to only DVDs and videos? We would have to ask that question of ourselves, would we not? If we look at certain rumblings that are happening out there, we see that this legislation gives an opportunity for this Government to have plenty of lovely photo opportunities with its friends in the film industry. The Minister might laugh, but why has she not applied this ban to books? Will books be next? I think people who go to the Warehouse to buy books at $10, when they would otherwise have to buy them from somewhere else at $35 or $40, should be very worried that although this legislation applies to DVDs, in the future we could see it applied to books.

I come back to my point that this Government is anti-business. It has brought in this legislation, as Jim Anderton said, to force New Zealanders to pay more for creative industry goods—and that will do absolutely nothing for the economy. But I suppose this Government does not care about that anyway, because it has already signalled that it is abandoning the goal of getting back up to the top half of the OECD. Parallel importing was one of the good things done in the last few years, and here we see us going down the old road.

I come back to this matter of changes to the onus of proof. The Minister has actually admitted that that is a bad precedent. She stood up and said the Government was advised against that. Official information papers show that the Government was cautioned about going down that road. None the less, it has decided to go down the road anyway—where the onus of proof is now placed on the defendant, not the plaintiff. We saw yesterday, in the provision for the seizure of cars under the boy racer legislation, that the onus of proof is now on the defendant, not the prosecutor. If this Government was really interested in protecting copyright, which it professes to be, and which the Minister was giggling about, why does it not look at its National Library legislation, which I see on the Order Paper? Why does the Government not consult newspaper owners about what that will do to their copyright in terms of their websites? I see the Minister reading her newspaper, but she is not interested in the copyright rights of the owners of those newspapers.

I support what the Hon Tony Ryall said. This bill reduces choice for consumers. It will raise the price of DVDs and videos. It will not allow people who want to see a movie at the same time that it is released in the cinema, to rent a video and take it home for viewing. It will not allow them to do that. The bill seeks to protect one sector of strong lobbyists, and we are opposed to it.

DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn): That was a particularly disappointing speech, even by ACT standards. It dealt, firstly, with some absolute contradictions of fact. Let me demonstrate several of them. The member who has resumed her seat said that this bill is anti-business. It is not. It upholds intellectual property rights. The member tried to squirm out of that contention by drawing a distinction between a rental right and a copyright. That is splitting hairs. No members of the public really care about that particular definition or term; they care about the big point. The big point is this: an intellectual property right rewards the producer of the intellectual property for his or her labour in producing that property. In that, it creates an incentive for the production of further intellectual property, just as this Government has successfully done through the film fund that produced the smash hit Whale Rider.

The second point the Opposition got wrong was that a 9-month parallel importing ban would somehow restrain the ability of the public to access parallel-imported films or DVDs. Plainly it would not. The whole point of that ban is to allow an orderly dissemination of products through the industry, through retail chains, and through cinema chains, in a way that is compatible with the legitimate interests of the producers of those films and the orderly management of the industry itself.

Thirdly, that member suggested the Government has been too far-reaching in this bill, in direct contradiction to other members of the Opposition who say we have not gone far enough. Well, the Opposition cannot have it both ways. We have either gone too far or not far enough. We cannot have done both. The fact is that we consulted widely on this bill. We took soundings, and commissioned independent economic research, and it suggested a very moderate and incremental approach to this protection measure. It is only a 9-month parallel importing ban, which just allows the industry the time it needs to get itself in order. This is a moderate, sensible, pro-business, pro-growth, pro - creative industries, pro - New Zealand bill, and it is time this House passed it.

JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville): I rise on behalf of the National Party to oppose this bill. I am absolutely delighted that David Cunliffe used the words he did at the end of his speech about pro-growth, pro-business, and all the rest of it. Those are the sorts of words that come out of the Labour Party—certainly not the National Party or the ACT party. They are fundamentally wrong—just plain wrong. I find the logic of Labour supporting this legislation quite perverse. When I look at this legislation, I find that it smacks of one thing, and one thing alone.

David Cunliffe: Common sense!

JOHN KEY: It is not common sense, as Mr Cunliffe said. I look to United Future for that, and unfortunately I look away pretty quickly when I look there, as well. So, no, it is not about common sense. It is about looking after the fat cats—a couple of fat cats who own the movie theatres around the country. It is about a couple of cronies up in Whakatane, or somewhere, who somehow got into the ear of the Prime Minister. She must have been up there opening a bird bath or something. They had a chat to her, and said: “Could you just slap a ban on this for a while. Don’t worry about the 4 million consumers in New Zealand. They really won’t mind. It’s OK.” Well, it is very interesting. Who benefits when one puts a quota, a subsidy, a tariff, or a ban on anything? It is the fat cats—the people who own the quotas. They are the people who benefit, not the consumers of New Zealand. The consumers of New Zealand, currently as we speak, are probably rushing down to the local Blockbuster outlet to get their parallel-imported video or DVD, because they know that “Time is up!” as Betty Boothroyd used to say so vigorously in the British Parliament. Time is up for them to have choice and reduced prices.

Let me talk for a moment about why this legislation is so fundamentally flawed. Under this system, choice will diminish. Prices will go up and product availability to the consumers of New Zealand will go down, but not to all consumers. There is a group of consumers who are less likely to be affected when a ban is put in place. I put it to this House that that group comprises the wealthy young New Zealanders. They are the New Zealanders who shop on the Internet quite comfortably and happily and who are happy to bring in a parallel import. But, far more important, they are the consumers who are quite happy to buy a DVD. The people who will be really affected by this legislation are the consumers of New Zealand who like to rent a video at the same time as a movie comes out in their local movie theatre. They are the people who will be affected. They are the people who will not be able to get their rental. The fat cats who own the cinemas will be able to watch it. They will not be affected; nor will the wealthier people around New Zealand who are happy to pay $49.99 to import a DVD over the Internet. No, it will be the poorer people who will be affected.

We have heard some very contradictory things in the debate on this bill. The member for the Greens Mike Ward got up and said: “New Zealanders like going to the movies. It is all about the popcorn and the ice cream.” I like going to the movies, and I thoroughly enjoy taking my family with me—my two young children and my wife. If it is raining on a Sunday afternoon in Auckland, there is nothing nicer than to wander down to the movie theatre and watch a movie.

Gerry Brownlee: It rains up there most Sundays.

JOHN KEY: The member for Ilam is quite wrong. It does not rain on most Sundays in Auckland. It rains on a lot of Sundays, but not on most Sundays. Parallel importation has been in place in New Zealand since 1998. It has not stopped me from going to the movies, or from taking my two children to the movies. But it has allowed two markets to develop. There is the market for people who like to rent a movie on a Saturday night, because their kids are aged 2 and 1, and they cannot afford a babysitter, or to go out to the movies. They want to enjoy a movie that is current and not wait to see it in 9 months’ time, when it has gone from being fashionable to unfashionable. They are not interested in watching a movie that has already been bagged by movie critics on radio stations and television. Who wants to see The Lord of the Rings 2 years after it has come out? People know the punchline by then. It is like King Kong—who wants to see it 2 months after it comes out? People want to see movies when they are fresh.

I will touch on another argument that Mr Cunliffe raised in his blistering speech in the House in defence of this bill. He talked about the idea of more money going back into the local industry. I will quote from a Treasury document, which we virtually had to remove with a crowbar from the Government’s large filing cabinet. Through the Official Information Act and the diligent work of the Hon Tony Ryall, we have obtained that document. I feel like Chamberlain, because I have in my hand a piece of paper that signifies why this is a very bad idea. I will relay for members Australia’s experience of parallel importing. It is estimated that Australians paid $1.15 billion more to listen to music than they would have paid if parallel importing had not been in place. Yet there is no evidence that the Australian industry benefited from that at all. What Mr Cunliffe is talking about is a very interesting argument called cross-subsidisation. The argument goes a little bit along these lines: if multinational copyright-holders are able to catch a higher return—let us say they can charge $5 more for the importation of the Harry Potter books—they will use those funds to cross-subsidise the local development of creative arts in New Zealand.

Apart from holding the Treasury document—fortunately I have two hands—I also have a document from the Ministry of Economic Development, which is scathing about this legislation. It states that there is absolutely no evidence at all that more money will go back into cross-subsidisation. If the Labour Party thinks the way to develop the creative industry in New Zealand is to slap on a quota or a ban, or to have parallel importing, and to go back to the old days, when one had to know a Cabinet Minister before being able to bring in anything, then I would like it to explain just one thing to me: in the 4 years since the parallel importing legislation has been in place in this country, why have we seen a continued growth in our creative industry?

Why is it that Peter Jackson and those wonderful people down at Weta will now have the opportunity to turn King Kong into a major movie? Is it because when the Prime Minister was opening the bird bath in Whakatane, a local movie theatre owner came to her and said: “Excuse me, Prime Minister, could you possibly slam a 9-month ban on parallel importing so that I can carry on?” Is that the reason? No. The reason that Peter Jackson, the producer of the The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and Weta are able to produce King Kong is because they are very, very good at what they do. They are world-class at what they do. Make no mistake about it: more money will flow into the creative industry in New Zealand, if we are very good at what we do. That will not happen if we slap some arbitrary ban on things, and decide that there is one set of rules for one person and one set of rules for another. It will not happen if we have legislation that protects the fat cats at the cost of the consumers.

Before I finish my speech, I will just touch on one other issue relating to the argument on pirated products. One of the arguments put up by the industry is that parallel importing will make it more difficult to stop those who pirate goods, and that it will actually help such people. As I read the report issued by the Ministry of Economic Development, I found no evidence that that has any impact at all. Nor was there any evidence that rental rights were diminished as a result of parallel importing.

The basis of my speech is simply this: I believe there are two forms of markets opening up in New Zealand. There is a market for those who wish to go the movies, and who enjoy doing so because the movie theatres are tailored around their expectations—maybe the theatres are local, or have bigger seats, or maybe it is just a day out for those people. That is an industry that has carried on and flourished ever since National was wise enough to reform this legislation some years ago, under the stewardship of John Luxton. That has done wonderfully. Equally, an industry has grown up around those who wish to watch a movie on DVD, the Internet, or video as soon as it is available—not when the movie is 9 months old, or when the fat-cat owner of the local picture theatre in Whakatane determines it is the right time to watch it. I favour the free-market choice, and the development of all industries. I oppose this legislation.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): I rise to support this bill. It meets the commitment made by the Labour-led Government in 1999. It follows a very extensive review and consultation process, which considered the impact of parallel importing on the creative industries. It is an excellent bill, and I support it.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): This bill does none of the things that Mr Carter has just claimed it does. However, it is the crowning glory of the “Ministry of Judith Tizard”. To prevent people from seeing videos in a timely fashion is the summit of her achievements so far. It is a draconian bill of the worst kind, and it typifies what this Government is all about. This is a Government that wants to send New Zealand back to somewhere into the mid-1960s, when New Zealand was heavily regulated and controlled, and lulled into some sort of docile sense that the Government knew better than anybody else.

We should not underestimate the signal that this bill sends about the way this Government wants to operate. How can it be fair to anybody in this country to say that we need to be locked off from the rest of the world, being unable to access the sort of at-home entertainment that we would like to choose for ourselves?

I think back to those times when New Zealand was a heavily regulated country, and when that sort of thing was commonplace. At that time, anybody who had a bit of a business idea simply got to know his or her local member of Parliament, and then got to know the member’s colleagues. The person would build up a bit of a lobby, and, sooner or later, he or she would get some little sinecure somewhere, because of the high level of Government-initiated protection around his or her business. Those days in this country were not good. I can remember an example that I think some people here might find strange. There was a time when children in this country could not get felt pens unless they were brought in from Australia. Mr Key will remember this. Felt pens were amazing things, and the only way to get hold of them was if a person was lucky enough to know someone who was travelling overseas, who could buy those things in the duty-free store when leaving another country. We are going back to that.

Simon Power: Bread was like that, too.

GERRY BROWNLEE: No, it has never been quite like that. There was a time when bread was rationed in New Zealand—there is no doubt about that—but that was certainly not in Mr Power’s lifetime.

Hon Pete Hodgson: When was bread rationed in New Zealand?

GERRY BROWNLEE: In asking such a simple and silly question, the Minister is showing what a vacuum of knowledge he works in. I am not giving the Minister an answer to something like that, because I know that what he is really doing is sitting there, thinking, “Perhaps that can be my idea of the week.”

In the Labour caucus, we first had Annette King coming along and saying: “Right, I can really annoy New Zealanders by saying I’m not going to let them smoke in public bars, Returned Services Association bars, casinos, or working men’s clubs—that will brass them off. That is a good bit of regulation that I can bring in.” Then she got outdone by Judith Tizard, who has come along and said: “I’m going to stop New Zealanders seeing videos and listening to DVDs and other recordings for the first 9 months that they are available—that will really brass them off.” Then we see Pete Hodgson sitting there, thinking: “I’ve got one that’s even better. Not only am I going to turn out the lights on this country—not only am I going to enhance my reputation as ‘blackout Pete’—but I’m now going to bring in a bread-rationing measure.” [Interruption] The Minister of Conservation is going to save bread in New Zealand!

The whole point about the bill is that it is typical of what this Government likes to do—control, control, control. I do not doubt that once the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill is passed we will see a return to 6 o’clock closing for all hotels and other hostelries around the country. I was going to say “hostilities”, but that would be too reflective of the Government. Not only will we see that sort of thing happen, but I make a prediction that if that particular bill goes through this House, in 10 years’ time we will see a move to have alcohol-free bars. Members laugh, but 10 years ago no one would have said we would have smoke-free bars. They would have said: “No, that will never happen. You’ll get cigarette smoking out of all sorts of places in New Zealand, but you’ll always be able to have a smoke at the RSA and the working men’s club.” But the Labour Government has said: “No, we’re going to get rid of that.” Members should not doubt that in 10 years’ time the Labour caucus will have whipped themselves into such a stupor—of course they will be in Opposition by then, and they will have been there for a long time—as to say that they want to have alcohol-free days. That is the sort of thing that comes out of this type of legislation.

One of the most interesting things I have noted here, is that some of the provisions we have around parallel importing annoy the United States. It does not like us having parallel importing available on many things. It does not like the protections we have around Pharmac. Those are things that we can discuss and work our way through. It seems to me that this bill is a pathetic little attempt to say: “We don’t support you in international relations. We don’t think you’re doing a good job on behalf of the world. We will, however, try to get a free-trade agreement with you by bringing in pathetic little bits of legislation that limit New Zealanders’ rights to freely choose the entertainment they wish to see—films, videos, and DVDs—in a timely fashion.” This is a terrible bill, and I am very proud that the National Party is not supporting it.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 83

Noes 35

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Commerce Committee.

Labour 52; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.

Bills

Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy), on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting: I move, That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee. Under the Radio New Zealand Act, the Radio New Zealand charter is required to be reviewed by the House of Representatives at 5-yearly intervals. The previous Minister of Broadcasting, my colleague Marian Hobbs, invited the Commerce Committee to undertake the first review of the charter on behalf of the House. The review process was begun in December 2000, and the select committee tabled its report, the Review of the Radio New Zealand Charter on 21 December 2001. I am grateful to the committee members for their work, and to the individuals and groups whose submissions informed the considerations of the committee.

The select committee’s report was supportive of the charter in its present form and proposed only a few minor legislative enhancements to assist Radio New Zealand to engage fully with the spirit of its charter. In proposing those amendments, the select committee acknowledged that the changes needed to be phrased in broad terms so as to remain relevant and useful to the charter. The legislative amendments recommended in the report reflect the consensus reached by the select committee. Following the select committee process, the proposed amendments to the Radio New Zealand Act were originally drafted for inclusion in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3), 2002. However, after consultation with the other political parties represented in Parliament, support for that course of action was withheld by four of those parties. The purpose of this bill, therefore, is to make minor amendments to the charter in terms of the select committee report. The provisions for amendment in this bill cover three key areas and, with one exception, reflect current practice at Radio New Zealand.

The first two provisions expand the wording of the charter to ensure that it more effectively conveys the needs of New Zealand society. The bill modifies the charter to require our public radio broadcaster to provide programmes that contribute towards spiritual and ethical development in addition to the contribution to intellectual, scientific, and cultural development required at present. It also requires the broadcaster to include programmes for a full range of age groups, confirming the need to provide for the needs of children. The third provision refers to Radio New Zealand’s unique broadcasting service in the South Pacific region. The bill acknowledges the operations of Radio New Zealand International, which was provided with additional funding by this Government in 2002, through Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage, and currently provides effective short-wave radio broadcasts to the South Pacific region.

The remaining provisions of the bill ensure that Radio New Zealand will continue to be assisted in fulfilling its public broadcasting role by undertaking formal surveys and reporting on those survey results, and on consequent action to shareholding Ministers. Those surveys will assess the views of Radio New Zealand’s audience on the organisation’s fulfilment of its charter. This bill also requires Radio New Zealand to survey, for the first time, the views of non-listeners to Radio New Zealand to inform its future programming decisions. This process of reviewing Radio New Zealand against its charter has now been under way for 3 years. The review has involved a lengthy submission and consultation process, along with a slow but steady passage through governmental and parliamentary processes. I am now hopeful that the considered review of the charter provisions of the Commerce Committee, agreed by the Government, can be enacted as soon as possible for the benefit of Radio New Zealand’s audience.

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National): The Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill is a mere 2 pages in length, and that is another indication of how obsessed this Government is with charters. In terms of legislation, this is nothing more than a feel-good bill. I remind members that we are here under urgency, and although we have important things to do, and although important things are going on in the world—wars, etc.—we are here to talk about the spiritual and ethical guidance that we are supposed to get from National Radio. It is a sad day when we expect, or in fact think, that radio can deliver programming that aims to give New Zealanders spiritual and ethical guidance. I question the role of radio in doing that, anyway, given that it is State-owned.

The whole point of this bill is to insert the words “spiritual, and ethical” into the charter, and to apply them to programming. However, I question whether those words have been applied to the management of Radio New Zealand. I wonder whether the spiritual needs of Sean Plunket, for example, were considered in the handling of a number of issues at Radio New Zealand, or whether there was actually ethical practice. There has been just been an out-of-court settlement, of some tens of thousands of dollars. I question what is really going on with Radio New Zealand right now in terms of morale and in terms of the way the organisation is being managed. The organisation is in crisis. That fact should be the real focus of the discussions today, not this esoteric piece of legislation that is designed probably to do very little. It is not often that I find myself agreeing with the engineers union, but its delegate, Brent Edwards, had the following comment to make about report after report, which have been done to try to get to the bottom of the problems within Radio New Zealand. He said: “As soon as we heard there was going to be a report we said: ‘Don’t do it, it’s a waste of money because you ought to know what the problems are’.” We know what the problems are at Radio New Zealand. We know that the problems relate to morale. Top political editors like Al Morrison do not leave Radio New Zealand for no good reason. I do not think it was a love of polar fleece and sandals that led Mr Morrison to leave Radio New Zealand. I do not think it was an enjoyment of the environment that made Mr Morrison leave. I imagine that there were some pretty significant reasons, and the dysfunction within the newsroom is one of the very dire situations that have occurred within Radio New Zealand.

Members of the management of Radio New Zealand appeared before the select committee. I put the question to the management of Radio New Zealand. I asked them how many cuts had been made to the newsroom. The answer given was $68,000 in terms of cash, but I now understand that that answer was very economical with the truth. The real cuts have been in the non-replacement of staff. I come from Dunedin, and one of the key areas where staff have not been replaced is in Dunedin. If a big story were to happen south of Christchurch—it could be another Aramoana-type massacre or another Bain murder—Radio New Zealand is now in a position where it does not have a person on the ground. Radio New Zealand will probably have to put someone on a bus—no doubt that person will have to pay for himself or herself—to Dunedin in order to cover that story. That is not good enough.

Time after time we have seen Radio New Zealand in the news. I say that it is the job of Radio New Zealand to present and to report the news. It is not its job to be the news. The absolute dysfunction that has been occurring within Radio New Zealand has caused a number of high-profile stories—be they about Sean Plunket, Lynn Snowdon, or other key staff members—to hit the news. Those staff members are extremely unhappy because they cannot do the job that they are there to do. A Deloitte’s report has described staff as being at breaking point—and they have good reason. People who work within the news are usually very passionate about the stories that they want to tell. If they do not have the resources to do that, then morale is one of the first things to deteriorate. It is not about money, either. The chairman of Radio New Zealand sat in front of the select committee and said: “It’s because we don’t have enough funding.” The amount of money that Radio New Zealand receives is over $23 million per annum. I say that it is not about the amount of funding but the way it is being spent, and we can see that if we look at the number of consultancy reports that have been done to identify problems within the newsroom alone. Again, I agreed with the engineers union delegate when he said that they know what the answers are, and do not need a consultant. He said that they do not need some butt-covering consultant’s report to tell them what the real problems are.

The real problems are at the top. One of the key things that the present management has to consider is what its future is within Radio New Zealand. It has certainly had enough time to improve things within the organisation. I am a great believer that there does come a time when no amount of navel-gazing and reports will make any difference. Eventually, management has to consider its options. Even the Minister had some comments to make when he first became involved with Radio New Zealand. He said: “I think it could do better. I would like to see Radio New Zealand being an exciting, compulsive piece of media, and I don’t think it is right now.” He then backed off from those comments at 100 miles per hour. But I think that that was probably one of the most telling comments made about Radio New Zealand. When members opposite were in Opposition, they made a huge song and dance about newsroom cuts as just one example. Now, those members are into their fourth year in Government, and they are doing more to damage the newsroom—deliberately—than has ever been done in the past.

One of the ways we can measure the performance of Radio New Zealand is by the number of people who listen to it at any given time. I was shocked to see the number of listeners who had switched off their radios in just 12 months. In 2001, 535,000 people were listening to National Radio, and 502,000 in 2002. There was also a dramatic decline in Concert FM listeners. That figure went from 160,000 to 145,000. That is a significant number of people who have turned off their radios. Actually, I do not think they have turned off their radios; I think they have turned the dial and started listening to other radio stations. The management has to accept that what has been going on over the last few months has had a dramatic impact on the quality of programming and the sorts of programmes that have been put on air. The management has as one of its performance targets the rather “Eeyore-ish” objective that “the audience for the period under review will not reduce by more than 10 percent when compared with the previous year’s corresponding survey of listeners.” If we take that as being the objective over the next few years or so, there will not be any listeners. If we are saying that a reduction in 10 percent every year is OK, then it sort of becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Things quite simply have to change. This issue is not about money; it is about accepting that there are problems within the organisation itself. It is the role of Radio New Zealand to present the news, not to be the news. Reporters need the resources to be able to present the news in an effective way, and decisions need to be made about whether the present management stays. Quite clearly, things are not working. The Minister knows that he has a very dysfunctional organisation, but he has done nothing to fix it. No amount of consultancy reports will make one skerrick of difference. As described in one of the latest news reports, staff are at breaking point, and I can understand why. In terms of the Dunedin part of the operation, it is absolutely shameful that there has not been a reporter there since September. How does Radio New Zealand expect to cover stories from around the country if it does not have people on the ground? The whole point of funding National Radio is so that it can tell stories. If these issues are not sorted out, then no amount of pontificating about a 2-page bill will make any difference.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to support this bill with, however, some deep concerns. This piece of legislation arises out of the required 5-yearly review of the Radio New Zealand charter, performed by the Commerce Committee. If we look at some of the amendments, we can see that the bill amends Radio New Zealand’s charter in a minimal fashion. Clause 3(2) requires Radio New Zealand to provide programming that caters to a full range of age groups. This will ensure that Radio New Zealand provides programming that is specific to child listeners, who do require extra considerations and protections with regard to their specific needs.

Clause 3(1) amends the charter so that Radio New Zealand must provide programming that contributes towards New Zealand’s spiritual and ethical development. It ought to be noted that this amendment makes the Radio New Zealand charter consistent with the recently enacted Television New Zealand charter, which requires it to feature programmes that contribute to New Zealand’s spiritual and ethical developments.

But as woolly as some of these ideas are, they are indicative rather than prescriptive, and they should be treated and regarded accordingly. Radio New Zealand is now statutorily obliged to provide an international radio service to the South Pacific. Finally, the bill allegedly sets the requirement for annual surveying of audience numbers and satisfaction, meaning that Radio New Zealand will not shirk its responsibilities of remaining responsive to its listeners, and taking into account their feedback. I will speak more on that a little bit later.

It is clear from the report of the Commerce Committee and other sources that the charter itself is fundamentally sound in terms of what it requires. It is equally clear that there is general satisfaction from the public regarding Radio New Zealand’s delivery of charter obligations. I note from the 2002 ACNeilson survey of Radio New Zealand’s listeners that nine out of 10 listeners considered that Radio New Zealand provides fair and balanced information, and 85 percent of listeners thought that it broadcasts programmes not found on other radio stations, which is a key part of the organisation’s charter requirements. Eighty-three percent reported being satisfied, only 3 percent were dissatisfied, with the mix of programming on the network. Fifteen percent of listeners perceived National Radio to have improved over the last 12 months, 15 percent thought that it had become worse, and the remaining 70 percent thought that the station had stayed pretty much the same.

Conclusively, the overall performance of Radio New Zealand is pretty good. It seems that the relatively minor changes made by the Commerce Committee are evidence of that fact. Although the survey figures mentioned paint a glowing picture of Radio New Zealand’s performance, United Future is none the less left with some serious concerns. Those concerns include the fact that Radio New Zealand does not have to subject itself to rigorous comparison with other stations, in terms of its listener numbers, through taking part in regular listener surveys, as all the commercial radio stations do. The ACNeilson survey conducted in 2002 found that one in five radio listeners listened to either National Radio or Concert FM—the latter occupying a considerably smaller part of that listenership. It would be very interesting to see whether a comparison with the monthly commercial radio surveys showed a consistent listenership of Radio New Zealand. However, we do not know that, because Radio New Zealand has decided not to take part in industry standards surveys. I note that that issue is essentially an operational one, and I am aware that practical reasons were apparently given for Radio New Zealand choosing not to take part in the comparative survey. But if a select committee can go as far as specifying that Radio New Zealand must undertake its own annual surveys, of a qualitative and quantitative nature, of its audience, it would not have been too much—in fact, it would have been easier—to specify that Radio New Zealand take part in industry-wide radio audience surveys. After all, the taxpayers of New Zealand are the shareholders of Radio New Zealand, and they have a right to know how it performs in comparison with other broadcast providers. It is regretful that the process of select committee review occurred before the last election, because United Future’s contribution at that stage would obviously have been in that regard.

Finally, any debate on Radio New Zealand can hardly go by without considering some of the current rumblings emanating from the organisation itself. Amidst budget blowouts and requests for an emergency funding bail-out of $2.5 million, we note the managing editor of news, Lynn Snowdon, apparently having to go so far as using the Protected Disclosures Act to communicate to the board of directors that all is not well in the engine room. Furthermore, a report from consultancy firm Deloitte pointed to widespread dissatisfaction among Radio New Zealand’s 93 news staff. It also expressed and exposed serious problems in the news division, and consultants said that the Auckland newsroom was in danger of breaking down because of pressure of work. It quoted staff as enduring constant crises, and journalists as saying that something serious was about to go wrong, and that they were in a state of siege and worn down. A common theme was that the news operation was about to implode. Needless to say, we look forward to seeing the Government rectify some of those issues—in particular, the accountability that would go along with having open survey results, putting Radio New Zealand on an equal footing with all other broadcasting providers. We do believe that this bill should proceed, but with reservation. I look forward to its returning to the House for further scrutiny.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. This bill is a backward step for broadcasting, just like the Television New Zealand Bill, which was recently passed. Radio New Zealand has not been able to provide a balanced service since the introduction of the charter, so New Zealand First would like the Minister to explain to the House how writing down the words “spiritual, and ethical” in a charter will reverse the disastrous ratings for Radio New Zealand. The charter appears to be of no real value to Radio New Zealand. Instead, it has been totally counterproductive. The inclusion of the words “spiritual, and ethical” is another example of the “Big Brother State” syndrome of knowing best. Those same words were written in the Television New Zealand Bill, so we must have them in the Radio New Zealand Bill!

This bill is just another example of State control. The State controls our life at work, it controls our life at home, and now it wants to control the life of our souls. It wants to control what is hidden in our heads and our hearts—our personal, spiritual, and ethical beliefs. How many variations of spiritual and ethical beliefs will we hear from Radio New Zealand? To be fair to the many cultures in New Zealand, all people’s views must be met. But the reality is that our spiritual and ethical beliefs are so diverse that it will be an impossible challenge. It will not be possible for Radio New Zealand to meet the needs of all people. Is there no end to this Government’s almost fanatical desire to control our lives with a charter?

Mark Peck: Ha, ha!

BARBARA STEWART: I know I am hitting home, because I can see signs of opposition from Mark Peck. That usually means that we are on the right track. What have we seen? We have seen a revolt. People do not want to be told what they can listen to, and they have voted with their feet. They have got up out of their chairs, and they have turned off that politically correct radio station that they have been listening to. The bottom line is that they can change what they listen to when it does not meet their needs. Radio New Zealand and this politically correct Government cannot stop people from thinking their own thoughts. There are a lot of thinkers out there, and they are thinking, with their fingers on the radio dial: “Change the station!”.

Hon Tony Ryall: And change the Government.

BARBARA STEWART: That would be another example. Like Katherine Rich has done, we had a look at the ACNeilson survey. It shows that between 2001 and 2002 the number of National Radio listeners fell from 535,000 to 502,000. The Concert FM listenership declined by 15,000, and the average time spent listening to that station dropped by just under 2 hours a week. That represents a significant number of listeners. It is a really appalling state of affairs to lose such a vast number of listeners. If that were a private radio station, heads would roll. Indicators of audience loss of that magnitude would inspire some action on the part of the directors—but do we see any action? No, there is nothing. What do we see? We see a key performance target that does not inspire the confidence of any thinking New Zealander. Radio New Zealand has a goal of losing no more than 10 percent of the previous year’s listeners. If it sticks with that type of target, then its audience will dwindle away really, really quickly. There will not be anybody listening to Radio New Zealand.

The loss of listeners is the first indication that there is something very, very wrong with the programmes that this radio station is playing. Even Radio New Zealand considers that the loss of listeners was due to the charter-directed programming changes. And what are we doing in this House? We are twiddling with it, a little bit more, all the time. What did we see in the New Zealand Herald on 21 March? Radio New Zealand was asking the Government for $2.5 million more in the May budget to avoid “cutting into the bone”. The article states too that the State broadcaster now gets $22.3 million from the Government. The article also states that the chairman of Radio New Zealand said that the request was realistic and conservative, although $3.5 million would be needed to return Radio New Zealand to its pre-1995 level of support. So what do we have? We have here a Government radio station in bad shape. It is coming to the Government for money so that it is not forced to cut into the bone. What does that leave the way open for? I can tell members right here in this House. It leaves the way open for more State interference in broadcasting—total control of what we hear and think, and even control of our spiritual and ethical souls. That is not a good state of affairs. It is a really sad state of affairs too if we have to listen to the radio for our spiritual and ethical beliefs. That is not good enough. We are always reading about Radio New Zealand and the problems it is having with staff morale—some of them directly due to this charter. No amount of money will make any difference to the situation within Radio New Zealand. We have solid proof that the changes to Radio New Zealand are not working since the introduction of the charter, and New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill): I am delighted to take a very short call on this bill. I have listened to two most extraordinary speeches. I congratulate Marc Alexander on what I thought was a considered contribution to the debate, but Katherine Rich and Judy Turner—

Opposition Members: Not Judy Turner; it was Barbara Stewart.

MARK PECK: I do apologise to the member. These things happen. I am sure people forget my name from time to time.

Hon Tony Ryall: That’s right, Robbie.

MARK PECK: That’s all right, Gerry! I do apologise to the member.

This shock-horror-conspiracy theory has just got me stumped. I have had a look at the bill. The bill is 2 pages long. The explanatory note is longer. The bill emanates from the Commerce Committee work on reviewing the charter, which it must do once every 5 years. It recommended, in the immortal words of one of our former colleagues, the Hon Stan Rodger, some minor technical changes to the bill that probably could have been much better dealt with by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill. But, no, there is shock and horror because we have changed two or three words— added “spiritual, and ethical”, broadened “varied interests”, and things of that ilk. There is no conspiracy in this. This bill should take no time at all to work through the select committee. We should do it as a matter or urgency, because the second 5-yearly review is due very soon. We should waste no more time of the House on this bill. Let us get it to the select committee.

I do not know who we will ask to make submissions, to be frank. The people who have already submitted on the bill are probably the only ones who will be interested, at any rate. We look forward to it being referred on, and we will process it quickly.

Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty): I want to be quite clear that the National Party in Opposition is strongly opposed to this bill. We do not believe that this Government has earned any right to change the charter of Radio New Zealand. The National Party believes that Radio New Zealand is currently in breach of its charter, and we believe that this organisation is overly secretive and heading in the wrong direction.

Every day we read of the financial mismanagement of Radio New Zealand. I was Minister responsible for Radio New Zealand when the previous National Government put in excess of $6 million of additional funding into Radio New Zealand over a 3-year period. We were assured that that would fix Radio New Zealand’s financial problems. They were not fixed; they have got worse. While Radio New Zealand is skimping to find the money to pay for a quality news service, as we speak, the board and management of Radio New Zealand are spending its valuable resources on expanding its FM coverage around New Zealand—duplicating its signal. Frankly, the money would be better spent on trying desperately to maintain current standards than on expanding the FM network. The FM network expansion should be put on hold, if this company is in such financial straits. We do not need FM National Radio in the Bay of Plenty, if there is no money to pay for decent reporters; we can wait. So it is a waste of taxpayers’ money that the board and management of Radio New Zealand are continuing its expansion programme—duplicating the signal—when it is completely unnecessary, and the money could be spent somewhere else.

I think money is being misspent by Radio New Zealand. It is commissioning audience surveys that it will not release to elected members of Parliament. Mrs Katherine Rich has sought, time and time again, to get the ACNeilson annual survey of listeners released for full public scrutiny. Neither the Minister nor the board will release it; neither will release the survey. Why will they not release it? Because that information is damning of the performance of the board and the management of Radio New Zealand. We know that in the period we are considering, most recently, Radio New Zealand lost 33,000 of its listeners to National Radio, and it lost over 10 percent of its listeners to Concert FM. It is so resigned to losing listenership that it says that one of its really good achievements will be if it does not lose 10 percent in the next year. That is no way to run a company, at all.

The National Party in Opposition is also concerned that the spa pool liberals who dominate this Government are seeking to insert the words “spiritual, and ethical” into the charter of Radio New Zealand. Well, what does that mean? What does inserting “spiritual” values of New Zealand mean? What about the spiritual values of Radio New Zealand? Would Mr Sean Plunket say that his spiritual values were being served well by that company, when we consider the way that he was treated? Allegedly, he was offered Linda Clark’s job, then, after some intervention, he was “dis-offered” the job? What about “ethical”? Who in Radio New Zealand is going to stand up and say he or she will set the standard for ethical behaviour, not only in the company but also on the airwaves? Who in Radio New Zealand is going to set that ethical benchmark? The Government is silent, and I am not surprised, because this is just nonsense. It is absolute nonsense that these non-secular ideas of spirituality should be included in this charter.

I have to say this to the House: when the Government changes in less than 2 years’ time this charter will go out of the window. This board of directors of Radio New Zealand would have to consider their role in the future, because they cannot run a company. They are not delivering what New Zealanders want. They are making wrong financial decisions. They cannot get enough money to employ a reporter in Dunedin, so they are in breach of the charter, but they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars duplicating Radio New Zealand’s transmission signal around the country. That is a waste of money. That is the wrong decision and we oppose it strongly.

This little 1-page bill also includes more nonsense that Radio New Zealand will be required to have programmes that cater to a “full range of age groups”. What does that mean? What is Radio New Zealand going to do for 6-month-old children? My wife would tell us we have Concert FM for 6-month-old children, to send them off to sleep. That is probably about right. But what has it got for 2-year-old children? Nothing! What has it got for 3-year-old children? Nothing!

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Visitors

Speaker of Legislative Assembly, Victoria

Mr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Judy Maddigan, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Victoria, Australia, accompanied by Mr Ray Purdy, the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that they be welcomed.

Bills

Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

PANSY WONG (NZ National): I wonder why the House is in urgency to debate this bill. Is it not amazing?

Hon David Carter: It’s April Fool’s Day.

PANSY WONG: The bill was introduced yesterday, on April Fool’s Day. Why do I question that? It is because when the Minister of Broadcasting, the Hon Steve Maharey, first took up his post, on 15 September 2002 he was described as media savvy. He actually said that Radio New Zealand could do better. He said that, as the Minister of Broadcasting, he would like to see Radio New Zealand being an exciting and compulsive-listening piece of our media, and that he did not think it was doing that right now. Well, I looked at the performance measurement of Radio New Zealand since the Hon Steve Maharey took over, and I have to say that a survey of the Radio New Zealand audience—not a rating of how large the audience is; just a survey—showed that the number of people who listen to Radio New Zealand for 8 minutes and over decreased by 6 percent, and that the Concert FM audience level decreased by 10 percent.

The sad fact is that reduction in audience level of 10 percent is actually a target set by Radio New Zealand. It is interesting to see that a Government agency has a performance measurement that means it has only to do well enough to reach 90 percent of the previous year’s target. In effect, Radio New Zealand was authorised by the Minister to say every year that it will try to achieve 90 percent of the previous year’s performance. I do not think any private organisation would submit a budget plan to its shareholders that says its aim is to achieve a target that is only 90 percent of that of the previous year. That organisation would be budgeting for a 10 percent decrease every year.

Against that background, I thought that the Hon Steve Maharey might have introduced the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill to try to change that. I thought that maybe this bill would consist of some miracle, some exciting target, or some funding provisions that would enable Radio New Zealand to achieve what the Minister says it should be—an exciting, compulsive-listening piece of media. But let us look at what this bill actually tries to do.

First of all, apparently it is going to introduce two more words into the charter, the mission statement of Radio New Zealand, so that the organisation should aim to develop programmes that reflect “spiritual” and “ethical” values. Those words have been added to its objective. As the Minister has introduced, through this legislation, the words “spiritual” and “ethical”, I wonder where the guideline is. I have looked through the bill, which consists of only 2 pages, but there is no definition, no parameters for the meaning of “spiritual”. Also, I did not know that Radio New Zealand had not been adhering to ethical standards in the past. As far as I am concerned, our media in New Zealand have a peer review system whereby the public can complain if Radio New Zealand fails to live up to the community’s standards.

Another provision of this legislation is that the organisation should try to aim to cover “a full range of age groups”. We need to explore that further. The Chief Executive of Radio New Zealand, Sharon Crosbie, was reported as saying—she actually comes before the Commerce Committee every year for the financial review—that the audience consists mainly of the 35-plus age group. When the Minister wants Radio New Zealand to extend its audience to a full range of age groups, I presume he wants to see Radio New Zealand catering more for the youth market. But many times when I sat on the Commerce Committee, we received independent reports and submissions from other sectors convincing us that the youth audience is very well served by the variety of private radio stations available. In fact, there are about 300 radio stations in New Zealand, and a lot of them have been very successful in targeting the youth audience. So why are the Labour Government and the Minister of Broadcasting hell-bent on channelling taxpayers’ money towards targeting, in particular, a youth sector that is very well served by private radio stations? Young audiences have been able to receive a service from the whole range of radio stations currently provided in the community. I think the Minister should front up and explain why he intends Radio New Zealand to enter the highly competitive market of youth listeners. What, specifically, does the Minister want youth listeners to receive from Radio New Zealand? What does he think they are deprived of, in terms of what is provided by private radio stations?

To be fair to Radio New Zealand, I would have thought that if its master, so to speak, the Minister of Broadcasting, wanted Radio New Zealand to turn itself into a dynamic, exciting, compulsive-listening piece of media, then he should be realistic in terms of funding Radio New Zealand well. But we found that Labour, after criticising the previous funding level of Radio New Zealand, actually, in last year’s Budget, cut $225,000 from its funding. The Government cannot, on the one hand, demand that a radio station perform and attract high-quality personalities and journalists, then, on the other hand, reduce its funding and its ability to attract those high-calibre personalities and staff. Ultimately, we have to accept that to be able to appeal to the audience, it has to have quality programmes and quality presenters.

As the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill is being debated under urgency, I would have thought that it had an urgent mission to fulfil, and that it would provide some exciting initiatives, like a generous funding commitment to Radio New Zealand. But this bill is nothing more than another piece of politically correct legislation that will not enable Radio New Zealand to obey its master’s command to become exciting and compulsive-listening radio. The National Party will be voting against this bill.

HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour): I am pleased to rise to support the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill, which puts into effect the few minor amendments that have arisen from the review of the Radio New Zealand charter. It is a pity that a more expeditious legislative process, that of incorporating them into a Statutes Amendment Bill, could not have been followed, but, unfortunately, the Opposition voted against that. I commend this bill to the House.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): The ACT party opposes the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. The ACT party was one of the parties that objected to the use of a Statutes Amendment Bill to include amendments to Radio New Zealand’s charter. We did not object lightly to this. I am aware that a Statutes Amendment Bill enables Parliament to function efficiently and smoothly, but it should be used for issues that are non-controversial, and this issue is definitely not non-controversial. Just because a Labour member said that the bill is only two pages long does not mean it is minor or non-controversial legislation.

I wrote to the Minister of Broadcasting at the time, and I repeat now that ACT does not support an undefined instruction that would become a licence to use money raised from taxpayers to promote religious and ethical beliefs, which should be obliged to compete in the marketplace of ideas on their own merits, using resources provided by their supporters.

This legislation is a dangerous attack on the important principle that the State should be secular. Several people have already described this legislation, and the commentary on the bill states that the select committee proposed only “a few minor legislative enhancements”. This bill is definitely not minor. One of the major themes of State radio is that it should not just be independent and unbiased, but that it should actually bend over backwards to be so. I will come to that issue later, in terms of the charter. But more important than that is that the State should be secular. There is a clear separation of powers. This is constitutionally extremely important and a vital element of a liberal democracy. This amendment, along with the one we passed recently for the Television New Zealand charter, starts us on the slippery slope of fudging the separation of those powers.

If we look at the charter, we will see that there are only a few pedantic changes, but those words are loaded. We should look at what is being changed. We will be changing from having programmes that contribute to intellectual, scientific, and cultural development, to those that contribute to intellectual, scientific, cultural, spiritual, and ethical development. I have already spoken strongly on this. State radio has no business promoting spiritual development. Why should some taxpayers be forced to fund the promotion of the spiritual development of someone else whom they might personally find abhorrent? Taxpayers should not be forced to fund State broadcasting at all in these times.

The State does not own newspapers; neither should it. The State should not own broadcasting, either. But while we do have State radio, we should all be opposing this insertion of the promotion of spiritual development. Whose spiritual development are we promoting here? Are we going to promote the spiritual development of Christians more than Buddhists? We already have private radio stations that more than successfully provide spiritual programmes. Why should they have to compete in the market against a State-funded broadcaster?

We are also going to insert into this charter the provision of programmes that contribute to ethical development. This is a real worry too, because this signals a continuation of the relativism regarding ethical values that is already permeating our education curricula. This relativism is where we say that no ethical values can be regarded as being more relevant or more important than other ethical values. Ethical values can mean all sorts of different things to different people. Do they include someone whose ethical or spiritual values embrace and support stoning women to death in public for the sin of adultery? There are ethical values that say that young girls should be circumcised. People believe in those ethical values. I suspect that most rational New Zealanders would argue that this is not ethical development at all, but barbaric and uncivilised, and that these beliefs have no place with a State broadcaster. But under this charter, this is what taxpayers could be forced to fund.

Radio New Zealand recently fronted up to the Commerce Committee and asked for more money from taxpayers—nearly $3 million—because it had blown its budget. At the same time that it turned up at the select committee to ask for this money, it also announced that its listenership had plummeted in the last 12 months. Radio New Zealand National Radio listeners had gone from 535,000 to 502,000. That is a loss of over 30,000 listeners in just 12 months. So what does Radio New Zealand do? It fronts up and asks for more taxpayers’ money because its listeners are turning off the radio. Another 15,000 switched off from Concert FM.

I am not surprised that people are turning off from State radio. What does public radio mean? It means broadcasting to the public. It does not mean, as it used to when all the news service had to come out of the Prime Minister’s office, that it is promoting the policies of the current Government, whatever Government that might be. At the moment, all we get on public radio is Labour Party policy being promoted. We get no voice from the market liberals. Just one promoter of freedom would be good, but no, Radio New Zealand is totally incapable of mentioning the f-word.

When did anybody last hear “free markets”, “individual liberty”, or “classical liberalism” mentioned on State radio? Instead, on Saturday mornings we get endless interviews with women called Kate, and on Sunday mornings we get middle-aged hippies masquerading as youth culture. If members listen to the current coverage of the war in Iraq they will confirm that National Radio has totally sold out to the Government’s position on that. I am not surprised that people are turning off from Concert FM either, if one listens to the noise that masquerades as music. It is a return to Manuel and the Music of the Mountains, and some of us are old enough to remember those days.

Let us take a look at the briefing to the incoming Government. The briefing is very interesting because it states that on current performance, Radio New Zealand has a secure income stream, and that it will continue to remain so, with income exceeding expenses. That did not last long either. It is always very interesting to look at the outlooks of State-owned enterprises and Crown-owned companies in their briefings to incoming Governments, because those outlooks signify what their plans are for the next 12 months. In this one, the outlook states “Information withheld under the Official Information Act.” So where will that go?

I support the fact that under this charter the Radio New Zealand board will be required to inform the shareholding Ministers of the results of surveys it will carry out. Previously, these have been preciously kept secret. However, what is the point of that? Why should the board waste money doing that? The charter states that after the board has provided the results of those surveys, as part of the annual report, it must report on “the measures, if any, it has taken in response to those results.” So why waste money doing those surveys, when the Government lets Radio New Zealand totally off doing anything about the results anyway?

Finally, I have to agree with one of the National Party members—I cannot remember who it was—who said that Radio New Zealand is already in breach of its charter. If members read the charter, they will see that Radio New Zealand is required to provide comprehensive, independent, impartial, and balanced national news services and current affairs. I have no problem with the news services. Yes, they are independent, balanced, and impartial. Current affairs? I do not think so. As I said, the commentary on the bill states that the bill will ensure that the charter “reflects more accurately the needs of New Zealand society.” I would say that the need of New Zealand society is to have more money in its pockets. Radio New Zealand should look at selling some land in Auckland, for which it was recently offered $8 million. It would not then have to go the Government, cap in hand.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South): I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in support of this legislation.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): We have heard a lot of disparaging of, and, indeed, clobbering of, Radio New Zealand in this House today, so I would like to start by saying thank God we have Radio New Zealand; thank God I am able, and many others are able, to listen to a radio station that is not interrupted every few minutes with commercials; thank God we have a radio station that is not dominated by commercial interests; and thank God I can listen to Worldwatch at night when I have not found any other radio station that has international programmes consistently like Worldwatch on Radio New Zealand.

Thank God we have a radio station that has a specific charter to provide comprehensive, independent, impartial, and balanced news services and current affairs, etc. Thank God we have one radio station that before the last election sat down and worked out how it should provide impartial and balanced coverage. I find it extraordinary that some persons here are even trying to suggest that Radio New Zealand might not be balanced and impartial. I think it is one of the mediums of communication in our land that actually is balanced and impartial. So thank God we have Radio New Zealand! I am not speaking just for myself, either. Its annual report states that almost half of the listeners who listen to Radio New Zealand have been listening to it for more than 20 years.

We have also heard a lot of disparaging remarks about a couple of amendments in the bill. One amendment, in particular, that has generated a lot of sneering in the House is the requirement that Radio New Zealand should, amongst other things, promote programmes that contribute to the spiritual and ethical development of life in New Zealand. What is so incredibly problematic about discussing spiritual and ethical issues? Excuse me, but do we not have whole radio stations devoted to sport and endless programmes on money? Why should we not have some programmes that examine ethical and religious issues? Is there some kind of great sin in that? I am surprised that the National Party is so opposed to that provision. Maybe some members have noticed that religion seems to be a rather dominant force in the world today, and it might be helpful if we had programmes that contributed to our understanding of religious and ethical issues. To try to suggest, as the previous speaker did, that that is somehow undermining the secular state of New Zealand is utter nonsense. Hopefully, what that requirement will do is contribute to our understanding of religious and ethical issues, which are very dominant in the world today.

That said, we think the charter is a wonderful document. We agree with the chief executive of Radio New Zealand who said that it provides Radio New Zealand with a clear set of guidelines that are flexible and not too prescriptive. We strongly support the charter, and the modest amendments in the bill to require Radio New Zealand to look at all age groups—in particular, children and young people—to look at religious and ethical issues, and to have regular surveys. We strongly support that, but we are concerned that there seems to be something of a parallel here with TVNZ. On the one hand, we are giving Radio New Zealand this charter with its lofty ideals, and imposing new obligations on it in this bill; on the other hand, we are not providing Radio New Zealand or, for that matter, TVNZ, with the funding they need to implement their charters. In my view, that is the main issue we should have been addressing in our review of the charter in the Commerce Committee. It is slightly ironic that we did that whole review of Radio New Zealand without getting to the heart of the problem, which is that the whole organisation is totally cash-strapped. We did not address the funding issue at all, and to me, that is a major problem.

Others have spoken about the headlines we have all read, such as “Radio New Zealand blows budget for news” and “Newsroom on the verge of implosion”. As others have mentioned, there is clearly a serious morale problem within Radio New Zealand. We acknowledge that, but we believe that funding issues are an underlying problem. Radio New Zealand is being expected to implement this lofty charter without sufficient funding. We suspect that deeper issues, including staffing, have also contributed to the alleged implosion.

However, having identified problems of morale, etc, we should nevertheless hesitate to become involved in sorting out those issues. We must remember that Radio New Zealand is part of the fourth estate, whose independence we should be jealously guarding. We should resist the temptation to get our sticky little political fingers into that crisis and try to sort it out by deciding who should, or should not, be running Radio New Zealand—or who should not be deciding this or that. Clearly, those are issues that Radio New Zealand should sort out, and let us hope that they do, because there clearly is a serious problem. But we should also recognise and appreciate that we have independent radio in New Zealand, and an independent fourth estate. Our democracy would virtually cease to exist if we did not have radio and television channels that were truly independent, impartial, and unbiased, but instead had radio stations that were effectively the channel of corporate interests or the State.

The Greens will certainly be supporting this bill. We cannot see why everyone is in such a state of consternation about the fact that Radio New Zealand should have to make a few programmes that contribute to spiritual and ethical understanding. It seems eminently sensible. We think it is extremely sensible also to ask Radio New Zealand to look at the full range of age groups, and to consider focusing more on children and young people, which is obviously one of its weak areas. It is not succeeding very well in reaching that particular audience. We think that requiring Radio New Zealand to commission surveys is extremely important. It is all very well having a charter, but how do we measure it? One of the few ways we have of doing so is through quantitative and qualitative research, and we have required that that be done. Ultimately, we are concerned that there is no point having these charters, worthy though they are, if we are not going to provide Radio New Zealand, or Television New Zealand, with the revenue they need to implement them.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West): By and large, I totally agree with the observations made by the previous speaker. I have to say how depressing it is to see the vision for public radio that is held by National and ACT, in particular. If they had their way, they would replace the independent New Zealand – owned public radio network that is beholden only to the people of this country, and hand it over the media moguls in Ottawa, Sydney, London, or wherever.

That is their vision. I find it absolutely amazing that parties that presume to represent the people of this country would be happy to do that. I support Radio New Zealand, and want to take this opportunity to thank it for the excellent work it does in reflecting the diversity, the vitality, and the richness of this nation. Well might people in ACT and the National Party sneer and jeer; frankly, if members want a definition of patriotism, then thank the people who work at Radio New Zealand, who reflect the nation’s way of life to us.

We want to get this bill through. I compliment the select committee on the work it has done, and I compliment all those who work for our excellent public radio network.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 69

Noes 47

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Commerce Committee.

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I remind members that there are to be no interjections at all during the taking of a vote. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 56/4.

Bills

New Zealand Horticulture Export AuthorityAmendment Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture): I move, That the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee. The bill provides amendments to the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act. The Act establishes the Horticulture Export Authority to promote the effective export marketing of horticultural products. In particular, the Act provides for the Horticulture Export Authority to approve export-marketing strategies for the horticultural products prescribed under the Act, and to license exporters to implement those strategies. Almost $170 million of horticultural products were exported under the Act in the year to 30 June 2002. The major horticultural products exported under the Act are squash, avocados, and summer fruit.

The bill provides for five amendments to the Act. The first amendment is to enable kiwifruit exports to Australia to be prescribed by Order in Council under the Act. This amendment was proposed by the kiwifruit industry to allow the industry to better coordinate exports of kiwifruit to Australia. It is not possible simply to prescribe kiwifruit under the Act, because it would result in a conflict between the Act and the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999. Those regulations govern all kiwifruit exports except for kiwifruit exported for consumption in Australia. They provide for only Zespri Group Ltd and approved collaborative marketers to export kiwifruit to these other markets.

Kiwifruit exports are New Zealand’s single most important horticultural export, accounting for almost 30 percent of the total value of horticultural exports in the year to 30 June 2002. Australia was the sixth most important market for kiwifruit exports, and was worth $31 million. However, the price received for kiwifruit exported to Australia was 29 percent less per kilogram than the average price received for kiwifruit exported to the rest of the world.

Lower kiwifruit prices in Australia have a wider negative effect. The price differential between Australia and other markets, especially Asian markets, encourages illegal re-exports of New Zealand kiwifruit from Australia. Such re-exports are illegal because kiwifruit exports from New Zealand other than for consumption in Australia must comply with the kiwifruit export regulations. Higher prices in Australia would reduce the incentive for this activity, and licensing exporters to Australia would aid enforcement.

It is important to note that this bill does not in itself regulate kiwifruit exports to Australia. Once the Act is amended, an industry body representing growers and exporters of kiwifruit to Australia would need to seek growers and exporters support and then apply to the Minister to prescribe kiwifruit exports to Australia by Order in Council under the Act. The time line for the bill is driven by the kiwifruit industry’s desire for kiwifruit exported to Australia to be prescribed under the Act as soon as possible, and certainly in time for the season commencing April 2004.

The second amendment in this bill is to remove the ability for quantitative restrictions to be imposed under the Act. Such quantitative restrictions could limit either, or both, the number of exporters and the volume of exports. The Government proposes this amendment for two reasons: first, as exporters generally oppose the use of quantitative restriction provisions, they are neither currently being used nor likely to be used in the future; second, these provisions potentially could be used in a way that would be inconsistent with New Zealand’s international obligations.

The final three amendments in this bill are administrative in nature. The first of these improves the transparency of the Horticulture Export Authority’s statutory decision-making processes through allowing applicants to seek a reconsideration of the authority’s decision. The second administrative amendment relates to the powers of the arbitrator who, under the Act, considers appeals of the Horticulture Export Authority’s statutory decisions. The last administrative amendment is to allow the Horticulture Export Authority to revoke redundant export licences.

This bill is necessary to achieve these changes. The Horticulture Export Authority supports these amendments and most kiwifruit growers and exporters support enabling kiwifruit exports to Australia to be prescribed under the Act. I welcome the support of most parties in this House for this non-controversial legislation, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National): I start by thanking the Minister who has just introduced this legislation for not imposing the guillotine clause on the Primary Production Committee, thereby giving us a chance to genuinely hear submissions. That is certainly a change from the treatment the committee has had in recent times, whereby we have been given legislation to consider but are expected to treat the submissioners with disdain in order to report it back to the House in a matter of weeks. So I thank Damien O’Connor, as the Minister introducing this legislation and as a very valued member of the select committee, for allowing us to hear this bill over a reasonable time frame, because I have little doubt that submissions will be made on it.

I start by saying that we will certainly be supporting this legislation to the select committee, but we want to have the opportunity of clearly hearing the arguments from both sides of the fence as to the need for supporting this legislation further. First, I will quote from a publication put out by HortResearch, in which it makes this statement: “Horticulture makes a significant contribution to the New Zealand economy, both through its exports, now worth more than $2 billion annually, and through its growing reputation for providing fresh and often exotic produce to tempt the tourist’s palate.” I make that contribution, because we often forget how important horticulture is to this country. In talking to this bill, we are clearly dealing with only one of our horticulture-based industries—the kiwifruit industry, which effectively comprises a third of all horticultural exports.

The kiwifruit industry is a major industry. Last year its export value was close to $620 million. I acknowledge that there is an issue and concern, particularly with regard to the quality and price of the fruit being sold through Australia. The difficulty for me personally as we progress this legislation is that over a period of time we have been through a process of trying to deregulate older producer boards and allowing people to get on and do their thing. Having said that, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the success of the kiwifruit industry over recent years.

Before coming to the House I had the opportunity to look at the annual report of Zespri to 31 March 2002. Zespri was able to record record sales in excess of $800 million. It is close to being a billion-dollar industry, and that is a credit to it. I am aware, as we look ahead to the coming year, and as the export season gets under way, that things have not been so easy for the industry. I was in the Bay of Plenty in the spring of 2002, and I recall the difficulty some growers faced with the late frosts that had caused, in some cases, quite significant damage to kiwifruit acreage. I think that this year we will see prices up, and that is good, but volume down somewhat because of the damage caused by the frosts.

The evidence before the select committee will no doubt show us that there is a problem with the way the Australia market is being handled. I note that the explanatory note of the bill quotes figures of $2 per kilo, free on board, in 1999, and that has declined in 2 years to $1.53.

Ian Ewen-Street: That’s outrageous!

Hon DAVID CARTER: Ian Ewen-Street interjects and says that that is outrageous. As a member of the select committee, I want take the opportunity to hear submissioners tell us what is going on, and if the situation is one of quality not being maintained because of the kiwifruit regulations of 1999, then we need to look at that.

When I first got to know a little about this bill, I was certainly aware of the additional problem of fruit going to Australia and then being re-exported into our market, which is currently protected by the single-seller arrangement. Again, if that is happening, we as parliamentarians need to address that situation. What I remain unclear about is how, having identified that situation and having passed this legislation, we will still be able to catch up with operators who are determined to break Australian, rather than New Zealand, law. No doubt, as we get under way, we will have the opportunity to examine that issue.

The Horticulture Export Authority has itself been very successful as a means of assisting the export of significant products of New Zealand. The one that surprised me when I was in the Bay of Plenty late last year was the avocado industry. We often consider ourselves to be importers of considerable quantities of avocados, particularly from Queensland. In fact, we export $28 million worth of avocados a year, and that is a rapidly expanding market. That crop is then controlled via the Horticulture Export Authority. I say that if it works there, then it is certainly worthy of consideration in respect of kiwifruit, if we are having a problem with that particular market.

It will be interesting for the select committee to see where opposition to this legislation comes from. Late last year, in November, I recall a visit from Mr Paul Morgan of the Federation of Māori Authorities. He said that if we support such legislation, we will make it more difficult for Māori kiwifruit exporters to do their own thing and to create wealth for themselves. Let us look at that argument as it is delivered to the select committee. I have little doubt that quite divergent views will be presented to us, and it will therefore be quite a challenging situation for the select committee to then arrive at a solution to the legislation presented to us by Damien O’Connor today.

In closing, I say that I look forward to the opportunity to work through this legislation. I take the opportunity of repeating how important horticulture is to New Zealand; its importance is often under-estimated by many, many New Zealanders. Again, I congratulate Zespri and the Kiwifruit Marketing Board on the success they have achieved over recent years in making kiwifruit a vibrant industry. It was not so many years ago that this industry was under extreme difficulty. As all New Zealanders I hope appreciate, we will improve our standard of living in this country substantially only if we can identify what we are good at producing and then make sure we satisfy overseas markets. We have learnt a lot in recent years about presenting to the overseas markets the fruit and other produce they want. It is no longer acceptable for us to tell overseas markets what they are going to get because of what we have to export. We have moved well past that.

Zespri has been part of that process. I congratulate it on the stunning effort it has made, as outlined in its annual report for last year, and look forward to another annual report, which must be just about due at the printers, to make sure that it is still doing its part to assist in raising the living standards of all New Zealanders.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): On behalf of United Future I rise to support this bill’s progression to the select committee. It is important to understand that this bill amends the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act in two ways. One suite of changes relates to the operation of the authority in general. As it stands, the Act allows quantitative restrictions to be imposed on the export of prescribed products. Although those provisions are not used, their continued existence in legislation is inconsistent with New Zealand’s international trade obligations.

Three other general amendments to the Act, suggested by the authority itself, are aimed at improving its administrative efficacy. There is a hearing process for Horticulture Export Authority decisions on export licence applications, and also where the authority believes, on reasonable grounds, that a licensed exporter has conducted export operations that prejudice the current product group’s export marketing strategy. However there is no provision for hearings to be held on other statutory decisions of the Horticulture Export Authority, so the bill will change that. The bill also allows costs to be awarded to all parties, in the case of any dispute under the Act, overriding the precedent set by the recent arbitrator who did not award costs to all parties. Finally, the current Act does not allow the Horticulture Export Authority to revoke redundant export licences, and therefore the register of exporters includes some redundant information. The bill tidies that up.

Beyond those changes to the general operation of the authority, the bill also contains specific amendments relating to the kiwifruit industry. It provides the kiwifruit industry with an option to coordinate the export of kiwifruit to Australia, through the Horticulture Export Authority. Kiwifruit exports to the rest of the world, except Australia, are managed by Zespri in a single-desk export regime. Here I would like to echo the comments made by the member who spoke previously to me, in congratulating Zespri on the fine work it has been doing in recent years. As a resident of Tauranga in the Bay of Plenty I welcome the transfer of Zespri’s head office to Mount Maunganui, where it will continue to make a significant impact on the economy of the Tauranga region.

The bill amends the definition of “product” under the Act to include a specific reference to “kiwifruit for export to Australia”, otherwise all kiwifruit exports could be prescribed, conflicting with the Kiwifruit Industry Restructuring Act and the Kiwifruit Export Regulations that regulate all exports, except those for Australian consumption. Since the Australian market for kiwifruit was deregulated in 1988 it has been swamped with low-quality kiwifruit coming from New Zealand, which has damaged the market. There is also a problem with the re-exporting of New Zealand kiwifruit from Australia to other countries, where it competes alongside high-quality Zespri product.

The industry considers that bringing kiwifruit exports to Australia within the Horticulture Export Authority framework will allow marketing to be coordinated and quality standards to be applied, leading to increased returns. The move will make it possible to limit or end illegal re-exporting, because exporters will be required in their export licences to comply with an agreed marketing strategy. Increasing returns from the Australian market will reduce the margin between this and higher-value Asian markets, thereby reducing the incentive for re-export.

The problem of re-exporting was highlighted by a recent Commerce Committee report that found that Zespri had withheld payments to 20 growers it suspected of illegally exporting fruit to Asia and the Middle East. This was the only recourse available to Zespri, in the absence of the solutions that this bill will provide. Zespri claimed that some exporters were sending fruit to Australia, which they were entitled to do, but were then involved in this fruit being sent to other countries, for example, Taiwan and China, where it competed on price with Zespri’s fruit. Only the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has the legal power to investigate suspected breaches of kiwifruit export regulations, and Zespri was acting outside its statutory authority in this instance. However, it was able to suspend payments because it has a monopoly on export, except to Australia. We are hopeful that this bill will ensure that Zespri is not forced to take those actions in the future.

However, it also has to be said that this problem has been around for some time. When the Government decided in 1989 not to include Australia in its kiwifruit regulations, because it was deemed to contravene the principles of closer economic relations, kiwifruit industry leaders were unhappy at the prospect of an open slather Australian market. The Chairman of the Kiwifruit Marketing Board, Paul Heywood, predicted that “grower returns from the Australian market are likely to be poor as a result of this decision, which is not in the long-term best interests of the industry.” The Managing Director of Fruitfed, Export, John Mangon, warned: “If the Australian market is flooded with fruit, exporters over there are quite likely to buy it cheap and fly it somewhere else.” Regrettably, those prophecies came to fruition. Low-quality New Zealand exports had a far-reaching effect on much better lines of New Zealand fruit on the same market, where sceptical buyers forced the price down. At this time Australian kiwifruit also began to appear on the market.

Things have not improved. In the 1999 Gazette trade standards for kiwifruit were revoked, and in the same year the Kiwifruit Export Regulations came into force to regulate all New Zealand kiwifruit exports, except exports to the unregulated Australian market. Because Australia is the only unregulated market for kiwifruit some growers and exporters tend to treat it as a dumping-ground for low-quality product, undermining the price, while returns from other export markets have increased over time. Declining quality has led to a downgrading of kiwifruit in supermarkets, with very little promotion, and the Australian consumers are therefore substituting other better-quality fruit for kiwifruit. Low returns in the Australian market encourage the illegal re-export of kiwifruit to Asia, damaging returns from New Zealand exports to these high-value markets. Zespri has estimated that this activity cost it $1.9 million in 2001 alone. Details of the volumes involved are difficult to obtain, given the re-export of product via Australia.

The key question that the select committee will need to grapple with is whether the Horticulture Export Authority is the most suitable mechanism for controlling kiwifruit exports to Australia. The authority serves horticultural product groups that do not have single-desk marketing. Its powers under the Act are minimal, since the spirit of the legislation is that it should be used to enable industries to succeed, not restrict them. The 1998 review of the Horticulture Export Authority resulted in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry receiving 203 submissions, with 85 percent of respondents supporting the authority’s retention.

If the bill is passed, kiwifruit exporters and growers would need to form a product group and apply to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade for an Order in Council to prescribe exports to Australia under the Act. The Minister must be satisfied that there is industry support for this application. The product group would then be responsible for developing its export marketing strategy, obtaining industry support for it, and submitting it to the Horticulture Export Authority for approval. The authority can then license exporters, allowing the industry to put standards in place, lift returns, and stop exports.

The advantages of working under the Horticulture Export Authority lie in the existing legislation, the authority’s independence, and the experience that exists within the authority. Industries are free to decide whether to use the Horticulture Export Authority and are free to withdraw. The select committee process should determine whether the kiwifruit industry is genuinely supportive of working under the authority.

The alternatives seem to be limited. For the Australian market there is no desire to replace the current multiple export environment with a modified single-desk system like Zespri. The industry could work together to maintain standards, but attempts to do this voluntarily have met with only limited success, partly because it is not enforceable without statutory backing. Our hope is that this is the best-available mechanism to ensure that growers exporting to Australia receive adequate return for quality product, and we shall be looking with interest to the return of this bill from the select committee, following the submission process.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): I will say at the outset that New Zealand First will support this legislation to the select committee, where we will listen to the debate with interest, and in particular hear what the select committee will do about the concerns that the Federation of Māori Authorities has regarding this bill, which they see as an attack on free enterprise or the free market. In particular, the federation sees this as disadvantaging Māori.

Hon Damien O'Connor: What do you reckon?

R DOUG WOOLERTON: I will tell the member what I reckon in a minute. We would like to hear what the select committee has to say on that, but before I go into that subject I would like to say that this industry, along with all the other producer boards, had the once-over heavily by the Hon John Luxton at the time of the review of the producer boards.

I was told by people close to the Federation of Māori Authorities that this industry wanted to be deregulated, that it wanted to go it alone into the free market, and do all those sorts of things. In fact, when the vote came this industry voted for a similar structure to that which the dairy industry opted for, which was to change the board and the other structures surrounding it into a corporate to be called Zespri, and it has continued more or less as a single seller since then. Therein lies the problem for some of the people, namely the Federation of Māori Authorities, which does not believe that that was the way it should go. But that was what the industry voted for. The industry went back to the Minister of Agriculture, and so it turned out to be, and that is what we have at this point in time.

If a corporate like that, with the backing of the industry, decides that it will set standards and a marketing strategy, and put value into its brand, it will insist that that value is retained by the selective choosing of products. In other words, only the highest-quality product will get through to the market. That situation is harmed enormously when some people use the one deregulated market in Australia to then export on to other markets, and therein lies the problem.

The legislation we are considering now, which we support going to the select committee, will be looking at whether that is the case, whether it is being used quite deliberately, and whether it is like the monkey with his hands over his eyes, ears, and other parts, saying, “I don’t want to see this evil, I don’t want to hear about this evil, and I don’t want to know about this evil”—let alone any other evils that the Greens might think up.

Hon David Carter: The Prostitution Reform Bill.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: We have an interjection from the numbers man in the National Party. I would have thought he had far more work to do in that corner than to spend time interjecting on my interesting speech.

We in New Zealand First believe that if the majority in an industry is intent on retaining a market sector and brand value, and on creating more money for New Zealand and New Zealanders, the majority should be backed. People who do not agree with that stance need to have a very good case, and we would be prepared to look at some alternatives that may progress the Federation of Māori Authorities’ desire to have a freer market. In order to have their ideas accepted, we think they should come up with some fairly entrepreneurial points of difference. However, we will look at that in the select committee. I look forward to this bill getting to that point, so that we can do business with it.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri): As a member of the Primary Production Committee, I rise to take a short call in support of this bill. This bill is about retaining the integrity and benefits of cooperation within the industry, rather than putting that sort of benefit at risk through a pure market model. The industry has come to the Government and Parliament, and asked for reforms—as have other industries, like the dairy and pipfruit industries. The Government and the select committee will listen to those submissions, but we would, obviously, like to get the job done as soon as possible, to signal to the industry that it must abide by the principles of the regulations, which state that all marketing should be cooperative and collaborative. It is about enabling the kiwifruit industry to retain its quality and its standards, maximise its benefits, and maintain its integrity. I support the bill on that basis.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ): This bill, as has been alluded to by other speakers, is about an export-marketing strategy—amongst a few other minor details—for exports to a country called Australia. I have a couple of rhetorical questions I would like to ask any member of the House. What happens if the strategy is wrong—and, indeed, what happens if it is wrong over a period of years? I ask members to cast their minds back to just a few short years ago when we had an organisation called ENZA, which was exporting New Zealand apple crops to the world, and was getting good prices for a time. But what happened? It got fat and lazy. It did not bother getting out there and doing the yards, doing the selling. The apple industry was absolutely brought to its knees.

I have another question for any other member in this House. What is the marketing strategy of Zespri, or the Kiwifruit Marketing Board, for New Zealand? At the Coal Creek dairy I can find exactly the sort of fruit that every other member in this House is complaining about. I can buy second-grade or third-grade fruit in Coal Creek, or in Alexandra, or in any other part of this country, yet the kiwifruit grower is not allowed to export that fruit to another country. That is absolutely nuts. I am sure that Mr Damien O’Connor will pick up on that, and will probably take a call, if he can, to explain to us why the kiwifruit industry does not have a first-rate marketing strategy for our own country.

R Doug Woolerton: It does—send the rubbish.

GERRARD ECKHOFF: It does—there we go. Again, I am slightly perplexed here. Why is it OK to sell second-grade or third-grade fruit to our own people, but not OK to export it to Australia?

I have another question for this House. If somebody decides to export a product to another country, I would presume that that person had been paid for the product; who then owns the product? If I sell kiwifruit to my colleague on the other side of the House, and he gives me some money for it, who then owns the kiwifruit? I say that any exporter who wants to sell a product to another country will lose the marketing rights once that product is sold. When I hear this nonsense about how we have driven the market down because there is second-grade fruit there, I think that I could probably take people to meet a few million Australians who are very happy to pay a lesser price, because that is what they can afford. But they still like kiwifruit. They still like to put it on top of their pavlovas, and they still like it for their early morning constitutionals—which is very important; that feature being one of the great attributes of kiwifruit. Why can we not export fruit of a lesser quality, to allow those who have a lesser income to enjoy the fruit? Why do we have to sell just the top-quality fruit to those people, and say: “If you can’t afford to buy our gold or green kiwifruit—tough! We’re not going to give you our slightly lesser grade fruit, which might be slightly misshapen, because Zespri says it does not like it.”

It might come as a surprise to members of this House to learn the basis on which we sell other products overseas, like our New Zealand wine. We sell New Zealand wine on the basis of quality and price. We have New Zealand wines side by side in shops in Australia, the UK, and throughout the world, and a buyer can come along and say: “Gosh, there’s a nice bottle of Cloudy Bay at $45 a bottle.”—or probably $85 a bottle in the case of that particular wine. Buyers could also buy a bottle of “Coal Creek Chateau Something-or-Other” for $15 or $100 a bottle. Our wine competes on price and quality. So why is kiwifruit so different? I am getting some sort of stunned silence here. I am asking some pretty fundamental questions, and I am not really getting any answers.

This bill is about a constraint on trade. I expect to hear from the Māori members on this. We have already heard Mr Woolerton speak of the Federation of Māori Authorities, which demands the right—as it should—to sell its own fruit, without having to get permission to do so from somebody in Wellington. Is that so wrong? What is so wrong about having the right to sell one’s own fruit wherever one wishes, if one can find a market?

I go back to ENZA. A few years ago the growers in Roxburgh complained because they had a bad year, when the fruit did not swell up. They said: “We’ve got small apples, and ENZA won’t take them. We’ve got to dump them or mulch them and feed them to the pigs.” An enterprising grower went to America, knocked on the door of one of the education boards over there, and said: “I’ve got these small apples. Is there a market in your school for them?”. Someone on the board said: “How many containers can you give us a week? Our children take one or two bites, then bung the apple out.”

So there is a market for everything. There is a market for second-grade wool for all sorts of purposes, including carpet. We do not have to sell first-quality products all the time, although we strive for that. Of course we want to hit the top, but any of us who have been in the production game know that there are such things as seconds, and that we cannot always achieve 100 percent quality, whether we are growing wool, beef, kiwifruit, or whatever.

I come back to the fundamental question: if we are to have some sort of hybrid single desk for this produce, why do we not have a similar thing for the meat industry as well? The answer is that we did, and it was an abject disaster. It cost the Government of the country at the time millions upon millions of dollars to bail the industry out. It did not work. So why do we not have a wool export authority? Well, we did, and we had massive stockpiles of wool that we could not sell. It cost the industry; it put that particular industry back years. Again, I come back to the principle behind this issue—that is, that an individual, an exporter, or whomever it might be must have the right to export his or her product. Can members imagine, for example, the massive wall of radiata that we have in New Zealand right now having a single export authority—a timber export authority? And why not have one for cheese as well, while we are about it?

What I am trying to put to the House and to listeners to the radio is that the fundamental right of every grower and manufacturer in this country should be to have the opportunity to export their product, whether it be first-grade or second-grade. If they so wish, they find the market. The issue is not about flooding markets with poor-quality fruit. One can do that only for so long before one goes broke. There is no question that New Zealand has a reputation for producing quality food, and I would demand that that reputation remains, but we must also recognise that we do have seconds, and that we can, and should, export those wherever people see fit.

I make the point that to date Zespri has been a great success. So was ENZA a few years ago. Nobody is suggesting, and I am certainly not suggesting, that Zespri should be abandoned, and the 83 percent of growers who wish to be within ENZA should disband—nothing like that at all. I am saying that the 17 percent of Māori authorities, the indigenous people, within that grouping who want to export their own fruit should not have to go cap in hand and present a marketing plan to ENZA or the Horticulture Export Authority. Again, I come back to a fundamental principle—the right of every manufacturer and every grower to sell their own product.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West): I certainly want to congratulate Damien O’Connor on the introduction of this bill. I believe that he, as a relatively new Associate Minister of Agriculture, is beginning to make his mark in that portfolio, and that he is doing a very good job. As the member for Hamilton West I want to commend him for his great work.

It is relevant that I reflect on a visit I made to Australia the other year, during which I spent time with my federal member friend, the member for Bendigo, Steve Gibbons. Bendigo is a large provincial city in the state of Victoria, where orchards and the fruit industry are quite important. He conveyed to me the significant grower sensitivity about any New Zealand fruit imports. I was aware of some of the sensitivities around biosecurity and other issues, not all of which I agreed with at the time.

I draw members’ attention to one aspect of New Zealand fruit exports to Australia, be they kiwifruit or any other type of fruit. The previous speaker said that if an exporter exports a poor-quality product, the exporter will eventually go broke and the market will somehow self-regulate. The reality is that if one has poor-quality fruit going to the state of Victoria, or anywhere else within the Commonwealth of Australia, we as a country will, in terms of our brand name, go down the tube. Quite frankly, the previous speaker’s contribution was, in my view—and with due respect to him; I am not questioning his sincerity for one moment—somewhat, in a fruity way, nutty. I commend this bill, and I commend it to the select committee.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green): I intend to take only a very brief call this afternoon. But I do want to take the time to say to the honourable member from “Upper Coal Creek”, Gerrard Eckhoff: “I told you so!”. It is very interesting how fashions come and go. All through the 1970s and the 1980s we had to deregulate. Every single-desk seller had got fat, lazy, and inefficient and so had to be deregulated. We have done that, and look at what happened to ENZA. Mr Eckhoff said that ENZA is a classic case. ENZA, of course, was corporatised—it actually became a corporate. That was the cause of its demise, not the fact that it was a single-desk seller.

We need to look at what is actually going on here. For years we have been told that the market would dictate prices, that inefficient growers would fall by the wayside, and that those remaining would live happily ever after in a prosperous nirvana. They would be safe in the bosom of the free market. Well, what has happened to these exporters to Australia? The prices have fallen by 24 percent over the last 2 years. At the same time, the regulated part of the same industry has had increases in prices over the last 2 years. It is interesting.

We Greens get dumped on a lot. We have consistently opposed deregulation and consistently supported single-desk sellers. Our reason for doing so is that we believe they provide better returns for growers. Our friends in National told us that we were wrong, and that we were just a bunch of long-haired, jandal-wearing, mung bean - munching potheads and dropouts—myself excluded, of course, except for the long hair. We have been told that we are wrong. But are we? What has happened in Australia with the kiwifruit is that a whole lot of people have been independently exporting to Australia, and the prices have dropped. We know all about the re-export to other countries. But what has happened in respect of kiwifruit going into the Australian market is that it has become a commodity.

We are told that commodities are great, that we live and die by commodity prices going up and down. But we do not often stop to think of what a commodity is. A commodity is simply something we grow or produce in this country that is identical in every way to an equivalent product grown or produced in any other country. When these products, which are identical to those from a whole range of countries, whether New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, Chile, the United States, or wherever, go on to the open market, and when the buyers, which are generally big international corporates or supermarket chains, have established that they are buying commodities—which members should remember are identical to each other—their sole criterion in making a purchase is price. If people are selling a commodity, then by definition they have to accept the lowest possible price for their product.

That is the problem with our deregulated industries. With Zespri we have a regulated industry that is showing a united front to all those commodity buyers in other parts of the world who are trying to undercut or play off individual exporters within New Zealand. It simply does not work.

Gerrard Eckhoff: What about stockpiles of wool?

IAN EWEN-STREET: That is perfectly true. I would not defend that kind of behaviour. It was unusual behaviour in the first place.

It is interesting to look at the prices that have happened in Australia. The price has gone from $2 a kilo in 1999 to $1.53. That is a 12 percent decline per year. That is extraordinary.

A further thing I want to mention just very briefly is the question about Māori growers. Other people have mentioned the Federation of Māori Authorities, which quite rightly said that it wished to retain the right to export its product independently to Australia. The majority of growers have voted to be reregulated. That is what this legislation about.

Gerrard Eckhoff: Who needs the tyranny of the majority!

IAN EWEN-STREET: Yes, the tyranny of the majority. The Māori authorities want to have something that is good for them. It does not happen to fit the ideology of the day, but it is clear to them that it is better for them. The Māori authorities are perhaps a special case. We could probably argue a special case for organics, as well. Maybe there is a reason they should be left out of the collective. They should have the right to export either independently or collectively.

Gerrard Eckhoff: Why?

IAN EWEN-STREET: They have qualitatively different product. It is the same with organics. We are not talking about the same product; we are decommodifying it. All the conventionally grown kiwifruit that is going into Australia are effectively the same. But if one has certified organic kiwifruit or indigenous-grower kiwifruit, then one has something that is different. It is a different market. It may look the same and taste the same, but it is a different market. We have to be very aware of that. The Māori authorities have a very good point. Is their right to export independently covered by their right to self-determination? That is a fairly interesting point. Does self-determination for Māori mean self-determination in exporting their product? It is a reasonable point to put.

I said that I would be brief, so I had better stop before the interjectors get too excited. I look forward to hearing the evidence, particularly of the Federation of Māori Authorities, in the select committee. I am happy to say that the Greens support the passage of this bill through to the select committee.

GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa): It is always a privilege to make a contribution to a first reading debate, and particularly on this bill. This is good, positive legislation that I know that people in my area of Wairarapa will be keenly interested in since we have a fruitgrowing industry in that area. Naturally, of course the bill is backed by the kiwifruit industry itself. This bill will be of interest not only to that industry, but also to all New Zealanders in the hope that we make better law for their better production.

SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country): I will start by saying that the National Party will support this legislation to the select committee. I congratulate the leadership of Zespri on going through the process in a thorough way and coming back to this Parliament with a recommendation for some change.

Jill Pettis: How’s the leadership going in the member’s party at the moment?

SHANE ARDERN: The member for Whanganui, of course, is an expert on kiwifruit and other land-based industries. I respond to her by saying that this has to be the most schizophrenic Government I have seen in the history of this country. One moment it is deregulating industries up and down the country, and the next moment it is suggesting in the House that in this case there needs to be further regulation. Which way is it? I guess the answer lies in listening to the previous speaker from the Green Party, Ian Ewen-Street. If ever there was a case for how to make money and become a millionaire, then people should have listened to the speech made by that Green member. I guess it explains why most Green members of Parliament are millionaires, when we listen to the logic behind the debate put forward by Mr Ian Ewen-Street, and how people can have a bob both ways and save face politically with their organic growers at the same time as they recommend further regulation, providing it does not include Māori or organics. A rort is only a rort if one is not part of it. The reality is that people should take note of that.

National supports this to the select committee. The New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act needs some amendment, and the Associate Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, explained the reason that that is necessary. Thirty percent of horticultural exports from this country, or something in the vicinity of $800 million, are kiwifruit. It is a dynamic industry, and it is an excellent fruit. Kiwifruit used to be known as Chinese gooseberries. I wonder whether anybody knew that? In typical Kiwi fashion, we identify an opportunity, rebrand it, find a way of marketing it, and do it well. That is what this industry has done, and it is doing it exceptionally well. I congratulate that industry on that.

The problem the industry has is that under its current regulatory frame with free exports into Australia, there are those who are using that to export what would be described as seconds, in most industries, into Australia, then on-exporting those through various structures into countries like China. The claim is that up to $300 million worth of export opportunity is being lost as a result of that. In fact, in one market alone it has been claimed that $3 million was chopped off the potential export opportunity of exporting a branded quality fruit called Zespri. For those reasons alone, the select committee is the right place for this legislation to go through a robust and close scrutiny process to come out at the other end with some solid recommendations for the Government to proceed with.

If the select committee comes out in favour of proceeding with the bill and strengthening regulation, then the Government will have some problems with Māori authorities. There is no question about that. Māori authorities up and down the country that have been involved in this industry have lobbied successive Governments over a long period of time saying: “We want the opportunity to export outside of the single desk. We don’t know why we should be constrained by this. We can’t understand the logic around this.” Of course, the industry itself runs the argument that the only way people can maintain good quality, accurate market records, and solid, reliable service to markets that take years, and millions of dollars, to build up is to export through a single authority.

There is the debate. There is the philosophical divide. I am pleased that in the Opposition we do not have to have a strong view on that at this point. The select committee is the correct place for that to happen. I know that under the very capable leadership of the Hon David Carter and, of course, aided and abetted by some of the luminaries on that committee such as the president of New Zealand First, my good colleague over here, and Ian Ewen-Street, I am sure this committee will get to the bottom of the issue that is before us.

The issue that Ian Ewen-Street touched on, of having concession for differential products, will need some investigation. There are a number of reasons that somebody might be able to develop a market for a certain product—and they do—but there may be some reasons that people are being constrained by the current regulatory framework, or the proposed regulatory framework.

I notice that the Minister over there on the Government benches is nodding his head; I am not sure whether that is in acceptance or in disbelief—and that is the place for that to be sorted out. The Horticulture Export Authority last year handled exports worth $170 million—not an insubstantial amount. The most notable area where it is involved, in terms of the regulatory framework that controls quality, is the avocado industry. That industry is growing and going well. A lot of people are moving from kiwifruit, in some of the areas where they have discovered that the fruit does not grow as well, into avocados. Clearly, that industry has a huge opportunity to be another growing export industry for this country, which is very important.

I know that the Government has very little affinity with most of these industries, simply because it does not understand them. There are probably about two people in the Government who have any idea how the commercial world works in that regard, and I hope the Government will give the select committee the time and resourcing, and allow submitters to come before the committee, because people who will submit to this committee, I am sure, will be people who have spent a lifetime studying the whys and wherefores of the various regulatory frameworks and markets, and who have spent millions of dollars in this industry developing what was a fledgling industry about 15 years ago to the industry it is today. They developed the kiwifruit, through genetics, to brands that are now world-known and unique to this part of the world, through the use of research and development and some of the excellent work that has gone in, in those areas.

I know that the chairman of Zespri in the company’s recent annual report, commented that the industry had enjoyed strong growth since the formation of the Zespri brand, and he is absolutely right. If members look at the figures they will see that they are overwhelmingly strong and the industry has returned a very, very good return to its shareholders.

So, having said that, I think that what needs to happen now is that this bill needs to go to the select committee. The select committee needs to be resourced in a way so that it can give this bill the due process it deserves. Representatives of the industry itself need to have time to come in and submit to that committee, and talk about the reasons they think the industry’s regulatory framework is necessary. The Horticulture Export Authority needs to be given an opportunity to talk about why it believes it is the best body to handle that. Those marketers who have markets they have developed in international arenas around the world need to be given the opportunity to tell the select committee why there is a vacuum in some of the special areas. If all that is allowed to happen—and I trust that the Government will allow that to happen—we will end up with a thorough piece of legislation at the end.

JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui): I am pleased to support this bill, and to speak to it briefly. Once again, the most helpful thing we can do for the industry is to get this legislation to the select committee so we can improve the situation for the industry. I repeat that this bill is in front of the House at the request of the kiwifruit industry. Their representatives have brought to the Government’s attention the concerns they have with the export of kiwifruit to Australia, following the deregulation of that market in 1998. The issue that became of concern was the low quality of some of the kiwifruit going on to that market, which was impacting upon our very good reputation here in New Zealand as kiwifruit producers and exporters.

This is a good bill. As I said before, it was drafted in consultation with the industry itself, and is certainly not imposing things upon it that it does not wish to occur. We look forward to the bill’s rapid passage through Parliament, and its return to the House for its third reading in as quick a time as possible.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.

Ayes 109

Noes 8

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Primary Production Committee.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

ACT New Zealand 8.

Bills

Corrections Bill

First Reading

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Acting Minister of Corrections): I move, That the Corrections Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee. This measure is a major reform of the law governing the operations of the corrections system. Reform is needed for four main reasons. First, the legislation needs to reflect modern conditions and practices. The Penal Institutions Act envisaged prisons as small units under the control of the superintendent, who was charged with the administration of the prisons as well as having the responsibility for the welfare of inmates. That was realistic in 1954, when Mount Eden was the only prison to have over 200 inmates, but prisons are now much larger. For example, Waikeria has over 800 inmates.

Secondly, the law governing the administration of the corrections systems needs to be compatible, in its philosophy as well as in its specific provisions, with the recently enacted Sentencing Act and Parole Act. That legislation includes reference to such key considerations as protecting the community, providing for the interests of victims, and assisting the offender’s rehabilitation and reintegration. By contrast, current corrections legislation is silent on the principles that should guide the administration of sentences and parole orders. Thirdly, the bill is also needed to support the Department of Corrections’ new approach to the assessment and management of offenders, which is aimed at improving community safety. A set of assessment instruments has been developed so that efforts to rehabilitate offenders are better targeted at those who pose a serious risk to the community, and those who are most likely to benefit from interventions. The legal framework should support this system. Finally, the bill is needed because many incremental changes over the years have made the Penal Institutions Act complex and difficult to follow.

This bill has been developed over 3 years, and includes a substantial public consultation exercise. I would like to thank many people involved in that exercise. I also acknowledge the former Minister of Corrections, the Hon Matt Robson, and the current Minister, the Hon Mark Gosche, for their contributions to the bill’s development.

The bill makes some important changes to corrections legislation, and I would like to examine these briefly. For the first time there are legislative statements of the purpose of the corrections system, and the principles that guide the operation of the system. In summary, the purpose is to contribute to the maintenance of a safe and just society by ensuring compliance with sentences and orders, assisting in the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, and providing information to the courts and the New Zealand Parole Board.

A number of operating principles are set out. The first two are that the maintenance of public safety is a paramount consideration in decisions about the management of offenders, and that victims’ interests must be considered in such decisions. There is also a strong emphasis on effective rehabilitation and reintegration. The bill makes no provision for privately managed prisons beyond 12 July 2005—the expiry date of the contract with the Australasian Correctional Management Pty Ltd for the management of the Auckland Central Remand Prison. That reflects this Government’s view that the management of prisons is a core activity of the State, including the use of highly coercive powers against individuals, and that it is inappropriate for private sector organisations to exercise such powers.

The remand prison is owned by the Department of Corrections, and, after 2005, will continue to operate much as it does now, but under departmental management. The department’s chief executive will have the legal custody of all prisoners, except any who may be held in police jails. This is administratively simpler than the current arrangements, whereby prisoners are in the legal custody of the prison superintendent. It also reinforces the point that the chief executive is accountable for ensuring the safe, secure, and humane containment of prisoners throughout the country. Consistent with the department’s approach to offender management, the bill also requires individual management plans to be devised for prisoners and for rehabilitative programmes to be provided within the available resources to prisoners who will benefit from such programmes.

A number of provisions currently in regulations are elevated into primary legislation by the bill, including prisoners’ minimum entitlements. These entitlements are extended to cover access to news, library services, and education. In this regard, New Zealand law will better reflect international standards, particularly the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

The bill also expands on the internal complaints system to cover community work centres and probation officers, not just prisons. The role of the inspectors to resolve complaints is similarly expanded to cover offenders who are, or have been, on community-based sentences or orders, and not just prisoners.

The detection of drugs and other unauthorised items will be assisted by this bill, which includes changes to search provisions. An enhanced strip-searching procedure is to be used when there is reason to believe that a prisoner is concealing contraband. The bill also clarifies that staff members are themselves liable to be searched. In one area, search powers will be reduced by this bill. A Court of Appeal ruling in mid-2002 held that corrections officers have the power to strip-search visitors to prisons under section 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. This power is not currently being used, and is considered to be excessive. Instead, where a strip search under the Misuse of Drugs Act is necessary, corrections officers will be empowered to detain the visitor for a reasonable period, while the police are called.

Provision is made in the legislation for regulations approving the use of non-lethal weapons. However, this will be done only if the Minister is satisfied that their use is compatible with the humane treatment of prisoners, and the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks. This approach safeguards against the introduction of weapons that are unsafe or inhumane. By contrast, current legislation is inconsistent. On the one hand, there is a complete ban on such types of non-lethal weapons—namely, tear gas, and substances designed to disable temporarily. On the other, there is no restriction on the use of other types of non-lethal weapons, such as batons, though in practice batons are used only in very restricted circumstances.

There are substantial revisions to the prison disciplinary offence regime in this bill, including provision for legal representation in certain cases, and internal disciplinary hearings. There is also a significant change regarding the appointment of visiting justices, who hear appeals and the more serious and complex disciplinary cases. The existing provision for the Minister of Corrections to appoint JPs as visiting justices is replaced by a provision for the Minister of Justice to appoint barristers and solicitors to this role. Visiting justices hear appeals that may turn on complex legal issues, and it is therefore appropriate that this role be undertaken by senior lawyers, with relevant skills and experience.

Finally, I signal two areas in which amendments to the bill will be needed to reflect policy that is still under development. The first is to improve the sharing of information. I shortly intend to seek Cabinet approval for a proposal to allow a greater range of information to be shared between the Department of Corrections and Police. This would enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to more effectively manage the risk to the public posed by high-risk offenders, including child-sex offenders who have been released from prison. Consideration has also been given to an information-matching agreement with the New Zealand Immigration Service, which would assist in the identification and management of prisoners who will be deported at the end of their sentence.

The second area in which amendments to the bill will be needed is to reduce the use of cellphones by prisoners to intimidate people, organise escapes, and plan crimes. Officials are looking at the feasibility of jamming cellphone transmission in prisons as a means to prevent such activities.

Overall, I consider this bill will provide a sound legislative framework for the corrections system, well into the 21st century. I therefore commend the bill to the House.

Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty): The National Party in Opposition strongly opposes the Corrections Bill. We describe it as “Labour ideology meets bureaucratic envy”. The ideology leg of the double is Margaret Wilson and the other spa-pool liberals in Cabinet, who do not believe that private enterprise should be involved in managing prisons; the bureaucratic-envy leg of the double is that the Government does not want private prisons showing up the inadequacies of the public prison service. The fact is the public prisons are failing in every benchmark that we would expect of a sensible prison service; and when the Parliament finds out about certain matters happening in Hawke’s Bay in the last 24 hours, that will be even more evidence of a prison system that is in complete failure.

The worst feature of this bill is that the Government plans to cancel the private management of prisons in New Zealand, and it simply does not make sense. The Auckland Central Remand Prison, the only private prison we have in New Zealand, is better than the public service on price, quality, assessment, violence, and cultural grounds. I would like to go through those issues to highlight to the Parliament why it is just not common sense to support the abolition of private prisons in New Zealand.

Right now the private prison in Auckland has 300 inmates, and that costs an average of $43,000 a year per inmate at that prison.

Jill Pettis: How much?

Hon TONY RYALL: It is $43,000. This compares with equivalent prisoners in the public sector at a cost of $72,000 per prisoner. So it is $43,000 in the private prison and $72,000 in the public prison. The cost of the average prisoner in the public service is $54,000 a year on average. So it is cheaper in the private prison. The private prison requires only about 70 corrections staff for the 300 prisoners. The union code that this Government has negotiated would require 150 prison officers for an equivalent prison population.

On Radio New Zealand last month the Minister of Corrections misled the country when she said these costing comparisons were invalid because the private prison dealt only with prisoners of low security. That was not true. We believe that the Minister has been advised that that was not true. The remand prison deals with some of the most dangerous prisoners that the prison service deals with. In fact, it is high-security prisoners who dominate in the remand prison sentence, and what we are saying is it is $43,000 in the private prison and $72,000 in the public prison. It does not make sense on price.

Let us look at the issue of quality. What we know is that there is a huge requirement on the private prison service to meet a whole lot of benchmarks. Every quarter they must file with the Department of Corrections a benchmark report, a couple of inches thick, of comparative figures on the performance of the prison. What we know is that the private prisons perform better when it comes to assessing an inmate on arrival. They provide higher-quality psychological services. We know that more education and rehabilitation is being delivered per hour per prisoner in the private prisons. We know that Māori are much happier with the performance of the private prison than they are with the public prison service, and I think the Government will be hearing a lot from Māori on this bill. We know there are fewer incidents of self-harm in the private prison, and less violence.

So on all the benchmarks that we would expect of a prison, the private prison service is better than the public prison service, not only on price but also on quality, violence, assessment, and cultural grounds. In fact, the public prison service and its leadership are so regarded by the public prisons that the Government has been trying to recruit the chief executive of the private prison in Auckland to be on the Ngawha prison project management team. It then said that once that prison is built it wants those staff to mentor the manager of the Ngawha prison, then move on to be on the project team of the next public prison.

The Government is trying to poach the people who run the private prison system, to run its own system. The private prison system is so bad that the Government wants the guy who runs the private prison to run some of the public prisons! It is just ideology meets bureaucratic envy. The Government does not want private enterprise involved. It talks about public-private partnerships on the roads. Internationally, public-private partnerships have worked most effectively on the roads and in the prison system. The Government says that it wants those public-private partnerships on the roads, but it is not prepared to have them when it comes to the prison service.

What is more, there is bureaucratic envy. The Department of Corrections fails in comparison with the Australian-run private prison, time and time again. That prison, the Auckland Central Remand Prison, is run by a Māori guy with a strong history in the prison service. He brings a different corporate culture, a different style of running the prison. The public service admires him so much that the Government has been trying to poach him to go and work in the public prison service.

The National Party says this bill is wrong because it stops the opportunity to expand the use of private prisons in New Zealand. National appeals to the other parties to realise that it is just not common sense to do away with what is working, when in fact the Government wants to do away with it only because of ideology and because the failing Department of Corrections is embarrassed by what is going on.

We simply do not believe that the Department of Corrections should be subject to new legislation at this stage. We believe that the Department of Corrections should be subject to an independent commission of inquiry into its own performance. It is a department that paroles killers to live next door to the sisters of their victims. It is a department that failed to advise a young woman who was sexually molested by a member of her family that that molester was actually being paroled to the community in which she lives. It is a department that fails to enforce the sentences that the courts hand down. It is a department that has lost control of its staff. It is a department that is being completely mismanaged. The Department of Corrections is a department that can take a $40 million prison-building project and turn it into a $132 million prison-building project. So the National Party is strongly opposed to the Corrections Bill. We will be waging a strong campaign up and down the country because it simply does not make sense to pursue ideology in this way.

In the other areas of this bill, which my colleagues the Hon Nick Smith and Judith Collins will talk about, it is clear that this bill is overly prescriptive and overly bureaucratic. We oppose the extension of prisoners’ rights. We think they are privileges that should not become litigious in terms of being enshrined by Parliament. We oppose the inclusion of the integrated offender management system in legislation. We think that that will lead to further litigation and cost by prisoners, and we are most strongly opposed to the ideologically driven bureaucratic envy that is halting the use of private prisons in New Zealand. If public-private partnerships are good enough for our nation’s roads, they are good enough for our nation’s prisons.

We know that that Auckland prison has—[Interruption] When Mr Robson was the Minister of Corrections he went to the private prisons and praised them for what they were doing. He told them they were doing great. If they are doing great, why does the Government want to stop the private prisons? It is only to do with ideology. The National Party is strongly opposed to this bill.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): United Future supports this bill going to the select committee, but we do have grave concerns, and we will outline them a little later. We commend the Government for undertaking the decisions to upgrade and reform the legal framework of the corrections system. It is advantageous to bring legislation regarding corrections under one bill.

The Penal Institutions Act and the Criminal Justice Act have both had to incur many incremental changes in the last 49 and 18 years respectively. Current legislation is not user-friendly and struggles to allow for an effective management team. It is timely to look at this legislation and make changes that allow for modern policy, security, treatment, management, and administration. New Zealand has changed since the 1950s, when the Penal Institutions Act was enacted to govern the prison system. We now govern a much larger group of inmates. We aim to control the entry of different drugs. The more familiar drug, marijuana, amongst others, has now been joined by methamphetamine, which is easy to smuggle.

In 2001, about 2,800 inmates tested positive for cannabis, and we need to address that and any other drug abuse before our ideas on drug and alcohol treatments can have any real success. We have to draw a line when, for example, children are used to bring drugs and needles into prisons. We need to consider the implications of needles that are shared amongst inmates entering our prisons and leading to blood-borne viruses. We need to act on statistics that show that the number of random drug tests returning positive results rose again in the year 2001-02. We need to be able to stop unauthorised objects, such as mobile phones and weapons, from entering our prisons. But to combat that we will need to have different security measures and new surveillance capabilities. These need to be incorporated into legislation to provide for better tools to combat the problems within our corrections system.

As well as incorporating practical changes into the corrections system, there are also new philosophies that guide our policies. We need to legislate these changes to ensure that custodial, community-based sentences, and rehabilitative interventions are instituted effectively. New ideologies are ineffective if they are not accorded appropriate levels of resources or commitment.

The motivation to align this bill with the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act is also important. Although it is known that United Future has serious reservations about those new Acts, we do still consider it necessary to have legislation working in a complementary fashion and as effectively as possible. But United Future will find it more effective to deal with fewer pieces of legislation when pushing for changes regarding law and order. We think that the provision for a purpose and principle clause in this bill will help align the corrections system to a more modern framework, and we look forward to discussions at the select committee to ensure that this will be achieved.

United Future is very keen to see effective management of the corrections system. Much of this bill is concerned with the policy, rules, and responsibilities for management, including the chief executive of the Department of Corrections taking legal responsibility for all inmates in New Zealand. It is crucial to have submissions and discussions about how these roles have been delineated in the bill, and to discuss the responsibilities that they have been given.

With repeat offending and recidivism levels so high in New Zealand—up to 87 percent within 5 years—we are interested in the level of individual management, rehabilitation, integrated programmes, and assessment that will be available to inmates. We expect this bill will be contentious. The treatment of people involved in the corrections system, including all levels of staff and the inmates, needs to be considered. We expect deliberation on the rights of inmates, balanced by the need for effective procedures. We look forward to arguments being put forward both for and against the new search, seizure, and detainment powers. We are already aware of staff who will find their inclusion in search and seizure protocols a welcome relief from threats and coercion from inmates. It is not wrong to have search and seizure procedures. Inmates are, after all, in prison for a crime. They are not meant to be enjoying the pleasures of freedom. Their crimes have seen to that. And visitors should accept that they have nothing to fear if they are not acting against the law. But the need is definitely there.

In December 2002 a search of 355 visitors in Christchurch Prison resulted in the seizure of cannabis leaf and oil, amphetamine drug utensils, ammunition, and knives; in Waikeria Prison in December 2002, 700 pseudoephedrine tablets were located in the vehicle of a visitor. However, United Future, at the outset of this bill, has reservations about the proposal to involve police in visitor searches. It seems the Government is overlooking the fact that we are already experiencing staff shortages, particularly in Auckland, and that increasing the duties of police is not really a viable option, not to mention the practicalities of where these visitors will be held, in cells, with their kids—and what practical accommodation will be provided?

United Future has no problem with the intent, purpose, and scope of this bill, excepting in one very important area. Although supporting this bill to select committee, we strongly object to the proposal to end and remove the ability to contract out prison management. We have heard that before, and this will be a very grave stumbling block to our future approval. We believe that private-public management of prisons requires further deliberation.

We also consider that this bill will help support a private-public contracting agreement as it is outlined in detailed, very focused policies, roles, and responsibilities. The private-State mix in the running of our prisons is important in that each can keep the other honest, particularly in terms of innovation, cost efficiency, accountability, transparency, and progress. I hope Labour takes note of those, because if the privacy of prisons is not addressed to the satisfaction of United Future, we cannot support this bill. We would like to stress that if contracting is not adequately addressed in the select committee, support for this bill beyond the first reading will definitely not be assured from United Future. With that one major reservation, United Future supports the bill to the select committee.

EDWIN PERRY (NZ First): New Zealand First will support this bill to the select committee, and will watch it very carefully as it makes its way through there. There are some concerns, though, with regard to the bill. The background to this bill, to do with the corrections system, has changed markedly since the current Act was passed in 1954. Obviously there may need to be some changes to the legislation, but my concerns are that we are currently building three more prisons, and I want to ask Labour members whom those prisons are for. That is my concern. Who will be going into those prisons, and how much will it cost?

Hon Dover Samuels: Full of Māori.

EDWIN PERRY: Yes, the prisoners are all Māori; it is exactly as the member has just said. That is dead right. I have some concerns about that because 53 percent of Māori males, on a population basis, do house themselves in the prisons. So I have some real concerns about this particular area.

Much of the bill deals with the operations of the prisons. Yes, that is questionable, too. In respect of how some of the prisons are run, my informants tell me that the prisoners have more rights than the officers, so I have some questions to be answered about that.

I also wish to discuss the purpose and principles of the corrections system. Clause 5(1)(c) states that one purpose of the corrections system is to provide “information on offenders to the courts and to the New Zealand Parole Board to assist them in decision-making.” Prior to Christmas, 500 prisoners at risk of re-offending were released. Were we informed about that? No. So there is an example of prisoners who had committed crimes being released—prisoners we would have had to keep our eye on. Some of them have committed crimes since being released, and their names have been noted quite clearly in the newspapers recently.

I want to come back now to the cultural background and language of offenders. My informants tell me that some of the Māori programmes that have been run in some of our prisons are not working for the betterment of the Māori people involved. The laugh is that some of the Māori prisoners attending those classes get paid $2 for attending, and, quite frankly, some of them are going there just to collect the $2. Another thing is that tikanga is being taken into the prisons and a service is being provided in the prison by a marae that sits outside the prison. I believe that tikanga and cultural aspects are a matter of mana, and some of the things being taught should stay outside the prison. I know for a fact, too, that some Māori prisoners are under so much stress, from having different cultural aspects of their kawa forced on them, that some of them have entered mental institutions. I have some personal experience of that, involving my cousin, whom I will not name in this House, obviously. The information is available, if somebody wants to contact me about that.

Clause 6(1)(e) states: “the corrections system must ensure the fair treatment of prisoners, and offenders who are subject to community-based sentences, released on home detention, or released on conditions under the Parole Act 2002 or the Sentencing Act 2002,”. We will be watching that area very carefully as the bill goes through the select committee. I sit on the Law and Order Committee, with other members of the Opposition and the Government.

Another area that interests me is paragraph (g) in clause 6(1), which states: “offenders must, so far as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances within the resource available, be given access to activities that may contribute to their rehabilitation and reintegration into the community”. I do not think we go far enough in doing that, and I do not think the programmes that are available within the prisons allow prisoners, when they come out, to move to a feeling of confidence and self-worth, or a feeling of their mana. I believe that the polytechs could play a very important role, in that regard. Prisoners could enter into a training programme while in prison, and, if they are released before the programme finishes, they could gain creditable certification by going on to polytech to finish their training programme. That would endow them, as I said before, with the mana, the experience, and the training to enable them to move into programmes.

Clause 6(1)(h) states that “contact between prisoners and their families must be encouraged and supported”. I must say that that area is very close to my heart. I went to a prison recently to visit one of my cousins; it was the first time I had been into a prison to visit someone. I tell members something that really hurt me. I saw a Māori chap who was in prison come out to meet his family. His wife arrived—whether it was his wife or his partner I do not really care; I believe it was a whānau group. The father appeared from the door that prisoners come through for visits, and the two little children who were with the wife, the two little tamariki, raced up to their father and grabbed him round the legs. They held on to him and called out “Dad, Dad, Dad”. Quite frankly it really upset me to see that sort of thing going on. It just seemed to be a way of life for that family to enter the prison to say good morning to Dad. It really upset me to see that happen.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: And rightly so.

EDWIN PERRY: I thank the National member for that.

I want to talk about clause 69, which deals with prisoners’ minimal entitlements. I know prisoners have to have some entitlements, but at the end of the day those people are better looked after than our returned servicemen and women, who, at one stage, did not have any accommodation and were just about kicked out of their building in Levin. Our old people do not have the entitlements that prisoners have.

Jill Pettis: Oh, don’t be so simplistic.

EDWIN PERRY: Oh, the member for Whanganui can go on, too.

Hon Trevor Mallard: At least someone elected her.

EDWIN PERRY: That is fine; I do not have a problem with that. I have the same opportunity as her, while I am here, to state my view.

Clause 69 also mentions physical exercise. This is what prisoners get: physical exercise, bed and bedding, food and drink, and access to private visitors. That is fine. I do not have a problem with that. I do not have a problem with allowing access to their family, not at all. They also get access to legal advisers.

Judith Collins: Elderly people should have access to legal advice.

EDWIN PERRY: Exactly. Our old people should have access to legal advisers if they cannot afford one. Prisoners have an entitlement to receive medical treatment. Why cannot old people have free medical care if the Government gives it to these people? Certainly the elderly may need that. Other minimum entitlements are to send and receive mail, and to make outgoing telephone calls. What a wonderful place prison is to be! I do not have a problem with information and education, either. I believe that is what those people need in order to be rehabilitated into the community. [Interruption] Something is buzzing over there. I must be doing something, as a new member.

In relation to drug searches, my informant informs me that children under the age for being searched are being used as couriers to take drugs into prisons. It is a real concern that little children and babies are being used as couriers to take drugs into prisons.

Jill Pettis: What populist crap!

EDWIN PERRY: Is that right? If Jill Pettis wants to organise a meeting with me I will welcome a visit from her, and I will inform her of whom that person is and where those drugs are going.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I really think that the remark made by the member was grossly out of order, and that she should be asked to withdraw and apologise. I am sorry to interrupt the member’s speech.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to stand and withdraw and apologise.

Jill Pettis: I withdraw and apologise.

EDWIN PERRY: The member’s body language tells me a lot. Thank you. New Zealand First does support this bill going to a select committee. Obviously, with Mr Ryall on that committee, he and other members will be watching the matter very carefully.

Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive): I am surprised that on a subject like that of this bill there are not more members here in the Chamber. The reason I am surprised is that I have found that every one of the 120 members of this House is an absolute expert on prisons. Yet, as the former Minister responsible for prisons, I found that there were very few members who had actually visited prisons, and for some of those who had, it was a very fleeting visit rather than an in-depth one.

The corrections system in New Zealand can take a lot of criticism. There were a lot of things to change. It was only 10 years ago, at te Mangaroa Prison in Hawke’s Bay, that savage beatings were handed out to inmates—inmates whom I would quickly say had no sympathy from the New Zealand population, because they had carried out some terrible crimes. But the beatings were carried out by staff. That happened about 10 years ago. There was never a thorough investigation of what happened there, and it took a long time to clean that prison up. Recently, as I am sure Mr Mark will bring to our attention, at Christchurch Prison a group was set up to enforce security. It was popularly known as the goon squad. That was an inappropriate use of security in a prison, and the group was disbanded. There are many, many examples that could be brought up in the prison system of matters where change is needed.

But the most important aspect of the bill is that it attempts—in fact, I think it more than attempts; I think it succeeds—to reflect the positive changes that have been made in the New Zealand corrections system, to my knowledge making it one of the leading corrections departments in the world. It has taken some time to get through to members of this House and to the public that the changes being carried out are aimed at reducing reoffending. That means that inside a prison the first task is to know whom we are dealing with, how we can make changes, and how we can make those changes be of a long-term nature. It is very clear that we need standards in our prisons. One of the difficulties with private prisons, and there has been some discussion on that, is that in a prison system one can get a number of different standards. So the part of the bill that ends the contracting-out of prisons to allow for private prisons is not a shutting down. That measure will ensure that we have a similar standard throughout our prisons. The challenge is to make that standard a very high one.

It has been pointed out that in my time as a Minister I praised the private prison that exists at Mount Eden. I did praise it. I was very impressed with the programmes that it ran, and with the professionalism of those involved. I said that to the staff, and I said it publicly. At the same time, I said it would be the Government’s policy that private prisons would come to an end when that contract ended, and I gave my reasons for that decision. I gave the reason that the most important aspect of a prison system is to reflect the fact that taking somebody’s liberty is a duty of the State. It is a very, very onerous step to take away the liberty of the citizens of any country, and therefore when we do that we need to make sure that all the safeguards are there. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the Labour-Progressive Coalition Government, that safeguard is guaranteed by ensuring that the State is the custodian of prisoners. But I praised the prison at Mount Eden because the corrections system needs to look for the highest standards. The majority of those working in the private remand prison at Mount Eden were trained in public prison systems throughout the world, and in New Zealand and Australia in particular, and they have given a good shake-up to many of the methods that can, and should, be used.

But parallel to that process has been the shake-up that has been going on throughout the corrections system in New Zealand. This bill reflects the fact that in 1954 we had 200 inmates at Mount Eden Prison and, I think, at a maximum, 800 prisoners throughout the country. We now have 6,000 people in corrections institutions and about another 20,000 people on probation, in periodic detention, etc. So there is a large number of people within the corrections system. The bill now encompasses those changes and the changes that have been made in order to allow our prisons to get at the core of offending.

One thing that the bill also does is to reflect the new method in prisons of integrated offender management. Integrated offender management is a triumph of the resolve of those people in the corrections system who are determined not just to handle people in prison as those who should just be warehoused but to be able to undertake the changes necessary to return them, as humanly as possible, safely to the community. If members read the bill carefully, they will see that public safety is a paramount principle within the bill. As well as that, in the final analysis public safety, which is the aim of the prison system, can be ensured only if inside a prison system we have both the resources to carry out the programmes that are necessary and also the structure to make sure that those programmes are in the best interests of the community and the inmates, and, therefore, ultimately of victims.

Victims are another important aspect of this bill. It takes into account the interests of victims, and that is a growing part of New Zealand’s justice system—making sure that we incorporate what happens to people who are the victims of offending. In the Sentencing Act and in the Parole Act, the aspects of both the victim and the need to change the offender are central parts of what we are doing.

If there is one amendment that I consider we should make to this bill, it would be to strengthen the provisions to ensure that we take account of restorative justice practices and processes. Restorative justice is a growing phenomenon in New Zealand, with communities taking big steps towards being involved in the processes where there has been offending, and towards making sure that communities are part of the solution to offending, and our New Zealand prisons are not left behind in that.

In the Hawke’s Bay prison we have the Sycamore Project, which I am sure a number of members have visited. It brings victims and offenders together—not necessarily the same victim for the particular offender, but offenders face up to what they do to victims. It is a project that has had the enthusiasm of dedicated people, both in terms of those who are corrections staff and those who are part of community organisations. I believe this bill should reflect that process and enable us to go forward.

Another part of the prison system that is crucial to making sure that the goal of avoiding reoffending is reached is recognition of what we do with the large number of Māori in prison. Mr Perry spoke about that. I would be the first to say that at this stage what we are doing is still inadequate. But recognition should be given to the steps that have been taken to make sure that when Māori come into prison we ensure that the best programmes possible, in terms of recognising who they are and how they can change, are put into place. This bill has updated provisions that will make sure that the legislation reflects the prison system as it is today, and not as it was in 1954, and that will underpin the forward movement for the Māori programmes.

The Māori focus units in New Zealand, by the dedication of those who have serviced them—both the corrections staff and the Māori from the community—are a shining light in our prison system. They have got to the core of offending. Before, programmes had integrated offender management—which I have praised, and which should be enhanced by this bill. The Māori focus units have taken the concept that we take a person from where he or she is, by looking at the person’s background and the inherent values that person is entitled to have, and strengthening and working on those. It is nothing less than a simple recognition that offending by Māori is offending against Māori, as well.

This bill is not the end of what we need to do in terms of our prison statistics, which are far from satisfactory. But it is a big step along the way. The bill will give our corrections staff—I say here quite publicly, they are the unsung heroes of New Zealand’s fight against offending, in the main—a tool that will allow them to put in place the best practices that we should have in a modern New Zealand prison system.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): The Green Party is supporting this bill through the first reading, to the select committee. We are supporting it with mixed feelings. We think it does do a number of useful things. It consolidates, clarifies, and updates the legislation, in particular in relation to integrated offender management, which the Hon Matt Robson has referred to in the previous speech. But we believe that it also does have some aspects that need careful scrutiny, and we are looking forward to finding a way to participate at the select committee. The Greens do not have a member on the Law and Order Committee, but we will be looking to participate on that committee in going through the careful scrutiny of this bill that is required.

I have been looking at the Bills Digest on the bill. I saw it discusses the purposes and principles of the bill, and the purpose of the corrections system. It sets out a number of purposes, including ensuring that the community-based and custodial sentences that are imposed are administered in a safe, secure, humane, and effective manner. I do not think any of us could disagree with any of those objectives. It also mentions assisting in the rehabilitation of offenders and reintegrating them into the community, so far as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances. That does bring me to think about the Roper report, which was written some time ago now, and about some of the very useful recommendations in that report, in particular in relation to habilitation centres.

I have raised with justice officials at the Justice and Electoral Committee a number of times the issue of why there is such little support for habilitation centres in this country. I have been told that there are only a few actual habilitation centres, but that many of the principles of habilitation are being applied in all kinds of ways. I do not find that answer satisfactory. I do not see the kind of support for released inmates that I would expect to be provided through habilitation centres in place for many inmates. When I think of the few habilitation centres that do exist I am thinking, for example, of Te Ihi Tu Trust in Taranaki, which has done some very good work with released inmates, or inmates at the completion of their sentences, showing very good results in reducing offending among them. But, as with many of those kinds of community organisations, it constantly struggles for money and support. We should be looking at how we can provide more support to some of those organisations that do such valuable work in the community.

I am also aware of the representations from many community organisations to me, as justice spokesperson for the Greens, that refer to the lack of support for released inmates and inmates who are coming out of prison. There are some emergency benefits available, but often they are difficult to obtain, and inmates are basically left to their own devices, in many circumstances, after they are released from prison. If we are serious about wanting to stop reoffending, we have to carefully address that. The reintegration of former inmates into the community is extremely important, and for people who may have been institutionalised by spending possibly years in prison, it is crucial that we look at ways to ensure they are able to exist peacefully, non-violently, and lawfully in the community.

The digest goes on to refer to other principles of the bill. The maintenance of public safety is the paramount consideration, and that is as it should be. Also, the victims’ interests must be considered, and another principle is to reduce the risk of reoffending by taking into account the cultural background, ethnic identity, and language of offenders in decisions related to their management. That is all common-sense stuff. Offender’s families are to be engaged in decision making; that seems common sense to me. Another principle is that there should be fair treatment of prisoners and offenders.

The digest then goes on mention that sentences and orders must not be administered more restrictively than is reasonably necessary. I am not sure what the bill has to say about the incarceration of people with disabilities, in particular, but I can talk from my experience as an advocate for at least one wheelchair-bound person who has been imprisoned about the quite abysmal treatment of that person. That was not through any callousness towards or disregard of that person by prison staff, but simply through the lack of facilities for people with serious disabilities. One of the things we do need to look at in this bill is what it states about people with disabilities, and how can we ensure that people with disabilities do not have their basic rights abused simply because of the lack of facilities available for them in prison.

The digest states that offenders are to be given access to activities in the community that may contribute to their rehabilitation and reintegration, and it also, finally, in the clause about principles, states that contact between prisoners and their families must be encouraged and supported. That is again an extremely important aspect of the prison system. If I look at what has happened over the last few years—much as I respect the Hon Matt Robson’s work over many years on prison reform and some of those issues—I see that some of the things that happened under his ministerial leadership were, in my opinion, sadly lacking. In particular, in the regulations governing prison visits we now have a system that is regulation bound, extremely bureaucratic, time consuming, and takes an inordinate amount of forward planning, which is often not appropriate in the circumstances. It is now impossible for a person to just say he or she will go and visit a cousin or sibling in prison, to see how he or she are going. Now people have to go through an extended period of letter writing, correspondence, and approval before they can go to visit someone in prison. While that may be justified on safety and suchlike grounds, the effect in practical terms is to restrict access by families to inmates, and by inmates to families.

Some people in this House may not care about that, because they think those people are all thugs and scum, and we should just deal to them in whichever way we please. But if we are serious about stopping offending, about rehabilitation and reintegration, and about a concern for victims, our main concern must be to prevent more victims being victimised. The encouragement of contact between prisoners and their families is crucial in that. The select committee should look at how it can bring some pressure to bear on the regulations governing visits to prisoners, in order to make it easier and more streamlined, and to try to facilitate that contact, which is so important in rehabilitation.

One of the areas of the bill that does concern the Greens quite a lot is some of the new coercive powers: the use of force and restraints, and some of those related matters. Clause 83 authorises the use of force in certain circumstances, and provides for the authorisation and use of non-lethal weapons by people in certain circumstances. We need to be very careful when providing new powers that enable the use of force against inmates. Obviously, there are times when it may be necessary to restrain people physically, but we should be very careful about how we regulate those powers, and how we put limitations around them. That is a caution and something that the Green Party will want to examine in some detail. There are some new clauses around the search provisions, and it is interesting to note the concern of prison officers that they themselves may be subject to strip-searching. We should look at that, as well.

Finally, I shall touch on two things very quickly, before my time is up. Firstly, we should be looking at the education that is available to inmates. That has been severely curtailed under the previous term of the Labour Government—in particular, the access of outside tutors to prisons. They are important in providing a fresh perspective to inmates, and we need people going into the prisons who are not prison staff. If we look at the kinds of practices of the goon squad that the Hon Matt Robson has already referred to, we see that many of those things will come to light only when we have outsiders going in—whistle-blowers who can go into the prison system and see what is going on. Our opposition to any attempts to restrict outside people going into prisons and having relationships with inmates is important. Secondly, we also need to look at the culture of the Department of Corrections. I have been to many prisons. There are some very good officers who see their role as protecting the community and aiding rehabilitation. There are also some officers who have a brutality of attitude that cannot be accepted in our Department of Corrections.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier): It would be a travesty for this bill to be seen as a prisoners’ rights bill. That is the way it has been portrayed by my friends in the Opposition. We have heard it already from Mr Tony Ryall and Mr Edwin Perry. There cannot be defined roles for prison officers unless we know what they are there for. For 10 years under that Government, there was anarchy in our prisons as prison officers bumbled their way around endeavouring to apply sentences properly. I speak as someone who has acted for over 20 officers before judges and juries, the Employment Court, and the Employment Tribunal. They have been doing their best, but without any help, and without the nasty cynicism of Judith Collins, who tries to find her way around the prison system. The only prison door she would have been through, would have been a peephole.

Judith Collins: You big liar!

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: I have to say—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member sit down. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Judith Collins: I must say that I do—.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, The member does not need any other comment. She should just withdraw and apologise.

Judith Collins: I withdraw and apologise.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: This bill sets out the rights of prison officers as they go about bringing about reform in our community. It is not good enough to close one’s legislative mind to what is happening in those prisons; we have to address the problems there. This bill addresses those problems, and empowers prison officers to do their job properly and complete their responsibility to our community.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): That speech showed just how out of touch the Government is with the expectations that the people of New Zealand have of our corrections services. This afternoon I join with my colleague Tony Ryall—one of the most effective spokespersons on justice I have seen in my 12 years in this Parliament—who brings some realism to the key issues of law and order we deal with in this House. In particular, I want to focus on the Government’s obsession with statist solutions to correctional challenges.

It is good to have John Tamihere in Parliament. What he said about the statist policies of this Government is absolutely right, and no more reinforced than in the mad provisions of this bill—clauses 185 and 186—that will prohibit private management of prisons in New Zealand. John Tamihere said that the State does not have all the answers, and National knew that. That is why in 1997 National provided in our correctional laws—specifically, the Penal Institutions Act—for the private management of prisons. What did Labour members predict? Labour members should go back to Hansard to look at the stupid things they said about what private prisons would do. They made all sorts of obscene claims. As a previous Minister of Corrections, I am proud that I signed the contract to allow Australasian correctional management to introduce the private management of the Auckland remand prison.

Have any claims made by Labour in 1997 come to fruition?

Hon Tony Ryall: Not one.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Not one. In every single performance measure, the Auckland remand prison has outperformed our public prisons. Labour wants to shut it down, and I want to know why.

Stephen Franks: It is too embarrassing.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My colleague is probably right. He is right in saying that Labour is so embarrassed by the success of private prisons.

One thing that concerns me and my constituents is the cost of running our prison service. Do members know that the private prison system is providing a remand facility at $29,000 per inmate a year less than the public service? That is $5.7 million a year being saved by what National did in providing private contracts. Why are members opposite opposed to saving $5.7 million a year?

Russell Fairbrother: You cannot compare remand prisons to sentence prisons.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let us check that out. Mr know-it-all Fairbrother says that one cannot compare prisons. Margaret Wilson tried that line, and misled the people of New Zealand. She said that the figure of $72,000 per inmate in the public prison service was an unfair comparison with $43,000. Let us be serious. Where do we know of a comparable public facility? The Christchurch remand prison is identical. It was built by National. It is a brand new building run by the public prison service, and it costs $29,000 per inmate more for public prisons to run it than it does to run the Auckland facility. If that is not comparable, then I ask Mr Fairbrother to explain why. [Interruption] I remind members opposite of all the good things we could do with $5.7 million a year, such as the number of people who could be put into a prevention programme like Family Start, the number of extra teachers, and a reduction in the number of mental health patients. Under this Government, they are being thrown into police cells and prison, because this Government’s ideological perversities are so opposed to private success stories. It is just unexplainable, and it is a disgrace. I challenge John Tamihere to oppose this bill, because it is statist nonsense. It is that simplistic view that if it is not run by the public service then it is not good.

Then we had the contribution from Mr Matt Robson. He said—and I give him credit—that as Minister of Corrections, he had been to the Auckland remand centre and it was doing a good job. On that, Mr Robson, we agree. He said the reason was that all the staff had been trained in the public prison service.

Hon Tony Ryall: Rubbish!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I have the staff figures here, and there are 69 correctional officers at the Auckland remand centre. Do members know what portion of them have previously worked in the public prison service? It is less than 10 percent. Ninety percent of them have never worked in the public prison service. Is it not a remarkable success story that a facility run by a private service with independently trained officers is able to so outperform the public one?

Let us look at the ways in which the private prison service is outperforming the public sector. Let us look at the number of incidents. All of us in this Parliament would want to run a prison service in which suicides and self-harm are minimised. Is it not interesting that the record of the private prison service is substantially better than the public prison service? Let us look at the training programmes that have operated in terms of the Māori relationship, which is obviously important for a prison in Auckland. I can tell Mr John Tamihere that the Māori community in Auckland says that the privately run prison is a success story.

Let us look at the number of programmes that are run in terms of education and cultural activity. In all those things, the private prison service is outperforming the public prison service. Why shut it down? Why let ideology get in the way of what works? When we debated that matter in 1997, there was a theoretical debate. People said it might work in Australia, but it would not work in New Zealand. Well, it is working in New Zealand, and this ideologically stupid Government wants to shut down success, increase the cost to the New Zealand taxpayer, and reduce the performance of our prison service. I say that that is a disgrace—[Interruption] I ask Mr Fairbrother why the Auckland remand prison has been able to operate successfully with 69 prison officers—

Russell Fairbrother: It is a remand prison.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is right, it is a remand prison. When it is taken over by the public prison service, how many staff do the union rules say it must have? Not 69, but 150! What is the sense in that? That is simply about Labour playing to itstrade union - lackey mates, rather than doing what is in the interests of the taxpayers and our prison services. It is a disgrace.

The further point of concern that I have about this bill is that there are loads of clauses on all of the rights our inmates must have, and so little about the victims. We have three clauses about all the food and dietary provisions we have to make for our prisoners.

Hon Tony Ryall: Read it out.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, it does make interesting reading: “Every prisoner must be provided with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food and drink based on food and nutritional guidelines”…that will comply with “the various religious, spiritual, and cultural needs of the prisoners.” My goodness me! It seems to me that this Government is more interested in the rights of inmates than the rights of other citizens in this country of ours. Members on this side of the House say that is wrong.

I have to make one further point in respect of some of the other rights, such as telephones. We will give inmates the right to use telephones. Is it not intriguing that the Minister of Justice, Phil Goff, challenged me, as Minister of Corrections, to make the legal changes to allow phone-tapping? In 3 and a bit years of a Labour Government, they have not done a thing about it. Inmates are continuing to commit crimes behind prison walls, and Labour does not seem to care. It is not good enough.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West): One thinks that whenever the volume gets turned up on the Opposition benches, as per the recent performances, then things truly are happening up on the third floor in the Leader of the Opposition’s office. As we read in the media, no doubt the numbers are running. I sense that the loud voices down here are concealing the huge disquiet upstairs.

In the brief time I have, I will just repeat what this bill is about. The purpose of the bill is to provide a new legal framework for the corrections system. The current legislation, the Penal Institutions Act, was passed in 1954. I was 2 years old when that bill was enacted, and I think it is probably time for a review and a bringing up to date. This is an outdated piece of legislation—it must be if it is from 1954, nearly 50 years ago—and it no longer suits the needs and sizes of prisons in 2003.

The other important point, which is my contribution to this debate, is that the law governing the administration of the corrections system needs to be compatible with the recently enacted Sentencing Act, the Parole Act, and Victims’ Rights Act. On the basis that this bill will go to the Law and Order Committee, it will give us great pleasure to deal with it in a sane and rational manner without some of the histrionics we have just heard. I look forward to this bill being referred to the committee.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): Like the speaker who has just resumed his seat, I would like to talk about something that was happening in 1954. I wonder whether it might induce a little bit of humility. In 1954 we were three-quarters of the way through 40 years in which the average murder rate in this country was two per year. It may be that they were doing something right back then, and that this nonsense appeal to change the law because it is old is something that Labour ought to think about. I want to read something that has had more support from New Zealanders than any other document in this country.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

STEPHEN FRANKS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A continual barracking, I understand, is not consistent with Standing Orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is right, and the member will notice that I actually did call “Order!”.

STEPHEN FRANKS: I am sorry; I did not notice. Just on 4 years ago, 2 million New Zealanders signified their consent to a single-sentence document. I do not think any other document has ever had that level of support. It read: “Should there be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them, and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?”. This Corrections Bill is the final trashing of Norm Withers’ referendum with its 92 percent support. This Corrections Bill says explicitly that hard labour cannot even be contemplated. This bill says expressly that that part of the referendum must be ignored.

This bill has also been said to form the final part of a trilogy with the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. Those Acts and this bill together say that the only punishment of imprisonment is the deprivation of liberty. This expressly reflects the United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners that the Government has signed up to. They include, among other things, that the conditions may be no more restrictive than is necessary to keep people in custody. In other words, depriving people of privileges and telling them that it would be a good idea not to be in prison, because it is nastier and less pleasant than being outside, is not to be lawful any longer. This bill makes no reference anywhere to punishment. It is not a permitted purpose of imprisonment, or of a prison officer’s supervision, that prison denounce, deter, or punish. None of those words appear anywhere in this bill. This bill is the triumph of the politically correct justice Ministers, who have done nothing on the justice portfolio for 3½ years.

Let us go through some of the detail. The Hon Matt Robson referred to victims’ interests. The bill states that prisons must have regard to victims’ interests. The Government has been very careful never to define those, or even to answer questions in this debate as to what victims’ interests might be. This bill says that each offender—and there are 5,000 of them—must be given an individual plan that meets his or her needs. The plan does not meet the needs of the community, or the needs of the sentence, or the needs that the judge thought were being satisfied when he or she sent the individual to prison to punish, to deter, and to denounce. There is nothing in this bill about meeting those needs—only the needs of the individual prisoner. This bill is utterly cynical.

One unusual feature is that it does not have the normal treaty provisions. What is going on over there? I think this is the first bill we have seen for some time that does not draw open discrimination on the grounds of race, which is fortunate, because the rules that the Government signed up to say there can be no discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, or political or other opinion, in a prison. However, that is not the practice. As we know, the practice in our prisons is in some way to elevate tikanga Māori into a magical potion. In a way, it is patronising and insulting.

An upstanding member of the community who has been deeply involved in prison matters for many years called me in distress just a month or so ago. He had been to the opening of the new wing at the Rimutaka Prison. Around 1½ hours of the opening ceremony were spoken in Māori, and around a quarter of an hour in English, but he was not offended by that. He could see that most of the people there were Māori, and the intention was, obviously, to be respectful. He said he does not mind New Zealanders adopting welcoming, and other, Māori ceremonies, because they are more colourful than Pākehā ceremonies. What he was offended by was the fact that no one took any time to explain what that prison was trying to do, or what those facilities were setting out to do. Even worse, he said that one of the kaumātua said to him afterwards that it was comforting to be able to come and see that their mokopuna were going to feel comfortable in prison. What a response! What an objective—to set up a system that so identifies Māori culture with prison that, consciously and subconsciously, it normalises prison! What an idea—that we simply expect Māori to be in prison to such an extent that tikanga Māori becomes a motif for every prison opening!

Exactly the same thing happened when new units were opened down in Rolleston. When I heard Mr Perry’s speech I was really comforted to hear that it was as offensive to him as it is to me to see a culture being so closely associated with criminality.

What else do we find in this bill? Bodily samples cannot be taken from prisoners. One can take fingerprints, but one is not allowed to take DNA. No, that would be far too modern. It might enable criminals to be caught, and we do not want that, because then the criminals would just have to be put back inside. It would appear that prisoners cannot be stopped from having computers. The bill expressly bans other electronic equipment, but it cannot ban computers.

Then there is the matter of appeals over security classification. One of the things that the UN rules state is that there should be segregation of prisoners to ensure that they do not, in effect, cross-infect each other. The imprisonment rules state that those prisoners who, by reason of their criminal records or bad character, are likely to exercise a bad influence should be separated from others. In this bill segregation is subject to such tight restrictions that I do not think a prison can actually take that rule into account. The bill also states that transfers cannot be used for punishment. Segregation cannot be used to break up gangs. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that reflects the common sense of the old non-association order. There is nothing in this bill that says that security classifications should be made in order to improve the prospect of rehabilitation. Instead, security classifications are just that—to ensure against the possibility of escaping. I take it that that is because prisons are paying such a woeful degree of obedience to the rule that says prison cannot be made any more uncomfortable than is strictly necessary for the deprival of liberty.

Prison is a community. Prisons have become places where the offenders in this community—that is, the 2,000 to 5,000 families whom the police tell us commit 80 percent of the crime—can go and feel at home. This bill confirms that the prison officers are simply hosts. When members read through the disciplinary procedures they will see that they give the lie to it.

Adjudicators have to have a hearing on whether prisoners are to be given a lawyer to defend them, when they are involved in a disciplinary procedure. What are the outcomes of disciplinary procedures? Seven days’ withdrawal of privileges. I can find no definition whatsoever of privileges. Another fierce penalty that can be awarded is 7 days’ cancellation of earnings, which may not exceed $100. It is only earnings that may be cancelled; prisons cannot access other amounts in prisoners’ accounts. Prisons carefully provide for the setting up of accounts, but they cannot access anything else in them for the purpose of paying fines. The fine for an alcohol or drug offence appears to be, potentially, cancellation of 7 days’ earnings. What about those who are not bothering to earn? There is nothing here to force prisoners to work. There is nothing about that. As far as I can tell, they can be fined only if they have earnings.

The provisions do not allow segregation or restriction, and they make all those bows to the welfare of the offender. The victims, the courts, and the judges are forgotten.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South): I am pleased to rise in support of this bill, and recommend that the House send it to the Law and Order Committee forthwith, where I know it will get rational consideration, in contrast to the prejudice we have just heard expressed about this issue.

JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon): We oppose this bill for many reasons. Unlike the Labour member Mr Fairbrother, who spoke previously, we are not a bunch of wimpy white liberals who sit around in our spa pools, drinking Chardonnay, thinking about the happiness of the dear Māori in prison. We do not look upon Māori as prisoners; we look upon Māori as New Zealanders.

Edwin Perry: Hear, hear!

JUDITH COLLINS: I thank my friend in New Zealand First. We do not sit around saying we are going to say one thing to people about prisoners, and that is: “Let’s lock them up for longer.”, then, when we get into power we will sit around and pass legislation about their diet and their religious and spiritual needs. Look at the sorts of provisions this bill provides. I ask all members to have a look at clause 79(1), which states: “The chief executive must ensure that in every corrections prison, so far as is reasonable and practicable, appropriate provision is made for the various religious and spiritual needs of prisoners.” What if the prisoner is a Satanist—and that is not a silly question, is it, Mr Cosgrove? Mr Cosgrove and I both know that there is a bunch of them down in Christchurch. You know that there is a whole stack of them—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot use the word “you”, as it brings the Chair into the debate.

JUDITH COLLINS: I am sure that that member knows there is a whole bunch of Satanists down in Christchurch in a White Power gang. That is how one knows one is in Christchurch: the gangs are not Black Power, but White Power. That particular right will now be enshrined in law. The bill says to prison management and prison officers—who ought to know what they are doing, even if they do not always—“Please don’t make decisions or policies, because we are going to legislate every single thing that you can or cannot do.” In clause 72(2) the bill states: “As far as practicable in the circumstances, in providing food and drink to prisoners, allowance must be made for the various religious, spiritual, and cultural needs of the prisoners.” What is the prison manager supposed to do if he or she gets a whole bunch of people who say they want a particular sort of meal because of their religion? If they need halal meals, will the manager have to go and get different sorts of meat and grains? What about a vegan’s needs? That is absolute twaddle. That is what the Government is putting in this bill. It is wimpy, white liberal nonsense, and none of the people who must be consulted have been consulted. [Interruption]

Unlike that Labour Party member, I have actually visited prisons. I have visited Mount Eden Prison and seen the appalling situation there. I have been to the Paremoremo medium security prison and the Paremoremo maximum security prison, and I have even visited someone in D Block. I can tell members that those prisons do not rehabilitate inmates. We in the National Party are not foolish enough to think that prisons at the moment ever rehabilitate. What they do is keep people in a place where, it is hoped, they will be out of harm’s way and away from the general public. Prison is in fact a punishment. I know that to the Labour Party that is a whole new attitude, but prisons should be places of punishment. They should not be holiday camps to improve the diet and physical well-being of prisoners, or to cater to their spiritual needs.

Having said that, I acknowledge that some people who go to prison are not absolutely evil, and that some of them can be rehabilitated. But I can tell members that they will never be rehabilitated in Paremoremo’s maximum security or medium security prisons, or at Mount Eden Prison, because the culture in those prisons is not about rehabilitation.

However, the private prison in Auckland, the Auckland Central Remand Prison, is a prison that is working. It has a culture in which the spiritual needs of prisoners are taken care of, but that is not done by making a big song and dance about it and putting it in legislation. It has a culture where prisoners are treated as individuals. They are given education programmes and are helped as much as possible. Better than that, as well as the prison’s culture being good, it is cheaper and it is not driven by the Public Service Association. It is not about getting more money into the Labour Party coffers through its union membership; it is all about doing the right thing. If that prison can stop someone from going to prison again, then, in every single case, that is a victory. But the reality is that our current prison system is not working. Legislating for prisoners’ diets, and putting the onus on prison operators to provide those sorts of things, will not fix it.

How much consultation has there been with Māori? In respect of getting rid of the private prison in Auckland there has been absolutely none—diddly-squat. I understand that plenty of Māori are now lobbying the Māori caucus in the Labour Party, and saying they do not want their people to go to prison, or to go back to prison, but if some of them do go to prison, then they want them to come out better people than when they went in. The Te Puni Kōkiri people—the closing the gaps people—in their report on 3 October 2002 were very, very critical of the corrections service, except for one thing: they really liked the private prison. They said that the private prison was actually doing some good.

It does not matter if we send people away for 20 years or 30 years; one day they get to come out. That is the scary thing, because if all we have done by locking people away for all those years is make them into worse criminals—into people who are more inclined to say: “I want, I want, I’ll take it.”, which is what this bill is all about—then we will unleash on the poor unsuspecting community another criminal, another rapist, another murderer. That is what happens.

So this bill, much-lauded by members of the Labour Party—the wimpy, white liberal set, the people who wander around, jump into their spa pools, and drink their Chardonnays, the people who are completely out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders—

Hon Tony Ryall: Like Clayton Cosgrove.

JUDITH COLLINS: Like Clayton Cosgrove. What do these people say? They say: “We want to spend more on the prisons, but we want to get less.” They want more money for less. That is what this Government wants. It wants 150 staff employed at the Auckland remand centre. It wants 150 Public Service Association members employed there. That is what this Government is all about. It does not want the 69 correctional officers currently working there, because, gee, they might be a bit good. This Minister and his ministry are very concerned now to pick the brains of the general manager of the Auckland Central Remand Centre and his staff, and to get those people to help them out with their own thing. That remand service already does health screening for chlamydia, hepatitis, and diabetes, and our public service, for all its money, does nothing.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the Corrections Bill be now read a first time. As many as are of that opinion will say “Aye”, of the contrary opinion will say “No”. The Noes have it? A party vote is called for. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I heard you very clearly call for the Ayes and the Noes, and there were absolutely no Ayes at all.

David Benson-Pope: Rubbish!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There were not. That is a statement of fact, I tell Mr Benson-Pope. There were no Ayes—only Noes. How can you call for a party vote when nobody voted in favour?

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour): I called very loudly indeed. Obviously, the member has an issue with his hearing.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I looked there, and I am satisfied that a vote was called for. [Interruption] All members in this House are honourable members; their word is unreservedly accepted. If members are not satisfied with that, the Hansard can always be checked.

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

Ayes 81

Noes 35

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Law and Order Committee.

Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.

Bills

Consumer Protection (Definitions ofGoods and Services) Bill

Second Reading

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment), on behalf of the Minister of Consumer Affairs: I move, That the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill be now read a second time. Since 1994 the Consumer Guarantees Act has been the main source of rights and remedies for consumers who have purchased products and services that are proven to be defective. The Act was meant to cover all goods and services ordinarily acquired in trade for personal and domestic purposes, but in 1998 the High Court ruled that the Act did not apply to electricity, or electricity line services. This bill will reverse that decision and erase all doubt that the Act applies to other utilities and to computer software. As a cornerstone of New Zealand consumer laws, the Consumer Guarantees Act lays down some common-sense rules. Goods must be of acceptable quality, services must be performed with reasonable care and skill, and when things go wrong the supplier or manufacturer has an opportunity to put things right except in serious cases where the consumer can choose to reject the goods or cancel the contract and get a refund.

This bill has three underlying purposes—firstly, to ensure that the Consumer Guarantees Act applies to all products and services that are ordinarily supplied in trade for domestic consumer use now and into the future; secondly, to ensure that the supplier in the supply chain who is best placed to manage the risk of product failure is liable to the end consumer for defects; and, thirdly, to ensure that New Zealand’s trade practices statutes are consistent with each other.

The first purpose is achieved by expressly including those products about which doubt has been cast. These include electricity, gas, water, and computer software as goods. They also include network supply functions for electricity, gas, telecommunications, water, and waste water removal services. The second purpose is achieved by amending the definition of supplier to clarify that the firm that supplies the service to the consumer is liable for failure to meet the minimum standard performance required by the Consumer Guarantees Act. However, there are exceptions for contracts that involve business consumers so that the Act does not interfere with the integrity of business-to-business transactions.

The third purpose is met by bringing into line the corresponding definitions of goods and services in the Commerce Act, the Fair Trading Act, and the Consumer Guarantees Act. I commend the members of the Commerce Committee for the sterling work they did in grappling with some very complex issues in connection with this bill. The committee heard many submissions and listened carefully. Most submissions supported the bill, but many suggested amendments to make the bill more workable. The committee has recommended several changes that have improved the bill immeasurably. Once again, I thank the committee for its good work.

I would like to comment briefly on the main issues considered by the committee. The original bill included telecommunication signals in the definitions of the goods. Several submissions warned that this might expose Internet service providers and telecommunications companies to liability for the content of and accuracy of information on third-party websites. This would have been an undesirable and unintended outcome, and I agree with the committee’s recommendation that telecommunications signals should be deleted from the definition.

Several submissions urged the committee to delete electricity from the definition of goods. This would undermine the Consumer Guarantees Act purpose with regard to consumers’ redress. The Consumer Guarantees Act provides incentives for everyone in the chain of supply—manufacturers, distributors, and retailers—to stand behind the products and services they supply. If electricity were included as a good, then the guarantee of acceptable quality would apply to electricity retailers and manufacturers. If electricity were included as a service only, then the injured consumer would have to prove that the lines company was negligent, before redress was available. This would leave most consumers without any remedy, and it would remove the incentive for electricity companies to determine who has caused a particular fault.

Defining goods to include electricity makes a lot of sense, and it is not onerous for electricity suppliers. This is because the meaning of “acceptable quality” is based on what a reasonable consumer, who is fully acquainted with the nature of the product, would regard as acceptable. A reasonable consumer understands that electricity is supplied in real time, is subject to momentary fluctuations, and is prone to outages due to environmental or other hazards and periodic maintenance.

A major concern of submitters was identifying who is a supplier of electricity for the purpose of the Act. The committee has formulated an amendment to make this easier. In practice, electricity retailers will be responsible for supplying electricity that is of acceptable quality. Electricity lines companies will be responsible for supplying line function services with reasonable care and skill. They will not, however, be responsible for failures that result from the acts of third parties, or events beyond human control where the supplier manages the risk of that occurrence with reasonable care and skill.

The committee also heard submissions that that definition of goods should not include computer software. As the consumer receives a licence to use software, it was argued that software should be regarded as a service rather than a good. Rightly, I believe that the committee considered that the consumer receives an interest in software that is similar to other goods such as music CDs. Therefore, it should not be regulated differently in terms of its quality and fitness for purpose. The guarantees and remedies that relate to goods are also more relevant and applicable to software than are the guarantees and remedies that relate to services.

Several submitters asked for water to be removed from the definition of goods, and the supply of water to be removed from the definition of services. The committee concluded that the bill should cover water. Currently, there is doubt about whether all trade practices legislation covers water. Therefore, as with computer software, water and its associated supply services are included in the bill for the avoidance of doubt only.

Another area where submitters raised some serious concerns was the suppliers’ ability to exclude liability to business customers in situations where they do not have a contract with them. The committee resolved this issue by giving a non-contracting supplier, such as a lines company, the benefit of any liability exclusions contained in the contract to supply, such as between the retailer and business consumer. In conclusion, I consider that the bill represents a significant development for consumer protection in New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville): I rise on behalf of the National Party to support this bill, and in particular the amendments contained that will alter the Consumer Guarantees Act. When the original Act was passed in 1993 it had pretty broad provisions. Unfortunately, the definition failed to have clarity in a number of areas, and this amendment bill attempts to clarify those. I want to spend my time this evening talking about what the bill does, what the amendments are proposing to do, and the benefits of that. However, I want to spend some time at the end on flagging some concerns I have. While the intentions of the bill are good, and while we will support it, on reading the bill, and not being part of the select committee, I saw a few red flags, and I want to alert the House to those.

What does the bill do? It provides certainty about the scope of the Consumer Guarantees Act, and in particular this is an omnibus bill that attempts to change legislation across a number of bills, including the Fair Trading Act, the Commerce Act, and, of course, the Sale of Goods Act. In particular, as the Minister outlined in her address to the House, there are really two issues in terms of the definition of goods and the definition of services. I will touch just for a moment on the definition of goods. This bill will look to include definitions of, amongst other things, computer software, electricity, gas, and water, and, in particular, the definition of service will also move in those areas, but looking at the suppliers. It will mean the definition of a supplier will include someone who does not have a direct contract with the consumer. That is quite an interesting point in the sense that the bill will be implying a contract on a consumer.

Members will be aware that that has become somewhat more necessary as a function of the electricity reforms that took place where the supply of electricity moved from being a vertically integrated supply chain, all the way through to having various pieces: obviously, the generators, the lines companies, and the retailers. The current law is that a consumer will have a relationship with the retailer. If the retailer fails to deliver electricity because of a fault caused by the line company, then the consumer will have no further redress. That is one of the things that the bill is attempting to deal with.

Clause 7, as the Minister outlined, allows the retailer to have specific contracts with the business community, and to contract out with the business community in certain parts, as does clause 9.

I guess an issue where I start having concerns is that of how the law works. In practice, the primary obligations covered by the definition of goods are those of acceptable quality, and conformity to a description given. What is of acceptable quality may, to a reasonable consumer, have one definition for one person and one definition for another. Acceptable quality to a consumer cooking for a dinner party for 12 in the suburbs of Auckland, when those people are about to turn up in half an hour, the cooker is not working, and, therefore, there will be a lack of food, may be completely different from that for a consumer who is not in the house between the hours of 10 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon because he or she is out working hard, as we would expect that person to be—not out somewhere on some jolly that he or she may find more enjoyable.

At a reasonable time, like 12 o’clock in the afternoon when not in the house, a consumer may not consider a lack of electricity supply to be an issue. But, as I said earlier, if 12 people are turning up for dinner, and the cooker is not working, I can assure the House that a reasonable consumer under that condition would want an electricity supply. So there is considerable ambiguity contained in those clauses, and I believe they will need some definition.

One of the major concerns I have is the fact that reasonable consumers will have to read their documentation extremely carefully. It may be argued that they will take a different course of action from the action that they would otherwise take if this legislation were not passed. I ask members to allow me to expand my thought processes on that concern. Currently, most consumers in the country take out insurance coverage for their fridge-freezer in the event that there is not continuity of electricity supply. I know that when I look in my freezer at nights, I see tucked in there lots of things that I would like to insure, on the basis of their being high-quality seafood and the like—from the wonderful electorate that I represent, of Helensville—and I know that I have taken the precaution to have a guarantee of that, through an insurance contract. This law, by being passed, will argue that that is not required, because we will be able, under the legislation, to seek compensation and redress via amendments to this consumer protection legislation.

That raises a number of issues. The first is the sheer logic of that. In other words, the cost will now be passed to all consumers, as opposed to the cost being passed to consumers who want to cover their positions. For example, maybe I do not have a terribly large fridge-freezer in my house—

Clayton Cosgrove: You could afford one.

JOHN KEY: I would like to think I can afford one. But maybe I do not have a very large one, because maybe I do not believe in frozen food. I enjoy the freshness of food. I enjoy food and the freshness of food so I am the type of consumer who tends to go down to Foodtown or the local supplier, select the fruits of the sea, and enjoy them fresh. But, unfortunately, as a result of this legislation, I will be paying through my electricity bill for those people who do not value freshness in the same way I do. That is one of the things, when I picked up the bill, that just whacked me around the face. I started thinking: “Whoa!”

Stephen Franks: People who cook in hangis are paying for the microwaves of others.

JOHN KEY: That is right. We are supporting the bill because we supported it through the select committee. Now that I have had an opportunity to review it, I am not completely sure of that, but we are supporting it, and supporting it for the rationale that it attempts to do the right thing. The spirit of the bill is in the right place. The heart is in the right place. I am very, very confident that when National is back in Government in 2005, or earlier in a few months’ time if Labour cannot go a full term, I am absolutely sure I will be banging the table—I am not quite sure what table I will be banging—arguing: “Let’s just pull out of the 2003 Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill, and just have a look at that.” In particular, they are some of the issues I have.

I want to commend the select committee, and, of course, the Minister, for having the wisdom to delete telecommunications signals. I say that because, again, an interesting part of this legislation is the way it implies a contract with someone whom one does not have a formalised contract with. If I could just take a moment in the House, I will discuss why it was very important that telecommunications signals were removed. I point out that there has been a change in the way that financial market instruments are traded in this country, as there has been worldwide. The days of oral trading of stocks and shares via brokers in Queen Street have moved somewhat, to Internet-based trading. As a former member of the largest sharebroking house in the world, I can assure members that that move to Internet-based trading has taken hold, and will be significantly greater as the years go by. Had telecommunications signals been left as part of this legislation, the downstream effect of that would have been quite simply this—

Stephen Franks: No, they are still there.

JOHN KEY: No, I tell Mr Franks that I think they have been deleted. They have been struck out unanimously in Part 3. [Interruption] Then it is of great concern to me, because my concern with the legislation is that there is some ambiguity in it. Let us imagine for a moment that that provision is in there. I do not believe that it is, but let us imagine that it is. Then my great concern is that a consumer trading on the Internet purchases a stock, and then suddenly there is a telecommunications signal, at the point at which that consumer hits the “buy” key. That communication is not transmitted, and the consumer then suffers a loss because the stock goes up. Who will that consumer be looking to for redress? That was my understanding of why the provision had been deleted from the bill. I stand to be corrected, but my understanding was that that was why the select committee deleted that provision.

Anyway, may I say that I do have pleasure in commending this legislation to the House for its Committee stage, but I flag those concerns that I raised in my speech.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this bill. This bill came about as a result of a 1998 High Court decision in a case brought by the Electricity Supply Association against the Commerce Commission, challenging its ruling that electricity was covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act. During the select committee’s deliberation, there was some concern about the inclusion of electricity in the principal Act as goods. Because that definition already exists in the Fair Trading Act and the Commerce Act, it seemed natural to extend that definition to consumer protection legislation. The bill also inserts the supply of electricity line function services into the definition of all three Acts.

Including electricity as goods, as well as services, in the principal Act will create incentives for all suppliers to take reasonable steps to avoid failure of supply. I notice that the Minister mentioned that it also reminds people of the climate changes and climate issues associated with electricity supplies. But what she did not mention was the mismanagement of generation under those circumstances. If a generation company is allowed to mismanage the supply, then there will be ramifications all the way down the line, regardless of whether there will be a shortage of water or other supply.

So the inclusion of electricity as both goods and services may actually create a problem under the looming electricity shortages that appear to be threatening for this winter. If that is the case, when we consider the inclusion of electricity as such, there is an attached agreement that electricity is of acceptable quality. However, will this bill affect supply if we begin to experience blackouts and even brownouts? We will need to watch this issue because it could well open up supply companies to legal ramifications.

With reference to telecommunications signals as goods, we acknowledge that there are difficulties in separating the content of the telecommunications signal from the actual product. As a result, telecommunications is treated as a service only, which means that consumers of telecommunications services have more limited rights under consumer protection legislation than consumers of other utilities. That is unfortunate—however, we can see the difficulties in classifying telecommunications as a good. The implications of making intermediary service providers, such as Internet service providers, responsible for the content of the communication, is certainly not desirable.

The inclusion of water as a good and service during the select committee stage caused some concern that this bill could force local authorities to incur huge costs in upgrading the pipelines of supply, when the water supply dropped below the acceptable standards. This would result in some drastic rates increases to cover these huge capital outlays, and to avoid the possible legal ramifications of challenges to the supply.

Software companies are also very difficult to legislate for, because in fact consumers are buying only a licence and not the product itself. They are buying only the licence to use that product, and do not actually receive the product as a commodity. So it is very difficult to cover that issue, but this bill makes an attempt to do that reasonably well. In general New Zealand First supports this bill, but noting our concerns and the comments I have just made.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri): I rise to take a short call to support the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill. Unlike the future leader of the National Party, Mr Key, who I am told—

Hon Brian Donnelly: No, deputy.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: No, no—leader! I hear that that reality is getting nearer and nearer, every day. Mr Tisch, over there, is doing the numbers—“Old Squeaky”! I just make two points to Mr Key: firstly, hāngi are not cooked in a microwave, and, secondly, instead of having his groceries delivered, it may pay him to go down to the supermarket. That is a good way for MPs to keep in touch with their constituents. This is a good bill. It ensures that New Zealand’s trade practices statutes are consistent with each other. It makes a number of very positive amendments. I support the bill.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future also to support the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the Consumer Guarantees Act applies to all goods and services that are ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic, or household use or consumption. This bill similarly covers the Commerce Act, the Fair Trading Act, and the Sale of Goods Act. Specifically, it amends the definition of goods and services in these Acts to ensure that computer software, electricity, gas, telecommunications, water, and services related to their supply, are included within the scope of the legislation.

The Commerce Committee made a number of technical changes to the original bill. Notably, this included the removal of telecommunications signals from the proposed new definition of goods in the Consumer Guarantees Act, Fair Trading Act, and Commerce Act. The reason for the removal of telecommunications signals is that the definition of telecommunications signals in the bill was deemed by several submitters to be wide enough to cover the actual content of telecommunications. This caused controversy and unease within the industry. For example, Internet service providers were concerned they would be liable for emails they did not get through, for reasons beyond their control—such as a problem of an overseas network. The committee agreed that it was never intended that suppliers of telecommunications signals should be liable for the content of those signals, and therefore recommended removing them from the definition of goods, but still left them in the definition of services.

One widely publicised aspect of the bill is that it will give consumers the right to claim compensation from electricity companies when spikes or power surges damage computers or other equipment. Speaking as one who has had enough heart attacks over power spikes, I am glad this is in the legislation.

Stephen Franks: That comes free!

PAUL ADAMS: Nothing comes free; the member should know that! Electricity suppliers will become liable for direct losses and reasonably foreseeable consequential losses to domestic consumers caused by problems for which they are responsible. This bill was originally designed to clear up an anomaly caused by a 1998 court ruling in a case between the Electricity Supply Association and the Consumers Institute, which held that electricity network services were neither goods nor services. The bill also closes a legal loophole that has meant that companies or individuals selling computer software packages, who misrepresent their products, have not necessarily been obliged to offer refunds or replacements to unhappy customers. Therefore, United Future supports this bill going on to the Committee stage.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): The ACT party will be opposing this bill, which changes the definition of goods and services. This bill is the child of the Labour-Alliance coalition Government, and that should have been known as “Labour-Alliance Takeover”. I notice that this bill was introduced to the House by Laila Harré on behalf of Jim Anderton—and what an unhappy alliance that was. This legislation will bring only unhappiness to consumers in this country—because consumers will all end up paying higher prices under this legislation, whether or not they can afford it. The high prices are what they will pay for what this Government sees as a gold-plated standard.

This Government has said that it wants to protect consumers, but at what price? The price will be severe. Just like the bill I opposed earlier today—the Banning of Parallel Imports Bill—this bill will punish consumers by raising the price of goods and services right across the board. I notice from the Hansard that when Laila Harré introduced this bill she said that it would extend the definition of goods and services to include electricity, gas, telecommunications, water, and waste-water removal. It is interesting that the definition of telecommunications has been taken out of the definition of goods but it has been left in the definition of services. When the Luddites in the Alliance rushed to bring in this bill they forgot about the Internet and how that affects so many people’s lives now, and how the Internet works, and how an Internet service provider could well be held liable for losses that a consumer might suffer if he or she had relied on information gained through a web page that was incorrect?

There is no guarantee that a web page will be correct. Everybody knows that or should know that. Just because something is on the Internet does not mean to say that it is correct. Anyone who has marked his or her children’s homework will know that. But as it is a service a consumer still could be liable under this legislation, because the legislation is so unclear and so nebulous it is difficult to tell what would happen if someone made a claim to a telecommunications provider under a service.

When I was going through this I wondered whether the Alliance had actually got the idea for this legislation from a website and thought that that would be a good idea, and let us pass a law that makes us look like we are caring, sharing, neo-socialists but it will actually make goods and services expensive and put them out of the reach of many poor people in this country.

Laila Harré spoke absolute tripe when she introduced this bill, and despite its going to the select committee and being reported back, tripe it still remains. Steven Franks said, when he spoke on this bill in October 2001, that this Government is giving no regard to the most sweeping law in this country—the law of unintended consequences. I think that is a good quote. I ask the member whether he remembers saying that. It is a wonderful phrase—“the law of unintended consequences”.

The arrogance of this Government is truly gobsmacking. Those members sit there and pass legislation like this; legislation that changes definitions and adds applications. They sit back thinking that there will be no negative consequences, only positive ones. Well, I hate to disappoint them but there is absolutely no such thing as a free lunch.

If we look at the current Consumer Guarantees Act, we see that it covers things like quality, durability, safety, and a number of other assurances. Under this bill, as I have said, that cover will extend to electricity supply. As I see it, this is just a knee-jerk reaction to the power crisis of 1998 in central Auckland. For a start, we are now 5 years on; it is 5 years ago that that happened. Power companies have long since made changes and carried out work that minimises the chance of a repeat of that. But just as this Government is trying to do with its transport legislation, it thinks it can buy votes in Auckland at the expense of the rest of the country.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Oh!

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Obviously, I am keeping Dr Cullen up. What happens if the power goes off for 2 hours? It is fine for someone who is wealthy enough to own heaps of electronic goods—I understand that spa pools are very popular with this Government—and video games. The gas supply is included in this bill, as well, and as John Key added just a minute ago, under this bill, when the power and the gas go off while one is cooking for a dinner party, then people will probably be affected quite badly. The spa pool will get cool, and the Chardonnay will not chill, so they might be in deep trouble. But the people who have all those things would be most likely to be covered by insurance. They can afford to minimise the risk for themselves.

What this legislation will do is allow those insurance companies to renege on their responsibilities under the cover that those people will have because, instead, the supplier of the electricity or the gas will be liable under this legislation. This is typical of this Government, which tries to eliminate all sorts of risk in people’s lives. It just cannot be done. Sometimes people cannot be protected from themselves, no matter how much one might want to try.

Also, this bill will lead to increased compliance costs for the electricity and gas suppliers. Will they absorb those costs themselves? No, they will pass them on to consumers. We can expect everyone’s electricity and gas bills to go up so that the electricity retailers are able to cover themselves for the stream of claims that will undoubtedly result when this bill is passed, and, of course, that will be another godsend for the lawyers.

As Stephen Franks said a minute ago, the people who cook in a hangi or on a barbecue will be paying for those who like to cook on a Smeg or in a microwave oven and want a guaranteed uninterrupted power supply. This legislation is nothing more than self-congratulatory nonsense, and the people who have to pay for it will probably never benefit from it. The people with a television, a freezer, a hot-water cylinder, and a radio—basic electrical goods—are not actually adversely affected when the power goes off for a couple of hours. Every sensible person who owns a freezer knows that if the door is kept shut, the food is OK, and that if the hot tap is not run, then the hot water is OK. Even if people do not have insurance to cover the contents of the freezer, they are fine. But the people who cannot afford the very goods and services that this bill protects will be paying for those who can afford them.

There was some talk in October 2001—and I am glad to see Dr Cullen in the House, because perhaps he will take a call and clarify this situation—about the inclusion of shares in this bill. I cannot tell whether shares are included, and neither can Stephen Franks. Section 2(1) in clause 6 states that the definition of services “ (a) includes any rights (including rights in relation to, and interests in, personal property),”. At first glance that appears to include shares. So does this mean that a purchaser of shares will have to be guaranteed; that, for instance, the supplier of those shares—and it is unclear whether that would be the company or the promoter of the shares—would have to guarantee that, say, in 35 years’ time, those shares will be a safe nest egg for the consumer?

David Parker: No.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Well, that is not clear in this legislation. It is impossible to tell from that clause, and someone will have great fun with it one day, because of all this. This is actually crap legislation, and we are opposing it.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 108

Noes 8

Bill read a second time.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

ACT New Zealand 8.

Bills

Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3)

Second Reading

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Consumer Affairs: I move, That the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time. I thank the Commerce Committee for its thorough consideration of the bill. I also acknowledge the efforts of those who made submissions. The Fair Trading Act of 1986 is a key piece of consumer legislation designed to protect consumers from misleading and deceptive conduct and unfair practices by traders. It also provides for the disclosure of consumer information relating to the supply of goods and services, and product safety standards to protect against unsafe products.

This bill updates and strengthens the Fair Trading Act, with a particular focus on its penalty and enforcement regime. The Act has been in force since 1987, and since then barriers to its effective enforcement have become increasingly evident. The fines imposed by the courts are too low to deter offending. In fact, the fines are so low that many traders regard them as merely a cost of doing business. This is especially true of pyramid-selling schemes, at least two of which have generated revenue exceeding $1 million. The maximum penalty—$30,000 for an individual and $100,000 for a company—does little to stop the promoters of these scams. Notably, in the vast majority of cases, the courts have imposed fines that are well below the maximum penalty level. Increasing the maximum fines will send a clear signal to the courts that the fines they are imposing are too low.

Problems with the legislation, however, extend beyond the issue of fines. Procedural impediments have been preventing the Commerce Commission from seeking remedies available under the Act. The requirement for the Commerce Commission to give undertakings as to damages when seeking interim injunctions is a significant disincentive to the commission seeking a remedy that can have an immediate and positive impact for consumers. Corrective advertising orders are another remedy that is seldom sought by the commission, as procedural requirements result in time delays that make those orders ineffective.

The purpose of this bill is to strengthen fair trading law. There are four key measures designed to achieve that purpose. First, the bill substantially increases general penalties, and creates a much tougher penalty regime for pyramid-selling schemes. The pyramid-selling penalty regime includes a commercial gain penalty up to the value of the revenue obtained from the offending. This will enable the courts to wipe out the profits made by rogue individuals who mercilessly rip off ordinary Kiwis. Second, it extends the Commerce Commission’s search power to enable it to enforce the new commercial gain penalty. It also introduces a new notice power that provides the commission with an alternative to the search power. That is a less intrusive power designed for use when seeking information from witnesses who are not hostile. Third, the bill removes the procedural barriers that have prevented the commission from fully utilising corrective advertising orders and interim injunctions. It also reforms the limitation period within which the commission may take a prosecution. Fourth, the bill updates the Act to reflect modern trading practices and modern variations on scams, by amending the definition of pyramid-selling schemes and repealing the prohibition on trading stamp schemes.

The committee heard several submissions opposing the removal of the requirement for the Commerce Commission to give undertakings as to damages when seeking interim injunctions. Some submitters were concerned that innocent traders would be left without a remedy if they suffered a loss as a result of the commission seeking such an order. The committee carefully considered that issue and decided that the judicial process provided adequate protection against the commission making unreasonable applications for interim injunctions. It was noted that the amendment provided consistency with an earlier amendment to the Commerce Act, which exempts the Commerce Commission from giving undertakings as to damages when seeking interim injunctions under the Commerce Act.

Another issue raised by submitters was the extension to the criminal limitation period. Those submitters were concerned that the amendment would extend liability indefinitely for some traders. The committee was satisfied that sufficient remedies were available through the courts to protect traders from stale claims. The criminal limitation period will now be consistent with the civil limitation period.

I would like to thank all members of the select committee for the work they have put into this bill. It is a very timely bill that represents a worthy step towards improving the effectiveness of New Zealand’s core consumer legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): The objective of this bill is to strengthen the Fair Trading Act. It particularly focuses on pyramid selling. Although pyramid-selling schemes are already illegal under the existing Fair Trading Act, this bill extends the scope of the Act to incorporate newer forms of pyramid selling that have developed since the original Act was implemented—for example, schemes where the participants buy or sell an investment opportunity and use agents provided by the scheme operators to recruit other participants on their behalf. Instead of finding the recruits themselves, they ask the agents to do so. If we look around this House, we find that one party here was recruited to find a particular agent, and I am referring to Mr Rodney Hide, who went to Fiji as an agent to recruit people for a pyramid-selling scheme that turned out to be a total scam.

Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that that reference was to a matter on which there has been a personal explanation. It is against the Standing Orders to refer to the matter in a way that implies that there was some substance to it, when there was none.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is correct. There should be no further reference to the matter. There has been a personal explanation.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: I must point out that this bill does not affect existing legitimate franchise operators. They continue to operate as they have done in the past.

I would like to draw attention to clause 14, which deals with search powers. Under the current wording of section 47 of the Fair Trading Act, the Commerce Commission can search to ascertain whether a person has, or may have, contravened the Act. This bill extends the Commerce Commission’s search powers under section 47, so that it may obtain a warrant to search for evidence demonstrating the nature or extent of any breach of the Act, revenue obtained through the offending, or other matters material to the seriousness of the breach. That is to assist the Commerce Commission in gathering evidence for the courts to consider in sentencing. We in New Zealand First have difficulty with that provision, because the extension of powers of search amounts almost to harassment. The commission has an unfettered power to undertake a fishing expedition to search for evidence to endeavour to prove its cases. We feel that that is putting too much emphasis on the search process and giving it too much power. We have difficulty with that particular aspect, so we ask that it be reviewed during the Committee stage, and that change be considered.

Noting those concerns, New Zealand First supports, in general, the purpose of this bill, and we are looking forward to debating it in the Committee stage.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri): Along with John Tamihere and others on this side of the House, I rise to support the bill. The essence of the bill is the introduction of a range of protective measures for consumers. One of the amendments updates the definition of pyramid selling to more accurately reflect the modern versions of those schemes. I have some interest, as does Mr Tamihere, in trying to advocate for New Zealanders who were victims of a particular scheme referred to by Mr Catchpole—the Investors International pyramid-selling scheme. Members will recall from before the last election that a member of this House—I do not infringe on the member’s personal explanation—attended a conference, the purpose of which was to promote a pyramid-selling scheme. That member then spoke at that conference, and the result of the conference itself was that many New Zealanders lost millions and millions of dollars.

Darren Hughes: Who was it?

CLAYTON COSGROVE: My colleague asks who the member was who spoke at that conference of Investors International in Fiji. It was one Rodney Hide, and that is not a challenge.

Deborah Coddington: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As has already been pointed out, Rodney Hide made a personal explanation to the House, and under the Standing Orders that cannot be debated further. I ask you to bring the member back to the bill.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: Speaking to the point of order, I point out that it has been ruled in a previous ruling that one can question the judgment of a member, but not his word. I am not challenging the member’s personal explanation. I did not say that he promoted a scheme. I am simply relaying the fact—which does not challenge his explanation—that he attended and spoke at that conference. I put it to you that that is perfectly in order. It is a matter of public record.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, the member is correct, as long as there is no implication whatsoever—as there was in the previous reference—of anything to do with the explanation that the member subsequently made.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: I would never challenge Mr Hide’s judgment—Mr Hide, of course, being the only honest man in Parliament.

Hon Chris Carter: What happened at Waiheke?

CLAYTON COSGROVE: We will not get into Waiheke and that sort of stuff. But I am sure Mr Hide will want to take a call—being an expert in those sorts of matters and the only trained economist in Parliament, who would be able to identify a pyramid scheme from a million miles away and therefore choose not to participate in one.

I want to take this opportunity to put to Mr Hide again the question why, when he came back from speaking at that conference, the great scam-buster—by his own admission, the only trained economist here—did not stand up to defend, and try to assist, the many New Zealanders who lost millions of dollars as a result of that Investors International scheme. It has been over a year, and to this day Mr Hide has never explained his silence. What has he got to “hide”, if the House will excuse the pun? I would have thought the great scam-buster would be itching, would be running—or at least rolling or crawling—to try to bust the scam and defend and protect the many New Zealanders who lost hundreds of millions of dollars.

I applaud this bill, because it will shut down that sort of activity, or go some way at least towards protecting those Kiwis who, to this day, have been given no protection at all by Mr Hide. The great scam-buster, the great defender of the faith and the taxpayer, has never, to this day, stood up and explained how he got involved, and why he will not defend ordinary Kiwis.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: Prior to the dinner break I was speaking about two things. I was speaking about the nature of the bill and how it provides protections for our consumers through a variety of measures, but especially in relation to shonky, disreputable, and grotesque investment schemes like pyramid schemes. I was also talking about the rorts that this bill will protect consumers from.

As I said before the dinner break, I have some experience, as does my colleague Mr Tamihere, in advocating for the victims of such schemes—those in New Zealand whom the Consumer magazine identified as having lost millions of dollars as a result of schemes like those run by Investors International. It was a disreputable and shonky investment scheme run out of Fiji by a convicted felon, Rudolf van Lin. It was that organisation that invited one Rodney Hide of the ACT party to speak at that conference. He did speak at the conference, and they paid for his airfares, accommodation, food, drink, and so on—as he has acknowledged.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Let us not go into that. The member can mention that he went there, and can criticise the fact of his going there, but there is to be no detail, please.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I do mention that he went there, and I do criticise him for going there.

What I am pleased about is that this bill will provide substantial protection against those shonky schemes. I am also interested in an amendment that extends the definition to include schemes that for many participants primarily involves an opportunity to buy or sell an investment opportunity—whether personally, or through an agent—rather than an opportunity to buy or supply goods or services. The agency issue is very, very important. I think that this bill will cater very well for a case where a person acts as an agent and actively promotes a shonky scheme. This bill will hammer that person, and rightly so. I have seen the financial carnage of families ripped apart by schemes that this bill seeks to put the boot into. Disreputable agents have misrepresented the so-called investment position to those people. They have said that families and other people can invest a small amount of money and get a huge return. The organisers have got experts—economists and others—to lend credibility to those schemes by, for instance, participating as speakers at conferences.

I finish by repeating my request to Mr Hide, and I make it in all sincerity: he has some expertise, and in respect of this legislation, can help victims of those schemes. I invite him, as I did 8 months ago, to come forward and talk about his experiences. I invite the great scam-buster to tell us why he has never, at any stage, explained why he did not assist those New Zealanders who lost money, by breaking the scam—the conference that he attended—and trying to protect Kiwis from investing. As members of Parliament, we have a duty and a huge opportunity. We have the ability to broadcast to New Zealand and use our profile to protect ordinary Kiwis. I ask why the scam-buster—the great man, the trained economist who would recognise a scam as he would recognise a side of mutton—did not do his duty, and do that. I commend the bill to the House.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to support the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3). This bill aims to strengthen the Fair Trading Act by making amendments to enforcement and procedural provisions, and in particular, as we have heard, by creating a new additional penalty regime for pyramid-selling schemes based on commercial gain from the scheme.

Specifically, the bill doubles existing maximum fines under the Act—currently $30,000 for an individual and $100,000 for a company. They have been raised to $60,000 for an individual and $200,000 for a company. The bill also amends the definition of pyramid-selling schemes in the Act to take into account newer types of schemes. These schemes may involve participants buying or selling an investment opportunity, and using an agent provided by the scheme operators to recruit other participants on their behalf, instead of trying to recruit new participants themselves.

The bill also extends the search powers of the Commerce Commission so that the commission may obtain a warrant to search for evidence to demonstrate the nature and extent of a breach of the Act, revenue obtained through offending, or other matters material to the seriousness of the breach. That will assist the commission in gathering evidence for courts to consider in sentencing. In particular, it will help to implement the commercial gain penalty for pyramid-selling schemes. The bill also introduces a new power that will allow the Commerce Commission to issue notices requiring people to supply information or documents. This power will give the commission more flexibility, and is most likely to be used when the commission seeks information from witnesses who are not hostile.

The bill also amends the Fair Trading Act to provide that the criminal limitation period runs 3 years from the date a breach is discovered, or ought reasonably to have been discovered. That is being done because in some markets, such as building, investment products, insurance, and long-term guarantees, consumers or the Commerce Commission are unlikely to discover a breach until well after 3 years from the date the breach occurs.

United Future sees this legislation as mainly technical in nature and does not believe it to be controversial. Therefore, we are happy to support it going to the Committee stage.

JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville): National supports this legislation. As other speakers before me have outlined, in large part the bill looks to include the acts of pyramid schemes within the legislation, and to apply increased penalties to those acts.

I want to talk for a moment about pyramid schemes in New Zealand. Pyramid schemes arise in a lot of different forms. One of the forms in which one often sees a pyramid scheme operating is a chain letter. Chain letters are a common form of a pyramid scheme. Often they start in a very innocent form. I fondly remember, in my time at school, when chain letters went around. I imagine that in my case they were probably love letters, but that in the case of many other people they were other letters. There were numerous young ladies—[Interruption] In fact, an infinite supply of young ladies did write back to me and talk to me about the physical attributes I had—my good looks—and my charm. That was certainly my first introduction to such letters, and I would hate to think that the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) was looking to close down that kind of activity, because I found it quite enjoyable.

But, on a more serious note, chain letters are an example of pyramid schemes. One of the reasons that we must pass this bill and close down pyramid schemes is the fact that they are doomed to fail. As someone who has been involved in the financial markets for all of my life, I have always looked to supply financial instruments and investments for people that are fair and that give them a great opportunity to prosper in their retirement, in the years when they most need that income. One of the major issues with pyramid schemes is that they are simply doomed to fail. They must fail because they do not rely on the sale of a good or service; they rely on more members joining up. Fundamentally, there is a finite number of people in New Zealand. We saw in the last census that there were 3.95 million New Zealanders—about 40,000 Kiwis short of being over the 4 million mark. Therefore, eventually, irrespective of how big or broad the pyramid scheme is, or whether it takes the form of a chain letter, or whether it is sold by an agent or a scheme, fundamentally it must collapse. An investment scheme that is doomed to failure is an investment scheme that simply must be stopped. National strongly stands for the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3), to protect New Zealanders who are asked to invest in schemes that are doomed to fail.

I draw the attention of the House to the fines in this legislation. The original law applies a maximum fine of $30,000 for an individual and $100,000 for a company. The bill proposes to increase that to $60,000 for an individual, $200,000 for a company, but $200,000 for a pyramid-selling scheme. One of the very important reasons that National and other members of the House fully support this bill is that when a fine is under the amount proposed in this legislation—under that $200,000 limit—pyramid-selling schemes may be undertaken by members of the community who know that they will eventually be closed down and fined, that eventually it is a zero-sum game, that there are not an infinite number of members. Fundamentally, they will become involved in these things knowing that they may well pay a fine, but the fine is not large enough to deter them, because they will make money even once they have paid the fine.

Last week I had in my office a member of the community who had been duped by a pyramid-selling scheme. Without going into the gory details of it, this member of the community in my Helensville electorate had had a farm, had invested in a scheme, and had lost in the order of $1.65 million. I felt a great degree of sympathy for him because, although on the face of things one can always argue that sometimes people do something a little silly, this member of the public—one of my constituents—was really someone who had innocently gone into something, and had been conned by a scheme like this. It was one of those situations where the amount was rather exponential in how it went. The upshot of it is that this member of the public, one of my constituents, has now lost his farm, and I have great sympathy for him. We have great support for this legislation in what it attempts to do.

I want to talk a little bit about section 47. It applies the search warrant powers and the ability to search for information. Again, the nature of a lot of these schemes is really complex. On the face of things they look quite probable, and the investment often looks quite low, but there are lots and lots of reasons that people are tied into these schemes. Because of their very, very complex nature, I think giving the commission the power to have extended search capabilities, which section 47 does, is to be applauded. It will allow these schemes to be investigated further and to be looked at for quite some time.

New Zealand, unfortunately, does have a history of some schemes affecting quite a number of the community. I often ask someone from the financial markets why people are fooled by these schemes, and what legislation could be passed to help protect those people. The answer is that we can only go so far in our legislation in terms of providing a deterrent, in the form of the penalties that are proposed in this legislation, as I outlined earlier—an increase of the fine of $30,000 for an individual, up to $60,000, and of the fine of $100,000 for a company, up to $200,000; and a fine of $200,000 for someone involved in a pyramid scheme. That is a very good starting point. One of the things we can do is pass legislation like this, which will help give enforcement and infringement notification.

But it is incumbent on members of the financial services community, as well, if they ever see these schemes, to the extent that they are financial advisers, to look at, and comment on, these schemes. Also, people have the opportunity, when these schemes are exposed, to bring them to the attention of the public, either via the terms of this bill or via the Commerce Commission. In describing one of the most important ways to close down these pyramid schemes, the analogy I give is Internet viruses, which we see on our computers these days. Members of the House will know that when there is a virus of some sort, very often what happens is an email goes around the community and advises people about what is happening. The other day I received an email with a teddy bear icon. It was not one of those love letters dating back from the time when I was at Burnside High School, from someone who had been affectionate to me at that time; no, it was an Internet virus of some sort. In terms of pyramid schemes, forearmed is forewarned. That is very, very important. All members of the community have a responsibility to bring these schemes to the attention of the public and to the attention of the Commerce Commission. Under section 47 they can investigate these matters and can highlight them to members of the public.

Although some of us have had training in the financial markets, and have had an opportunity to study these things, many people have not. These schemes prey on people who have not had the opportunity to make a full study of these things. Very often they are people who can least afford to lose money and can least afford to have their families afflicted by these schemes.

National supports the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3). We look forward to this bill becoming legislation that protects New Zealanders who would be preyed on by those who would promote pyramid schemes in a manner that is to their detriment. As I said earlier, before I came to the House I looked at relevant legislation in other jurisdictions. I can tell members that if they do a search of the Internet on what is happening in Australia and the United Kingdom they will find, as I did—and I printed it out—very similar legislation from the Department of Trade and Industry in the United Kingdom that promotes exactly what is happening in this bill. It has some very good pointers, in terms of citizens advice and where members can have legislation. On that note I commend this legislation to the House.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): There are some parts of this bill that make sense—the abolition of the prohibition on trading stamps, for example. That was a fairly embarrassing provision. It treated New Zealanders as being more gullible, more credulous, and more foolish than almost everyone else in the world, where trading stamp schemes were permitted. New Zealanders were thought to be incapable of understanding them.

There is some upgrading of the penalties, but it is not done in a very intelligent way. It could have been done by looking at the gains that people make, and determining the penalty by a multiplier of the gain, or by in some other way relating the penalty to the difficulty and cost of getting a conviction. For example, it would be recognised that many of these things will come to light only if there is a whistle hunter or a bounty blower—sorry, a whistle-blower or a bounty hunter. [Interruption] Those members like the “blower bounty”. If the penalties had been looked at in terms of getting the right incentives to chase and catch people who were breaking a law that is not easy to enforce, then the penalties would have been related to making sure that enforcement was worthwhile.

Clause 10 is of much more dubious value. It exempts the Commerce Commission from having to take account of the damage it might do by granting an injunction lightly. That really puts into the hands of a regulator a power that could destroy a business. Elsewhere the commission has exemptions from liability. At present the court is able to take into account and balance the risk and the cost, and to require an undertaking as to damages. This measure is without any proper reasoning. ACT believes that there should always be a balance, and that people should certainly not be exposed to the arbitrary power of State agents. The power to search is unexceptionable.

I want to come back to a provision that Mr John Key just made a key point of his address. Before that a member whose name I always forget, but whom I think of as the “beagle boy”—the member from Christchurch, Mr Clayton Cosgrove—focused his address on an alleged improvement to the law about pyramid selling. There is only one change in that provision. It adds the words “whether personally or through an agent” to an existing provision on pyramid sales.

That provision is entirely redundant. Section 45 of the Fair Trading Act already covers actions by or through an agent. It states: “(4) Any conduct engaged in on behalf of a person other than a body corporate—(a) By a servant or agent of the person acting within the scope of that person’s actual or apparent authority; or (b) … with the consent or agreement (express or implied) of a servant or agent … shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have been engaged in also by the first-mentioned person.” In other words, the change to the pyramid selling scheme provisions has absolutely no purpose and does absolutely nothing.

We have just heard about 25 minutes of complete and despicable drivel from people who have no idea about what this bill can do and no idea about pyramid selling. It was kicked off by a man who, when he was the chair of the committee on which I sat that first opened an investigation into prime bank schemes, wasted the time of the Securities Commission and the Commerce Commission. Mr Clayton Cosgrove, as chair of that committee, invited those commissions along to give submissions on fraud and on schemes that financially defraud consumers. Those poor bodies thought that that was a genuine request. They sent along people whose time was valuable, and they prepared pages and pages of submissions on what they wanted to see by way of improvement in the law to protect people from fraud. I happened to attend a meeting of the committee on the day those people turned up, and I could see their utter bewilderment—

Mark Peck: That has nothing to do with the bill.

STEPHEN FRANKS: It has everything to do with the bill, because the origin of that alleged change to pyramid-selling schemes—

Mark Peck: It hadn’t even been reported to the House.

STEPHEN FRANKS: That happened at another committee, I say to Mr Peck, but it has everything to do with this bill. Those bodies made the submissions that they were called upon to make to that committee, and they carefully explained to Mr Clayton Cosgrove, who has made such a feature of pyramid selling in this legislation, that this law has absolutely nothing to do with pyramid selling.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Is there anything to do with privilege? You are not in any trouble with privilege now.

STEPHEN FRANKS: I say to Mr Hodgson that I have no idea about that. If Mr Hodgson wants to suppress the account of this matter by alleging privilege, he should go ahead.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I just brought it to your attention that you shouldn’t be cavalier with the rules of the House.

STEPHEN FRANKS: This committee, which had the Commerce Commission and the Securities Commission in front of it, had a series of interrogations on a subject matter that had absolutely nothing to do with the question that was put to those bodies.

Those interrogations were very, very similar to the wild allegations just made by members who spoke in this debate earlier. They purported to inquire about commercial fraud, prime bank paper, and all the kinds of schemes that I knew about, because I was on the Securities Commission and we put earnest effort into trying to stop them. The language used was precisely the language that Mr Clayton Cosgrove has just used in relation to the amendments to section 24(2)(a) inserted by clause 5. He made a disgrace of this House. He embarrassed anyone of integrity who sat on that committee by totally baffling the witnesses, and he did the same tonight when he spoke on clause 5.

Mr Cosgrove addressed no element that is in this bill, at all. He did not address any of the hard questions, such as the distinction between franchises and pyramid schemes. He did not bother to consider the comparison between Lotto, Telebingo, and the other State-subsidised-and-promoted gambling schemes that cause a guaranteed loss to those who participate in them. He did not try to compare anything that the select committee stated it was doing in that area with what the Government is actually doing in other areas—areas in which it regards punishment and penalties as not working. The Government is embarrassed that it sets up fines that it does not bother to collect. If this bill had a provision that allowed for effective enforcement of fines—and, indeed, if the enforcement of fines had been seen as a topic on its own—we might not have $427 million of uncollected fines, in a blowout from $325-odd million over the term of this Government.

Mr Cosgrove’s ranting—

Sue Kedgley: Ranting.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Is that how one pronounces it? I do not want to sound Australian.

The ranting on pyramid-selling schemes had nothing to do with any effective amendment to the Fair Trading Act. The Act itself suffers from the same enforcement difficulties that all our law suffers from. The people who can look menacing, who are prepared to hide, and who do not worry about the bailiff or fines will not suffer. Whether people get a $60,000 or a $30,000 fine will make a real difference only to those people who are honest, who have their assets in their own name, who probably did not intend to commit an offence, and who have been caught up in a law that they did not understand. The “shrewdies” will not have their assets available to be seized under this bill; they will not even have to go to the bother of defending themselves. The “shrewdies” will not have records that the Commerce Commission can go out to requisition and search.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Why didn’t you back my inquiry into motor vehicle dealers?

STEPHEN FRANKS: There should be the same principle across all this law. If we want to have proper enforcement of our law we should focus on enforcement, not on political slogans or on the completely empty exercise of ranting about non-existent or possibly existing fraud schemes that had no involvement from anyone who will ever respond to any kind of order in this bill.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill): One can always tell when one touches a raw nerve, because people stand up and say nothing about a bill, at all. I do not intend to speak for terribly long about this bill. I simply remind the member who preceded me that the Commerce Committee dealt with this legislation. It had five submissions on the bill, and took 30 minutes to hear the submissions. There was no opposition to the bill at all, and it was reported back to the House unanimously. The bill does four things: it amends the definition of pyramid selling, it increases the penalties for pyramid selling—there was a previous ACT party member who knew quite a bit about pyramid selling; that person is no longer in Parliament, but there it is—it extends the search warrant powers of the Commerce Commission, and finally, it changes the time for bringing criminal proceedings. This is a good bill, and I support it.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party will be supporting this bill. We regard it as a fairly narrowly focused and modest bill, but we will support it nevertheless. The bill seems to focus on pyramid-selling schemes. I am not sure whether they are a huge problem in the land—in the scheme of things, are they an enormous problem? But the bill focuses on them. I think the bill is perfectly reasonable. It increases penalties and so forth, and I say so far, so good.

Mr Anderton said, in introducing the bill, that the Government will be taking a tough line to deter people from misleading consumers about the money they can make from pyramid schemes, and so on and so forth. All I would say is that it is well and good that the Government is to focus on taking tougher action to deter people from misleading consumers about the money to be made from pyramid schemes, but what about all the other issues where consumers are being misled, many of which I would regard as potentially more significant? This legislation gave us an opportunity to really examine the Fair Trading Act, a very significant Act that is woefully weak and lacking in powers in many areas. We had an opportunity to really look at and examine that Act, and to strengthen it, but what did we do? We just focused on pyramid-selling schemes. In that respect, we have missed an opportunity here.

As a result, the bill is more significant for what is not in it than for what is. For example, one area in which we might have liked to see a strengthening in the bill concerns the consumer’s right to know. In many jurisdictions overseas, consumers have a recognised legal right to know what is in a product they have purchased, for example, and where it comes from. That would have been a wonderful right to enshrine in a bill that amends the Fair Trading Act. But no, we have just focused on pyramid-selling schemes. The basic right to know what is in a product we purchase and where it comes from is extremely important, but according to our officials it does not exist in law. Therefore, this would have been an opportunity to enshrine that.

The other point is that when the Minister of Consumer Affairs talked about the bill, she said that we need to ensure that consumers have the information they need to make informed choices and we need to protect them from exploitation, etc. It is extraordinary that, for example, if one walks around a supermarket one would find dozens and dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of examples of goods that are misleadingly or deceptively labelled, and that absolutely nothing is done about that. This bill would have been an opportunity to enshrine that consumer right to know, and to look at issues such as how to strengthen the provisions in the legislation to protect consumers from misleading and deceptive behaviour.

Equally extraordinary, from my point of view, is that the Minister of Consumer Affairs and, indeed, the entire Government are actively opposing the fundamental right of consumers to know where their food comes from. We have the extraordinary spectacle that our Government will be in Australia on Friday, vehemently opposing the right of consumers to know where their food comes from. It is called country of origin labelling. Similarly, in the international Codex Alimentarius forum that decides on international standards, New Zealand has taken the most vehement stand of any country in the world in opposing the right of consumers to know what country their food comes from. It seems quite extraordinary that on the one hand we are fretting about pyramid-selling schemes and focusing on the protection of the consumer in that particular area, and on the other hand we are busily undermining the right of consumers to have even such a fundamental right as to know where their food comes from.

It does seem to me to be quite bizarre and extraordinary that even the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, which is supposed to be all about protecting consumers from misleading and deceptive behaviour, opposes our basic right to know where our food comes from—the basic country of origin labelling. So the Government is at international forums—at the Codex Alimentarius Commission—and in Australia, arguing that the Australians should get rid of their mandatory country of origin labelling and that consumers have no right to know where their food comes from. Then the Government makes a great big deal about a small amendment to the Fair Trading Act concerning pyramid selling.

If we are to be concerned about strengthening the bill, protecting consumers, and the whole issue of deceptive and misleading conduct, let us apply that across the board. Let the Government be consistent, and not undermine that right in some areas while in other areas suggesting that it is taking some great action to strengthen the legislation. It is extraordinary that if we wander around a supermarket and look at meat, for example—and 40,000 tonnes of meat is imported into New Zealand—we would not see one single label in any supermarket in the land to indicate where that meat comes from. It comes from places like the People’s Republic of China, Australia, South Korea, America, and so forth. Surely, in this era of mad cow disease etc., we have a legitimate right to know where our meat comes from. That is simple.

What about fish? We import hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fish. We import shrimps from places in South-east Asia where they use antibiotics routinely in fish farming, etc. Surely, we should have a basic right to know where that food comes from, not only because of our concerns about health and safety but also because we may prefer to support and purchase products from New Zealand. I would argue that when the vast majority of New Zealanders go into a supermarket they fondly imagine that they are buying New Zealand meat, and they do not realise that is really a bit of a lottery and a lot of the meat comes from overseas countries. They have no idea of that, and to me that is misleading and deceptive.

We are told that this bill will strengthen the whole Fair Trading Act, so why did we not focus on issues that are of fundamental concern to the people of New Zealand? This bill is a wasted opportunity. We will support the bill in the narrow little areas that it concentrates on, but frankly, it is woefully inadequate, does not go nearly far enough, and is very much a missed opportunity.

JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui): I shall make a brief contribution, because this is a good bill. It is in the interests of the New Zealand community. One of the best things we can do is to assist its rapid passage through the House.

JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland): In response to Sue Kedgley’s contribution, I must say thank goodness we do not have any mad cows in the House! Her contribution lead to that comment.

I am taking this call for a couple of reasons. The first is that one of my colleagues came to me—actually he was talking about the next bill, if I can digress for just a minute—and asked whether it would be all right if he spoke immediately after the Minister. I said that I was sure we could arrange that, with the consent of my colleague Judith Collins. The member said the reason was that he was on the committee, and he needed to speak on the bill, so I thought it was not an unreasonable request. But then he threw in that Doug Woolerton was having a shout, and he wanted to get to it. I thought that was fair enough, and we would let him have the call first, but I will now take 10 minutes to delay him for a fair while before he can get to his drinks!

That is the first reason. The second reason I am speaking is that we are in urgency, and I have to fill in 10 minutes because the bloke who should be speaking is not. Unfortunately, here we go again, team; we will have to hang on. Actually, I will not take 10 minutes, for this reason.

Mark Peck: Your mum’s going to be very disappointed.

JOHN CARTER: No, my mother has never been disappointed in any of her sons at all, I can tell the member. Her sons are the best things ever, from my mother’s perspective.

Mark Peck: What does your mum think?

JOHN CARTER: I have not got to anything yet, so I cannot tell the member what my mum thinks. But if he is patient I shall get round to it. Members should just be patient.

Mark Peck: Pyramid selling?

JOHN CARTER: No, I must confess that pyramid selling is one thing my dear old mum has never been involved in, bless her heart.

Tonight I want to talk about the issue of powers of search. One of the previous speakers—I cannot think who it was—said that the bill had been passed unanimously by the Commerce Committee. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that New Zealand First did not support the provision with regard to the search powers. I would have thought that, in view of that, members of New Zealand First might take a call to explain why that was so. Then I realised that they could not, because of an invitation to an event that is outstanding that its members have to rush to.

I make the point that the Commerce Committee has done something with regard to the search powers that is useful. I have no concern myself about our giving authorities the power to make sure that the law is properly enacted. If they think somebody is breaking the law, and there is a need for information to allow them to advise the courts that some error has been made, or somebody has broken the law, then they should have the right to do so. However, one thing that I think is important—and this is a quite specific point—is that the committee has changed the way in which the bill is written so that when people apply to the court the purpose is not just to get a search warrant but also to advise the courts why the search is necessary.

I think that is very good because it is very easy to go along to a court and say: “Can we have a search warrant? We think this is happening.” The Commerce Committee has made a very good change. People cannot only apply for a search warrant; they have to advise why they believe there is justification for their application. That is a good step forward, because when we give authorities this power, as we in Parliament do, we should also be happy that they have gathered the right information on which to grant those applications. So I draw the House’s attention to that. That was a sensible thing for the select committee to put in the bill, to change it from the way in which it was first drafted. As a consequence the committee has improved the bill.

As I say, I am surprised that we have not had a contribution from New Zealand First on the bill, given that its members do not support this provision. I would like to know why. It may be that my friend and colleague Mr Jim Peters will advise us, but, then again, he may not, because his friend Brian Donnelly might be upset that he was taking more time of the House.

So with that contribution I will resume my seat and commend this bill to the House. The National Party supports the bill, as I know my mum will, and we should get on with the next business.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MĀtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill

Second Reading

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister responsible for the National Library): I move, That the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Bill be now read a second time. The Education and Science Committee has heard submissions and has proposed amendments that bring greater clarity to the bill. The Government will support these amendments and will also propose some technical drafting amendments in a Supplementary Order Paper. My thanks to the select committee, with special thanks to the chair, Brian Donnelly, to the deputy chair, Jill Pettis, and to Helen Duncan, who is a trustee of the National Library and thus brings special knowledge about the National Library to her select committee work. I also want to thank the National Library trustees, Friends of the Turnbull Library, and the library community, because they have worked so hard for this solution.

This bill replaces the current National Library Act of 1965 and brings it up to date in four areas. First, it clarifies the relationship between the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library. The current Act does not include a statutory purpose for the Alexander Turnbull Library, and this has been rectified. The bill also states that the Crown is to continue to own the Alexander Turnbull Library collections in perpetuity. The status of this unique resource, which specialises in New Zealand and Pacific studies, is enhanced by the creation of a new body, the Guardians Kaitiaki of the Alexander Turnbull Library. This body will focus on providing specific assurances about the Alexander Turnbull Library’s collections and the character of the services that distinguish that library as a research library.

The select committee heard submissions that sought to ensure that while the Crown continued to own collections, there was provision for the loan of items for public exhibition on a temporary basis. The proposed amendments provide for a delegation to empower the Chief Librarian of the Alexander Turnbull Library to make documents from the Turnbull collections available for public exhibition. The amendments also prevent the National Librarian from transferring the ownership of documents owned by the National Library without ministerial approval.

The purpose of the National Library has been widened to include working alongside organisations with related aims, and to strengthen links with library and information communities. That simple sentence hides a multitude of aims and plans for the future. A new body, the Library and Information Advisory Commission, will advise the Minister about emergent issues in the changing library and information world, as well as issues concerning documentary heritage in a national and international context.

Revision of the 1965 Act provides a welcome opportunity to address Māori interests in the National Library and in the areas of documented heritage and information. Anyone exercising powers and functions under the bill will be required to protect the collections as documentary heritage and as taonga. The library’s existing and widely used Māori name can now be included, and the bill refers to mātauranga Māori alongside references to knowledge and information.

The third area updates legal deposit provisions to take account of electronic publications. This aspect of the legislation drew a number of submissions to the select committee, and I am grateful to the committee for its detailed work on this part of the bill. There are amendments to Part 4 that were recommended by the committee, and that I am pleased to support. It was clear from submissions that there is general agreement that documentary heritage should be preserved through the means of legal deposit. Legal deposit is a statutory obligation used in over 130 countries that requires publishers to provide copies of works to a national agency. Section 30A of the current Act is limited to books, however, and it is obvious that limiting the collection of recorded knowledge to paper formats will lead to collections being far less comprehensive than is desirable. This bill expands the range of documents that will be subject to legal deposit to cover any publicly available document used to store or convey information, whatever the medium.

This part of the bill was not well understood, and amendments are proposed to clarify the legal deposit process and the use of materials deposited. Because information technology changes quickly, it is essential that the bill addresses broad principles, and can accommodate changes to the ways in which information is collected, stored, and made available. The bill establishes that the purpose of legal deposit is to assist in preserving New Zealand’s documentary heritage so that it is available, subject to any applicable terms and conditions, for the benefit of New Zealanders. Under the bill, publishers are required to give specified numbers of public documents to the library by ministerial requirements, which will have the status of regulations under the Regulations (Disallowance) Act. A requirement for books will continue the practice of collecting books and paper-based documents. When this book requirement is made it will address the concerns of fine letterpress publishers, and take into account the cost and size of print run in setting the number of copies to be deposited.

A separate requirement will be made for electronic media, and this will address the concerns taken to the select committee. Technical processes for the collection and storage of electronic media are different, and requirements may need to be changed from time to time to deal with changing technology. The overall approach to the collection of electronic materials will also differ from that for books. While the library seeks comprehensive collection in the traditional print medium, this is not desirable, nor practical, for the electronic world—that is a wee message to the publishers’ association. Instead, the library aims for a selective approach, and one that will be developed following consultation with electronic publishers. In particular, the process will provide for the protection of publishers’ commercial interests—another thing for the publishers association—through consultation on terms and conditions about access to the deposited material. Requirements for documents other than traditional books and similar media will not be made until there has been consultation with affected parties.

The bill provides for the Minister to exempt documents, or classes of documents, from deposit. Also, it is not envisaged that requirements will be made for the deposit of motion pictures or broadcast material where current arrangements are considered adequate.

The final area of change proposed in this bill addresses a conflict in the Official Information Act in relation to oral histories provided to, or commissioned by, the National Library. Many informants were unwilling to provide oral histories if they could not make conditions of access. That was really sad, during the whole period of constitutional change to MMP, when we were unable to continue a really wonderful oral history archive. The bill amends the Official Information Act to exclude such oral histories from the definition of “official information” in the Official Information Act, and requires the National Librarian to comply with conditions on access to the histories set by the donor.

I am very happy to have this bill back before the House. We have so much to do, and with new legislation, a new National Librarian, and new committees, we are champing at the bit to get going.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): I could spend most of my 10 minutes talking about my “mate” from Northland, who keeps confidences so well! What he was saying is not true.

During the select committee stage of this particular bill, one of the things that the Education and Science Committee did—and it really took the issue very seriously—was to take a tour of the National Library. Many of us had never been there, and it just gave us a context for the bill, and allowed us to see what we were working with. At this stage, I have to say that the experience was mind-blowing.

John Carter: It’s got a lot of books in it.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: It has more than books in it. The member could go and look at the pictures over there. It is a real national treasure, and I am not certain whether many members of the House fully understand its monumental nature.

There is another treasure within it, and that is the Alexander Turnbull Library. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill because we believe that it is important to fix up some of the tensions that exist around the 1965 Act in relation to how those particular parts of the library operate—the functions and roles, etc.—and how they relate to other, external legislation, such as the Financial Responsibility Act. We believe that it is very important that this bill does go forward, for the protection of our national assets. The bill clarifies some of those relationships and sorts out things. It will allow all those tensions to dissipate, and for both elements of the National Library, the National Library itself and the Alexander Turnbull Library within it, to move forward and to protect our heritage in the way that they should.

The bill does another very important thing, which the Minister responsible for the National Library only alluded to, and it is to do with oral histories in relation to the Official Information Act. The interpretation of the Official Information Act has been made in such a way that it really curbs the potential for the nation to be able to archive some oral histories that could explain very clearly what actually happened. For example, this nation has absolutely no idea of what actually happened during the coalition talks in 1996. The public has been presented with myths produced by those in the media, who have no idea what went on behind closed doors. The Official Information Act has put a real limitation upon the people who were actively involved in those decisions, by preventing them from presenting their oral histories. If we are going to be able in the future to really know about the history of our nation, it is important that we are able to get former Prime Ministers or Deputy Prime Ministers to tell it as it was, from their perspective. That is a quite important element of this bill.

The third element relates to electronic deposit, and that was a toughie—we really worked through it. So that people can understand the meaning of “electronic deposit”, I will explain the problem we had with the Newspaper Publishers Association. The association’s members often contract other agencies to feed them electronic information. Their concern was that if the law required them to make that information available to the National Library on an ongoing basis, which would then make it available to the general public, what would prevent other news agencies from being able to tap into what they had been purchasing? It was a quite important issue, and I thank Mr Peck, because he came up with the idea of bringing the protagonists and the antagonists into a debate situation to really get to the nitty-gritty of it. I believe that did allow the members of the select committee to conclude that, with the processes that are in place, there is no reason for the National Library to do that sort of thing; the systems that the legislation is putting in place, which we are confident will proceed, will not allow that to happen. It is not in the interest of the National Library for that to take place, nor is it the purpose of the National Library to do that.

We have some discomfort with some elements of the bill. We raised those at the select committee, but did not always get particularly good answers. I want people to think seriously about this issue, because it is not just a case of bashing around and playing politics. It is about addressing Māori interests in the National Library. We talked through a lot of those things. The explanatory note to the introductory copy of the bill talked about providing “a presence for a Māori world view within the National Library by the inclusion of the existing Māori name of the National Library, Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa, in the title of the Act.” That raises a whole lot of other questions. Is that what we are doing, or is it just tokenism? For example, if Aotearoa was the name of New Zealand that was utilised prior to the missionaries coming along, can anyone explain to me why both the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Waitangi use the words “Niu Tirini” not “Aotearoa”? Has our belief in Percy Smith created another myth, which we are now codifying in legislation?

We asked some other questions. For example, one way that this bill is honouring the Treaty of Waitangi is by having the guardians of the Alexander Turnbull Library, and the commission, appointed after consultation with the Minister of Māori Affairs. One could say that is tino rangatiratanga in action, that is partnership in action, but we have to ask a very serious question. The Minister of Māori Affairs was put into that position by not Māori but the Prime Minister. How can it be tino rangatiratanga unless the Minister of Māori Affairs is elected to that role by all Māori? It is just tokenism. It is an attempt, but I think one has to be prepared to look through the issues and see what exactly is going on here.

The third part of this is the introduction of Māori language into English texts, as if that is the way it should go. We do not have a Library and Information Advisory Commission, but the following unusual expression: Library and Information Advisory Commission Ngā Kaiwhakamārama i ngā Kohikohinga Kōrero. That is what the body is called. Let us ask ourselves what we are doing with the English language with that text, because this bill is in English not Māori. If it was in Māori, that name would be quite justified. It would be quite acceptable if it were an alternative expression for the Library and Information Advisory Commission, but it all runs into one.

I have no difficulty with the expression “taonga”, which is used here, because it obviously means those things that are valued by Māori. But what is the difference between “mātauranga” and “mātauranga Māori”? Why do we put the word “Māori” on it? The very use of the word “mātauranga” in an English text means Māori knowledge, Māori understanding. We asked the members of the National Library what they meant by “mātauranga”. For example, if we had the works of Euclid translated into Māori, would that be mātauranga Māori? Is Witi Ihimaera’s Pounamu, Pounamu mātauranga Māori? It is very much mātauranga Māori as far as I am concerned, but it is in English. They could not tell us the answer. They actually said it is very fuzzy. I therefore put it to the House that we need to think through some of those issues very clearly, and with a fair bit of rigour, or we will end up with warm fuzzy tokenism, and not much happening.

I do not think those issues are strong enough for us to vote against this bill, because they are outweighed by the positive elements. We are just raising questions, and have an element of discomfort with the idea of middle-class Pākehā bureaucrats washing away their guilt about their ancestors’ actions, by putting some fuzzy stuff into legislation. We asked questions about some of those things, and the library said it had consulted Māori. We asked whom it had consulted, and were told it had consulted the one Māori librarian in the National Library. We are putting in place legislation based on that level of consultation! The Māori Language Commission has also criticised the wording of this legislation, because it also has concerns that it is only paying lip service, and is not genuinely getting to the underlying depth of what we need to be doing to truly consider addressing Māori interests in the National Library. If it is just on the surface, just superficial, we may as well not be going through it, and that is the discomfort that New Zealand First has; we believe that at this particular stage there are real dangers that it is just on the surface.

JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon): I must commend to the House that extremely good speech made by Mr Brian Donnelly, and I have to say that I agree with every single word he said. It is not often that we can so agree. The National Party has agreed to support this bill, and I commend to the House the work of our representatives on the Education and Science Committee, in particular the work done by Dr Paul Hutchison, who will also be speaking on this bill this evening. As Dr Hutchison pointed out to me, it was his idea to go and visit the National Library. There is nothing like a bit of practical knowledge. Some of us actually visited the library before we came to Parliament as MPs. It is stunning—not only have I visited the prisons; I have also visited the National Library.

John Carter: Are they the same?

JUDITH COLLINS: No, I say to Mr Carter, they are not quite the same, but I am sure I should discuss it all with his mother—and one day, if Ms Pettis is a good enough girl, I will take her along to visit the library. I do commend the National Library to the House. It is one of New Zealand’s absolute treasures. I particularly enjoyed being able to search the records and find details of when various ancestors of mine first came to New Zealand and how they registered for and fought in the wars that now form part of our history—not that that will get me too many votes in this House—

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: You never know.

JUDITH COLLINS: As Georgina te Heuheu says, “You never know.” I particularly enjoyed looking at those records. A provision in this bill is about the requirement to have knowledge of the Pacific, and I commend that to the House. New Zealand has a history of work in the Pacific. At one stage we had a colony—our only colony—Samoa, which was then called Western Samoa. Samoa relies on New Zealand to assist it in relation to record keeping and details. My husband, who is of Samoan, Chinese, and American heritage, was particularly pleased to be able to find details relating to the American side of his own family, going back to when they were pilgrims to North America. Some of us might ask what that has to do with New Zealand. It actually has quite a lot, because it shows the depth of knowledge the National Library holds. I note that the Minister nods at that.

I am a little interested in the title. However, I will not speak further on what Mr Donnelly said, because I do agree with him in respect of tokenism. I am deeply offended by any tokenism towards Māori, Pākehā, or anyone else in this country, because at the end of the day we are all New Zealanders. Having said that, I do wonder, and perhaps the Minister or somebody who was on the select committee—probably Ms Pettis—could take a call. I know she is always very willing to speak in the House, although not always by taking calls.

Jill Pettis: I am the shy, retiring type. You’ve got me mixed up with somebody else.

JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, and the member is always so eloquent, too. I think “library” is an unusual description these days, because my understanding from the many people who used to be called librarians is that they are now called researchers. Libraries are now almost uniformly starting to be called research centres or information centres. The reason is that libraries are no longer just about books. They are about all sorts of other things, and I am particularly interested in the oral histories that the National Library is able to keep.

One of the things that often amazes me in this House is the amount of time that is devoted by select commitees to bills such as this that are very non-contentious, and the expense of that process, when I would have thought they could be dealt with by way of amendment to the existing legislation, which, in this case, is the National Library Act. I compare that with the amount of time this House has not devoted to, for instance, the question of the coalition of the willing and Iraq. We have to look at the priorities that this House often seems to have, and I am sure that John Carter’s mother, listening on her crystal set in Northland, will be wondering about exactly that point. I am sure she will be very, very worried about that.

As well, I am interested in clauses 30 and 35. I note the provision for notice of requirement for public documents. In my past life as a lawyer, the National Library forwarded me a notice requiring me to forward to it three copies of my documents—documents that I had written or had taken part in writing. I found it quite interesting that those documents were so required. I have to say that if people want three copies of what a person has just published, it would be nice to occasionally ask. I find it really insulting, as someone who has done all the work, to get a letter from a person I have never met requiring me to send copies to the other people who co-benefit from it. Of course, now I am expecting very soon to receive a note from the National Librarian asking for three copies of Collins Comments, the newsletter of the MP for Clevedon—myself. I have to say that it is in extreme demand. I am expecting a call right now from the National Librarian, who, no doubt, is listening to this speech, and saying: “I have to have three of those. One won’t do.”

Georgina Beyer: Send them six.

JUDITH COLLINS: Georgina Beyer is the member of the Labour Party for whom I have the most regard. She wants six copies. It can be done, but I tell her that I do mine electronically, because I am into electronic communications. It is so much quicker, so much cheaper, and saves forests. I see that Mr David Benson-Pope wants three copies, too. No, it is six copies he wants. I must say that he would learn a tremendous amount from my Collins Comments newsletter, as I note would several other people. Tonight I attended a function outside of the House and received three more requests for copies, and those were from people who do not even live in the brilliant electorate of Clevedon—

John Carter: One is going to my mother.

JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, one is going to Mr Carter’s mother. I have to say that the brilliant electorate of Clevedon has everything that any MP could want, including, I have to say, a good majority. Those are the sorts of things that make us feel particularly good, and I am proud to represent that electorate.

One of the issues Mr Donnelly raised was the Official Information Act, and he spoke tonight about the fact that the Official Information Act was brought in to stop Governments from having secret information—not that any particular Government represented in this House would have that sort of thing—and hiding it from members. At the moment, documents just turn up with great big black marks all through them—such as we get with sports funding issues. But it is great to see that there is to be some provision to allow the Rt Hon Winston Peters to talk about his side of the coalition talks, which no doubt is what Mr Donnelly was referring to. Having said that, I am sure there will be another set of documents for the other side of those particular coalition talks. No doubt at some stage Mr Peter Dunne would like to discuss his discussions with the Labour Party and the Progressive Coalition, which no doubt were so valuable. I see my friends in United Future, for whom I must say I also have very kind feelings, as they know—and they are waving to me now. I am sure they will all have their own views. There was a slight wave—a movement of the wrist. Amongst we members of the right—and I am sure those members want to come on our side; they are desperate to—that is a secret signal we have.

I commend this bill to the House. It is so nice to be able to support something that the Government has put up.

BERNIE OGILVY (United Future): I rise to support this second reading. As we have all just been told, this bill replaces the old National Library Act and it tidies up some sections that we have all been very, very interested in over time. A number of submissions to the bill supported extending deposits in the library to cover electronic deposits. This caused a lot of discussion as we were presented with different understandings. The committee recommended some changes to help the library cope with the influx that would occur. During the financial year of the National Library the chief executive informed the committee in December last year that although the library was ready, it would still be quite a stretch, if I remember the words. United Future, nevertheless, is a little sceptical that electronic content can be captured with ease, which was the expression used. Given the shear scope of the published material available on the Internet, not to mention the fact that much of it is constantly updated—and this is something I believe that the Minister made reference to—the bill envisages the library would only harvest web content that it wanted to archive, but it obliges publishers to provide assistance to the library to read and to store information in both electronic and non-electronic form, if required. The fact that on-line publishers will now have to comply with that requirement to submit material to the library, and in a usable format, will add a compliance cost to that particular industry. It would be wise in the coming years to review the policy of lodging electronic documents as people get used to it.

We applaud the moves to exempt oral histories, as someone else pointed out, of past and present Ministers of the Crown, from Official Information Act requests. Those oral memoirs are usually lodged under the proviso that they are not to be released until a certain amount of time has passed, or sometimes until the persons are deceased. That enables contributors to speak frankly about their experiences, but the threat of an Official Information Act request on such information in their official capacity as Ministers would seriously undermine the willingness of those involved in public life to record their histories in the first place, particularly for those who are still active in their political careers. I know of one former Prime Minister who has regularly recorded his reminiscences over an extended period. That will be a fascinating source when it becomes available. We are pleased that the bill recognises the value of oral histories in building the complete picture of events in our nation’s lifetime.

Over the last few years there has been some concern about the library’s collection policies—in particular the fact that it periodically weeds books from its general collection. However, the Alexander Turnbull Library is dedicated to holding the library’s heritage collection, and collects one copy of everything published, via the legal deposit system. The National Librarian is also prevented from transferring the ownership of any documents without the approval of the Minister.

Some of the submissions expressed fears about the bill specifying that the collections bequeathed to the Crown by Alexander Turnbull must remain in the custody of the National Library at all times. This would mean that the material would not be loaned. Fortunately, the bill reaffirms the status of the Alexander Turnbull Library and ensures that its holdings are secure and are able to be loaned.

There is a wider question to be answered about the place of the National Library. The library’s stated objectives include collecting, maintaining, and making accessible national collections of documents, yet decisions on access to library resources lie with the hundreds of other libraries in the country, which have the bulk of resources and determine how they will be used. Access to international resources is now direct—library to library—without any intermediary; even the National Library, for instance. The combined collections, staffing, and expenditure in just some of the large public libraries in New Zealand, such as Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin, are far greater than those of the National Library.

There is a danger, or perhaps it may be an intention, that the National Library could end up as a collection of last resort. United Future is concerned about the future of the National Library and its wonderful collections. We support this bill; we also make the suggestion that both the present and future Governments continue to think carefully about the future of that library and the ways in which it may best serve the citizens of this country.

JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui): It is a pleasure to speak on this bill. I was very pleased to be able to be on the select committee that considered this bill. Libraries are one of my favourite places. I have a very wise mother, who took her children to all the free places in town when we were very young, and libraries were one of those places; and repeating those same skills that I learnt from my mother, I did the same with my own children. It was a pleasure to participate in the debate on this bill through the select committee.

The bill replaces the National Library Act, so it is timely that we have a review of the legislation as it has stood for almost 40 years. Minister Hobbs has a special interest in this bill. I am delighted with the good work that she has done as our Minister in this regard. It is always good to work on legislation when we have a Minister who is so sincerely interested in that legislation. We were delighted to work with Marian Hobbs in progressing this bill through the select committee. The select committee worked very cooperatively, and it was a pleasure to work on the bill during those stages.

I just want to mention very briefly the aspect about the collection of electronic material. Following recommendations from the select committee the library aims to selectively collect electronic material. This will be developed following consultation with electronic publishers. We are all aware of the rapid changes that have taken place with technology, and the need for our collection methods to be modern and timely. The bill will allow the library to collect information for preservation purposes only, and any public access to it would be granted only in agreement with the publisher. That is an important safeguard included within the bill.

The bill is important because it secures our heritage for future generations. It is a more interesting aspect of human nature that as we mature we become more interested in preserving the past. The National Library most certainly plays a pivotal role in that, because having access to the historical documents of our nation is incredibly important. We are very grateful for the role that the National Library and its most skilled and expert staff have in protecting the resources for future generations and protecting the history of this nation for future generations. I am delighted to commend the bill to the House and wish it a rapid passage through its processes.

HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ): I rise to support the second reading of this bill. When looking through Hansard at the first reading speeches on the bill I was very interested to find that the first reading was also taken under urgency. The Rt Hon Wyatt Creech commented at the time that this was an important subject, but not one that justified turning the whole parliamentary system on its head. The same comment is relevant today. As a new member, I must say that I have been staggered at the legislation that comes forward during urgency. For those of us who are spokespeople for our parties for arts, culture, and heritage, it has been a busy day. We have had the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill this morning, and we now have the National Library Bill this afternoon. That says something about where the commitments lie for this Government.

The role of the National Library is an important one—that of preserving our nation’s culture, its heritage, and its literature, along with other materials that allow us to investigate or research our history. I have, on occasion, found the library very useful myself, when I needed to research topics and information before I came to Parliament. The information was often difficult to source, and the National Library certainly is a great resource. That, of course, was before I was an MP, and before I had access to the Parliamentary Library, which is an extremely valuable resource.

The commentary on the bill states that this bill replaces the 1965 Act, and provides for four things. The first of those is the clarification of the relationship between the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library. The Alexander Turnbull Library is currently run by trustees, but they are about to be replaced, if this legislation is passed, by guardians—not more than five people, the legislation states. The guardians will be appointed by the Minister, after consultation with the Minister of Māori Affairs.

As I read the bill, in particular subpart 3 of Part 2, it is clear to me that those new guardians will operate in an advisory capacity only. They will be responsible to the Minister, and it is the Minister, in fact, who has the power to make decisions and act. If we look at clause 16, we see that: “The purpose of the Guardians is to provide assurance to the people of New Zealand …”. Clause 17 states: “The function of the Guardians is to advise the Minister …”. So providing assurance and advice is the role of the guardians—nothing more.

The second thing the new bill provides for is addressing Māori interests in the National Library, hence the repeated references to consultation with the Minister of Māori Affairs, I presume. I would contend, in particular in the light of ACT’s “one law for all” policy, that the National Library should address the interests of all New Zealanders who have contributed to the history of our country. That of course includes Māori, but also Chinese, Europeans, and any number of nationalities that combine to make New Zealand the country it is today.

The third area this bill provides for is the clarification of the status of oral history. That is something other members have spoken about, and something not previously collected, but important, none the less, in recording our history.

The fourth area, and one I want to spend a little more time on, is that of extending the scope of legal deposit. That is to cover the area of electronic documents. Some publishers have expressed their concerns to me. Clause 30, “Notice of requirement for public documents”, worries me in that there appears to be no restriction to reasonable cost to publishers. Clause 30(1) states: “The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, require a publisher of a public document … to give to the National Librarian, at the publisher’s own expense, a specified number of copies … of the printed public document and, in the case of an electronic document, the specified number of copies of the medium that contains the document.” Another member mentioned compliance costs, and that is the area that worries me.

I have some difficulty in particular with clause 30C(4), which allows the National Librarian to make available content harvested from public websites—for example, that of stuff.co.nz or newzealandherald.co.nz—available via the Internet. That could have two implications, which I think are worth considering. The viability of some publishers’ commercial news archives would be threatened. What hope do those services have of surviving if the content they aggregate, and charge for, is available for free from the National Library via a smaller Internet-based archive?

The second concern is this: if the National Library, unintentionally it could be said, destroys the important revenue stream provided by those news archives, the publishers’ ability to continue to fund free websites will be severely tested. As a result of that, all Internet users may well be affected. That may well result in the erosion of the amount and quality of information available to the public via the Internet.

As I said, ACT supports this bill going to the Committee stage, but we will be putting forward some amendments. The first of those will be to amend the definition of restriction, in the bill, to provide for the recognition of legal restrictions that may exist for material on Internet sites. The second amendment will require the National Library to gain agreement from affected publishers, prior to the library making material available via the Internet.

As I said, ACT New Zealand does support this bill, despite the fact that the provisions covering the Alexander Turnbull Library can best be described as “fluffy”. The Minister has the power, and the new guardians fulfil an advisory capacity only. The addressing of Māori interests is, in many ways, camouflage, and certainly this legislation should cover the history of all New Zealanders. I have also covered ACT’s concerns about the legal deposits of electronic matter, but we are hopeful that amendments will deal with those concerns.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this bill, and I would like to pay tribute to the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library. Their performance and what they have achieved over the years is truly something we should all approve of. I support the idea of the Alexander Turnbull Library remaining a separate subdivision of the National Library system. I know that it has an identity that goes way back, and that the various prominent citizens who have given their papers over to the Alexander Turnbull Library have done that on the understanding that those papers will be well protected. The library has that tradition, has a good organisation, looks after and indexes those papers very well, and makes them available to a wide number of people. In fact, when Dr Elsie Locke, my mother, died, we had representations from different libraries about where her papers would go, and it was quite clear to us after discussions among members of the family that they should go to the Alexander Turnbull Library. They have gone there and been well organised there. Its staff are in the process of completing that organisation, and we are very satisfied with what they are doing.

The thing that impresses me about the Alexander Turnbull Library, too, is not only the tradition but the support base—the volunteer base, as it were—that has developed around that library in terms of the Friends of the Turnbull Library in the various functions they have, which are well attended, the publications they put out, and their involvement with an important sector of the community in their ongoing work. It is good that, under this bill, guardians are being set up as a supportive body. I presume those guardians will be appointed from those people who are already very involved in the work of the library. It has a very important place in preserving our heritage and making it available to the public.

There is a section there on oral histories, and I know that the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library have paid much more attention to oral history, and to collecting oral histories in the libraries, over recent times. I think that is very important because a lot of our important people—people who are part of our history—do not get around to writing their autobiographies, or to having other people write biographies about them, and it is sometimes distressing when we know that their accumulated wisdom and experience will disappear if they die. It is good that there are now a lot of people around in the oral history area who are going out into the community and getting records of those people, which are now being deposited in the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library, and being well organised and made available. We can go and listen to those oral histories. That is a very good development, and it is mentioned in this bill.

There is also the question, and Marian Hobbs referred to it, about the exemptions that the Minister can make for certain categories of documents and Government documents. That is a question that relates to the National Library, the Alexander Turnbull Library, and Archives New Zealand. There are grounds for exemptions—no one is challenging that—but we have to be wary that those exemptions are not over-used, or used just because the Government is a bit embarrassed about things, or used to do the bidding of a particular Government department that wants to keep its papers unnecessarily secret, or unnecessarily secret for too long a time. We have that problem, a little bit, with our intelligence services, where, in terms of Archives New Zealand, they have been given exemptions for 25 years, and then their exemptions have been renewed for 25 years, so that virtually for a 50-year period we are not able to access any of those materials, even though a lot of them—materials that the Security Intelligence Service, for example, collects—are public domain materials: publications, leaflets, and those sorts of materials that would be valuable in an archive.

I am just referring to a problem that has been somewhat discussed by academics and by researchers. They are a bit worried about that, and recently have made submissions to the Prime Minister on this question of making a freer public deposit system for those materials, into the National Archives. I am just worried, given the reference in this bill to the “Minister granting exemptions”, and believe we have to be careful to keep an eye on that, so that it is not used as a reason, over a range of Government departments, for having long-term and broad exemptions. They all should be properly justified in terms of genuine security interests or genuine protection of people who should be protected. With those qualifications, I reiterate the Green Party’s support for this bill.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South): I am pleased to rise to speak very briefly in support of this bill, and to congratulate my colleague Minister Hobbs on her stewardship of the legislation. I acknowledge also the work done by other colleagues right across the political divide—some of which I have seen while serving on the select committee,.

One of the most interesting challenges that has been met is the sensible way that this pathway forward copes with the extraordinary challenges presented in terms of the capture of electronic material, in particular. That issue has been very sensitively and pragmatically handled, and I commend the bill to the House.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato): It gives me great pleasure to support this National Library of New Zealand legislation. I was interested to hear Mr Benson-Pope say that a sensible approach has been taken by all parties, but I note that in the first reading debate, the National Party actually opposed this bill. I believe that was for very good reasons, because at that stage a lot of technical aspects posed huge problems and for commercial reasons caused great concern, particularly for publishers, such as newspapers.

I note that this bill replaces the National Library Act of 1965, and when one thinks of the changes in technology that have occurred since 1965, there was no way that the sorts of things that the National Library would be required to look after could be envisaged for all time. Naturally enough, if one thinks of Schumpeter’s curve and the logarithmic way that new discovery is just rattling ahead in this new millennium, it is likely that in 10 or 15 years’ time—but hopefully not too soon—a new National Library bill might have to contend with things that we just cannot envisage now.

The bill deals with four major areas, and I might say at this stage that it was a pleasure working with the Education and Science Committee led by Brian Donnelly. One of the things that was a revelation to me was the National Library. I am afraid I had not visited the library, so I suggested that that be done, and we went over there. It is, indeed, an absolutely superb facility for the nation, not only in terms of its literary content—the wonderful range of books in the National Library itself, and the extraordinary collection bequeathed by Alexander Turnbull—but also the other facilities it has, such as the oral and photographic archives.

I was fascinated to learn that it is possible to go there if one wants photographs and the historical evidence that is accrued from just about any part of a large electorate like Port Waikato. I was able to get photographs from 1863 of Tuakau, Pokeno, and Rangiriri, which I now am planning to hang in my electorate office to give a feel of the history of a wide area of the Waikato. But what is just so wonderful is that this facility is accessible to all New Zealanders. One can easily access those archives, and the extremely helpful librarians will give one a range of options of how the material can be acquired, lent, etc. I just cannot underestimate for one moment how important that National Library collection is, and the same goes for the Alexander Turnbull Library.

The bill continues the National Library, and the purpose of the Alexander Turnbull Library is confirmed by the Crown’s undertaking “to preserve, protect, develop, and make accessible for all the people of New Zealand the collections of that library in perpetuity and in a manner consistent with their status as documentary heritage and taonga;”. I note that the status of the Alexander Turnbull is assured by the replacement of the present Trustees of the National Library with a new body to be called the Guardians of the Alexander Turnbull Library. When those people submitted, I was particularly taken with their sheer intelligence—maybe gentleness, but also an aspect of severity—their incredible commitment to the cause of preserving this hugely important collection, and their determination that the heritage bequeathed by Alexander Turnbull himself, and the others who subsequently bequeath to that collection, would be protected and respected in the years to come.

One of the other major areas this bill addresses is the Māori interest, and as Brian Donnelly said so eloquently, it is hugely important that in this year’s legislation—as compared with the Act of 1965, which contained no reference at all to the interests of tangata whenua or Māori—there is absolutely meaningful involvement and reference, rather than tokenism.

The area of legal deposit was perhaps one of the most contentious, and that is encapsulated in clause 30. Legal deposit is a statutory requirement, under which publishers and/or printers must provide copies of works to a national agency. The mechanism is found in the statutes of over 130 countries, so it is certainly not uncommon. Clause 30(1) states: “The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, require a publisher of a public document … to give … at the publisher’s own expense, a specified number of copies (not exceeding 3) …”.

A variety of technical aspects came out of the woodwork. One was a submission by a publisher who had a very limited publication of exquisitely leather-bound books. Those books were literally worth thousands of dollars. It would be a huge requirement were the publisher to be forced to give up three of those copies, and the bill allows for flexibility in those cases. So it is down to that detail, and appropriate detail, that the bill has reached.

I think the most difficult part was the concern about electronic transfer, and certainly the Newspaper Publishers Association was very concerned about that aspect. I note that the Dominion Post said on 9 December: “The National Library looks likely to win the right to compel anyone who publishes on the Net to help the library access and store their content. The obligation covers individuals publishing Web pages and professional publishers of subscription-based online information, who will have to provide ‘reasonable assistance’ to help the library access and store their material, if asked.” In fact, the acting chief executive of the library replied on 13 December, and the mechanisms to protect commercial rights have been worked through very well.

The last thing I would like to mention is oral history. I found this area particularly of interest, because two people I had something to do with—Hugo Manson and Judith Fyfe—spent many years taking the oral histories of prominent New Zealanders, and, in particular, former Prime Ministers. Unfortunately, that process had to be stopped because of access through the Official Information Act, but it was done with a huge amount of care for confidentiality, and respect for the people whose oral histories were taken. Hopefully, a mechanism will be worked out so that that process can be restored.

I end by saying that this is a very important bill. It has been worked through in a multiparty way, and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. Ngāti Ruanui is one of the eight generally recognised iwi of Taranaki. Its historical treaty claims cover some of the southern part of the Taranaki region, and relate mostly to the Crown’s waging of war in Taranaki in the 1860s, and to the loss of property through the confiscation of land under the New Zealand Settlements Act of 1863. The claims also relate to the treatment of prisoners during the wars, to the Crown’s unconscionable actions in its dealing with the Parihaka community, and to the inadequacy of the West Coast commissions. This settlement addresses the longstanding and significant grievances suffered by Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe, and Pakakohi. The widespread loss of Ngāti Ruanui land has hindered its development throughout the past 160 years.

This settlement enables the Crown to apologise for its atrocious behaviours towards Ngāti Ruanui, especially in relation to the people in that area. Ngāti Ruanui suffered a heavy punishment due to a decision of the Government of the day to make an example of it, in order to deter other Māori from taking up arms against the Queen’s authority. The Crown has acknowledged that its actions had a prejudicial impact on those of Ngāti Ruanui. In particular, that impeded the ability of Ngāti Ruanui to exercise control over its taonga and its wāhi tapu, and to maintain and foster spiritual connections to its ancestral lands. The Crown apologises unreservedly for its actions, which breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. As well as an apology, this settlement provides for financial redress of $41 million, which includes the transfer of six commercial properties, and a variety of cultural redress that aims to recognise and protect the interests of Ngāti Ruanui in sites that are particularly significant to them, and to enhance their relationship with the Crown.

This bill makes it clear that this is a comprehensive and final settlement of all the historical claims of Ngāti Ruanui. This settlement is an important milestone for Ngāti Ruanui and the Crown. It will enable us to move forward and renew our relationship as treaty partners. I know that members of Ngāti Ruanui would like this settlement to be finalised as soon as possible, to enable them to begin their development plans and to look to the future. This settlement is also significant because it is the first in the Taranaki region. I hope that this settlement will encourage other claimants to enter into and complete negotiations with the Crown.

The Māori Affairs Committee has considered this bill and submitted its commentary on the bill to the House. The committee has recommended that the bill be passed with certain proposed amendments, and I thank it for its timely and thorough consideration of the bill. The committee made some observations concerning objections to the bill in relation to some individuals within Ngāti Ruanui and, in particular, with regard to some members of Tangahoe and Pakakohi, who have opposed parts of the settlement throughout. That opposition led to mediation, several judicial conferences, and proceedings before the Waitangi Tribunal and the High Court. On the whole, those inquiries found in favour of the settlement proceeding. I am glad to note that the majority of the select committee was satisfied that the issue of whether Pakakohi and Tangahoe be included in this settlement has been well and truly traversed, and agreed that the settlement should proceed.

I note that the Green Party member on the committee holds a different view and objects to the inclusion of Pakakohi and Tangahoe in this settlement, and I respect that position. I would like to point out to the member, however, that of the 16 Ngāti Ruanui hapū, Tangahoe members affiliate mainly to five hapū, and Pakakohi members affiliate mainly to six hapū. Also, the Waitangi Tribunal stated in 2001 that although each group traditionally had distinct identities, it is now very difficult to tell the people apart. Also, the settlement recognises that unique relationship and identity. All members of Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe, and Pakakohi will be able to benefit from the settlement wherever they may now live.

I note that the committee has made a few minor amendments to the bill, generally to reflect the recently approved survey plans for the cultural redress properties that are to be transferred. As is noted in the committee’s commentary on the bill, further amendments are to be made to the bill, reflecting, among other things, the change under Landonline from a certificate of title to a computer register. Those have been provided for in Supplementary Order Paper 72, which has been tabled in the House.

It was in April 1998 that the previous Government recognised the mandate of Ngāti Ruanui negotiators. A deed of settlement was then finalised and signed in May 2001. This settlement has been achieved in a timely manner, and it is important that we now finalise it to enable Ngāti Ruanui to receive the redress. I acknowledge the work done by the former Minister, and the Associate Minister, in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, who contributed to this settlement.

I also want to thank the other Ministers involved, and in particular the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Conservation, and the Minister of Māori Affairs, who have supported the process throughout. I acknowledge the support and assistance of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for treaty negotiations. I wish to thank the officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements and other Government departments for their work in seeking a just and fair settlement.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge and thank the individual kaumātua, members, and negotiators of Ngāti Ruanui, whose commitment on behalf of their people, their ancestors, and their descendants has led to this pathway to reconciliation. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): I am very pleased and proud to speak to the second reading of the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill. I commend the Government for finally getting the bill to this stage. I also say that I am satisfied with the work that we did in the Māori Affairs Committee and that this bill should certainly now proceed with, hopefully, swift passage.

As the Minister has already stated, the settlement that gives rise to this bill involves the Ngāti Ruanui people of South Taranaki. It aims to give effect to a deed of settlement dated 12 May 2001, which has been ratified by a majority of Ngāti Ruanui. Specifically, 88 percent of the adult Ngāti Ruanui voted, with agreement from 60 percent of the total, which, in terms of a mandate and a brief to go ahead and do something, is a very reasonable majority. I will come to the issues raised by Pakakohi and Tangahoe later, because I would imagine, given the depth of feeling with which they came to the select committee to raise their concerns, they will still be feeling some loss that this bill is now proceeding through the House.

The Ngāti Ruanui claims are settled through this bill. It is important to note that under clause 15, the Crown is released and discharged from all obligations and liabilities in respect of the Ngāti Ruanui claims. The clause states that the settlement of the historical claims effected under the deed and the legislation is final. That is a feature of all the settlement legislation that comes through the House, and hopefully it gives some confidence to all, both inside and outside the House, that, given goodwill and settlement packages that are fair and reasonable, these can indeed be said to be final settlements of the historical claims of iwi.

The settlement provides for an apology. The background to that apology is the Crown’s waging of war in Taranaki, the land confiscations that followed the Waitara purchase, and the invasion of Parihaka in 1881, following a period of passive resistance. That was not a good period in our history, and the Minister has alluded to that. I want to remind the House that things happened during the wars that were waged and during the invasion of Parihaka that none of us can be proud of. All of us, therefore, should be pleased that with the passage of this bill, this House makes some atonement for the dreadful things that happened to these people.

Interestingly enough, those actions still live on, in the way that these people present themselves to us today. One can only imagine that if people are living with a history in which their tūpuna were invaded and imprisoned without trial, with some being sent away and imprisoned in caves down in the South Island—some never to return and others to return, but to no homes—even though that happened back in the 1880s, the legacy of those kinds of injustices to a group of people may, in the minds and hearts of those people, never be made right. Hopefully, this settlement at least shows good faith and goodwill on the part of the Crown and this Parliament, to make up for those actions.

The settlement provides, as I say, for an apology, and also for a redress package, which consists of commercial redress in the form of cash and properties, and also cultural redress. That package is extremely important, because with the alienation and the dispossession of land came the loss of an economic base, which the tribe no doubt widely expected to be able to develop along with the emerging nation. That is why the tribe signed the Treaty of Waitangi, but that did not happen. But while the redress package is important, it is also very important that the Government, on behalf of the people of New Zealand, makes this apology. As I say, people who are interested might want to read through the full preamble, which sets out exactly the reasons that the apology is important. Essentially the commercial and cultural redress follows the same kind of package that was developed for previous settlements. It has proved to be a worthwhile structure for settlements, and I would imagine that future settlements will also be based on the framework that is now present in this bill.

This is the first settlement in Taranaki, as the Minister referred to, and like the Minister I would hope it acts as a spur for both the Government and the other iwi of Taranaki to move, sooner rather than later, to settle their historical claims. Nobody needs to feel guilty about this claim, because none of us here today was responsible for anything that happened to Ngāti Ruanui, but we have a great opportunity to make up for the things that were done in the past. I think it is always a very worthwhile thing that the House does to show that the Crown is capable of good faith and of making atonement for the actions or inaction of past Governments. I always feel proud when we do one of these settlements, and I hope everyone in this House does, too.

None of these settlements will be perfect. Nothing can ever be done to fully make up for the losses incurred by iwi that have resulted in these historical claims, but we in New Zealand are foremost in the world in the way in which we address these injustices. I think New Zealanders should be very proud of the fact that we have a framework in place to address them, and that when we put our minds to it, we are very diligent in going about settling these injustices. There can be no equality of citizenship while this sort of injustice sits and waits to be atoned for.

This is a good night. This is a worthwhile debate. The select committee, hopefully, did its job reasonably well. We were satisfied that the issues raised by Pakakohi and Tangahoe had been well traversed by the Waitangi Tribunal. There were also some Cabinet minutes available to us. The issues about whether those two sub-tribes should be included in the settlement had been well traversed. The select committee has no power to change a deed of settlement. The best that we could do was to make sure that due process was followed, and in this case it appears that it was. I hope that in time those who feel disaffected, and who came before the select committee with much depth and emotion, will be able to put that behind them as well, to join together with the rest of Ngāti Ruanui, and, as the Minister says, to use this settlement as a beacon to go forward into the future.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): United Future supports the second reading of the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill. Indeed, it is United Future’s view that the claims settlement process needs to occur with a great deal more speed than is apparent. I would like Ngāti Ruanui to be aware that the reason this bill is being passed in urgency is that United Future requested it to be included in the list of bills to be debated under urgency this week. Without that, the bill would not be here tonight.

We believe it is important that the process of settling grievances be resolved as a matter of urgency. We believe that until we can get the grievances between Māori and the Crown resolved and the settlements out of the way, we will be inhibited as a nation from moving on together. We are concerned that there are delays in the whole settlement process, and at the length of time that the Government is taking to get the settlements through.

However, turning to the bill, I am particularly glad to see it progressing with speed. As I said in my first reading speech, I trace my own great-grandparents back to the town of Maxwell. They were farming at the time that a lot of these events would have happened. In the first reading I expressed my concern that my ancestors, who were around at that time, might have been involved in them, or might have had land given to them or sold to them by the Crown that, in fact, was Māori land. I apologised at that time on behalf of my ancestors for any grievances that they might have been party to. I noted from the deed of settlement with Ngāti Ruanui that the Crown adopted a policy of attrition, or a scorched earth policy, in regard to the southern Taranaki operations. That resulted in many villages being destroyed, in bush-scouring campaigns, and in much loss of life and property on the part of Ngāti Ruanui. It is over time that we as a nation recognised that, provided an apology to Ngāti Ruanui, and recompensed them, albeit modestly, for the losses that they suffered.

I was also aware that Ngāti Ruanui was part of and contributed to the Parihaka community. That community was an example to New Zealand, in terms of its peaceful existence and the way that it operated as a community. It was a community that was based on the scriptural principles of the Beatitudes, and it tried to live in a peaceful way with the English. Unfortunately, the British did not respond in the same way. We know the story of Parihaka and the way that the armed forces dominated that community, and endeavoured by force and intimidation to make those people leave their land. Eventually a lot of them were exiled to the South Island, and there were many deaths as a result of that.

I am also particularly pleased to support this bill because a lot of the Ngāti Ruanui people settled in my own area of the Hutt Valley. Te Whiti led a number of people down from Taranaki to settle in the Hutt Valley. Te Whiti Park, which is a key park in the Hutt Valley, is named after Te Whiti because that is where the people settled. Therefore, in terms of my current area of residence, I feel an affinity with the Ngāti Ruanui people and I am delighted to see this bill progressing further.

I have indicated the frustration that United Future feels at the slowness in resolving the treaty grievances. I note, for example, that the Gisborne inquiry process—the newly developed process that came into effect last year—is still awaiting the publication of a report as to its effectiveness. The Attorney-General advised this House way back in September that the assessment was being completed, yet many months on from that we still find a situation where the Gisborne inquiry report has not been published. It is expected that the report will be positive. The Attorney-General has indicated that once that report is received, if there is a need for more funding then that will be looked at. Yet we are now getting close to the Budget round, where the Government will be considering the provisions it will make in order to expand its policies. There is an urgent need for things like the Gisborne inquiry process, which has by all accounts been effective, to be extended to all the other claims throughout New Zealand so that we can speed up the Waitangi Tribunal processes, resolve the grievances, get the legislation into this House, and pass it.

As I indicated before, it is the view of United Future that until we can get the grievances resolved and the whole job completed, we are inhibited as a nation from moving forward. We have a thorn in the side of our history that prevents us from moving into the future together. So I encourage the Government even more strongly to provide more funding and to speed up the process. I encourage it to give more urgency to getting the resolutions through, tabling the legislation, and passing it through the House. Many iwi and hapū have been waiting for too long to see their grievances resolved. I know that there are issues, such as mandating issues and things like that, that fairly need to be completed by the iwi and hapū themselves, but it seems to me that even greater resources could be provided to the Office of Treaty Settlements. That would enable the claims development teams to be expanded, so that they take a proactive, and not simply a reactive, role in having disputes resolved. The Office of Treaty Settlements should be approaching iwi and hapū, encouraging them to get together, and facilitating in every way possible the resolution of their issues. I am not talking about taking away the authority and the decision making from Māori, but simply about working alongside them and providing all the resources possible to speed up the process of the iwi fulfilling the aspects that they need to fulfil, so that we can reach some resolutions and get the settlements through.

However, the second reading of this bill is important for Ngāti Ruanui, and therefore United Future supports it. We are keen to see the bill go through the House with a degree of speed. We commend the bill to the House.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ): Kia ora anō tātou i huihui mai nei i roto i tēnei Whare i tēnei pō. Ki ō tatou manuhiri, ki ngā rangatira o Ngāti Ruanui, nau mai, haere mai. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

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

[Greetings once again to all of us who are gathered here tonight in this House. To our visitors and chiefs from Ngāti Ruanui, welcome, welcome. Greetings to you all, greetings, greetings.]

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the second reading of this bill. Between 1990 and 1995 the Waitangi Tribunal investigated 21 claims concerning Taranaki Māori, including Ngāti Ruanui, made to the Waitangi Tribunal under section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975. In 1996 the Waitangi Tribunal released its interim report on the Taranaki claims. Its report was based on the Waitangi Tribunal’s inquiry up to the date of the report, in order to expedite negotiations for settlements in relation to the Taranaki claims.

In April 1998 the Crown recognised the mandate of Ngāti Ruanui Muru me te Raupatu Working Group, including Tangahoe and Pakakohi, in its negotiations. The Crown and the working-party reached a heads of agreement in September 1999, which recorded that in principle Ngāti Ruanui and the Crown were willing to settle the Ngāti Ruanui historical claims.

The Crown and the working-party then finalised a settlement offer, which was put before Ngāti Ruanui for ratification. Ngāti Ruanui approved the ratification by a majority vote of 87.8 percent of participating adult members of the claimant community who were eligible to vote. On 12 May 2001 the Crown and Ngāti Ruanui entered into a deed of settlement. Throughout the negotiations members of Ngāti Ruanui, representing some members of Tangahoe and Pakakohi in particular, and in some cases members of Hamua, Hapotiki, and Ngāti Tupaia hapū have opposed the settlement. That opposition has related mainly to the inclusion of the Tangahoe and Pakakohi claims in the Ngāti Ruanui settlement.

I am positive that all in this House would dearly love to have these claims settled for once and for all, so that people can move on after an arduous time-span of negotiations. But I ask the question: what of the concerns of Pakakohi and Tangahoe? Are their claims valid enough, given that many submissions were before the Māori Affairs Committee towards the end of the year 2002? Crown policy is that it is for claimants to decide who will represent them, and how to select those representatives. Representatives are selected through an open and a transparent process, and only when certain criteria are met will the Crown recognise the mandate of a claimant group. Those criteria are, for instance, that the mandate process was open and transparent, was representative of all claims and descent groups, has wide support from the claimant community, and represents a large natural grouping of claimants’ interests. Those factors and many others all require careful judgments by officials, and ultimately by Ministers. There will invariably be opposition to any mandate recognition decision. What the Crown needs to be certain of is that a clear majority of the marae, hapū and claimant community members support the mandate, and that those who do not are still able to participate in the process.

After considering the Office of Treaty Settlements and Te Puni Kōkiri assessments, in April 1988 Cabinet decided to recognise the working-party’s mandate to represent Ngāti Ruanui, including Pakakohi and Tangahoe. I ask members to allow me to add that as long as there is division amongst the people, how can we live together as a nation? New Zealand First recognises the mana of those concerned, and that it has always been part and parcel of Māori make-up. But for the moment, I ask that we look at the common sense of these issues. After all, we are whānau, and hapū is an extension of the whānau concept. I am sure that for the sake of peace for our tamariki and mokopuna, all the parties concerned can sit down together in a spirit of tranquillity and negotiate an amicable agreement that would be profitable for all.

New Zealand First supports the bill, but we also recommend very strongly that the leadership of Ngāti Ruanui, Pakakohi, and Tangahoe, and others whom I may have omitted, gather together on their maraes of abode and negotiate a peaceful and satisfying agreement. I believe that this can and will be done within the confines and wairua of our tupuna. New Zealand First would be happy to facilitate that if required, in order to bring these matters to finality. I am sure that the sore that may burst can be cured. Kei te kata koe.

[You are laughing.]

To Ngāti Ruanui and all the hapū concerned, I say the bill has been before the Waitangi Tribunal. It has been before the select committee, along with all the submissions for and against it, and we know and feel those concerns and the heritage that is represented there. The indications are that this bill will receive the stamp of approval. My question will be bandied around amongst many: where to from here? Taku whakahoki ki tēnā pātai, kei a koutou tēnā. My reply to that query is that it is now over to the hapū. New Zealand First endorses and will support this bill, and hopes that all will proceed for the good of all hapū. No reira, ki a tātou, ki a koutou ngā rangatira o Ngāti Ruanui, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou, i tae mai nei koutou ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero, e whakawhitiwhiti ana i waenganui i ngā mema o tēnei Whare. To those of Ngāti Ruanui, I thank them for being present and listening to the conversations and the debate that has been going on this evening. Greetings to us all.

MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Ā, tēnā koutou e kui me te rōpū e haere maomao mai, mai raro i tā tāua nei maunga a Taranaki me te tihi o taua maunga. Uhia mai te tīpare rau kawakawa hei tohu nō te mate ki a rātou kua uhia mai i te korowai aroha i a rātou tīmata ai ō rātou nei hīkoi ki te mātātoru, te iti me te rahi, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou ō koutou nei maia ki te haramai ki te rongo atu i ngā kōrero kua whakahūātia kei roto i tēnei pouwhare. Kua rongo hoki koutou, kei te tautoko, tino tautoko mai te nuinga o mātou i te tikanga o tēnei pire. Nā, ka maumahara au i tētehi o ngā whakatauākītanga kōrero e whakaputa mai i ō tātou nei poropiti a Te Whiti ki te iwi i a rātou e noho i runga i te marae o Parihaka. Ka mētia e te poropiti ki a rātou ngā rōpū, “E te iwi ka riri mai te hau ki a mātou, ka piko. Ka mutu te riri e te hau ki a mātou, ka tū anō.” Nā, kua tae te wā. Ka tū mana anō koutou, mātou te katoa o ngā iwi o Taranaki i tēnei wā. Kia whakatūtuki pea i ngā auwētanga, i te haehae o te whatumanawa o rātou rā ngā tau heke, ā, kua ngaro ai te katoa. Me kī, me rātou rā e mauherere ai kei roto i ngā āna kei Te Waipounamu. A rātou rā kua mate ai, kua tanumia ai kei te whenua o Te Waipounamu. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.

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

[Greetings to you the elderly womenfolk, and the group who travelled here from afar and from that mountain of ours, Taranaki. Greetings to its summit. Cover us with the sprig of leaves from the kawakawa tree that is worn around the head to mark death, and to honour those who have been shrouded in the cloak of love as they began their journey. To the multitude, to the meek, and to the illustrious, greetings to you. Greetings to you and on your boldness in coming to hear what is being said in this House. You have also heard that the majority of us support what this bill is about—really support it. Now I recall one of the wise sayings that this prophet of ours, Te Whiti, said to the people when they were living on Parihaka Marae. The prophet said this to the group: “When the wind is angry with us, we bend over. When its anger is over, we stand up again.” The moment has now arrived. At this moment, you and all of us of Taranaki stand with authority. To carry out the anguish perhaps to its completion, and the things that cut them up inside, all have disappeared over the years—let us say those held captives in caves in the South Island; those who died there, and are buried there. Therefore, greetings to you.]

I am very pleased to hear, so far, the level of support that has been expressed for this bill following the start of the debate on its second reading by the Minister, the Hon Margaret Wilson. It shows a very collective consciousness towards addressing ngā he rawa o mua ake [the things that went wrong before], because many of our people, not only those in Taranaki, have had that kind of mamae for generations. As a former long-term trustee of Parihaka—as an uri of Parihaka, just like those in the gallery—I am very, very pleased and privileged to stand here as a former chair of the Parihaka trustees, and now as the member of Parliament for Te Tai Tonga, and sometimes for Taranaki, to express our view.

We understand and you understand, without doubt, the kinds of statements that have been made about te auwētanga [the anguish], because we have lived it. It has been our reality. We understand fully, as well, the kinds of implications it has had for our people. It is not just about land. Ehara mō te whenua anake. To see you here tonight, Mate, your having travelled to Wellington as you have done for—I do not know—the last 4 decades, kawe mai i taua take i konei nā, i mua i te aroaro o te Kāwana [to bring this matter before the Government]. Seeing you here, of course, causes reflections of memory, and I see beside you many other people, including my mother. There is a whole range of people involved here, not just those who are physically with us, me te tini o rātou mā kua whakawairua [but also the vast number of those who have died].

I think that is very important, because we are talking about not just ourselves, who are here physically, but also those who are no longer here, and those architects of the Taranaki claim, which was first sought under the umbrella of the Taranaki Māori Trust Board. We are here to celebrate that. I am really looking forward to the third reading, which I think we will have as soon as possible, kia haere tika ai te kaupapa, kia whakawātea mai pea te toimahatanga mai rā anō i noho i runga pokohiwi.

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

[so that the matter proceeds in a proper way, the burdens that have sat on our shoulders are perhaps cleared away.]

I want to acknowledge also, along with the Minister in charge of Treaty Negotiations, the work that was done by the previous Minister, and the Associate Minister, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, and her sterling support as deputy chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. We hope that continues, I say to her. I also acknowledge the other members of the select committee. So, ahakoa te ruarua hoki o ngā kupu, kei te noho tonu ai te aroha ki a koutou me te katoa tae noa atu ki te wā wahakatutuki mai i tēnei kaupapa.

[even though the words are few, the regards for you and everyone remains and will still be there right up to the time when this matter is completed.]

There is just one more thing. When we took the submissions it was extraordinarily difficult for me to sit there as the chair of the select committee, partly because we were in a situation kei te haere wehe wehe mai [where we had come separately]. But as I said, as the chair, a select committee is not a court of law, nor can it address issues outstanding and seek legal solutions. That was sought, as the honourable Minister has already alluded to, through the Treaty of Waitangi in the High Court. We were compelled to pursue the path of the majority.

In answer to the pātai from the honourable member from New Zealand First, I say there are seats for everyone to participate in the structure after the claim. It is there, he tūru mō ngā hapū, iwi katoa a Ngāti Ruanui Tangahoe me Takakohe. Kua kite ai te hiahiatanga kei roto o te wairua o rātou, kua waiho kotahi.

[a seat for the subtribes and all the people of Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe, and Takakohe. What is desired can be seen in the spirit of others; it has been left as one.] That is the answer to the question the member posed, and I do not think we need to go up there and facilitate it. Thank you Mr Chair, kia ora mai, rirerire hau, pai mārire ki a tātou katoa.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The honourable member gave the answer to my good colleague’s question, but I did not understand it. Can I ask the interpreter to interpret?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member most certainly can. Can we have an interpretation, please?

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

METIRIA TUREI (Green): Kia ora koutou katoa. He mihi nui he mihi aroha ki a Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe, me Pakakohi.

[Greetings to you all. An affectionate and appreciative greeting to Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe and Takakohe.]

First I must pay my respects to those kaumatua, kuia, hapū, and whānau who have travelled all this way tonight to be here for the second reading of this bill, and to those who have worked so terribly hard for it and are now able to celebrate it. The journey for them to this point has been long and arduous, and many hardships and sacrifices have been made, but this particular process is almost at an end. To those whom this bill causes sorrow, we acknowledge your pain and your struggles also.

We in the Green Party have weighed very carefully our support for the restitution of claims, and our deep concern about the treaty settlement process. For this particular settlement, we have decided, in these circumstances and out of respect for Ngāti Ruanui, to support this bill. [Interruption] Kia ora. The restoration to the iwi of land, particularly wāhi tapu, and the ability to enhance and advance Ngāti Ruanui hapū through the settlement are, for them, significant gains, and we acknowledge Ngāti Ruanui’s efforts to achieve some form of justice and restitution for the grave losses suffered by the mana whenua of Taranaki. The Greens acknowledge that delegated representatives of the Crown have breached, and continue to breach, te tiriti rights of Māori, and we support resolution of, and restitution for, all outstanding historical and current breaches.

We gave very serious consideration to abstaining from the vote on this bill. We are loath to suggest to the Government that we support the general process by which this settlement was reached. I want to make clear to the Government that we believe that the treaty settlement process is seriously flawed, and cannot fully resolve the breaches of te tiriti because of those fundamental flaws. It is some of those issues that I want to address tonight.

In the Māori Affairs Committee, many submitters talked of their feelings of exclusion, and their fears that their sovereignty and identity will be subsumed by the settlement process. It also became clear that the Ngāti Ruanui Muru me te Raupatu Working Group was not responsible for those fears, but that the process through which all of these people sought redress was inadequate and unable to deal with the complexity and enormity of the issues involved. One submitter in particular, Te Miringa Hohaia, talked of the duress of poverty, and of how this was the only deal in town for the relief of that poverty, and he also spoke of how the failure to deal with the whole of the Taranaki tragedy has led to the picking off of iwi, to everyone’s detriment. He is absolutely right. The Government has failed to find an adequate way to truly compensate mana whenua in the Taranaki area for the crimes committed against them.

I am talking about not just money and property, because there are other ways by which the injustices could be acknowledged—initially, and most important, by the Government being prepared to look at the process itself. Māori have never been able to be actively part of constructing the process by which they are to obtain resolution of their historical grievances. They have never been properly involved in the development of the treaty settlement process.

The process was constructed in the late 1980s, and involved at that time Cabinet Ministers and officials. It was not until 1993, after 4 years of planning, that it was finally recognised that Māori ought to have some level of involvement other than through Te Puni Kōkiri. There were 4 years of the Government planning and constructing a process, and only then was it taken out for consultation.

It would come as no surprise to many that the submissions and concerns raised by Māori were not taken up by the Crown, which by then already had 4 years of investment in its process. Never mind that Māori had 150 years invested in that process, and had thousands of deaths, and hundreds of wrongful imprisonments, and theft and dispossession invested in it. Never mind that the whole point was to recognise the treaty relationship, and remedy the failures of the Government in the past.

We can see those failures in the bill. On page 5 the preamble talks about the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863, which was used to confiscate lands of Māori whom the Crown had assessed as being engaged in rebellion against the authority of the Queen. It was under that Act that much of the land of Ngāti Ruanui was taken. Sixty years later, in 1926, the Sim Commission was set up to investigate that Act and the confiscations under it. That commission’s recommendations were very poor. They were not discussed with iwi, and were never considered by them to be adequate.

The honourable member Georgina te Heuheu said in her speech tonight that there cannot be adequate restitution, and I agree. There cannot be adequate restitution for what was stolen, and taken, and done. That is why we must look at what this process does, and we must not confine our views about how to make restoration simply to propertarian rights. It is about much more than that. It is about constitutional structures, and it is about empowerment at a level that this Government and previous Governments have not ever considered. It is only by engaging with Māori in a direct process to determine how that restitution should come about that there will ever be anything like true restitution.

It is imperative that the treaty settlement process is properly reviewed by the previous claimants, by current and future claimants, and by Māori in general who are affected by those claims and need to be able to contribute. As with any restorative justice process, Māori as victims must be able to have some control over the process for their own restitution. Let us be very clear that the fact that Māori engage in this process does not mean that they endorse it. I return to the words of Te Miringa Hohaia: this is the only game in town; this is where the duress of poverty is at its most stark. Māori will do what is best for their people, and will take up the meagre opportunities for redress available to them, but there are very few opportunities, and it is a heavy obligation on rangatira to make every effort to achieve whatever is possible for their people. So much mana is vested in the successful outcome of this process—a process that does not respect that mana.

I turn now briefly to my minority statement in the select committee report. I have enormous respect for those of Tangahoe and Pakakohi who went through the court and tribunal processes in order to assert their tino rangatiratanga. Theirs has been a real struggle to have their issues recognised and taken seriously, and they will feel aggrieved by this bill. It is the underlying settlement policy of dealing only with large natural groupings that has seriously undermined the tino rangatiratanga of hapū within this claimant group—within Ngāti Ruanui. This further exacerbates the injustice that the settlement is designed to cure. The Greens believe that the Government should develop with Māori a diversity of models for restitution, premised on the tino rangatiratanga of hapū as the first principle. Clearly, hapū must not be punished for choosing not to participate in a Crown process that is extensively designed for their benefit, but that fails to recognise their needs and concerns. The Crown policy could be changed to engage with individual hapū, as set out in te tiriti. It could engage in a resolution process that focuses more closely on ongoing relationships, and less on fiscal and time constraints. It could accept alternative models for resolution that are determined by Māori themselves. We believe that it is the perpetuation of a serious grievance to require Māori who disagree with the process either to participate or to be left without restitution.

Finally, I acknowledge and recognise the members of the Māori Affairs Committee who were involved in hearing the claims and submissions on this bill. It is true that the best that the select committee can do is hear, since we cannot make any changes to the bill, but it is important that we do hear those claims and ensure that everyone’s issues are truly acknowledged. Kia ora koutou katoa.

MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiāriki): Kāti, kia ora hui hui tātou. Taranaki maunga, Taranaki tangata, nau mai, hara mai, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou i ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki tō kōtou hara mai rā i te nuku o te whenua i tēnei rā whakahirahira. Hei mātakitaki , hei tirotiro ki ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki tā kōtou pire, nāna nei kua tae atu ki tōna mutunga. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Tēnā hoki koutou i ngā āhuatanga kei runga kei a koutou, ngā aituā maha, rātau kāre e tae-ā-tinana mai ana. Otirā, e tū poto noa iho tēnei ki te tautoko i ngā mahi e mahi ana i tō tātou Minita, a Mākareta te Wirihana, ā, me tō tātou Komiti Motuhake mō ngā Take Māori, me te heamana hoki, tā koutou tangata a Mahara Okoroa, ahakoa kei Pōneke e noho ana, kei a koutou tōna ngākau. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā hoki tātau.

[Hello indeed to all of us gathered here. Taranaki mountain, Taranaki people, welcome, welcome, greetings to you. Greetings to you in respect of the circumstances that brought you here from the breadth of the land on this great day, to view and look at the circumstances that relate to your bill that has reached its passing. So greetings, greetings, and greetings to you. Greetings as well in respect of the many deaths upon you, they the ones who were unable to be here in person. Indeed, while this is a brief address, I rise in support of the work by our Minister Margaret Wilson, our Māori Affairs Committee, the chairman as well, your very own man, Mahara Okeroa; even though he is living here in Wellington, his heart is there with you. So, greetings, greetings, greetings to you and to us as well.]

I thank my colleagues, including the Hon Margaret Wilson, members of the Opposition parties, and in particular the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, and more particularly the chairman, Mr Mahara Okeroa, for their endeavours during this entire process. I have to say that for many members on the Māori Affairs Committee, hearing submissions was not only difficult for them but very painful, because the issues that were being discussed were specifically about them and their history. I take this opportunity to acknowledge them and congratulate them on the strength they showed throughout the process.

I also acknowledge here in the House today representatives of Ngāti Ruanui. As I said: ā, Taranaki tangata, Taranaki maunga ahakoa he maunga titōhea, ka rere ngā manu ki reira unu ai, e kore e mimiti.

[and Taranaki people, Taranaki mountain, even though it is a barren one and birds fly there to drink, it never runs dry.]

By saying that, I mean that Taranaki has a tremendous history, a very, very long history, and a history that this country can be proud of. As I was sitting here listening to the speeches I thought to myself that I should be talking about the bill and about the process that this bill has been subjected to. But, then again, I thought to myself, well, everybody else here seems to be speaking about that, so what is there left for me to say, apart from the fact that we have not taken the time to acknowledge the history of Taranaki and its people?

Although I come from the sunny Bay of Plenty I do know quite a bit about Taranaki, because my people travelled in the early days to Taranaki to help with the passive resistance movement. Some of them never came home. They did not die there; they married there. I was kind of amused at a comment made by the New Zealand First speaker Mr Bill Gudgeon, who said: “Hopefully, one day we will sit together in tranquillity.”; I thought to myself that that was what Taranaki people were doing when the soldiers came. Maybe that is a part of our history we are not very proud of, but it is still part of our history.

A lot of comments have been made about, and a lot of references have been made to, Taranaki’s ancestor and their prophet, who is well known throughout Māoridom, Te Whiti o Rongomai, and his associate, Tohu. A lot of proverbs have been quoted here in this House tonight whereby the prophet heralded the way forward, and that was through passive resistance. That may not seem unusual, but it was at a time when no one throughout the world spoke about passive resistance, when taking up arms was the order of the day, and when people upon people were destroyed because of their views. And we see that happening today. But here was this man from Taranaki, who told his people to lay down their arms, and who said that they will not fight, but will resist. To this day they have held that line, and I am sure my colleague Mr Mahara Okeroa is proud of that history, although from time to time in this House I wonder whether he follows that practice! But I am only kidding.

As I say, I stand to speak very briefly. It would be good from time to time for us to think about the history of Taranaki, rather than the settlement of their claim, because the history is what has made them a great people, and the settlement of the claim is what will make them in the future an even greater people. There are opportunities and challenges ahead for the people of Taranaki, particularly Ngāti Ruanui, when they leave this place. At the end of this process, one can only hope that they never have to return under this sort of kaupapa, and that they not only face the challenges of social and economic development for their descendants, but also mend the bridges between themselves and other hapū and iwi of Taranaki. I know that they will, because they all share a common history. So without contributing any more to the discussion I just want to say to the people of Taranaki: kua tata tonu nei koutou ki te wā e tutuki ai tēnei nawe o koutou. Tāpae rīpenatahia kia wātea ai te huarahi kei mua i a koutou. Nō reira, rire, rire, paimārire, tēnā koutou.

[You are just about at the point where this trouble of yours is solved. Ensure that the way before you is clear. So, rire, rire, paimārire, greetings to you.]

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I waited until I had heard a number of speeches in this debate, because my party does not now sit on the Māori Affairs Committee. When this bill was first introduced the leader of my party expressed views that were intended to remind Parliament that while sentiment, remorse, and a desire to do good are essential, Parliament is also a trustee—a steward—of the interests of all New Zealanders, and we should subject these matters to the same careful scrutiny that we are required to give to anything else. So I listened to the debate, having read the very brief report of the select committee, and was obliged to rely on its report so far as it can be relied on.

I have to tell the House that we will not be supporting this bill further. We will not vote after the second reading debate. We need more answers than the select committee has given. We need answers from the Minister because the select committee’s report essentially puts us all on notice that it had concerns that it does not address. The select committee says that we cannot amend these deeds. We cannot amend the bills that reflect the deeds. We treat them as we treat international treaties, and it is a yes/no decision. So effectively the committee has said to us that there are matters here that perhaps would be of concern, but there is nothing it could do about it. If I am reading that wrongly, no doubt we will be told during the committee stage. There clearly seems to be a warning about the adequacy of mandate. I took that message also from the speech of my colleague Metiria Turei, who came back to that at the end.

There are also problems in the bill that perhaps go further than in just this Ngāti Ruanui settlement. Treaty settlements are, of course, in respect of high-handed breaches of contract. There are cruel and even foul deeds, and betrayal of values that had been taught by missionaries and that had been developed by Māori such as Te Whiti. But the matter is now too old to allow us to get at the truth, and even the problem in establishing a mandate is an instance of that. The fact that no one can authoritatively deal with the two hapū, or representatives, who do not wish to be bound by, and have their claims settled under, this agreement, is a warning of just how unlikely it is that true justice can now be arrived at at this length, and how approximate this is.

We have a difficulty in that we cannot trust the Minister in these matters. We cannot trust the Crown to approach these matters looking at them in the same way as it does with international treaties. The continuation of a Crown prerogative to enter treaties is based on the fact that no nation wants to wash its dirty linen in public before foreigners. It is based also on history, on an assumption that the best judgment of the Crown will be in the interests of the nation—that in external matters, internal politics should be put aside. That is a complete misapplication of doctrine in relation to treaty claim settlements. These are with ourselves. These are highly political internally. It is an absolute nonsense that this House and the committee will not look at the detail of these agreements and at the long-term effects of some of these settlements. So ACT will not be bound by any convention that purports to treat these contract breaches and criminal act settlement proposals—these compensation proposals—as if they were international treaties under the convention of Crown prerogative.

This bill says that it settles claims arising from the principles of the treaty. We cannot rely on the Government, because the Government will not tell us what those principles are. We have asked repeatedly in this House, and the Government will not tell us, because it does not know. It was very cunning, or perhaps it was lack of courage; I do not know what it was, 15 years ago, but when the courts were told that they had to invent principles for the treaty, of course they had to do it. But since then the Government will not define those principles, and we do not know whether it is cynical or naïve. Whatever it is, it is not creditable.

We voted to send the bill to select committee, as I said, but we need clear answers about the effectiveness, not only of the mandate in terms of potential contenders—competition for this mandate—we also need to know whether there are unrecognised problems in the mandate. Is it full and final? Who can tell? The Minister Tariana Turia concluded her address in the first reading debate by saying that the Crown must continue to support Ngāti Ruanui as they move forward into the future. Was that mere rhetoric or was she just telling us, as others have told us, that these are not full and final settlements? What is it when a Minister of the Crown effectively says that this is not the end of it?

Secondly, I see nothing in the committee report on the quality of the governance entity, and that is something that the Crown and this House should be taking an interest in. I have never really recovered from reading a book about the Alaska settlements where I think US$11 billion was lost by the 13 different tribal bands. I do not think that that is to the discredit of those bands. It is very, very hard to hold wealth if a person has not actually earned it, because earning it gives the skills to hold it. Very few listed companies last more than one generation, and very few entities can hold wealth for more than one generation. It is the responsibility of the Crown to make sure that the governance entity is robust enough for this settlement not to become a cause of embarrassment should it be lost, because the finger will be pointed, whether or not it is fair.

In that context, it is proper to raise the question of the £5,000 in the previous settlement, which was probably more generous than the current settlement in real terms. That £5,000 per year has obviously not been adequate—no one now thinks it was adequate. But the form of the new settlement has all the risks of setting neighbour against neighbour. ACT and this House need to know what is meant by the words in Part 5 of the bill, which essentially say that the statutory acknowledgments can affect the lawful rights and interests of people who are not parties to the deed of settlement. The statutory acknowledgments are to be given regard by the consent authorities under the Resource Management Act. So it appears that Ngāti Ruanui will be tempted into exercising a political privilege for ever, in relation to land that is not their own. That is not something they can sell, and they cannot turn it to good account. All that does is to put it into a position where some of its best brains will be occupied in appearing to frustrate Ngāti Ruanui’s neighbours—and what does that do for relations?

This is not a sensible settlement, if I am reading it correctly. It may be that the Minister can reassure us during the Committee stage, but, as I read it, there is an express warning that it does affect the private property of people who are not parties to the deed—that is, neither the Crown, nor Ngāti Ruanui. This is not a light matter. The temptation to think that assets are the same as prosperity and health for a community is very, very clear in the discussion in this House. It is not about assets or land; it is about the habits of thrift and respect for education—the sorts of “strength of character” things that have been gutted by unemployment benefits and domestic purposes benefits, and by unearned income flowing to people who know that it is not appropriate. If this is a proper settlement of a property claim, it is doing what article 2 of the treaty says it should do. But if instead it is creating permanent political privilege on the basis of inherited status; it is only a poisoned gift from this House to the people of New Zealand—both Māori and Pākehā.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Motor Vehicle Sales Bill

Instruction to Committee

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.

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

Ayes 69

Noes 48

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei): At first glance, the title of this bill may seem to be unimportant, but there is quite a big difference between this and the original 1998 Motor Vehicle Dealers Bill—and the Minister will no doubt be keen to take a call on this. As we progress through the legislation part by part this evening, and well into tomorrow evening, it will be clear from the contributions from the National benches that there is a big difference between the prospect of a Motor Vehicle Dealers Bill, as was previously the case, and this bill. As I said, at first glance it may not appear significant, but this bill wraps up a whole lot of different environments where sales may occur, when, under previous legislation, legislation of this type would relate only to registered motor vehicle dealers. The issue that leaps to mind relates to car fairs—and I say that quite seriously, because in that type of environment there is usually a series of private sellers who bring their goods to the site—

Hon David Carter: By car.

SIMON POWER: They often drive there, and trade motor vehicles freely between themselves. That type of activity was not previously caught by any motor vehicle dealers legislation, unless the number of cars that were traded came into question. Under this legislation, that type of selling will be caught, so there is quite a subtle difference between the 1998 National legislation and the current legislation.

During the discussion this evening, members on this side of the Chamber will be tying back many questions and other parts of the bill to the title, and explaining why it is that, although at first glance the title may seem to be pretty inoffensive, it is actually reflective of a different type of legislation to that which we have seen in this country until this date. I look forward to the contribution from my colleague the Hon David Carter, who I know has spent some time looking at the title to this bill, and who has very strong personal views about how the title relates to legislation that was before this House under a previous National Government. The differences between that legislation and the current legislation will no doubt become apparent as the parts pan out.

I just return to my theme, that the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill is a different piece of legislation entirely, and the title, as my colleague points out, is different from the title of the previous legislation. I could not be more to the point in saying that, despite the previous bill being called the Motor Vehicle Dealers Bill, the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill is a wider net cast into an industry that up until now has been governed by very specific legislation relating to licensed motor vehicle dealers and to private dealers who were trading, from memory, six vehicles or more in the course of one calendar year. What this bill does, through the reflection of the title that we have been talking about for what seems some time now, is to extend wider than that initial definition to include, as I have said, issues like car fairs and a more communal way of selling and buying motor vehicles than that which previous legislation covered.

At this early stage, I want to talk briefly about the other interesting point worth making—that is, how this name came about, given that the aim of the bill is to repeal the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act and to overtake the Motor Vehicle Dealers Bill of 1998. Perhaps the title, including “sales” rather than “dealers”—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member’s time has expired.

Hon Roger Sowry: It is clear that the member on his feet has a lot of new information, and I seek leave of the Committee that he be given a 2-minute extension of time.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is no objection. I call the member.

SIMON POWER: Clearly, I should have objected myself, but I thank my colleague.

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The honourable member did not hear us, but we did object down this end of the Chamber. We did so quite clearly.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I did not hear the member call.

Gordon Copeland: We did, very clearly indeed.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry I missed hearing the member, but I have already given the call.

SIMON POWER: I am not sure whether to thank my colleagues from the United Future party. Nevertheless, I return to what is a complex area of this bill—the title. I will continue with what I was saying before I was interrupted by the bell, and I thank my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry for allowing me to continue on this important road of discovery, as I find myself more interested in this issue as time passes. Before my colleague granted me an extension—and I thank the United Future party for that, with the benefit of hindsight—I was talking briefly about the fact that when the original Motor Vehicle Dealers Act of 1975 was repealed, the then National Government decided, in 1998, to introduce the Motor Vehicles Dealers Bill—again, a completely different title from the one currently under consideration. That bill would have been, apparently, a very good bill, although we have seen some differences through the proposal and comparison documents, and my colleague will refer to those in his contribution to the title debate. We now find ourselves dealing with a bill called the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill.

As I said earlier, that at first glance may seem to be a title that we could probably not spend very much time discussing. Having said that, I point out that this bill, with its ranging five parts and two schedules, will allow colleagues on this side of the Chamber to spend some time looking at those parts in detail in a way that reflects the title of the bill and its now quite expansive nature. The interesting thing about the term “sale” is that it immediately throws up ideas relating to a contract.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): I rise on behalf of the ACT party to address the title. The ACT party was going to support this legislation when it came back from the Commerce Committee, but we are not now prepared to do so unless at least one of our amendments is passed. I have tabled an amendment to change the title from the “Motor Vehicle Sales Bill” to the “Motor Vehicles Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill”. That, in effect, is what it is now, because the Minister has sneaked in a Supplementary Order Paper after the bill has been to the Commerce Committee and after public consultation has taken place. It is not just an innocuous Supplementary Order Paper; it is a Supplementary Order Paper that introduces a tax, a levy, on all motor vehicle dealers. That definition is expanded under this legislation.

Motor vehicle dealers will be taxed to fund the disputes tribunal. Before I go on, I say that there are still some good aspects to this bill, such as getting rid of compulsory registration with the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute. But the Supplementary Order Paper now wipes out all the things that the industry wanted. It is just another way for this Government to introduce a tax. The title of legislation is really important, because it signifies the purpose of that legislation. It is important that this bill now have in its title that it is a motor vehicle dealers regulation and taxation bill, because that is what the legislation is being used to do. It is being used to tax the industry to fund the disputes tribunal.

Motor vehicle dealers already pay a huge number of taxes, including GST, levies, and other things, so why should the disputes tribunal not be funded out of that, in the same way that other court systems are funded? Why punish the good dealers, who very rarely, if ever, get taken to the disputes tribunal? Many never get taken to the disputes tribunal—or to the fidelity fund, as it was before—which is to go. Why should they be punished because of the few bad dealers who do need to be taken before some form of justice and sorted out? It is so unfair, and it is just another compliance cost on working New Zealanders. They are the people that this Government just loves to tax again and again and again.

When we had the second reading of this legislation, I was told that the industry supported it, so I decided to do a little exercise. I knew that the industry had not been consulted about the new Supplementary Order Paper that introduces this tax, so I wrote to 2,250 motor vehicle dealers. I told them about the tax, the levy, on the Supplementary Order Paper and asked them what they thought about it. I received masses of replies. They have been flowing in, although I wrote to them only last week. I would like to read some of them. They demonstrate why I think the title should be changed to include the word “taxation”.

One reply was: “We would regard this as the death knell to our continuing to hold a licence as such. These days the used-car business is as sick as ever, and we have all but stopped the practice and are now concentrating on our core activity of earthmoving machine trading.” These are the sorts of people that this legislation will catch. It is all very well to pass legislation or to sneak through Supplementary Order Papers that impose specific taxes on specific industries, because the public’s perception of used-car dealers is that they are not quite nice or that they are indulging in activities we do not quite approve of. But many people will be caught by this legislation who are not used-car dealers, who do not even sell cars, and who, as this guy said, sell farm machinery.

He said: “The business of running a used-car yard and complying with the necessary regulations must be a nightmare for those actively involved.” My personal observation is that once I could spot car dealers a mile off with their loud dress and non-stop, usually cheerful, patter. These days those same people look like hunted deer, and I do not think it is because they are worried about running into a customer. Is there any objections to calling the bill the “Motor Vehicle Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill”? I think we are getting closer to why it should be called that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): Like my colleague Simon Power, and Deborah Coddington, I, too, want to express concern about the title of this bill and the sneaky Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled by the Minister. Is it not interesting that this is a process around motor vehicle sales that is now 9 years old? For 9 years there have been discussions about changing the rules around motor vehicle sales and updating that 1975 Act. We then get to the last hurdle, and under urgency this sneaky Government wants to clip an extra tax on to honest, enterprising New Zealanders. I ask Mr Benson-Pope, how many of his Dunedin car sales people have been consulted about this new tax? [Interruption] He tells me. I would love to make contact, because it will be just like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steve Maharey, on the Tertiary Education Bill. At the last moment he snuck into the House a dirty little levy on all sorts of education providers. I suspect that that is why he is in the chair. He will do the same trick again, and this time to the motor vehicle dealers.

I ask the Minister in the chair what level of consultation there has been with the motor vehicle industry about this Supplementary Order Paper. I seek any answer from any member of the Government. I note that United Future supports the bill and the Supplementary Order Paper. Can its members advise me what level of consultation with the motor vehicle industry there has been on this bill? Can any member of the Government advise the Committee as to whether there has been a process of consultation with motor vehicle dealers about this new tax?

Helen Duncan: Concentrate on the new leader!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can see that Helen Duncan does not want to talk about the bill before the Committee. She is more interested in playing some silly political game than she is about the extra tax that will be imposed. This title is not particularly appropriate. If we are to have a bill that will impose a new tax that has been added, through the Supplementary Order Paper, on those people in the motor vehicle industry, then members on this side will say what they mean. If that tax is to be imposed, then let us call it a tax bill. If that is what the Government is to do with legislation of this sort, let us truly describe what it is all about and describe this as a special tax bill for the latest group of entrepreneurs to be hammered by this Labour Government.

John Carter: With additional compliance costs.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is right. I remember reading in Labour’s manifesto that it was to reduce compliance costs. I would be interested to know how—

John Carter: What does the chair think of the tax?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have to advise my chief whip that we must not bring the Chair into the debate. However, I would like to know from the Minister in the chair how this bill contributes to reducing compliance costs.

Sandra Goudie: Did they run it through the compliance cost report?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is a good question from my colleague, the very capable MP for Coromandel. It is interesting that every bill that comes before the House has to have a compliance cost report, but not for the Supplementary Order Paper that this Minister has now brought into the Committee stage not once, but twice, under urgency in terms of amendments to this bill. Members on this side of the Chamber tell the Government to be honest about what it is doing, and to be honest about the fact that it is introducing a new tax on motor vehicle dealers. Let us call this bill what it is. The Minister may prefer to call it a levy. I notice that when Dr Cullen was in Opposition he said that a levy was just another name for a tax, but if he had preferred to call it the “Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Bill” or the “Motor Vehicle Sales Levy Bill”, we could live with either of those. I invite any member opposite to get to his or her feet and to justify the significant way in which this Supplementary Order Paper changes the bill, and also to justify the fact that this bill has been around for a very, very long time. Why are we under urgency rushing this bill through when there has not been consultation on the key changes with the dealers, and those who are involved in the industry? Again I say let us change the title and say what it means.

Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National): I suspect that this is a sneaky piece of work by the Labour Government. I hoped to be able to stand up here and support the title.

David Benson-Pope: Speaking of sneaky, where is the numbers man?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Does that member want to take a call? If he does, I will cede and let him have a call, then start when he is ready.

Before being interrupted by Mr Benson-Pope, I was saying that I was hopeful of standing in the Committee tonight and being able to support the title of this bill. At first glance, it actually is a fair prescription of what this legislation attempts to do. But as my colleagues Simon Power and Deborah Coddington pointed out, sneaky little Supplementary Order Paper 30 has been tabled.

Hon Rick Barker: Why isn’t the rest of the National Party here?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Rick Barker clearly does not even know that it has been tabled. He would not be worried about compliance costs; he would not know what compliance costs were.

This sneaky little Supplementary Order Paper dramatically changes the tone of the bill and talks about regulations to impose a levy. Even Mr Benson-Pope knows that is another word for tax. Mr Benson-Pope has just spelt the word levy, and he got that right. He should now have a go at spelling the word tax. He could not manage that one, but it is “t-a-x.” Deborah Coddington had it right—this legislation is no longer appropriately named, at all. It should no longer be called the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill, but the “Motor Vehicle Dealers Regulation and Taxation Bill”. That is what this bill proposes to do. There was no mention of a levy before the bill went through the select committee process. The Government was too sneaky to do that.

David Benson-Pope: That is uncharitable.

Hon DAVID CARTER: It is not uncharitable; it is a fact. If Mr Benson-Pope is so proud of loading another tax on to a very entrepreneurial sector of the New Zealand business community, put it in the principle legislation, give it an appropriate name, and let people make submissions. But no, he would not do it that way. Mr Benson-Pope is wrong when he argues that we should be calling this legislation the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. That no longer adequately describes it, and Mr Maharey knows that. Therefore, I now completely support Deborah Coddington’s superb work in pointing out that this is no longer a bill just to facilitate the sales of motor vehicles; it is now a bill about how to levy another tax on a particular industry. That means that we have a duty in the Committee stage to give this legislation an appropriate title.

I note that Mr Chairman agrees with that. He acknowledges that we have a duty to make sure that at this stage of the proceedings we give this legislation an appropriate title. I say to you, Mr Chairman—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot bring the Chairman into the debate.

Hon DAVID CARTER: The title of the bill is no longer appropriate, at all. We need to make sure that the name is changed, so that people know that although this legislation talks about facilitating the sales of motor vehicles, it also talks about imposing yet another tax and compliance cost on an industry—

Sandra Goudie: What about the compliance cost reports?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The Minister can take a call and tell us whether he has done any work on compliance cost, but he will not have done. That is the sort of thing one talks about when in Opposition. It is the “Maharey principle”.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member must use a member’s full name and title.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I have been talking to the title of the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): If the member wishes to address another member in Committee, he must use that member’s full name and title.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I was not talking about the Minister. I was talking about the “Maharey principle”.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National): As a transport spokesperson, I am very concerned about this legislation. The title of this bill certainly does not now reflect what we have before the Committee. It is important to say that the National Party supports this legislation and, along with interested groups, has supported it right through the process. We worked with those groups and the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute to make sure that we had legislation that was non-controversial and able to pass through Parliament with relative ease.

I am disappointed that the Government has decided—for the second time with this bill—to debate it under the urgency motion, because I do not think that is appropriate. What we have now is a bill that the Government has titled the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill, which is the bill the industry has been consulted on, and the title that everybody is comfortable with. We all know what we are talking about when we talk about the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. The bill of this title was first referred to a select committee on 5 December 2001 and reported back in 2002, so it has had a long period of time in the House. Now we find that the title of this bill suddenly does not reflect what is in it. Suddenly, the bill is changed.

This is a large bill. Radio listeners cannot tell how big it is, but I can tell them that the title of the bill—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, the member must not refer to radio listeners.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: For those people who are interested out there, the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill covers 96 pages. Then a little wee amendment—about three or four pages—is put in—

Steve Chadwick: It is a tidy bill.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: The member says it is a tidy amendment. Perhaps she will tell us whether she has consulted the motor vehicle dealers in Rotorua on the new levy that is being put into this bill—the so-called Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. The title does not reflect that this bill has new compliance costs, and the member supports new compliance costs and new taxes. This bill is now an extra imposition on motor vehicle dealers and the people who sell cars. Instead of being the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill, this bill should now be the “Motor Vehicle Sales and New Tax Bill”. Why would anyone take something as important as a new tax, not put it in the main bill, not have it as part of the submission process, and then just sneak it in at the end, but keep the title the same? That is so that Labour members can say that everyone supported the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. They want to be able to say: “We had submissions on it. It was all OK.” But the real part of the bill—the sneaky little part of the bill—is not reflected in the title, at all. We are very disappointed that, under urgency, the Government has decided to do that. We know—

Steve Chadwick: Does the member not want a disputes tribunal for consumers?

Hon ROGER SOWRY: The member interjects and asks whether we want a disputes tribunal in the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. Of course we do. A disputes tribunal was in the bill, and we voted for it. The Labour Party voted for it, and that party did not put the tax provision into the bill in the select committee—so what changed? What changed between the Labour Party reporting back the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill, and titling it that, and going along to its caucus and deciding to put in this Supplementary Order Paper with the extra tax in it? Why was that done? [Interruption] Well, Helen Duncan says that was a clever, cunning move. It’s as cunning as a—

HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour): I move That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No.

JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville): It is my great pleasure to engage in this Motor Vehicle Sales Bill title debate. I want to take up the challenge that the Minister gave in her second reading speech when she said: “There are several issues that the select committee could not agree on ...That will provide an opportunity for the House to debate these issues.” So they certainly will, because this is a Minister who could not help herself. At the last minute she has snuck into this bill, which had all the hallmarks of being potentially a very good bill, this Supplementary Order Paper, and by that the whole flavour of the bill has changed. The Minister could have stuck to the very guts of the bill. It was titled the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill for a very good reason, because it—

Hon David Carter: Would you buy a used car from that person?

JOHN KEY: No, I would not buy a used car from that person. One of the very reasons this bill was named, so appropriately, the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill, was that it covered things the industry really cared about. It simplified a whole wide range of issues for the industry. It covered those issues for people who cared about the motor vehicle sales business. It covered people who operated as car market operators, as auctioneers, as vehicle traders, and those who traded on the Internet. All of those people involved in the motor vehicle sales industry thought that this bill was appropriately titled. They were happy with it, and National was happy to support it. But, lo and behold, in the Supplementary Order Paper has come a levy—a tax—that is not in the title of this bill. Nowhere in the title of this bill do I see the word “tax”, yet in the Supplementary Order Paper is a tax that was not on the “credit card”, and is not in the title of the bill, but it is there for everybody to see. It is there to drag down the industry and add another cost.

I want to draw to the attention of the Committee comments that the Minister also made in her speech as it relates to the title. She said that in designing this bill there had been a great deal of consultation and input from stakeholders and experts. In terms of the title, they may have been experts in motor vehicle sales. I am well and truly prepared to accept that the Minister went out and spoke to a great many people, that submissions were taken from all sorts of motor vehicle dealers across the country, and that that was aptly put together into the title. I am not happy to accept that the consultation process that took place in the industry was reflected in the Supplementary Order Paper. Therefore, I am not convinced that the title adequately reflects it.

Simon Power: Tax!

JOHN KEY: Where is the word “tax”? Where is the word “levy”? If the Minister had gone out and undertaken extensive consultation, had asked for submissions, and had included in the earlier bill the levy that she intends to put on the industry—not snuck it in some time later on; not snuck the bill through urgency, but had done that in the consultation process—I am prepared to wager in this Parliament that those submissions would have clearly come back saying that this title is completely inappropriate. It should not be the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill; it should be the “Motor Vehicle Sales and Revenue Collecting Tax Bill”. It should be the “Motor Vehicle Sales and Tax Bill”—

Simon Power: Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Bill.

JOHN KEY:, Absolutely, Mr Power! Many submissions would have come back to the Minister, and the first thing they would have drawn to her attention is that this title is completely inappropriate and misleading. That is a great tragedy, because it is a bill that has great hallmarks—a bill that really claims to do many of the things that National supports. One of the reasons that National has been supporting this legislation is that the industry requires reform. It is an industry that needs simplification. Just as the title is very simple, with those four very plain and simple words—Motor Vehicle Sales Bill—so easily was that reflected in the bill, until the Minister could not help herself and did that little sneaky deal to raise taxation.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill): I move, That the question be now put.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore): I take particular interest in this bill, and the reason is that many years ago, when I used to practice law on a regular basis, the members of this industry were a major sector of my clientele. I can tell members, my having applied for numerous motor vehicle dealer licences, registration for salespeople, and all of that, that it was a really complicated, difficult, and demanding system. I tell members there was a great deal of expectation, of expectancy, that this bill would reduce costs, and, generally speaking, it does.

What alarms me, when I look at the title, is that it does not make sufficient reference to the secret plans of the Government on the one hand to take, and on the other hand stealthily to reregulate. The Government has come up with what is actually a quite credible bill, I would have to concede—and National is voting for the principle of the bill generally—but what greatly concerns me is Supplementary Order Paper 30, which includes the amendment that was accurately described by Deborah Coddington of the ACT party as the reintroduction by the Government of a tax on thousands of entrepreneurs up and down this country. The Government may just toss this off to one side as being of no particular account, but if it looked at the bill it would understand the serious injury it is doing to New Zealand entrepreneurs—hard-working, small-business people, by and large. They are the sorts of people who Labour is wont to say these days are its supporters. So what does it do to those people? It gives them a hard kick up the butt.

John Carter: Shove them right up. [Interruption]

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Well, there you are! Those are not the sorts of words I would use, I hasten to add, but that is the reality.

This is my concern. Under the bill, which is intended to be a deregulatory bill, there is only one charge, and that is at the time of the initial registration. By and large, thereafter we would have light-handed regulation—something that the industry could live with. I imagine the ACT party would probably say that was still going too far, but, nevertheless, it is something the industry could live with. What is of particular concern, however, is that under the Supplementary Order Paper there is now an annual levy based on classes of trader, based on the types of vehicles, and it has to be applied to thousands of people. It is, allegedly, to pay for the disputes tribunal. But what the Government is doing is actually adding cost after cost, on an annual basis, to these hard-working people.

Two problems exist. First is the cost of administration, which is very significant indeed, when one considers that those businesses will have to employ special staff, develop a computer system, track records, and so forth. Secondly, how do we ensure that everyone actually pays? What do we do about the people who do not pay? Do we have a special regulatory regime that hunts down those people? That is the kind of approach that this leads to. We cannot, I presume, pass a legislative measure, then have no enforcement mechanism. That would be illogical.

So I would say this to the Government. It had a choice: it could have had a modest imposition for the cost of the disputes tribunal, to be charged to those who actually use it—and that may be the appropriate mechanism—or it could have funded it out of general taxation. Both those choices would have been simple.

Simon Power: Like courts.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: “Like courts”, as my colleague the former justice spokesperson says. What an excellent example! But instead the Government has gone for a blunt and crude instrument of a generalised levy, which has to be collected each and every year, with all the range of draconian apparatuses to punish those who do not pay it. So under the guise of deregulation, we now have a completely new and demanding regulatory regime.

DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki): I move, That the question be now put.

SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel): I am very pleased to be able to speak to the title. I would like to congratulate my colleagues. I think they have done a magnificent presentation of their concerns about the title. The title is “Motor Vehicle Sales Bill”, and some concern has already been expressed about the intentions of this bill, particularly since the arrival of the Supplementary Order Paper. I would like to acknowledge Deborah Coddington’s great contribution in bringing Supplementary Order Paper 30 to our attention more forcefully, and suggesting another title, “Motor Vehicle Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill”, which is much more satisfactory.

This Supplementary Order Paper is about introducing a levy to help fund the disputes tribunal. I go further. Members will recall that when this bill was last discussed in the House, the Hon Judith Tizard—who sat here knitting during debate on a quite significant aspect of the bill, so she may have forgotten what she said—said: “The restrictions, cost, and procedures of working within the current law are considered to be too onerous by many motor vehicle businesses,”. Now the Government is putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper that introduces a levy that, I suggest, adds to that cost, and totally goes against what the Minister considers to be the original intention of this bill—that is, to help reduce costs.

This Government is introducing a levy without a compliance cost report. The Government makes a big deal about the need to have a compliance cost report, but then does not even have one. The Supplementary Order Paper should have had a compliance cost report, but, clearly, the Government did not want to go down that path. We are debating the title “Motor Vehicle Sales Bill”, but it should be “Motor Vehicle Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill”, as suggested by Deborah Coddington and supported by my very able colleagues.

I also draw the Committee’s attention to some other aspects of the Hon Judith Tizard’s speech. She said: “The purpose of this bill is to promote and protect the interests of consumers when buying a motor vehicle.” I have to say I do not believe she is looking after the interests of consumers at all, because she has not included the fund that was there as a back-up for those who could not be reimbursed for bad trading. I do not believe she is looking at looking after consumers. She just wants to put in place a little bit of extra funding for this disputes tribunal.

If I draw members’ attention to some other provisions in her speech, they will understand why she wants to do that. She said: “Effective enforcement is fundamental to this bill. Enforcement will be carried out by the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers, located within the Ministry of Economic Development.” She said further: “The registrar will have a dedicated enforcement team.” Of course, that will take some funding, hence the suggested title “Motor Vehicle Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill”, to provide for a levy to pay for all this enforcement and regulatory control, and for the disputes tribunal as well.

But that is just one aspect. It has been stated that a great deal of consultation occurred with the stakeholders, to seek their input, but I suggest that it has been very limited in the extreme, because how many of them actually knew about this Supplementary Order Paper and approved the levy. I say to Government members opposite: “Hands up anybody who spoke to any motor vehicle dealers about the levy?”. I cannot see any of them paying any attention, so I say that none of them spoke to the motor vehicle dealers about the levy, and asked whether it was acceptable to them. [Interruption] Did they say yes? I suggest that they are going to be really bitten in the arse by this levy. We are talking about the need for rigid enforcement, as stated by the Hon Judith Tizard; she said it quite clearly in her second reading speech on this bill. [Interruption] I would not mind a little bit of quiet, if members would like to pay attention. The enforcement that will be required under this bill will require a lot more funding, so I suggest that a quite substantial levy will be put in place. There is no control of how far this levy can go, and, as we know, this Government does not understand compliance costs. It did not put in a compliance cost report.

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

Noes 35

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Green Party 4

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Deborah Coddington to clause 1 be agreed to:

to omit the words “Motor Vehicle Sales Act”, and substitute the words “Motor Vehicle Dealers Regulation and Taxation Act”.

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

Ayes 35

Noes 77

Amendment not agreed to, and clause 1 agreed to.

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.

Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Green Party 4.

Part 1 Preliminary provisons

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei): We are now starting to get to what is often seen as a pedestrian part of a bill, which is largely the definitions of various terms contained in it. But it is actually worth raising some questions in relation to some of the terms in this bill. The Minister may like to take an interest in this, because there are some odd definitions in the bill. I know that Mark Peck, who has told this House that he has consulted one dealer in his electorate on this bill, would be interested in this.

In clause 6, “Interpretation”, in subclause (1)—this is the Parekura Horomia clause—the term “actual distance” is defined as: “in relation to a motor vehicle’s odometer, means the actual distance that would otherwise have been recorded on an odometer had it not been tampered with”. How is that supposed to work? That would be the “odometer of dysfunction.” I just cannot understand that.

John Carter: Ask Paul Swain.

SIMON POWER: Where is the Minister of Transport? He is in the Chamber. The actual distance is defined, in relation to a motor vehicle’s odometer, as: “the distance that would otherwise have been recorded on an odometer had it not been tampered with”. What on earth does that mean? In terms of a definition of actual distance, how on earth is this legislation supposed to work, when actual distance is defined as the distance that would otherwise have been recorded had the odometer not been tampered with? Who knows the answer to that? Which person is able to track that?

That definition is absolutely impossible. It will take us nowhere, and I would be very interested if the Minister, or somebody else with a transport background, would rise and take a call, to help us out with that. [Interruption] I ask Mr Peck to help us out. What is the distance that would otherwise have been recorded on an odometer had it not been tampered with? I fail to understand how we will be able to track anything in respect of that.

Hon Dover Samuels: We are on your side.

SIMON POWER: It is just not the same down here. I ask the Minister to come over here. [Interruption] Madam Chairperson, I have a loud voice, but even I cannot compete with this noise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There is banter coming from both sides of the Chamber.

SIMON POWER: The other thing that I do not understand is why on earth, when we are talking about motor vehicle sales, we now have terms like “car consultant” and “car market operator”. Those people are not hairdressers. They sell motor vehicles, and we are now to call them “car consultants” and “car market operators”.

I have a question. I can see Russell Fairbrother sitting back there; this is a question for a legal mind. Actually, Deborah Coddington, the ACT member, might be interested in this, as well. I refer to the definition “sale, in relation to any motor vehicle,—(a) means the sale or lease or exchange or any other disposition of that motor vehicle …” That would imply to me that a contract has been formed between buyer and seller for the disposition of that motor vehicle. Let me ask this question. We know, and Wayne Mapp knows, from his legal training, that for a contract to be valid, there must be consideration. There must be a buyer, a seller, and consideration. I ask where, in an exchange of motor vehicles, is the consideration that allows a contract to be formed? I ask the Minister to take a call and help me out on that. What is the consideration in the contract when a sale of exchange occurs—in other words, a swap? Where does the consideration lie?

This legislation is very confusing. Not only do we have a definition of who is treated as a motor vehicle trader in clause 8 but, for the purposes of getting it absolutely right, we also have in clause 9 a definition of who is not treated as a motor vehicle trader.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I want to start my address by imploring somebody from the Government to stand up and tell us what this bill is about. New Zealand First was not on the Commerce Committee. I heard my good colleagues from the National Party—I think Simon Power said so when he started his speech—say that they are to support this bill, but they have not found a thing that is right with it yet.

Simon Power: No, I didn’t say that.

PETER BROWN: I was almost certain that the member said he would support this bill.

I must be a bit more serious. Clause 3 outlines the purpose of the bill. It states: “The purpose of this Act is to promote and protect the interests of consumers in relation to motor vehicle sales.” This bill falls well short of that. We need a Government member to stand up and explain how this legislation will deliver on that. The bill removes the fidelity fund. If members talk to members of the public who buy cars, they will hear that the public is concerned about that. Maybe the dealers are not very concerned about it, but members of the public who buy cars—

Hon David Carter: Name one.

PETER BROWN: The list would be so long that it would take me all night and half of tomorrow to read it.

Hon David Carter: I will get you an extension of time—until 1 o’clock in the morning, if you like.

PETER BROWN: Oh, yeah.

Rodney Hide: I don’t think there’s any.

PETER BROWN: Mr Hide should read the report. The select committee said it had looked at a number of alternatives to the fidelity fund, including indemnity insurance, but it put that in the too-hard basket. It looked at a bond system, and again it put that in the too-hard basket. It looked at insurance schemes with ministerial approval, and they were most definitely in the too-hard basket. Nevertheless, the fidelity fund is to go.

Another question that should arise is who will police this system? The Government is setting up a structure, but who will police it? And if that is too tough a question, Government members should answer this one, which may be even harder: how will they police it? By reading Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Minister, which is nearly a tenth of the size of the bill—a Supplementary Order Paper that will not be scrutinised by the select committee—we see towards the end Clause 146, “Review of operation of Act”. Not that ACT, I hope. Clause 146 states “(1) The Ministry must, no later than 2 years from the date of commencement of this Act— (a) review the operation of this Act since its commencement; and (b) prepare for the Minister a report of the review that includes recommendations on whether any amendments to this Act are necessary or desirable.” That really sounds like a Government that has confidence in this legislation!

I know the Minister in the chair is a sound-thinking member, and I invite her to stand up and tell us what this bill is all about and whether it will be to the benefit of the consumers, as the purpose clause illustrates it is meant to be. There is some real concern out there on the part of the public. To my mind, and I might be totally wrong on this, this legislation opens the door to any unscrupulous person who wants to get involved in selling cars—anybody at all. The policing of that is vague, to say the least. The bill states somewhere that a car salesperson is someone who sells more than six cars a year. Who will keep a check on that? How will a check be kept on that? I understand it will be administered from a central office in Auckland, and I want to know how that will work.

As I said, New Zealand First was not on the select committee at the time of its consideration of this bill, so we did not play any role at all in the way that it has been compiled. We are concerned to see a Supplementary Order Paper of significant size, relative to that of the bill, coming to the Committee, and, further, a one-page proposed amendment from the Minister. We believe there are some genuine questions to be answered, and we believe this Committee should be entitled to the answers before this bill progresses too much further down the track.

Hon David Carter: You won’t be able to go to one o’clock if you can’t do better than that.

PETER BROWN: I do not intend to go to 1 o’clock, for the information of the good member. I am trying to raise the seriousness of this debate. We have a bill here—

John Carter: When are you going to start?

PETER BROWN: I have been trying to do so for 5 minutes. I thought I was doing very well. We have a bill here that really opens the door to people who are prepared to be unscrupulous in selling vehicles. I think the intention of this bill is admirable, but the Government has not made it a reality.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): United Future is pleased to support this legislation. As the holder of two motor vehicle dealer’s licences, I am affected by it. I notice in the part we are dealing with the question of who is treated as a motor vehicle trader. Each of the licences that I currently hold has cost me between $15,000 and $20,000 to obtain under the present regime.

Much has been said about the levy on traders. As I understand it, the levy will be $127 per trader. I find that most motor vehicle dealers are very pleased to get any dispute sorted out quickly, because we have found in our industry that the longer something goes on, the more it will cost us. Therefore, if I have to contribute $127 per year, per licence, towards a tribunal that will sort out disputes fairly quickly, I personally am very happy to do that. To say that provision has just been thrown into this legislation is not correct. As I understand it, that proposal was in a discussion document that was before the industry in January 2001, which the majority of the industry supported. The motor vehicle dealers have had to operate for many years on what is a very unequal playing field.

I have concerns about various parts of this bill that I will discuss at the appropriate points, but maybe this bill should be called the “Thank Goodness it’s Here” bill.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): I rise to speak to Part 1 of this bill. Clause 2 is where we come to the introduction of Supplementary Order Paper 30, which refers to clause 130A. Clause 130A deals with the imposition of levies, and I would just like to come back to what the member over there on the Government benches, Steve Chadwick, said. She is a very honourable and lovely person, and I do not mean to cast any aspersions on her, but she said she had consulted with dealers in her area. I would like to ask her whether she has consulted Honda Motorcycles, Rotorua, which asked me why it was being singled out, and why we are not levying all supermarkets and grocery stores. I quote: “If such a levy were imposed, the repercussions further down the line would end up affecting none other than the man in the street, the very person this Government is supposedly working for. In an age where business is difficult at the best of times and margins are constantly being squeezed, it seems ludicrous to be entertaining such a proposal.”

Again from Rotorua, when consulted about clause 130A in the Supplementary Order Paper referred to in Part 1, Nigel’s Cars, a car dealer for 16 years, wrote: “I think we pay enough levies as it is now and with the change to the motor vehicle sales Act, it is supposed to be better for all concerned. But reading your letter it seems this is not the case, and that we as car dealers will again be paying for the privilege to sell cars, when there are lots of unlicensed people out there selling cars at car fairs, and in our case, in Rotorua, where the local council have created a car yard.” It will be interesting to see whether that business comes under this legislation, too.

Clause 3 sets out the purpose of this bill, and it is just more self-congratulatory nonsense from this Government about protecting the interests of consumers. I can see I am keeping the Minister of Finance up again. If the Government is to impose costs on business, those costs will be passed on to consumers; there is absolutely no doubt about that. This Government just does not seem to get that. We are not opposed to a tribunal. There are members over there on the Government benches who seem to think we are opposed to a tribunal, but I say we are not. I have said before that we were going to support this bill until this sneaky Supplementary Order Paper, which has not been consulted on, came through.

I am very disappointed in the member for United Future, Paul Adams. United Future’s website says it supports lower, flatter taxes and fewer compliance costs. Now Paul Adams thinks that because he has been a car dealer for 30 years, he is an expert. I have been a mother for 28 years and a lover for a little bit longer than that, yet I am not an expert on mothering or on sex. So how can Paul Adams be an expert on car dealing just because he has been a car dealer for 30 years? It is a non sequitur.

Turning over to the next page of the bill, I note that clause 5 states that this Act binds the Crown. That is a really interesting situation; it will be really interesting to see what happens. At the moment, the Customs Service can seize imported vehicles that it suspects have dodgy odometers that might have been wound back. The Customs Service seizes those cars because they are deemed to be unsafe. But what does it do with those cars? It then sells them to the consumer, through the auction system. The first consumer is forewarned that the odometer might have been wound back, but subsequent customers who buy the cars after that are not warned. They have no idea of that, yet the Government is acting as a car dealer. So will the Government now have to pay these levies to itself if it gets taken to the disputes tribunal because someone has bought a car that has had its odometer wound back, and that person did not know that?

I wonder why the Minister of Transport is not in the chair.

Hon David Carter: He doesn’t understand the bill.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Oh, OK. Well, someone else from the Government might be able to answer these questions. As I said, the purpose of this bill, the Government says, is to protect consumers. I will tell members what raising taxes does for consumers. An international report has just confirmed that workers in New Zealand—who are consumers—are now worse off, on average, than they were 2 years ago. Since Labour’s election, inflation and increased taxes and charges mean that a working couple is $1,400 worse off than previously.

Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National): The question I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Margaret Wilson, is whether she could answer the question raised by the Hon Paul Swain, the Minister who is actually in charge of this legislation. The Hon Paul Swain interjected during Mr Peter Brown’s contribution and asked: “Is this better than what exists now?” One would think that the Minister in charge of the legislation would have bothered to get hold of his own officials and find out the answer to that question, rather than expect a member of the Opposition to answer it for him. The Motor Vehicle Sales Bill is before the House, we are just embarking on the Committee stage, and the poor hapless Minister of Transport has to ask Peter Brown whether this bill will be better than what exists at present. I hope that Margaret Wilson will take a call and answer that question for the Hon Paul Swain.

While she is on her feet, I also hope that she will clarify clause 6—the Parekura Horomia clause, as it has been named tonight—and the definition of actual distance. This legislation records that actual distance in relation to a motor vehicle odometer “means the distance that would otherwise have been recorded on an odometer had it not been tampered with”. Even Dr Cullen is now expressing amazement at that definition. My simple question to the Minister is: when one comes across a vehicle with a tampered odometer and one needs to determine the actual distance, how does she propose to do that? I ask the Minister to spend a bit of time talking to the officials, because I think that she will need a bit of time doing that.

I then move to yet another definition, and on this occasion I have to congratulate the select committee on the good work it has done. The definition of a new motor vehicle is as follows: “new motor vehicle means a motor vehicle that is not a used motor vehicle”. I think that is reasonable. I congratulate the select committee, under the chairmanship of David Cunliffe, on getting that one right. But another definition worries me, and I am hoping that the Minister will help me with it. It is where we define a motor cycle. A motor cycle means “a motor vehicle running on 2 wheels”. That is quite serious, because we have just had all these problems in relation to the boy racer bill. I ask Clayton Cosgrove what happens when a motor vehicle goes around a corner too fast and suddenly it is on two wheels? It is a motor cycle!

Clayton Cosgrove: We’re OK!

Hon DAVID CARTER: Clayton Cosgrove has answered that question, so I do not need the Minister to answer it. Clayton Cosgrove has acknowledged that if a motor vehicle goes around a corner too fast and is on two wheels, it becomes a motor cycle. But I have another definition that worries me from the Greens’ point of view. Again, it is the definition of a motor vehicle: “motor vehicle—(a) means any of the following: (i) a road vehicle that is drawn or propelled by mechanical power”.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Solar power?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Exactly, what about solar power, electric power, or wind-powered vehicles? We hear a lot from the Greens about the future of wind in energy. In future, we might have vehicles with sails and all sorts of things. I am concerned about whether that issue has been addressed.

John Carter: Horse power?

Hon DAVID CARTER: No, I do not think that we will head back to the days of horse power, but it is a possibility with the Greens anywhere near the Government. I think that gives the Minister a certain number of questions—

John Carter: You could thaw a lot of things out.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I will not comment on that interjection, but I thank John Carter very much for his contribution. I ask the Minister to help us with those definitions. The ones we want clarification on are how actual distance will be estimated when an odometer has been tampered with, and there is the issue of motor vehicle definition, as well.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): New Zealand First has supported the title of this bill, but that is as far as we will go, because this bill will not work. The comment made by the Minister, Paul Swain, when he asked Peter Brown whether this bill would work indicates that he has no confidence in this bill whatsoever. I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 146 in the Supplementary Order Paper, which states that the Government wants to review the legislation in 2 years. Clause 146 indicates that the Minister has no confidence whatsoever in the bill, because he has suddenly realised that it will not work.

There is a simple description in the bill for interpreting “actual distance”. I cannot believe that it means “the distance that would otherwise have been recorded on an odometer had it not been tampered with”.

Hon David Carter: That’s going to be a curly one, but the Minister will be able to answer it—she is getting advice from Parekura Horomia.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: Parekura Horomia is giving her his advice right at this very moment.

Hon David Carter: Seek leave for Parekura Horomia to answer it now!

BRENT CATCHPOLE: I seek leave for Parekura Horomia to give us the answer right now—he is obviously giving advice to the Minister.

It is impossible to detect when somebody has tampered with an odometer, disconnected it, or even put undersized or oversized wheels or tyres on to a vehicle, which throws the odometer completely out. So how on earth can one decide whether an odometer has been tampered with?

Clause 8 “Who is treated as a motor vehicle trader”, states: “(1) A person is treated as carrying on the business of motor vehicle trading for the purposes of this Act if—... (b) in any specified period, the person sells more than 6 motor vehicles”. They could be two-wheelers, too. Backyard operators operating with or without a licence—usually without a licence—or under somebody else’s licence; in other words, harbouring, are not going to report the number of sales they have had. How will the Minister police that part of the bill? Whether or not he is harbouring, a backyard operator will not report the number of sales he has had. He will not report that he has bought and sold more than 6 vehicles. This bill will not work; it has no possibility of working. [Interruption] I have heard a lot of noise from the other side, and it just indicates to me that Government members do not have confidence in this bill. They have realised that it will not work. Government members cannot give an interpretation of “tampering”. They cannot give a genuine interpretation of how they will police whether this bill can pick up backyard operators.

Dr Wayne Mapp: It’s not intended to.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: It is not intended to, I have heard. Perhaps that is the answer: the Government is putting in a bill just to tamper with the system.

STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua): I move, That the question be now put.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): When Opposition members go through this bill, they have one overwhelming question in their minds, and it is this one: “How come Harry Duynhoven is not the Minister of Transport?” That is a question that everyone over here has asked. At least Harry Duynhoven understands how motorcars work, knows how to lift the bonnet and look inside a car, and would not be messing around with a bill like this. Harry Duynhoven knows how the motor vehicle industry works.

Dianne Yates: What do you know?

RODNEY HIDE: Somebody asked me what I know. I will go through the bill and point a few things out. We are very interested on this side of the Chamber to see that Mr David Cunliffe chaired the select committee. [Interruption] We try to give David Cunliffe a trial; his nickname over on the Labour Party side is “fast track”. I am not sure whether that relates to the meteoric rise of his career, or his ability to get legislation through. Only David Cunliffe would see the need to define some of the things that are defined in there.

I ask members to consider whether they know what a trailer is. Does David Cunliffe know what a trailer is? We were driving along in our car or truck, and the question to David Cunliffe and the Minister of Transport—who is not Harry Duynhoven—was: “What is a trailer?” They came up with this: “trailer—(a) means a vehicle without motive power that is drawn or propelled or is capable of being drawn or propelled by a motor vehicle from which it is readily detachable.” That is a long way of saying it. Every human being knows what a trailer is, but David Cunliffe felt the need to put it in this bill. But then he goes further: “trailer—(b) includes a sidecar for a motor cycle.” How in the world can this Government think that a sidecar is a trailer, and that by passing a Motor Vehicle Sales Bill under urgency, we will somehow make a sidecar a trailer?

I see Parekura Horomia having a yawn, because it is past his bedtime, but next time he is coming down to Wellington in a sidecar, I ask him to contemplate that under this bill he is passing under urgency, he is actually in a trailer, not a sidecar, and ask himself why that would be. Only David Cunliffe, who is nicknamed “fast track”, would see the need to define a motor vehicle in this bill. I am trying to find this bit, because I know Government members have an interest in it. A motor vehicle is defined, and then it goes like this—

Dr Wayne Mapp: It could be a tractor.

RODNEY HIDE: It could not be a tractor, but the Governor-General could come along and declare a tractor to be a motor vehicle, and then it would be. The Governor-General could declare a giraffe to be a motor vehicle, and under this bill it would be a motor vehicle. Why on earth is David Cunliffe giving the Governor-General—late one night after a Labour Party booze-up—the power to decide what a motor vehicle is? I have not heard David Cunliffe or the Minister in the chair take a call to explain why we are having this sort of thing.

Let us get to ACT’s objection. I know David Cunliffe is suffering from a lack of attention, and he will just have to work harder and do the job more. When we look at Labour, there is one solution to every problem, is there not? Paul Adams of United Future has bought into it, and the solution always is—more taxes.

Hon Dover Samuels: Get your hand out of your pocket!

RODNEY HIDE: Dover Samuels says I should get my hand out of my pocket. He should get his snout out of the trough. That would be a good start, instead of going around eating at Te Puni Kōkiri—eating and drinking away in an election year. I am quite happy to take my hand out of my pocket if he takes his snout out of the trough.

DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago): I move, That the question be now put.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore): I want to take up a particular point that has been raised with me—that a tractor is not a motor vehicle. I was reading the purpose provision months ago, and it said that this bill would protect the interests of consumers. Why does the Government not want to protect the interests of farmers? Do members know how much a tractor costs? Mr Carter tells me that a tractor costs half a million dollars—an amazingly huge sum of money. Yet we are more concerned about $2,000 cars. This bill is huge. It has many parts, hundreds of clauses, many schedules, to protect consumers of $2,000 cars, but no protection whatsoever for $500,000 tractors. Tractor owners are just stuck with the Sale of Goods Act and the Fair Trading Act—which are pretty good Acts.

This is what I think. National has a policy of supporting this bill. When I think about it, why would we support a bill that cannot even support the farming community? They are consumers, they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, but they do not get the sympathy, the empathy, or the legislation. This Government just washes them aside. [Interruption] It does not care about the rural sector. Does this Government even know what it is doing? Does it have legislation that is consistent, logical, concise, and protects the consumer? It seems to me that the honest purchaser of a tractor should be protected.

The other thing that strikes me as rather odd is that the Government does not trust itself. Clause 5 states: “This Act binds the Crown.” Normally that is seen as a good thing—the law should cover the Crown. But in this instance it is based upon a presumption that the Crown is dishonest, that it will try to con consumers, that consumers need hundreds of pages of legislation to protect them from the voraciousness of the Crown.

Sandra Goudie: They have given themselves an exemption.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: So the Government is covered and exempted all at once. It is unbelievable. Why would it do that?

The underlying premise says that the public cannot trust the Crown; that when the Crown disposes of vehicles—through the Government stores board, I guess—when it sells those gold limousines that those members all so desire, the public is likely to be sold a pup. They will have hundreds of thousands of kilometres on the clock, they will have been thrashed, and the motors will be about to bust, and the public will have to have recourse to all these provisions.

The other thing is this. We have heard today that the Government has put in a sneaky Supplementary Order Paper to have annual fees for the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. I have to ask the Minister of Finance, who must be concerned about the Government finances, whether it is the intention that the Government will, each and every year, pay fees to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. Alternatively, will it be making a special allocation of tax funds to the tribunal? One of those things must be true, and the Minister should be able to answer that. Why should we be punishing honest, hard-working entrepreneurs and small-business people—men and women—with special fees, but exempting the Crown? This just loads it all on to the customer, even though the Crown is, in this legislation at least, potentially so dishonest that it would sell vehicles that are faulty to the public.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill): I move, That the question be now put.

SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel): I would like to support my colleagues in their wonderful presentations in the Chamber tonight. I see that their presentations have been so good that we have the majority of the Labour Party out there to listen. I congratulate my colleagues on doing such a wonderful job on this bill. It is a fantastic job. Look at that! Labour is cheering their wonderful presentations to the Chamber tonight. It is a tribute to them. Labour is acknowledging their great contribution to this debate.

I want to talk to members about the purpose of this bill, and read a few words from one of our colleagues, who said: “Wonders will never cease in this House when it comes to where Labour Governments come from when they want to regulate and to increase the costs of people in our society.” The Government has done that magnificently in this bill. The purpose of this bill is “to promote and protect the interests of consumers in relation to motor vehicle sales.” What has the Government done? It has released a Supplementary Order Paper that introduces a levy, without having a compliance cost report. I support my colleague’s call for the Minister of Finance to make a response to the lack of a compliance cost report in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper, given that this legislation is meant to be all about protecting the interests of consumers, but is actually more about imposing a levy.

The bill states, as mentioned earlier by a colleague, that it binds the Crown, yet we see in clause 24 that the Crown has given itself an exemption from the requirement to register. Instead of the Crown going through the same process as everybody else, in accordance with the bill, the Government has said that the bill binds the Crown, but has turned round and given the Crown an exemption from registering. So it does not really bind the Crown, even though the bill states that it does.

I also draw members’ attention, as a number of colleagues have done, to the actual distance in relation to a motor vehicle’s odometer. One cannot actually tell if it has been tampered with, and if it has been tampered with before—

Hon David Carter: You don’t know where it’s been tampered with.

SANDRA GOUDIE: That is right. When a vehicle comes in from overseas, how would anybody know if it were tampered with overseas, and how can a motor vehicle dealer be held to account? [Interruption] That is it. Government members do not actually understand the trade. They have not consulted very well or gone to any great lengths to understand the trade. Do they realise that if one is going to calculate the distance travelled, and the odometer is faulty, there is a problem? And one needs to know whether the tyre size was large or small, because that has an influence upon the distance travelled. Government members might not be aware of that, of course, but we do not expect them to know, because we know they do not really understand vehicles.

I now take members to “car consultant”. That is a really interesting definition. I will read it out so that members know.

Hon David Carter: Sounds like a Cunliffe special.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Yes, it does sound like a “Cunliffe special”. He was saying on the telly that he wanted a little bit of extra fun, and I wonder whether he was referring to the definition of a car consultant. It states: “car consultant means a person who, for rent, fee, commission, or other valuable consideration,”. We have to wonder what “other valuable consideration” might mean. Given the recent debate on the Prostitution Reform Bill, is Mr Cunliffe envisaging this as being an element of fun that he was looking for in Government and in Government legislation? I just draw members’ attention to those words in the definition of “car consultant”, and wonder what “other valuable consideration” means. The payment in kind, or whatever it is that is being looked for, is rather questionable, indeed.

I also draw members’ attention to other words spoken previously by colleagues about this bill supposedly meeting consumer interests yet having a heavy emphasis on compliance costs. That is a major concern for us. We are talking about covering only about 27 percent of car sale transactions. Most transactions happen outside the orbit of licensed dealers. So here we are, winding back the restrictions and prescriptions of the past, in this bill. It will increase the taxpayers’ costs on an ongoing basis. Are we really expecting that all the dispute tribunal costs and all the enforcement costs will come out—

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 66

Noes 48

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 93

Noes 21

Amendments agreed to.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 93

Noes 21

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Part 2 Motor vehicle trading

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei): I am still struggling to recover, given that the only part of the bill that one can agree with is the title. I learn something every day that I am here in Parliament. [Interruption] Are the members sure about that?

Peter Brown: Absolutely! The title is the only good part about it.

SIMON POWER: OK. Part 2, relating to motor vehicle trading, contains a number of prohibitive clauses initially, clauses 11 through to 13, which I will deal with briefly. I will then talk about car fairs, which are caught up in clause 14(2), and then the old bona fide purchaser and clear title issue in clause 15(1). That is the sort of stuff that haunts third-year law students, dealing with security interests as to whether dealers are registered or not. Clause 15(1)(b) is a very interesting clause, which we will look at in the next 4 minutes and 30 seconds.

Clauses 11, 12, and 13 deal with persons banned from participating in the business of motor vehicle trading. I put this issue to my ACT colleagues. Clause 11 states: “A person must not participate in the business of motor vehicle trading if that person is a banned person.”—or what? What is the fine for doing that? What happens if a person is a banned person and he or she does participate in the business of motor vehicle trading?

This legislation is appallingly drafted. We have four-wheel drive vehicles going around corners too quickly and turning into motorbikes. We have odometers being tampered with, and we know that the actual distance, in relation to a motor vehicle’s odometer, means the distance that would otherwise have been recorded had the odometer not been tampered with. That will go down well in court! Clause 13 is my favourite, though. It is headed “Tampering with odometers prohibited”, and it states: “A person must not tamper with a motor vehicle’s odometer.”—or what? There is no clause in the bill that states what will happen. There is no clause stating what penalty will be incurred for that. There is no clause stating what that person will face. That clause states that a person must not tamper with a motor vehicle’s odometer—or what? [Interruption] That is very good, Minister! People should not do that—or what? What sort of clause is that? How can anybody take that provision, or those preceding it, seriously? We are told that we are not allowed to do that. That is fine; we are quite happy with that. But what happens if we do so? We are not sure of that; one just has to take that chance at the time that one does it. That is really poor, slack drafting.

I will move on now, because I know my colleague David Carter intends to dwell on clauses 11 through to 13 in his 5-minute contribution. However, I do want to raise the question that I raised in my contribution on the title about the difference between the sale of a motor vehicle and its trade. Clause 14(2) captures the car fair—the good old car fair on the side of the road where one used to be able to bowl up, park one’s car on the road, slap a notice on the front, and say one was keen to sell it to anyone for $1,500—to any buyer or the best bidder in the room. Now that particular activity is caught under clause 14(2), where a motor vehicle trader who is a car market operator—not a car consultant, but a car market operator—must ensure that a consumer selling a vehicle through that trader attaches the notice to the vehicle. When we look at the provisions of the notice, we see it is regulation gone mad. That is a situation where a person wakes up on a Saturday and says he or she needs a quick $1,000, so he or she will go down to the car fair, sell a car and be on his or her way. That person will not be able to do that, because under clause 15(1) a person has to attach a notice pursuant to section 58 of the Personal Property Securities Act in a prominent place.

Sandra Goudie: I have many in my kitchen drawer.

SIMON POWER: That is right. The buyer or lessee of a motor vehicle only takes the vehicle free of a security interest in the event that subparagraphs (a) through to (c)(i) of that section are passed. We know how difficult legal transactions are when a security interest attaches to a motor vehicle.

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): I do not intend to take a long call on this issue.

Clayton Cosgrove: Good.

PETER BROWN: I am glad that I please some members over there on the Government benches. I want to touch on clause 13, “Tampering with odometers prohibited”.

Simon Power: Or what?

PETER BROWN: That is exactly the issue. Right now, if an importer brings a car into this country from Japan or somewhere else and the odometer is tampered with, he or she loses that car and it is sold by the Customs Department. The department has to put a notice on the motorcar stating that the odometer has been tampered with, and the first buyer—and I think Deborah Coddington has touched on this already—knows full well what has happened. There is some doubt as to whether that extends to the second or any subsequent buyers.

If a car is brought into this country and a person tampers with the odometer, I want to know what happens if that person puts in the details of the vehicle that are required under clause 14 that he or she has tampered with the odometer, which is the thing that measures the distance. I think there is a clause in there from Mr Clayton Cosgrove—[Interruption] Clearly, the member over there on the Government benches has not read the bill, which is a bit of a worry. [Interruption] Mr Power is exactly right. He has summed that up far better than I could have. Nothing seems to happen to anybody who does tamper with an odometer. I cannot find any reference to that.

Simon Power: I looked.

PETER BROWN: Mr Power, who is a lawyer, has looked and he cannot find anything. Nothing seems to happen to those people. If those people put in the notice that they have to display that the odometer has been tampered with, will that be good enough? If it is good enough, why is that not good enough for an importer who brings in a car from Japan and has it taken from him and sold by the Customs Department?

Simon Power: Good question.

PETER BROWN: It is a good question, and the Minister should answer it. Why is it not good enough for a person to tamper with the odometer and to put that on the notice that must be displayed? Why is that not good enough?

This bill is flawed. We have said so. The only thing that the Government has got right about the bill is the title. That is the only correct thing in this bill. The sentiments behind the bill are admirable, but the bill itself is flawed, and that surprises me. Our colleagues in the National Party have recognised that this bill is not up to standard—

Simon Power: Constructive criticism.

PETER BROWN: And I am really surprised that the National Party is voting for it.

Simon Power: We were surprised that you voted for the title.

PETER BROWN: I will answer that question. We felt a little benevolent. We realised a lot of work had gone into this bill, and we did not want the Government to feel totally downhearted at producing legislation like this bill and Supplementary Order Paper 30. We thought that we had to find something positive about the bill, and the title was all that we could find.

I come back to the odometer issue, which is quite a serious question. Nothing seems to happen to a person who tampers with an odometer. Mr Duynhoven would like something to happen, and I would like something to happen. But I ask Mr Duynhoven to tell us where in the bill it states that something will happen. All that it will do is to make the car look as though it has been used less than it actually has. If the person puts a statement on the notice in the window that the odometer has been tampered with, he or she is complying with the regulation and is selling a car that looks newer than it actually is. But the extent of that tampering we do not know, and that person does not seem to be breaking the law.

Steve Chadwick, who is on the Commerce Committee, is taking a keen interest in this issue. Would she please explain whether such a person is outside the law under this legislation, and if he or she is, would she tell us which clauses put that person outside the law?

Clayton Cosgrove: Read the bill.

PETER BROWN: Clayton Cosgrove is making a lot of noise back there. Maybe he will take a call and tell us exactly where that is in the bill.

Clayton Cosgrove: Read the bill.

PETER BROWN: I have read the bill inside out, and Supplementary Order Paper 30. If Mr Cosgrove knows the answer to that question, he should stand up and explain that to this House. I do not think he does know; I am certain he does not know.

This is a serious question. Could we have people tampering with odometers to make cars look, to all intents and purposes, as though they have had less use than they actually have, putting that on the notice that is displayed, and making those cars more attractive to a buyer, without disclosing how much the odometers have been wound back? I invite the Minister, or indeed anybody else, to say whether that is ethical. I invite the Minister or anybody else to say that is against the law.

Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National): I want to start by moving through to Subpart 3, clause 21 etc., and taking an opportunity to wade through this legislation, which is becoming more and more alarming by the minute. We note the Minister of Transport, Paul Swain, is not allowed to speak on this bill, at all. He is the member who asked the House earlier whether this legislation was better than what exists now, so that shows how much knowledge he has about it.

I want to move to the issue of the qualifications of motor vehicle traders and the registration process. I say that this provision appears to be a vast improvement on the current situation. It appears to me that with this bill we are about to remove the very old-fashioned, regimented way by which people had to go before a board and prove they were of suitable character, etc.

Peter Brown: Why not explain the point I raised?

Hon DAVID CARTER: No, no, that is not my job. The member should call on Paul Swain to answer his question.

Peter Brown: You are defending the legislation.

Hon DAVID CARTER: No, I am saying that after pages and pages of it, I have actually found one little bit that I quite like.

Brent Catchpole: It is the title!

Hon DAVID CARTER: No, it is not the title; the member has that wrong. But anyway, the member can have another go at speaking later.

The point that I think is a lot tidier is that the registration process will now be effectively automatic, with a number of exemptions for people who are disqualified from registering—the issues about whether one is under the age of 18, which seems fair enough, and about whether one is a person who has been banned or is an undischarged bankrupt, etc. I just say that amongst this dreadfully drafted—

Simon Power: Banned from rugby service!

Hon DAVID CARTER: That is a good point—[Interruption] I think we had better get Paul Swain back. In all this dreadfully drafted bill, which we are appropriately debating on 1 April—April Fool’s Day—I think I have actually found something that has some merit. So I congratulate the Government on at least getting a small part of the bill possibly right.

But I want to get back to the point that has been raised by other members about tampering with odometers. There is an issue whereby clause 13 states that tampering with odometers is prohibited. That clause states: “A person must not tamper with”—[Interruption] Mark Burton gave an interjection of about four words, but by the time he had finished he had forgotten what he said. Now I know it is late at night for the Minister, but one would really expect him to recall—

Hon Mark Burton: I did not want to embarrass the member.

Hon DAVID CARTER: He did not want to embarrass me. I assure Mark Burton that when I interject three words I can remember them. But I ask some honourable member from the Government to explain clause 13—

Simon Power: Harry is getting ready!

Hon DAVID CARTER: Oh, great! The real Minister of Transport will take a call! That would be great. I want to know what happens to a person if he or she tampers with a motor vehicle’s odometer. I remember Harry Duynhoven putting in hours and hours of debate in this House about the issue of people tampering with odometers. That was a big issue, a couple of years ago. In fact, Mr Harry Duynhoven made his name on that issue.

Simon Power: “Harry Odometer Duynhoven”.

Hon DAVID CARTER: That sounds quite good; it has a nice ring about it. Everybody expected that Harry Duynhoven would be the real Minister, and after the remark earlier by Paul Swain maybe Harry Duynhoven should be the real Minister. So Harry Duynhoven can take a call and explain to us what happens to a person who is caught tampering with an odometer. What is the penalty for that? [Interruption] Helen Duncan can tell us what the penalty is. No, she puts her glasses on now, hides her head in a book, and wishes that she had not interjected.

Brent Catchpole: She is knitting.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Oh, is it knitting?

Helen Duncan: It is the National Party that is responsible for the legislation.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I do not think that is the case, at all. This bill has the Hon Judith Tizard’s name on it. She is a member of the caucus that that member belongs to, not a member of our caucus. The member should not blame me.

Helen Duncan: We know you are taking the numbers for the leadership.

Hon DAVID CARTER: No, I am trying to get some honourable member from the Government to explain to us what happens when one finds someone tampering with an odometer. It is a simple question. Not even Parekura Horomia knows the answer to that. Nobody on the Government side of the Chamber can answer that question.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): I hope not too many of my friends in the motor industry are listening to this tonight, because many of them were concerned at my level of intelligence when I said that I was going to become an MP. They said to me: “Paul, they’ll run rings around you.” Well, hearing the debate tonight I think many of them would be sadly disappointed. I did like Wayne Mapp’s description of car salesmen; I had never heard it before—honest, hard working entrepreneurs. The National Party has got something right; they are.

But if my car salesmen described a car—and members should listen to this carefully—with the same accuracy as my parliamentary colleagues are describing this bill, they would have to lose their jobs. Under the Fair Trading Act and the consumer protection bill, their descriptions would be so inaccurate that they would probably lose their jobs. There is one word that we need to see come back in every industry in this country, and I think the motor industry largely runs on this word, and it is “integrity”. One cannot legislate for every situation that one has in business. I am surprised when I see some of my parliamentary colleagues who talk about less legislation bringing in more legislation. I scratch my head, and, as just a poor car salesman, I wonder where they are coming from.

Let us have a look at clause 13, “Tampering with odometers prohibited”. That is fine, but if one is without integrity, one can change the speedometer in a car without tampering with it. There is plenty of wreckers’ yards in New Zealand or overseas. Without integrity one cannot write legislation that will cover every situation.

I would also like to touch on—[Interruption] That is not tampering; it is changing. One thing about this legislation is that the motor industry does welcome it, but my concern about it is that we are lowering the bar. In other words, up until now motor vehicle dealers have had to invest a large amount of money in their motor vehicle businesses. They need a site, which they have either had to purchase or had to lease, to operate from. All of that is changing. Many of the calculations that have been done have been done on the existing regime of the car industry, which, to be honest—but people do not like me using that saying. The figures show that, for example, there has been very little call on the fidelity fund. Unfortunately, with the lowering of the bar under this bill, I think that we will have greater challenges unless the industry is policed correctly and really dealt with. It will be very easy now to enter the motor industry.

Many people have also talked about motor vehicles being a high-ticket item. But in reality today that is not the case. One can buy a very good motor vehicle for, say, $3,000, $5,000, or $7,000, which will serve one well. One can buy a spa pool for $15,000, $25,000, or $30,000, or one can buy a television set. So members should not say that the motor industry has big-ticket items; yes, it can have big-ticket items, but it can also have very good items.

I also see in clause 15 problems for the finance industry. I have concerns about the security interest having to be covered in what we call the current motor vehicle dealers window card. If a finance company has a security interest in a vehicle, and if that vehicle is sold by a less-than-desirable motor vehicle trader who has entered this industry, and who has disclosed in the window card that the vehicle has finance on it, then, yes, the member of the public who purchases the vehicle will have clear title to it, but the finance company will lose its right to the security on that vehicle. Its only right of redress to get its funds back will be through the trader. Under this legislation, the standard required of the trader is far less than what we currently have. I can see that that may possibly cause a problem down the line.

Nevertheless, I welcome the 2-year review of this bill. I think that is absolutely necessary.

Simon Power: Why?

PAUL ADAMS: If National members are quiet, I will tell them why.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport): This bill has a large number of issues in it, and it is hard to know where to start in a 5-minute speech. [Interruption] For the benefit of the Hon David Carter, I will start with clause 89, which is about the offence of tampering with odometers. I suggest that the member read it; it is in large print, so he should be able to find it. It has reference to clause 106, which is about penalties.

I have had some misgivings about this legislation, and that would be no secret to anyone in this Committee. I am pleased that, in the process, the bill has been improved somewhat. I share some of the concerns of my United Future colleague Paul Adams, who spoke about the entry level. But it has been deemed that those over the age of 18, who have no criminal convictions, should be able to enter into the motor vehicle dealer business. That is outlined in the bill in such a way as to say: “We have faith that the registrar will be able to ensure that those persons who are suitable remain in the industry, and that those who are not suitable exit from it by being banned.”

I am very pleased that this bill is removing the statutory authority given to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute. It takes away the institute’s respectability, which, in my view—and I am not talking about the motor vehicle dealers themselves, but about the organisation—has been used fraudulently for a long time. That may seem a very strong comment, but in the interests of the consumers who have bought clocked cars over the last decade and a bit, I have to say that very few motor vehicle dealers have been imprisoned, or, indeed, taken to the cleaners by the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute. I imagine that it will now rapidly go out of existence. I see the Motor Trade Association, and perhaps even what used to be known as the Imported Motor Vehicle Dealers Association, and is now the Independent Motor Vehicle Dealers Association, taking over those roles.

I have a little question about the definition of “motor cycle”, in clause 6, not including a moped. The definition of “motor vehicle” states, in paragraph (b)(iii), that “a motor cycle, the total cylinder capacity of which does not exceed 60 cubic centimetres:” is not included as a motor vehicle. There are lots of motorcycles that go fairly quickly, even though they are classified as mopeds. I am surprised by that definition. However, there might be a good reason for it, which someone might enlighten us about later.

I am pleased with clause 14, which is about the particulars that must be displayed. I have never, ever seen a vehicle with “This vehicle is clocked.” displayed on it, despite Mr Delamere assuring us, when he was a Minister, that that would happen. If members compare—and I have done this; I have been there—the deregistration data in Japan, including the mileage, by just walking down the lines at any auction, and looking at the registration data and the original mileage recorded at the time of the first inspection of the vehicle on its coming to New Zealand, they will find that there seems to be a huge disparity. One has only to look at the price of diesel in Japan to start asking: “Why would people buy a diesel vehicle in Japan, where petrol and diesel are more or less the same price, unless they were doing very high mileage?”, and to wonder at the failure rate of Japanese diesel vehicles in New Zealand, to conclude that clocking is still with us, and is an issue. I am pleased that it is addressed in clauses 89 and 106 of the bill.

I have some concern about one aspect, which I hope will be rigorously policed, and that is the idea of travelling, door-to-door salespeople. How can people believe that pressure will not be exerted in that situation? For example, if an elderly person has an older car that breaks down, and that will cost a lot to repair, a motor vehicle dealer who knows the person may notice that the car has broken down, and may shoot around with a flash Japanese used-car import, and say: “This is a marvellous little car. We will give you a good trade-in on your old car.” The dealer would see the person alone in his or her own home, where the person could be convinced by offers of finance, and by lines like: “We can do the deal right here in your lounge.” Motor vehicle salespeople are excellent at psychology: they know how to close deals. We will see that happen. I hope that is an aspect of the bill that the registrar will rigorously follow up.

I am pleased with clause 22(ea), which is the new bit that has been added, and is about one of the concerns I raise. I have to say, though, that anyone who investigates that will be very disappointed with the very low number of disqualified dealers.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): The whole point about this legislation is that it is not necessary. It is specialist industry legislation, and there is nothing new in that. There are always certain industry sectors that lobby for specialist legislation. [Interruption] That is the whole point. When we ran this country like a Polish shipyard, only the wealthy could afford to buy cars, but those days have long gone, and now cars are accessible to a lot more people. Families do not have just one car; they can buy two or three cars. My car is worth about $500, and that is fine. It has done 220,000 kilometres, but it gets me from A to B. I am going to keep driving it to see how long it lasts. It is a Subaru, and it is a wonderful little car.

The point I am making is that when cars were out of the reach of most people, and they had to go on to a list to get a new one, and they had to give the dealer a bottle of whiskey to have themselves put further up the list, the family car was often the second-most-expensive possession that people owned after their houses. That was why we needed legislation to protect people in the industry. There was a huge amount of money at stake. These days we need regulation that is a lot lighter, but that is not what we have with this bill. The neo-socialists always fall for this. They see a problem, and they think they can solve it by passing more law. We end up with legislation that is cumbersome and fraught with difficulty.

I noticed that Harry Duynhoven said he welcomed the end of the fidelity fund—

Hon Member: No, he certainly did not. The member spoke of the end of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Association.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I do not welcome the end of that, but I welcome the end of its compulsory membership. If an organisation is good, then people will join it voluntarily—just like unions. If unions are good, people will join them voluntarily. It is the same with students’ associations. We can get rid of the compulsory membership of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Association, but we cannot apply that to students’ associations! Never mind, there is hope; we are the party of influence, and we will keep working. We will influence both sides of the Committee, but it is very difficult when there is a concrete-bound mentality.

I return to Part 2 of this legislation. It deals with exemptions from registration. First of all, the Crown is exempt from registration, so it will not have to be policed or pay levies when the Customs Service seizes cars that it suspects have had their odometers tampered with, and sells them. The Customs Service is exempt from registration. That involves something like a thousand cars a year.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

Tuesday, 1 April 2003

(continued on Thursday, 3 April 2003)

Bills

Motor Vehicle Sales Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Motor vehicle trading (continued)

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): It is good to see the real Minister of Transport, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, in the chair. We might get some good amendments passed today with him there. Last evening when the Committee rose I was debating Part 2 and was just about to talk about clause 25, “Power to exempt persons from requirement to register by Order in Council”. The five exemption clauses are curious, because a person can apply to be exempted from the new register of motor vehicle dealers. The register was originally to be run by the Ministry of Economic Development, but it is not quite clear in the bill where it will be run from now. Maybe it will be the Ministry of Commerce.

A person can apply to be exempted from registering, but, as one would expect, a number of things must be taken into account when he or she makes the application. People apply to the Minister, via the prescribed form, stating why they want to be exempted from all the regulations imposed on them for being motor vehicle dealers. Under clause 28, “Process for making recommendation for exemption”, subclause (1)(a) states that the Minister must consult with persons or representatives whom he or she thinks will be substantially affected by the exemption, and the Minister can then go to the Governor-General for an Order in Council.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 69

Noes 48

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 96

Noes 21

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Part 3 Registration of motor vehicle traders

SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel): I would like to carry on from the very fine presentations made by my colleagues last night. They were making such a wonderful contribution to this bill that most of the Labour Party members came down to the Chamber to take some notice of them.

Part 3 is about the registration of motor vehicle traders, and covers the procedures involved. It is interesting to note that a large amount of motor vehicle trading probably takes place on the streets. If we look at the Trade and Exchange we see that an inordinate amount of vehicle trading results from advertisements placed in that paper, and I imagine that a large proportion of those sellers would not be registered. The number of vehicles that a private individual may trade without having to register as a trader has now been increased to six. It was three vehicles.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: It’s been six for a long time.

SANDRA GOUDIE: I thought it was three. I stand corrected, and I thank the Minister for that. It would be marvellous if he took a call.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Is the member yielding?

SANDRA GOUDIE: No, absolutely not—I could not possibly do that. But we would certainly welcome and appreciate some comments from the Minister. Within his comments, he might like to cover what the cost will be of the levy that is to be imposed on registered motor vehicle dealers. There is a prescribed application fee, but a levy is to be imposed as well. It would be interesting to know what the ballparkfigure for that levy will be and also what the definite intention for using it will be. No evidence has been given that motor vehicle dealers have been spoken to about the levy. The levy has come as somewhat of a surprise to them, and my colleagues have canvassed that issue substantially.

There is an application fee, and now there is to be a levy. Those are some of the substantial costs that are to be imposed on motor vehicle dealers who register. I am sure that the Minister is aware that there is an absence of a compliance cost report. He may care to take a call on that and tell us why no compliance cost report was done in respect of the levy, particularly when the traders are paying a registration fee. Those matters are of considerable concern to National, and we already have a major concern about the increased compliance costs for businesses under the Labour regime. We would like the Minister to take a call and perhaps give us a precis of the compliance cost report as he may have it in his head, given that we did not get it in any form of paperwork in association with this bill.

In looking at the registration of motor vehicle traders, one of the calls from United Future was for the need for greater enforcement. Judith Tizard, in her presentation on the bill when it was read a first time in the House—between knitting, dropping stitches, and whatnot; and we still do not know whether that garment was ever finished—

Brent Catchpole: She was still working on it last night.

SANDRA GOUDIE: I actually saw it being continued last night by another member of the Committee, Dianne Yates. I have now been sidetracked by knitting, so members can see what an influence knitting in the Chamber has been and how it has detracted somewhat seriously from the processes of the House. I am talking about Subpart 1 in Part 3.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: What’s this about?

SANDRA GOUDIE: We are debating Part 3, “Registration of motor vehicle traders”. We are talking about compliance costs and the enforcement that goes with that—the enforcement to ensure that people dealing in more than six cars a year become registered traders. Those provisions are being put in place to ensure that people register as traders if they sell more than six cars a year. The Hon Judith Tizard, the great knitter of the Chamber, said that enforcement was a very important aspect of this process.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to Part 3. Before I get into that I would like to thank the Hon Harry Duynhoven, the Associate Minister of Transport, for getting up last night to give us some explanations on this bill. It was sadly lacking from the Minister who had been in the chair at the time. We are very grateful to Harry Duynhoven for clearing up some of those issues that we had last night. This bill is very complex, and it is one that New Zealand First was not on the select committee to look into. Therefore, we were very grateful to the Hon Harry Duynhoven for clearing up some of those points.

The difficulty we have in this part is that there are no means of compliance checks, and therefore when there is a registered or deregistered member, then there is no way that he or she intends to go back to be registered. There are no teeth or incentives in this bill for somebody to become registered, and, therefore, why would he or she bother? People can sell out of the backyard or under the guise of somebody else’s registration or licence under what is termed a harbouring association. Once people are in that situation they can sell as many cars as they like. They will not report how many cars they have sold. To put in the bill that they have to be registered if they sell more than six cars is a waste of time. They will not disclose what they are doing out of the backyard or under the table. There is no incentive for them to become registered. It certainly does not protect consumers, because they will just walk away from the licence they are working from and leave it. There is no comeback to the original licence holder. Why should anybody become registered under this situation?

New Zealand First has a real concern that this bill lacks teeth. The purpose of the bill is quite good and reasonable, but it lacks teeth, it is disorganised, it does not have the coordination, and, thankfully, the Hon Harry Duynhoven got up here last night and explained some of the situation. One jumps from one end of the bill to other. It is a pity that the real Minister, the Hon Paul Swain, who is supposed to be handling this bill, was not able to stand up to do that for us. He sat in the chair and said absolutely nothing.

Peter Brown: He asked us what we thought it achieved.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: That is right. He asked us whether we thought it achieved what he wanted it to do. I do not think he really knew what he wanted to do with this bill, so he had to ask us. Why did he not ask the Hon Harry Duynhoven? He was there, and he has the knowledge. Why did the Minister not ask him? He would have told him that this bill has some major problems. The Hon Harry Duynhoven cleared that up last night and made it quite clear to us that those problems exist.

There is one issue that I would like to go back to: I would like the Hon Harry Duynhoven to explain to us, when we have a situation where people can go to Japan and get the details of the odometer readings, why that paperwork does not follow the vehicle back all the way into New Zealand. This bill does not insist that it do so. If it did, then a lot of the problems with odometer readings and winding them back would be solved. But, no, that paperwork does not follow the vehicle, and it does not give us the checks that we require. I ask Mr Duynhoven to explain this to the Committee.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): In some ways this part is probably the whole crunch of why the industry is so pleased that this bill is going through. For many years, dealers have been operating on an uneven playing field where traders have been operating and selling cars from their backyards, through auction houses and car fairs. I agree that the policing of it has been non-existent. Comments have been made that no longer, because our society’s foundations have been breaking down, can we rely on the goodness of people to operate within the laws we make. We expect the police to have to operate and to keep all laws. That is an absolute impossibility. A substantial amount—I would estimate probably about one-third of the vehicles that are bought and sold in this country on a day-by-day basis—would be bought and sold by unlicensed traders. It will interesting to see whether those who deal in that realm register or, indeed, are capable of being registered.

Personally, I think the criterion for the registration of a vehicle trader under this bill is a good criterion. It is a fair criterion. It is in enough detail for anybody who has a brain to read it to understand how it works. It will be interesting to see how many of the unlicensed traders become registered.

Last night my colleagues in National asked why this legislation needs a review within 2 years. This is one of the reasons it will need a review within 2 years. Currently, to be a licensed motor vehicle dealer requires a substantial investment of capital. Therefore, dealers are very aware that if their licence is taken from them, then they will not have the ability to trade, whereas under the new regime it will cost very little to get a licence. Therefore, an unscrupulous trader, when he or she does get prosecuted and loses his or her licence to trade, will not have lost anywhere near as much. But, likewise, United Future also believes that enterprise is well capable of looking after itself.

I believe that what we will find over this 2-year period is that the good dealers will again group together. They will make sure that there are the criteria of a code of ethics for the people who are within their group as they buy and sell motor vehicles. In 2 years’ time we will find again that there is a massive gap between the genuine motor vehicle dealer and those who have just taken a licence because it has been cheap to get. We will find going through the disputes tribunal a massive difference in the quality.

I also notice in the legislation that there is the ability to charge different levies to different types of dealers. That is very wise, because those who are continually in the tribunal will be able to be levied at a higher rate, and those who are not, at a lesser rate. That is great. United Future is pleased to support this legislation. I really hope that all those who are dealing illegally in motor vehicles take this good opportunity that has been given to them to register, to clean up their act, to operate within the laws of the nation, and to keep up the great reputation that the motor vehicle dealer industry has.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): It is interesting that this bill is described as something that will protect consumers. I see that the National and ACT members of the select committee, which I was not a part of, made the comment that the registrar should have the power to require audits of motor vehicle traders, especially when he or she believes that a motor vehicle trader may be insolvent. It could stop an insolvent trader carrying on business, losing more and more for his or her creditors. When that was rejected, it was one of the things that could have protected consumers. Government members rejected that recommendation. That would have been a way in which they could have been protected. Currently, this legislation has virtually no teeth.

I turn to clause 29. It is here that we are first introducing the reference in the Supplementary Order Paper to section 130A, which relates to somebody applying for registration as a motor vehicle trader or he or she has to pay this levy. Nothing in section 130A says that if one trader is taken to the disputes tribunal more often than another trader, the levy will go up or down commensurately with how good or bad a trader he or she is. It prescribes different levies for different classes of motor vehicle traders, not for different levels of integrity of motor vehicle traders.

I come back to my point that it is absolutely despicable that this Government—and it should be ashamed of itself—is passing yet more taxes for businesses out there. Why does it keep singling out the poor old motorists, and whacking them every time? We have had petrol tax go up, and road-user charges go up. We have had accident compensation levies go up, and licensing costs go up. The member from United Future talked about a level playing field. What is “level playing field” about socking it to the poor old motorist or the car dealer? It is easy to sock car dealers because everybody holds them in contempt anyway—or that is what this elitist, spa-pool, neo-socialist Government thinks.

The other point about this Supplementary Order Paper is the fact that it is being sneaked through. It never went to a select committee; motor vehicle dealers were never given a chance to have their input. They are writing back to me, and I got another letter this morning that said: “Thank you for your advice regarding Ms Tizard’s clever little stab in our sides. Nothing the Labour Government does, surprises me any more. Their electorate seems to be lower-income people and beneficiaries, so the only way to keep themselves in office is to tax their perceived rich taxpayers to keep the poorer voters happy. As a motor vehicle importer and retailer, I feel we have had enough. The cost of compliance in order to bring a vehicle into the country has risen dramatically over the last 4 years. I wish you well fighting this tax. Your yells will no doubt fall on deaf ears, because the ones that vote these wankers into power have an insatiable appetite for taxpayer money, and they have got to get it from somewhere.” It is a matter of tax and spend, and I come back to the latest OECD report—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member used an unparliamentary term. Would she please withdraw.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Yes, I withdraw and apologise. But, to help me, can you tell me what that was?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is well aware of what was said. Please continue.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I come back to what taxing and spending does. The latest OECD survey shows that the average tax bill for the average worker with a spouse and two children in New Zealand, makes that worker the second-worst-off in the world—in just one place above the Czech Republic. That is shameful, and this new tax on motor vehicle dealers will put us, probably, below the Czech Republic. The average working couple now is $1,400 worse off a year, in real terms. I say to this Government that that is shameful, and I say to United Future that if it would support my Supplementary Order Paper, which deletes this reference to section 130A from this bill, then we would be left with legislation that vehicle dealers do want, and that would clean up the system a bit for them. I think it is far too regulatory and singles them out for issues like: why have a disputes tribunal anyway for motor vehicle dealers when they can go through the ordinary courts?

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 96

Noes 21

Amendments agreed to, and Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Part 4 Enforcement.

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei): It gives me some pleasure to be speaking on Part 4. In particular, late last night at about 20 to 12, I was raising questions relating to the issue of tampering with odometers. I raised the question in the Committee: if one was a banned person or a person who tampered with odometers—so what? What would happen under Part 2 to that person if those offences occurred? Part 4 contains some of those provisions that relate to enforcement. It is worth making the point that I personally do not think that this way of drafting legislation is satisfactory, at all, whereby there is an offending provision in one part of the bill, and an enforcement provision further on. There is not even the actual penalty on conviction in the same part as the section that dealt with creating the offence. So, in fact, there are three sections that relate to the prohibition on tampering with odometers.

Then one must go to clause 89 for the creation of the offence of tampering with the odometer, but to find out what happens to an offender if it is an offence—before anybody who infringes those sections knows what the penalty is—one must go to clause 106. So first of all we are told, in clause 13, that a person must not tamper with a vehicle’s odometer, then we are told, at clause 89, that it is an offence to tamper with an odometer—well, what is the difference between being told one must not tamper with an odometer in clause 13, and being told in clause 89 that it is an offence to tamper with an odometer—but we do not even know what the penalty for tampering with an odometer is until we get to clause 106.

I say that that type of drafting is sloppy, at best. There should be one clause that states that it is an offence to tamper with an odometer, and here is what happens if one offends that provision—one would be jailed or fined. It should all be in one tidy clause. Looking through this document during the course of last night and early this morning, I have to say that it is pretty sloppy stuff, in my view.

Again, I raise the point that has been raised by other members during the course of this debate: if this legislation is so necessary, so tight, and so well drafted, why does it have a 2-year review clause in it? Why does it have a sunset clause? It is sloppy lawmaking. There are three different clauses all relating to the one offence, and we have a review at the end of 2 years. I say that it is just not good enough for this Parliament to be producing legislation that is set out and configured in such a difficult way to follow. This Parliament should be about providing clear and concise laws for the people of New Zealand, with the old “plain English” approach to legal interpretation. In this bill we have some sloppy work, with three different clauses relating to one issue of interference with odometers, and, if we are not worried about that, then we will just review the whole thing after 2 years! The Government should be thinking seriously about the processes being followed when that type of drafting is becoming the norm.

Turning to a specific point in Part 4, I read that now the District Court is to consider whether a person is fit and proper to participate in a business of motor vehicle sales, and I note at clause 65(2) that every application to a District Court must be by way of an originating application. That actually means one has to pay court filing fees, and have supporting affidavits and originating applications. That will become a costly business. I would be interested in hearing from the Minister about whether the costs incurred by an originating application in a District Court differ from the current costs to gain a motor vehicle dealer’s licence, if so, by how much, and what her estimate is for whether that is necessarily a good or bad thing.

One further point has come to my attention, on which I want to wind up my short contribution to Part 4: what happens to those cases currently before the fidelity fund? That is a very interesting question, and I think it is worth asking the Minister—

Peter Brown: There is a transitional—

SIMON POWER: I am sure there is a transitional clause.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I would like to outline a set of circumstances that I believe do, from time to time, occur in this country with regard to imported, second-hand cars. I would appreciate the Minister taking a call to explain whether I am correct in the first instance, and, if I am correct, what this bill will do about the matter.

As I understand it some importers go to Japan and buy an allocation of cars in a block, and the Japanese dealer says: “If you take this amount of cars, we’ll give you these cars for free.” They are the lower-level cars that, in normal circumstances, the dealer would have to dispose of, at some cost. So he would be keen enough to give them away, if the New Zealand importer is prepared to buy a certain lot of what I call “acceptable” cars. These lower-level cars are known, I believe, as “sewer” cars, because they are about to be dispensed with. They come into this country, and I am of the understanding, over past years, that quite frequently they have their odometers “clocked” or wound back, and are sold to unsuspecting members of the public.

We have to remember that the New Zealand dealer does not have any equity in these cars; he is selling a car, in the circumstances I have illustrated, that he has not bought but has been given, and he has “clocked” or wound back the odometer. I want to know how the rules in Part 4 will be imposed in respect of that band of motor vehicle dealers who are not toeing the line. New Zealand First was not on the Commerce Committee, and I have read this bill to try to find the answer. Now, I would appreciate the Minister taking a call and answering that question. I believe that practice has occurred, and I have no reason to believe that it is not occurring right now.

The honourable member from United Future earlier spoke of all motor vehicle dealers being people of integrity, but I notice this morning he has moved somewhat from that view. He said this bill will open the door to anybody to enter the trade. That possibility is a major concern to New Zealand First. If that happens, and this bill opens the door to anybody, then somebody will pay the price, financially or possibly with an unsafe car. I do not want to extend my statement any further than is necessary, but I would appreciate the Minister addressing that question. If she does not know the answer, I respectfully suggest she speak to her colleague the Hon Harry Duynhoven, because he can verify that what I am saying has occurred. He has immense knowledge of the motor vehicle industry. Indeed, when he spoke last night he was the first Government member, with due respect to Paul Adams, who threw some sensible light on what this bill is all about. He has made New Zealand First rethink this bill, to some limited degree. We say that it is flawed, and we say that the issue I have just illustrated indicates there is a major flaw, because it will not address this issue. If the Minister cannot see her way clear to talk to the Hon Harry Duynhoven, perhaps she would talk to the officials sitting behind her and then give us a genuine answer to that concern.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): The speedometer issue comes up regularly in our conversations on this bill, but can I assure the Committee that “clocking” is a used-car problem, not an imported-car problem. Throughout history, people have realised that the lower the mileage is, the higher the price of the vehicle. The fact that a car has been registered “new” in New Zealand does not necessarily mean that that car has an accurate speedometer. I remember in the early days trading Falcons and finding holes behind the ashtray, because people would turn off the electronic speedo when they were going on a trip. So let us get the facts right: the altering of mileage is a used-car problem, not necessarily an imported-car problem.

This enforcement clause has been of great concern to United Future, and I have appreciated the efforts of Judith Tizard and the officials as we have worked to close that major loophole in the used-car industry. However, because that issue crosses a couple of bills, we have not been able to do that in the time allowed, so I look forward in this 2-year period to working to close that gap. We talk about levies being a cost to dealers, but unlicensed trading is also a huge cost to dealers. United Future has been concerned—just as the industry has been concerned—about the huge hole between when a car is cleared by the Customs Service as it comes across the wharf, to when it enters the Land Transport Safety Authority registration system. Under existing regulations, there is no requirement that one has to be a licensed motor vehicle dealer to import cars from overseas. The only criterion is that those cars must be sold to a licensed motor vehicle dealer. They cannot be sold direct to the public, unless the seller is licensed. Of course, that regulation is blatantly ignored. The people who import cars into the country have their money invested in those cars; they cannot sell them to a dealer for one reason or another, and they blatantly sell them through car fairs, auctions, or whatever. United Future would like to see the regulations amended so that only licensed motor vehicle dealers can import cars into the country and hold them until they comply with an MR2A—in other words, until they are identified from the Customs Service to the Land Transport Safety Authority.

We would not be opposed to people bringing in cars for their own private use—that is obvious in the market we are in—but we would insist that if a vehicle were imported by a private person, that person would have to register the vehicle in the name of the person who imported it, at the time that the vehicle went through the compliance process. If that regulation were brought in, it would close a huge loophole that is costing the Government millions of dollars in money not collected through GST from those unlicensed traders. It would create a nice link between the Customs Service and the Land Transport Safety Authority, and it would tidy up a lot of the concerns that people have been dealing with.

My second point deals with the sale price of cars, and the cost that those levies will impose. Surprisingly enough, in a free-trade environment such as we have, car dealers do not set the price they sell their used cars at. The public sets the price. If we try to get too much for a car, it will not sell. In a competitive industry such as we are in, we learn very quickly what price the public will pay for a certain make and model. Our overheads or costs have absolutely nothing to do with the sale price of the motor vehicle. As regulations come in, which the industry does welcome, a segment of traders will stand out above the others. I welcome that, because the public are not silly. They will soon realise where they can buy a car in safety, or where they can buy a car that might be cheaper but has a huge risk attached to it. That is the same for anything we buy and sell.

I look forward to this bill being passed. As I have said, United Future is supportive of it.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): I am going to say something positive about Part 4—the enforcement part of the bill.

Hon Member: That is a change.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: No, I have not changed; I am often positive about things. I am positive about this list of banned persons. It is a good idea to have a list of banned persons to be kept by the registrar. This part of the bill has been very well-thought-out and carefully drafted. The list will be electronic, it will comply with the Privacy Act, and it will not breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Hopefully, this part of the legislation will set a precedent in respect of people who prey on vulnerable members of the public. The public will be able to access the list on the register, see the history of those people, see whether they are legitimate car dealers, and armed with that information, make up their own minds about what they want to do.

So I congratulate the Minister on having this provision in the bill, but I would ask her to take a call and explain what happens—because the Crown can be exempted from some of the clauses in this bill—when a dealer is banned from trading in vehicles and the Customs Service has seized imported cars. Contrary to Paul Adams’ statement that “clocking” is not an imported-car problem, it is an imported-car problem. If it is not, why is the Customs Service still seizing up to 1,000 cars a year because it suspects that the odometers have been tampered with? Those are cars coming across the wharf. When I last went to school, that meant they were imported. Now the Customs Service sells those cars and takes the money, and the importer does not get anything back. What happens to that importer? I presume the importer is listed on that list of dodgy dealers. The cars are seized because they are suspected of being unsafe, so we would expect that they would then be broken up and sold for parts, or that the importer would be ordered to cover the cost of sending them back to the country from which they came. But that is not actually what happens—they do get passed on to the unsuspecting public. The first time they are passed on, it will be with a history of possibly having a “clocked” odometer, but that is as far as it goes. The Crown passes on liability to the first dealer, who takes those cars after the Crown has seized them. It exempts itself from any liability that might arise when some unsuspecting person buys a car as the second or third purchaser and finds it has done a lot more mileage than he or she suspected.

I would like to query something else. Two-thirds of car sales in this country do not go through dealers. Under this bill, an individual is entitled to sell up to six cars a year before having to be registered. Does that mean that a family of six could sell 30 cars a year without being registered as a dealer?

Paul Adams: Not if they make a profit.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: How do we prove that? They are not registered, so we will not know what they are doing. How do we know whether they are making a profit? Those are two things that I call on the Minister to answer.

As I said, I congratulate her on the banned persons list. I think it is a good idea. Hopefully, it is a precedent for other lists that might come before this House, of people who should not be trusted in respect of the vulnerable public—especially those who are under age. I ask her to answer those two questions about what happens when the Customs Service passes on the cars to the public, and how we tell whether unlicensed traders who can sell up to six cars a year are making a profit?

The question was put that the following amendment and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of Hon Judith Tizard to Part 4 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause 4(b) of clause 65 the words “period of”.

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

Ayes 96

Noes 21

Amendments agreed to.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions

SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel): I would like to talk a bit about Part 5, “Miscellaneous provisions”. The first provision is an exemption for car auctioneers, which looks eminently sensible. The car auctioneer is exempt from the general auctioneers licensing requirement but has to comply as a registered motor vehicle dealer.

I see that the levy regulations are in Part 5. That is quite a substantial amendment to the bill, and many speeches have remarked on it. Members will recall the compliance cost comments that have already been made. In looking at the bill, maybe for the second time, the Minister is perhaps taking some cognisance of the fact that there is no compliance cost report. Perhaps she would like to take a call and give us her assessment of the compliance costs that this levy will impose on motor vehicle dealers. We know that 85 percent of businesses in this country employ five people or fewer, which is a substantial part of business in this country, and we are now putting an added cost on to them. What will be the result of that? Will we have less registration, and therefore even more unregistered dealers? United Future is claiming that one-third of those dealing in motor vehicles are unregistered, and ACT is claiming two-thirds, so we have rather a discrepancy. With the cost to business of the imposed levy, the number of unregistered dealers will increase, and the absence of a compliance cost report indicates that no analysis of that has been done. There has been no analysis whatsoever of what impact the levy and cost impositions will have on registered motor vehicle dealers. Clearly, the one-third and two-third figures suggest a substantial impact, and the two-thirds figure is huge. Clearly, without a compliance report, we know that this Government has not taken any cognisance of that. The effect on consumers will be considerable, and their opportunity for redress against unregistered persons dealing in the sale of motor vehicles will be significantly reduced.

In clause 131, we are also looking at the prescribed fees payable under this Act. If the number of motor vehicle dealers registering is reduced and the disputes tribunal is to be paid for, the levy will rise commensurately, because we will not have the numbers to be able to afford to continue with that tribunal.

Jill Pettis: Talking about numbers, how is it going?

SANDRA GOUDIE: The member is asking me? She should know how it is going, but because her Government does not have a compliance cost report, it has no idea how it is going. The Government has no idea of business. It will resort to any measures to try to bolster its own ego, but in this instance it has not done a compliance cost report. It has not even assessed the impacts on the industry of the increased cost it has imposed on these people. They are just general mums and dads—the average Joe Bloggs and his wife—trying to run a business, and they are being undermined by the increased costs imposed by this Government. The Government has put through this levy in an amendment, with no submissions on it. It is a major amendment to the bill, and no reports have been done on the impacts of it. I believe that to be a serious omission.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): In going through the Supplementary Order Paper, we discover that an additional clause has been added to Part 5—Clause 130A, “Regulations may impose levy”. This Government stated during the election campaign that it would not add any more costs to businesses and it would not increase taxes. But what has it done in this particular Supplementary Order Paper, which has not been discussed at any select committee whatsoever, but just brought up in this debate? It has added a tax, a levy, an additional compliance cost, or whatever one likes to call it. The Government has gone and added it without any consultation with the industry or with anybody else. It certainly was not discussed with members on this side of the Chamber. The amendment was just dropped on to the table, in a very large Supplementary Order Paper, to add an additional cost.

So what happened to the promise that Labour members made during the election that they would not increase costs, add levies, or add taxes? This is another tax, by any other name. They like to call it a levy, but it is still a tax and it is still a compliance cost. The Supplementary Order Paper goes against the whole spirit of the bill.

Clause 142 deals with the transitional provisions for the fund. I see that the fund will be wiped out after 12 months. What is the point of wiping out the fund when clause 143, “Claims against Fund”, states: “(1) No person is entitled to make any claim against the Fund for any act or thing done or omitted to be done after the commencement of this Act. (2) No person is entitled to make any claim against the Fund for any act or thing done or omitted to be done before the commencement of this Act ...”? In other words, if something happens before or after the Act, that fund cannot be accessed. So the fund is basically wiped immediately the bill comes into effect, yet the Government is trying to say that it will be there for another 12 months after this bill comes into effect. What is the point? It is being wiped out in the next clause. The fund should either be disbanded immediately or kept until the Act is reviewed, to make sure that it supports the consumer, because the consumer has been completely left out in the cold by this Act.

The Supplementary Order Paper adds another clause to the bill—clause 146, “Review of operation of Act”. Why would the Government want to review the Act so soon after it comes in? It is because it is uncertain of its ability to achieve what it sets out to do. I know that the industry is calling for legislation that will sort the industry out, but this Government has put forward a bill that it has suddenly realised will not work. It has no confidence in it, so it has put in an extra clause under the Supplementary Order Paper to provide for a review of it. But what will happen when that review is done? There is nothing in the clause in the Supplementary Order Paper that states what has to be done once it has been reviewed. The Government could review it, then sit there and do nothing even though it may find some major problems with it. There is nothing in the legislation to insist that it does anything about the review once it has been done. It could just do the review and ignore it, as it does with most things.

With this Supplementary Order Paper the Government has ignored the select committee process. It did not allow any consultation on the Supplementary Order Paper. It has dropped huge new parts into the bill and additional clauses that did not go through the consultation process.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I have come down to the Chamber particularly to talk about this part because it is one of those parts that puts Parliament into disrepute. Here we are in urgency, putting through a stealth tax. Let us be frank about what the Government did. It went out and talked to the registered vehicle salespeople about a new piece of legislation. The Government introduced the legislation into Parliament and it invited the industry to make submissions to a select committee. At no time did the Minister or any Labour member of the select committee say to the car dealers: “Oh, by the way, after we have heard all your submissions—after you have gone to the trouble of coming to Parliament—we will put in what is called a Supplementary Order Paper, which will not go to the select committee, and we will include a provision whereby we can particularly tax just car dealers.”

I know that this Government has contempt for car dealers because it jokes about them. I say that the car dealers in New Zealand do a good job. Motor vehicle dealers in this country compare very favourably with motor vehicle dealers around the world. When we look at the problems that people have buying cars, they are very rarely from a registered motor vehicle dealer. Is that not right?

Paul Adams: That’s true.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I now have a member of the profession who is prepared to confirm that. I ask a serious question. When I look at the registered motor vehicle dealers in this country, I think that they serve the country well. But this Government thinks that they are just sheep to be shorn, and it has the contempt to introduce a tax on them without allowing it to go to a select committee. I say that for just that reason alone we ought to reject this whole bill. It is the style of lawmaking that an arrogant Labour Government has gone in for, and this particular Minister, the Hon Judith Tizard, is known for her arrogance. She treats people with contempt. I doubt whether she knows any car dealers. Certainly none vote for her, or that is what she thinks—and they will not after this bill. I ask the Government and the members of United Future how they can support this type of legislation.

Deborah Coddington sent out a letter to a number of registered car dealers and asked them what they thought about that proposal. The Committee will not be surprised to know, although the Minister does not care, that they were outraged. They could not credit that a Government could treat them in that way. We have a Government passing legislation to protect the public from car dealers, but what we actually need to do is to pass some legislation to protect car dealers from the Government. [Interruption] The Government is treating car dealers in a way that would make the member jump up and down and say was an outrage. It is like selling someone a car, getting the cheque, then at the last minute saying: “Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention that there are a whole lot of extra taxes owing on this car and you now have to pay them.” I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Tizard, when did she say to car dealers that she was intending to put in this Supplementary Order Paper? She is very silent. Does she not remember, or is she too embarrassed to admit that she always intended to do this? Did she? If she did not, why did she suddenly have this new idea?

Paul Adams: It was in January 2001.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: That is very interesting. Is the United Future party going to support this measure? [Interruption] The United Future party tells me that the Minister has known about this secret proposal since January 2001, and that it is now going to vote for it. I thought that the United Future party was interested in lifting moral standards. Is this bill not immoral? Is it not immoral to go out and ask the industry to make submissions, to gather them all in, to listen to them all, then, only after the submissions have closed, introduce a secret tax? Is that not immoral?

Hon Judith Tizard: What’s the tax for?

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: Hello, the Minister is prepared to say something. Let us stop. Oh no, it has passed. For a moment I thought the Minister was going to contribute. She has forgotten that her whole strategy is to put this through as a stealth tax. Of course, it is not a stealth tax if one talks about it, so the Minister does not want to tell us why she has done it.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): I was not going to speak on this part, but young Richard Prebble fires away in his normal exuberant style, which I admire. It is always interesting when we hear one side of the story without hearing the other side. To be honest, the industry was aware of this in a consultation paper in January 2001 where the levy was mentioned, and the levy was supported by the industry. Motor vehicle dealers are a group of people who do like to solve problems quickly. As I said previously, in the long run the longer disputes go on, the more it costs the dealer.

The motor industry will have to pay a levy of $127 per dealer. That will give motor vehicle dealers access to a tribunal that will be able to sort out any disputes at a very quick rate. Personally, I am thankful that I have had very few disputes with a customer, but I would not like to have to wait to go through the court process of this nation while the whole thing was held up. If I have to pay $127 on each of my licences I will be very pleased to pay the $127 so that disputes can be sorted out quickly and resolved. I for one, as with most other dealers in this country, do appreciate our customers; we do want to do things in a correct and a right order. Even in this Chamber we have disputes between people, and there are always two sides to a story. If it costs me $127 a year to have access to a tribunal to sort it out, I, and I believe most other dealers in this country, welcome it.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): It is interesting, is it not—

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Paul Adams just referred to a document. It would have been most helpful if the Minister had told us that this document existed. I seek leave for the member to table that document so we might—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member knows that is a point of debate.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: It is interesting, is it not, that when one person is prepared to pay a tax, he or she is happy to force that tax on to everybody else. There is nothing in the income tax legislation that precludes people from paying extra taxes as they want to, voluntarily, and I am sure Treasury would not be embarrassed by a surfeit of cheques. That is typical of the arrogance of people who want higher taxes. They say that they are prepared to pay it so everybody else should. That is what we are getting under this levy regulation, clause 130A.

Car dealers already pay taxes. They already pay a huge amount of GST and company taxes. Part of that goes towards the justice system. Why should car dealers be singled out for another tax that they did not know about? If Paul Adams has a paper from as far back as January 2001—which he and the Minister knew about; obviously he was well prepared before he came into Parliament—let him table it so we all know what it is about, so all the car dealers out there know what it is about. Peter Brown is sitting there and he does not know what it is about. He is “Mr Transport” in the New Zealand First Party. If he does not know what it is about, I doubt whether the car dealers know about it.

I wrote to 2,250 motor vehicle dealers in this country. That was a week ago. That is the response so far. Those letters are from people who are outraged and did not know about this levy.

Peter Brown: Give us a sample of the letters.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I can give members a sample, but most of it is unparliamentary language—as I have already discovered. They knew that they would not have to register on a compulsory basis with the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute, and they welcomed that. That is another issue with the fidelity fund. What will happen to the $2 million in the fidelity fund? This legislation says that if one goes to the disputes tribunal it is not backdated—so what is the point of it? I say we do not know what this tax is for. I ask the Minister to stand up now. Now is her chance to explain to all those motor vehicle dealers out there who are listening and want to know why they are being singled out for this levy. Now is the Minister’s chance to stand up and share with all of them—this is a very caring, sharing Government—why they should be singled out for this tax.

All that this tax will do is to encourage Internet dealing, backyard dealing, and all of those things in respect of which the Government thinks this legislation will close all the loopholes. There is nothing in this legislation that would encourage anyone to register as a car dealer. In fact, that is what the dodgy dealers out there are already saying. They have looked at the legislation and at the levy regulations, which can be changed overnight. We do not even know what they are. There is no limit to them, despite Paul Adams saying the levy is $127 a year. There is nothing in here that sets the maximum amount. It is all very loose. It can be changed by Order in Council specifying the criteria. This Government just gives with one hand and takes away with the other.

I ask the Minister now to stand and tell us why she thinks this is such a good tax. People will remember that when we discussed this bill in the House last time the Minister was too busy knitting to explain to car dealers and motor vehicle dealers why this levy was needed. Now is her chance to stand up and explain. The dealers do not know about it, and they are outraged about it. Many of them have said, as Richard Prebble just commented, that this levy makes it worth opposing this whole bill on account of clause 130A. I have tabled an amendment to remove that clause altogether and let those businesses get on with their lives, let them get their compliance costs down, and let them be successful entrepreneurs and contribute to this country instead of being constantly harassed and whacked, just because they are motor vehicle dealers and drive and sell cars. Of course, car transporters are something that these people here loathe.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Transport): I am very happy to advise the Committee that in relation to motor vehicle sales a proposed regulatory regime document was issued in January 2001. Members will find on page 30, 7.1.3: “The tribunal will be partly funded through a registration levy paid by motor vehicle vendors and also through user charges. The fees paid by applicants will be on a similar scale and operate on a similar basis to that of the ordinary disputes tribunal.” That document was available. In fact we had two submissions on it from motor vehicle dealers, both of whom said they were very happy to pay it.

Hon Richard Prebble: Two submissions!

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Only two, in spite of the hundreds of those documents that went out. So I am very happy, having discussed this with the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute, that this very small levy is seen as an excellent benefit for both the dealers and the car-buying public. If we are going to be sure about buying a major item like a motor vehicle, we need to be sure that if something is wrong, it will be put right. I congratulate Paul Adams from United Future on his excellent advocacy for the car industry, but also for car buyers. That is what this very small, reasonable levy is about.

I am delighted that ACT members are making such idiots of themselves, because I have had a pile of letters and messages from motor vehicle dealers asking what on earth is this hysterical nonsense from Deborah Coddington.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Can I ask the Minister, having described my party in unparliamentary language—

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Who did?

Hon Richard Prebble: I can tell the Minister that it is out of order to call people idiots in this Chamber. But having done that, and having made the claim that she has a pile of letters to her asking what is ACT doing, I challenge her to table them. To make sure that I mean this challenge, I say the Minister has not got one.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Whether the Minister tables them is the Minister’s prerogative.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): Let me make this statement. I say to the Committee—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is the member raising a point of order?

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: No, I am taking a call. I say to the Committee, following that contribution from the Minister, who said, and I quote, that she has a pile of letters from car dealers—

Hon Judith Tizard: Messages, I said.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: It has now become messages. She says she has a pile of messages from car dealers asking what on earth the ACT party is on about. I say to the Minister that I do not believe her. I do not think there is a member of the Committee who believes her. It is a question of credibility. The Minister can table them. Deborah Coddington has a pile of messages right here. Let me pull some of them out. I have just pulled some of those messages out and had a look, and I shall read them to the Committee: “Dear Deborah, Thank you for taking the time to contact me with the rather alarming news that a Supplementary Order Paper has been added to the impending Motor Vehicle Sales Bill.” Here is another one: “Attention Deborah Coddington: Any tax that Ms Tizard wants to slip into the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill will be most unwanted.” I am reading the messages straight out to the Minister. Here is another one: “Dear Deborah, I think a tax or a levy stinks.” Here is another one: “We wish to thank you for your letter re the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. It is very surprising that an MP can slip in a Supplementary Order Paper without those concerned having the opportunity to express opposition to the proposed levy.”

I could read out another one. Here is the Minister who told the Committee that she has a pile of messages saying that the ACT party is wrong. I am saying that she does not have one. It is very, very easy for the Minister to contradict me. I am reading out these messages to the Committee, and I hope no one suggests that I am making them up: “Dear Deborah, Thank you for your letter dated 19 March re Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. I am surprised and dismayed to hear Judith Tizard has slipped in a Supplementary Order Paper which allows a levy to be imposed on the vehicle industry.” Here is another one: “Dear Deborah, We have just received your letter dated 19 March 2003 addressed to the motor vehicle dealers. Turner Fleet Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Turners Auctions Ltd. My response, like you, I’m alarmed, astonished, and disturbed at what appears to be an underhanded attempt.” Here we are: “Dear Deborah, re levy, I would like to voice strong opposition to this open-ended levy. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I am not in favour of any new taxes.” I could keep going. I ask the Minister whether anyone in the Chamber doubts that Deborah Coddington’s letters are genuine.

Murray Smith: No.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I want to have this clear. Is Mr Smith saying that these letters are not genuine?

Murray Smith: The ones she wrote might not be.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: That is very interesting. He is accusing an ACT member of not having written a genuine letter. It is interesting that all those people can reply to a letter that apparently, Mr Smith said, may not have been sent. I ask Mr Smith whether he believes that the Minister has a pile of messages. He is prepared to believe that. Has he seen them?

Murray Smith: No.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: No, he has not seen them. Does he think it is interesting that the Minister, who has been challenged and basically told by me that what she is saying to the Committee is not true, has not replied to that? Is the Minister’s behaviour the sort of behaviour that we want from a Minister of the Crown? Of course it is not. Do we, as a Parliament, want to support a Minister who is prepared to slip in a Supplementary Order Paper and then say that clause 7(b)(ii) had a little sentence in it, and two car dealers in the country saw it 2 years ago? I say to the Minister that if she intended to have a levy, why was it not in the original bill?

I believe that we as a Parliament should vote against this bill to indicate our strong opposition to this Minister’s style. I have contempt for MPs who get up in the Chamber and claim that they have a pile of messages but, when they are challenged, cannot produce that pile. I say to the Minister that her credibility is zilch anyway, but if she wants to protect it at all, she ought to be able to produce at least 100 messages from 100 different car dealers.

NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 69

Noes 48

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Deborah Coddington to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard be agreed to:

to omit new clause 130A.

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

Ayes 48

Noes 69

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

The question was put that the following amendment and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 5 be agreed to:

to amend subclause 141(c) by omitting the words “section 22(d)” and substituting the words “sections 22(d) to (e) and 23(ab)”.

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

Ayes 69

Noes 48

Amendments agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 69

Noes 48

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Schedules

JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville): I do not intend to take very long to discuss the schedules, but I do want to draw the Committee’s attention to a couple of matters contained in them. Those who have had an opportunity to review and reflect on the bill will know that the schedules discuss in some depth the hearings and the manner in which the disputes tribunal may conduct those hearings. In particular, I want to take a moment to talk about the rights of people to appear at hearings.

Clause 7A in schedule 2 spells out the rights of anybody who wants to appear before a hearing. In particular, it states: “At any hearing of an application or claim before a Disputes Tribunal, any party to the proceedings is entitled to attend and be heard.” It then goes on to discuss whether representation is acceptable within those hearings, stating at some length that people cannot be represented—except under some conditions outlined later on—by a barrister or a lawyer. I understand the reasons that that would be the case. In other words, it is to reduce the cost and delay to hearings by making them less expensive and arduous. But I make the point that it is the right of an individual who wants to appear before a hearing to determine whether he or she wants representation from a lawyer or barrister.

There will be people who have a very good reason for being there, and who feel that they cannot adequately represent themselves. Even if the amount is under the $50,000 limit for an individual or $200,000 for a company, those people may feel very much that they are unable to put their cases forward appropriately. I do not believe it is the place of Parliament to determine whether individuals spend their own money on seeking representation in a hearing. So I just draw the Committee’s attention to that point.

I also draw to the Committee’s attention the issue that if one of the parties does want representation, and the adjudicator approves that representation, then the other party is entitled to have it, as well. Again, I draw the Committee’s attention to that issue because I believe that if we are to have standards whereby we argue that people do not require representation through a legal professional, and then argue that because one party has representation the other party should have it just as of right, that seems a little illogical to me.

I want to talk for a moment on clause 9, “Duties of assessor”, in schedule 2. In particular, subclause (1)(b) talks about the duty being to “act in all respects”. The assessor must sit with the tribunal, and that makes a great deal of sense. Clearly the assessor is providing technical knowledge on behalf of the tribunal. But in particular, subclause (1)(b) states that the assessor acts in all respects as an extra member of the disputes tribunal. That is quite an interesting point, in the sense that the kinds of people who can act within the disputes tribunal are discussed at some length in Part 4 of the bill, and also the length of time that someone can be an adjudicator of the disputes tribunal. Two terms of 5 years each is the maximum. Those are quite rigorous memberships. To argue, all of a sudden, that an assessor can become an extra member, but not go through such a rigorous process of assessment, is in my view one of the failings of the schedules.

I commend to the Committee clause 10 of schedule 2, concerning the immunity of witnesses. Clearly in these cases it is often very important that witnesses feel they have the security of that immunity. It is the only way that we will encourage people to come forward and put their case, for the benefit of those who bring a dispute before the tribunal. On that basis, I congratulate the Committee on having that provision.

I also refer to clause 11 in schedule 2, which talks about the way that the decisions of the disputes tribunal need to be communicated. In particular, it states that decisions must be given in writing. It is obviously very logical to have that requirement. Oral findings by the tribunal would probably not be worth the words they are spoken with. But, in particular, I am intrigued that under subclause (2)(b), every decision of the disputes tribunal has to contain the reasons for the decision. This is a rather wordy bill, in my opinion. It has gone down to a level of minutiae that we have not seen in a lot of legislation in New Zealand.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Check the original bill.

JOHN KEY: I am sure the original bill was also very lengthy, and I fully support what this legislation will do for the industry.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: I said, check the original bill.

JOHN KEY: We are replacing the original bill, so if we are unhappy with it we have the opportunity, through this bill, to put new legislation in place. I simply make the point that it virtually goes without saying, I would have thought, that if a ruling on a dispute is being given in writing, the reasons that the ruling has been made would have to be given. It seems rather superfluous to have that measure in the legislation..

Hon Harry Duynhoven: You obviously haven’t been to a disputes tribunal hearing.

JOHN KEY: No, I have not been to the disputes tribunal.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to the schedules be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedules as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs): I move, That the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill be now read a third time. This bill introduces a new regime for motor vehicle trading and replaces the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act of 1975. Many things have changed since 1975. This bill has been widely welcomed, and extremely widely consulted on with motor vehicle dealers and people interested in the trade. This legislation protects and promotes the interests of consumers. It creates a new registration regime for persons involved in the business of motor vehicle trading, and allows for the removal of unsuitable participants from the trade. It revamps the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal, provides for car information through a revised window card, and provides for much stronger enforcement, which will be undertaken by the enforcement team at the Ministry of Economic Development.

The Commerce Committee has scrutinised this bill and recommended a number of changes to improve the workings of the bill. Most notable have been the changes to improve the operation of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal, and the strengthening of the banning provisions. I have introduced a Supplementary Order Paper that has made technical changes to the bill, including making provision for a levy to pay for the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal in part. Those changes include new clauses 18A and 18B, which create a duty on motor vehicle traders who sell a vehicle on behalf of someone to account for the proceeds of the sale. The Supplementary Order Paper also clarifies the regulation-making powers, enabling a levy to provide additional funding for the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. The tribunal benefits traders as well as consumers, and it is unquestionable that all parties should contribute to its running. I am also very grateful for the full support for that levy that I have had from the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute and the Motor Trade Association following the extensive consultation on this matter, starting with the discussion paper in 2001.

I thank all of those who have contributed to this legislation—the people in the organisations who made submissions, the members of the select committee, and in particular the former chair, David Cunliffe, who carefully considered the bill and recommended changes to fine tune it. I acknowledge my predecessor Laila Harré, who introduced this legislation, and all members of the House, particularly Paul Adams from United Future New Zealand who has contributed in an extremely positive and energetic way on behalf of the interests of car dealers, but I acknowledge him much more for his concern for consumers, for whom a car is often a very major purchase. I commend this bill to the House.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): We are deep into the second day of urgency, and about to pass the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill that is urgently needed by the industry. That industry has been waiting 4 years for this bill, but here we are today, finally and urgently passing it.

John Carter: After 4 years

GERRY BROWNLEE: After 4 years, the Minister, Harry Duynhoven, has finally got around to getting the bill to the House. I suppose I should start by congratulating him on such a fine display of the work ethic.

This bill is also interesting, because it is a step to the right for the Labour Government. Essentially, the bill removes some compliance and a lot of regulation, gets rid of a whole lot of red tape, and simplifies the way in which motor vehicle dealers are able to operate. That is good, and that is why we are supporting it. But as is always the case with the Labour Government, it is one step to the right and then a quick shuffle back to the left. At the last minute, after 4 years of consideration—4 long years of wondering whether this bill would be passed, and then finally deciding to do it urgently—we find that a Supplementary Order Paper has been dropped on the table.

John Carter: What is wrong with that?

GERRY BROWNLEE: Members might ask what is wrong with that. In fact, we have just discovered that on page 5 of the Supplementary Order Paper, under new clause 130A, the Labour Government is introducing a sales tax. This is the Labour Government that said “No new taxes.”—unless one earns a lot of money. The Minister of Transport is sneaking in a sales tax in the guise of a levy. New clause 130A states: “Regulations may impose levy”. When we are trying to simplify the process for motor vehicle salespeople, and when the House is trying to recognise the way in which cars are bought and sold in this country nowadays, one would have to ask why there is to be a sales tax on vehicles that commercial traders sell. That is quite alarming for us, and it would have been nice if we could have had an answer from the Minister during the Committee stage about why that is necessary.

It appears that the Minister is still thinking about how big that sales tax will be. The legislation provides that the Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations prescribing different levies for different classes of motor vehicle traders. So we will have a truck sales tax, a tractor sales tax, a four-wheel drive sales tax, a people-carriers sales tax—all those seven-seater vehicles that mums throughout the country buy, in order to take the kids from schools to all those events around the countryside that they need to get to. I would like the Minister to tell us how much consultation he had with Paul Adams from United Future. I understand that that particular gentleman knows a little bit about selling motorcars, as well as driving them.

Hundreds of emails have come in in the last couple of hours complaining about that levy. It is not at all fair that after 4 years of consultation with the industry, suddenly there is an urgent decision to pass the bill to get a bit more tax from honest traders in this country. It is quite ridiculous. We are told that the Minister did not consult the industry, and that the industry did not know the levy was coming. It was simply a backhanded way of stealthily applying a little more tax burden on the community.

As we have said, there are one or two good things in the bill. It deals with the activities of people who line cars up and down the sides of various motorways on the weekends, and parade them as a car fair. In essence, that is an entrepreneurial activity, and this country does not need to impinge in any way on the activities of those who act in an entrepreneurial spirit. I want to know whether the Minister will now go to the Minister of Finance to seek an appropriation so that he can have car-fair police out there every weekend applying the new levy to New Zealanders who decide to sell their cars privately. If the levy applies only to licensed motor vehicle dealers—or whatever they will be described as, as a result of the passing of this legislation—then surely that is another business-unfriendly attack by this Government on honest traders.

There is, of course, a controversial element in the bill, and that is the removal of the fidelity guarantee fund. The fund did cost a lot of money, and was added into the cost of every car. The Minister might be able to say that the levy will not alter the cost of buying a motor car on the lot, but that is only because the levy will be offset by what the car dealer used to have to pay into the fidelity guarantee fund. The difference now is that it is the Minister who collects the money, and the poor old consumer is left without the protection the fidelity guarantee fund once gave. There are some good reasons for that. Car prices have fallen considerably in the last few years. The value of the vehicle fleet these days, although greatly expanded, is on average a little less than it used to be. Of course, the vehicles being sold these days are so much more reliable. I remember that the first car I bought was 20 years old, and compared to other cars on the road, it looked well out of date. These days, a person could not buy a 20-year-old car, because they are simply not on the roads. More likely, he or she would be buying a 10-year-old car, and that car would still look reasonably stylish and up to the minute.

We cannot underestimate the effect that this stealth tax will have on the industry. We cannot underestimate the cost it will put upon those people who are buying cars. We should be sounding that caution, because although we are supporting this bill, we have concerns about that. We are pleased to see that there will be a registrar of operators that will cover a much wider group, including auctioneers, fairs, and Internet car sales. The question that goes unanswered is whether those sorts of individual traders will be stuck with the new sales tax that the Government has introduced today.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): On behalf of the industry, we welcome this new legislation. It is interesting hearing some of my colleagues speaking, and I hope that I do not develop the art of taking something that is really so simple and making it so incredibly complex. If one sits in this place for long enough, I guess it is an art that one develops very quickly, and some members seem to be absolutely expert at it. That is very strange to me, because in the motor industry we try to keep things simple.

Once this legislation is passed, I can see that cars sold on the side of the road will possibly be a problem for councils. The bill removes the criterion of having to have a site from which to sell one’s vehicles. To an extent, we welcome that, because, as we have heard, the Internet is a good avenue for selling all products, not just cars. If a large number of new traders do not have premises, or anywhere to display their cars—because to sell something, one does have to display it—it will have to be seen whether they feed them through car fairs or go through auction houses. However, I am concerned that the councils will be dealing with a large problem of cars on the side of the road and in public places with “For Sale” notices on them.

The industry welcomes this legislation. As I have said previously, our concern is that the standard and entry level for being a licensed motor vehicle dealer has been lowered substantially. It is now very easy to become a dealer—as long as that dealer does not have a police record, or any bad marks against him or her by already being in the industry. The industry has had to put up with policing its own regulations. As with any law, this law will only be as effective as the policing of it. My concern—and that of most other dealers—is that it be policed correctly, otherwise we will find ourselves competing against far more traders who are perhaps a little unscrupulous in conforming to the standards that the industry is setting for itself. Who will police that?

We talk about a levy on dealers to pay for this tribunal, but look at the levy that the dealers themselves have had to pay under the current regime to police unlicensed dealing. It has cost the industry absolutely thousands and thousands of dollars. The industry has worked very hard, and I commend those who have been policing that unlicensed dealing, but let us hope that it does not happen under this legislation, because self-policing an industry is something that we do not want to do. If we have to pay a small levy for a tribunal and everything gets sorted out correctly—that is, everybody who is a licensed trader operates under the rules or is dealt with accordingly—then this legislation will work, and work well.

I know that we will see two standards of dealers in the days that lie ahead. We will definitely see dealers networking together and working with integrity, a good code of ethics, and looking after their customers. But sadly, I think that we will see a lower level of dealer operating. Those dealers might be cheaper, but it is the same old story—one always gets what one pays for.

United Future is pleased that we have been able to get this legislation through under urgency. I know that it will be well received by current motor vehicle dealers, and that they will thank us for it.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I have to express real concern about much of that member’s speech. The Minister complimented him on his advocacy of the motor vehicle dealers industry, and he referred to two standards of dealers. He recognised that the threshold will become lower, and that more unscrupulous dealers will come into the market, but the purpose of this bill is to promote and protect the interests of consumers in relation to motor vehicle sales. What has United Future done for them? Nothing.

New Zealand First supports the intent of this bill, but we could support little more than the title. At one point, we supported only the title, until the Hon Harry Duynhoven at least gave reasonable explanations of some of the content of the bill, and tied together some of the thought processes that went into it. The bill is not well set out. One part refers to odometer tampering, but the penalties associated with that are somewhere else. Unless one scrutinises the whole bill, one misses them quite easily, because there are no cross-references. That is not the way to pass legislation. Only one speech from a Government member carried any merit and weight at all, and that was from the Hon Harry Duynhoven. The Minister made one short call towards the end and added more confusion than clarification to the whole debate. Very few people spoke in defence of the bill. Even the National Party, which is supporting the bill, spent most of its time ripping it apart.

This bill misses the mark by a long way. The legislation will open the door for the public to be ripped off by whoever wants to call himself a motor vehicle dealer. In many cases, it will be a case of buyer be very, very aware. I put a scenario to the Minister, and she refused to answer it. I think that Mr Duynhoven will take a call shortly, and perhaps he will answer it. I understand that some importers go to Japan to buy an allocation—a block—of first-rate cars, and they are given second-grade cars, which are known, I understand, as “sewer cars”. They are virtually given away. Far too frequently the odometers of those “sewer cars” are wound back, and they are sold to the unsuspecting public in this country. Because Harry Duynhoven is an expert in vehicles and vehicle sales matters, I would appreciate him telling me whether I am correct in my assertions, whether this bill will address that issue, and how.

As I said, we wanted to support the intent of this bill, but we believe that it has missed the mark considerably. The question that comes to our minds is: does the public need protection from motor vehicle dealers from time to time, if at all? The answer to that question is generally yes, because a car is the second-largest expense that most people incur.

David Benson-Pope: The member should be supporting the bill.

PETER BROWN: The member says I should be supporting the bill, but this bill does not protect consumers. You have heard Paul Adams—

Mr SPEAKER: I have not heard it.

PETER BROWN: Oh, you missed a good speech.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but it is a Standing Order.

PETER BROWN: Mr Adams has been a very good advocate for motor vehicle traders, but he has said nothing in favour of consumers. If we believe that the public needs protection, does this bill deliver that protection? No, it does not. It will allow unscrupulous people to enter the industry, and somebody will suffer either financially, or by buying a car that is less than safe. They might even pay for it with their lives. When the Government reviews this legislation in 2 years’ time, I hope Mr Paul Adams takes a close look at what has happened in that 2 years, because he has been a firm advocate for the motor vehicle industry.

I believe that this bill will, to some extent, result in fewer safe cars coming on to our roads. Will greater numbers of the public pay more than is fair and reasonable for a car as a result of this legislation? I believe they will. Is that compatible with the purpose of this bill? The answer must be no. New Zealand First was not represented on the Commerce Committee, but we approached this bill with an open mind. We believe it to be flawed, and therefore we will not be supporting it.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport): I want to comment on a few things that have been said during the course of this bill’s passage, and the first thing I will comment on is Deborah Coddington, who accused me, of all people, of hating cars. Perhaps she does not know me very well yet. Cars have been my life-long interest, and I guess my wife is occasionally annoyed at the number of them that we have at home.

Gerry Brownlee: That happens!

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Yes, it is called an addiction. My interest has always been with the buyers—the consumers. There is clearly not an even playing field between buyer and seller. I really became interested in this issue when New Plymouth Women’s Refuge was ripped off, defrauded, and cheated by Saevue Autos in New Plymouth, a company that operated in a way that led everyone to believe it was extremely trustworthy, and very sadly it was not.

The Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal, which, for the benefit of Mr Key who spoke about it earlier, but clearly has never been to a dispute, and admitted such, recognised that that vehicle had been “clocked”, and that that was a considerable cost to the women’s refuge. The issue is whether people could have faith in the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute, and the conflict that the institute found itself in, when those importing cars and wanting to make a quick buck by clocking them began to get more and more control of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute. The vast number of dealers in this country were appalled at what happened over the running of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute in recent years. Honest dealers tried very hard not to be members of that compulsory organisation and not pay the levies.

Mr Prebble commented on the levies and this new $127 levy to fund the disputes tribunal. He ranted about the new levy. I tell him that currently the licence fee, just to belong to the compulsory Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute, is $140. On top of that, there are various occasional amounts that have to be paid to the motor vehicle dealers levy fund. The last amount paid in February this year was $506, but it has been $675, an occasional $500, and so on.

I have probably been personally responsible for some of the reasons that that money had to be forked out, because of the court cases I have taken against crooks in the motor vehicle industry. I think I am the only member of Parliament ever to have taken a constituent through that process.

Gerry Brownlee: What about the sales tax?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: It would be very helpful if Mr Brownlee were to keep his mouth shut, and listen for a while.

Mr SPEAKER: Some comment can be made, but that is out of order. The member will withdraw that comment and carry on with the debate.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I withdraw the comment. I tell Mr Brownlee that it might help him if he were to be quiet and to listen. The original motor vehicle dealers legislation set a dual responsibility for the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute. The original 1975 Act was to make better provision for the licensing and disciplining of motor vehicle dealers and their staff, and to reform the law relating to contracts for the sale of motor vehicles by dealers—and here is the key point—in order to promote and protect the interests of consumers. The Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute was charged with the statutory duty of operating in the interests of consumers, and of disciplining dealers, but, at the same time, it was shanghaied and derailed into protecting the interests of motor vehicle dealers even when they were committing fraud.

One of the reasons that the levy from the fidelity fund has been so high in recent years is that, on some occasions, the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute has applied to the licensing board to have a dealer struck off on the basis of evidence provided. In cases where the struck-off dealer has been smart enough to have all of his or her assets in trusts and everything else, the money cannot be clawed back, and the dealer has been able to avoid paying. It is then that the fidelity fund becomes responsible, and the lawyers in the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute then object to the same evidence they used to take the licence in the court to try to avoid a payment being made from the fidelity fund. If members look at the expenses of the fidelity fund in recent years, I am sure they will find that most of the fund has been spent on legal fees.

The original Act had a very powerful section, which was section 42(3). Notwithstanding any other law, that section enabled a crooked dealer to be pursued. I am very pleased that this bill gives the registrar the right to strike off crooked dealers, and provides that there will be a review in 2 years to see whether this bill is working well. I am looking forward to that review. I am pleased to have played a part in this. I know I have not been terribly popular with my colleagues, but I can tell from the number of good, honest dealers who have come up to me, and said, “Harry, good on you for keeping on this, because these “clocked” cars are killing us.”, that they really appreciate the work that has been done to try to make this legislation work.

Finally, for the benefit of those who do not believe that “clocked” cars are still a problem, I suggest that they look at a Japanese website to see what the average mileage there is, and then compare that with the average mileage on cars at their local car yard. I think people will be amazed by the difference between those figures. We still seem to have a problem with the reduction of mileage in vehicles crossing the sea, particularly with regard to diesel vehicles. There are many good dealers, and I want to see them protected.

Debate interrupted.

Visitors

Mr Tsutomu Kawara

Mr SPEAKER: I advise members that Mr Tsutomu Kawara, the Chairman of the Committee on Fundamental National Policies, from the House of Representatives in Japan, is in the public gallery. I am sure members would like to welcome him.

Bills

Motor Vehicle Sales Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): I speak on behalf of the ACT party in the final reading of this legislation. The ACT party now opposes this legislation, and will vote against it. As I said originally, we were going to give it our guarded support when it was sent to the select committee, because my colleague Owen Jennings recognised the need for an overhaul of the 1975 Act. But when this bill came back from the select committee, a Supplementary Order Paper was sneaked in, which singles out motor vehicle dealers as being deserving of some sort of special tax. As Richard Prebble told the House earlier this morning, that brings the whole of Parliament into disrepute. That is not a minor Supplementary Order Paper, with just technical changes, as the Minister asserts. We are told that it brings in a levy to fund a disputes tribunal in part, but there is no assurance that the levy will not end up in the consolidated account.

The Minister says that in January 2001 a discussion paper was circulated, which is what she calls “extensive consultation”. From her own words, we know that there are two submissions on that discussion paper. If it was such a good idea to have a levy, why was it not put in the original bill so that it could go to the select committee, allowing motor vehicle dealers to have an input into it? Why treat motor vehicle dealers with such contempt? We know why: it is because they are easy to sting. They are the line of least resistance. One of the points of taxation is representation—or, at least, that is the case in a liberal democracy. That is not what we are seeing in this case. As I said, that Supplementary Order Paper should have gone to a select committee.

People have been saying that motor vehicle dealers were consulted, but, from my perspective, the only consultation they had was when I sent out a letter to 2,250 of them last week and they started to reply. They said things like: “I am supportive of any action that raises awareness of the potential problem of the good guys subsidising the bad guys. I am alarmed over the industry levy proposed by Labour.” That is from a national executive member of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute.

The whole point of the levy is to fund the tribunal. It is penalising the good dealers, as opposed to the bad dealers. I notice in the schedules that there is provision in the legislation for the tribunal to award costs against vexatious litigants, or people who refuse to mediate before cases come before the tribunal. If there is the ability to award costs, why do we need a levy to support the tribunal in the first case? Yet here we are, in urgency, and the bill will go through. The levy will be sneaked in, with regulations that impose how much, what for, and where to. Motor vehicle dealers already pay considerable taxes through their GST and through high company taxes. They do not want to, nor should they, pay an extra tax without knowing anything about it.

It is interesting that the discussion document the Minister talked about went out in January, which is a good time to put something out to the industry! How many people are taking care with their mail in January, or noticing things that the Government might be doing? It is holiday time. Again, it just shows the disregard that this Government has for corporates, companies, and entrepreneurs out there. If they knew this levy was coming, why are they so outraged about it now?

I also see in the schedules that the assessors who sit on the disputes tribunal will be paid out of the consolidated account. There is another reason for us to query why we need the tax. I am very suspicious of where the levy will go. Nothing in this legislation assures us that it will, in fact, be used to fund the disputes tribunal. To me, it looks suspiciously as if the Government will get its clammy hands on what was the fidelity fund, which was the property right of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute.

I concede that the dealers welcomed the demise of the fidelity fund. Harry Duynhoven is right when he says that dealers wanted to get rid of it. But what has the Government done? After getting rid of that, it will set up its own little fidelity fund. Sometimes we cannot protect people from themselves—much as Governments would like to be able to do so. Sometimes people make silly mistakes and bad decisions. People have a right to be wrong—the Government cannot be there to hold their hands every step of the way.

Most members of this House have overlooked the fact that, every day in this country, two-thirds of all car sales are done without the benefit or involvement of a licensed, regulated dealer. This legislation will ensure that 100 percent of all those cars that change hands will be do so without the benefit or involvement of a licensed and regulated dealer, because this bill will drive motor vehicle dealers away from registering. Nothing in this legislation that would tempt them to register and to comply with the law. Why should they bother? The levy is another nail in the coffin for them, in addition to the growth in Internet and private sales, with an individual being able to sell up to six cars a year without registering. There is nothing to stop people from banding together. For instance, a family of six could band together and sell six cars each.

As I said during the Committee stage, we welcome the end of car dealers compulsorily having to join the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute. That is a good move. If an industry organisation is good, and acts well on behalf of its members, then there is no need for it to be compulsory to join. I look forward to the Government applying the same attitude to student unions, law societies, and all other closed-shop unions and professions where it is compulsory to join.

The only reason that the industry is protected by legislation, and is compulsory, of course, is that without such legislation they might fall over. We see creeping compulsion coming back into unions, too, and I look forward to the Government applying that same attitude to those areas.

I would like to finish by drawing the House’s attention to another area that this legislation has missed out—that is, where the New Zealand Customs seizes imported cars for safety reasons when it suspects that the odometers have been tampered with. Any normal person would think it would follow that if those cars were unsafe, then they should not be allowed on the road. They could be broken up and sold for parts, or they could be sent back to where they came from.

But, no, they get sold. The Crown sells them and keeps the money. The Crown is exempt as a car dealer under this Act, so the people who purchase those cars from the Crown without knowing that the odometers had been wound back will have no redress, because the Crown will not be liable—and this is a bill that is meant to be about protecting consumers. As Richard Prebble said, if car dealers were doing to the public what this Government is doing to car dealers, there would be an outcry. I repeat: we should be passing a law to protect motor vehicle dealers. In fact, all entrepreneurs and all wealth creators in this country should be passing a law to protect themselves from this Government. ACT is not supporting this bill.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I am delighted to rise to support the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. I notice that despite all the criticism of it, the one member of the House who knows most about the actual industry of car sales, Mr Paul Adams, supports the deal; and that the member of the House who knows most about cars, Mr Harry Duynhoven, also supports the bill.

I just want to make two points. The first is that last night we saw something that I have not seen in my 22 years in Parliament. We saw members of a party get up and say: “We support the title of the bill but we do not support anything else about it.” As Leader of the House, I was sorely tempted to say: “Right, we’ll vote with you, and we’ll send out to motor vehicle dealers the new Motor Vehicle Sales Bill, courtesy of Winston Peters, consisting of a title and then a blank sheet.” The dealers would really be baffled and wondering what it was all about, and we would have to explain that Mr Peters was probably somewhere in Courtenay Place at the time, resulting in the bill ending up in that particular form.

Then we have listened to all that whingeing from National and ACT members, who have been saying: “Labour Governments always do something that is called ‘sneaky’.”

Gerry Brownlee: That’s right!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member learnt to say that from Roger Sowry. When he has more experience, he can be leader of the National Party, because we have learnt that the only reason he is not the leader of the National Party is that he does not have enough experience. That is what his leader actually said. Those members said that a Supplementary Order Paper imposing a levy had been sneaked into the House.

Gerry Brownlee: That’s right!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: “That’s right!”, the member says. I heard him say this morning that he had just discovered on page 5 of the Supplementary Order Paper that a levy is being imposed. If he looks at the front page of that document, he will see that it was tabled on 19 November 2002. This lazy, inexperienced, wannabe leader of the National Party MP has taken 4½ months to discover the most important bit on that Supplementary Order Paper. National members have just discovered the levy in the amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper after 4½ months. Where were they all that time? Were they going around their used-car dealers, asking them about the Supplementary Order Paper? They were too busy counting the numbers in caucus to go and do their work as an Opposition.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): Firstly, I would just like to thank Harry Duynhoven for getting up and clarifying a few more points this morning, because I was disappointed that the Minister would not take the call and clarify them. Whether she would not take the call or could not take it I do not know, but Harry Duynhoven’s explanations were very much appreciated. He was able to clarify a number of points for us.

New Zealand First is concerned about the lack of compliance in this bill. It does not have any teeth. It does not provide the mechanisms to make sure that unregistered dealers will want to become registered. Because it does not require them to be registered, or does not provide the teeth to make them register, why should they bother to be registered? They can work out of backyards, and, if necessary, use the licence of another registered dealer, under the terms of harbouring. This leaves the consumer without any recourse, because the dealer’s licence being used is not the one under which the vehicle is being sold. The person selling the vehicle therefore does not have to front up and be accountable for the sale. He or she just uses the name and the dealer, and walks away from any deals.

Under the bill, backyard dealers can sell up to six vehicles, but if they do not disclose how many they sell, they continue selling vehicles without reporting their sale.

Last night we had an explanation from Mr Duynhoven on the subject of odometer tampering. He said that the paperwork of cars purchased in Japan clearly documents odometer readings, and therefore if that paperwork were transferred with the vehicles to New Zealand, dealers and the buyers in this country could identify those vehicles that come in with “clocked” odometers and we would not have this problem. If this bill insisted that those documents travel with the vehicle, then we would not have an odometer-clocking problem.

Paul Adams claims that it is a used-car problem. Well, a large number of the used cars on the roads in New Zealand are imported from Japan, and many of the vehicles whose paperwork has been separated from them are found to have been “clocked”. Mr Cullen got up and with great glee stated that New Zealand First intended to support only the title of the bill. Well, I tell him that if the bill had had the content it was intended to have, we could have supported the whole bill. We can support only the title, because the rest of the bill is so fragmented and disjointed. It is not properly cross-referenced, so one does not know what a penalty refers to and what the circumstances are.

So if that had been properly drafted, and if the bill had all the proper content, then we would have been able to support it. We support the idea and the intent of the bill, and so does the industry. The Minister was unable to explain any of the bill. He had to leave it to one other member of his party to explain. The Minister did not really know what the bill was all about, so we have come up with a drafted bill that has no real substance and no real content. That is the reason we could not support the rest of the bill.

The Supplementary Order Paper clearly states “19 November”. That was after the second reading, and it was also after the select committee process. Nobody in the industry was given an opportunity to put his or her views. Deborah Coddington of ACT has a pile of papers from the industry, which is horrified that it was not consulted. I really have some doubt about the Minister’s claim that she was consulted about this. A continual stream of letters are coming in, in reply to a letter that went out from Deborah Coddington asking the industry what it thought about the bill. The industry is horrified. It was not consulted, and not given the opportunity to talk about this through the select committee process and to provide its submissions.

With regard to the removal of the fidelity fund, it is extraordinary that we throw open the industry to new players, and players who will not necessarily have the integrity that Mr Adams claimed that the rest of the industry has. He has admitted that to us, and he is a member of the Government. He has also admitted to us that there will be another level of car dealer in this country—that is, dealers who will not have the integrity of the rest of the industry. To remove the fidelity fund without providing it with another mechanism as a safeguard will leave a lot of consumers with a huge potential for the unscrupulous ones to leave them with a dud car, “clocked” odometers, and no recourse.

When we look back at the Supplementary Order Paper we find that right at the very end of it is an additional clause: clause 146, “Review of operation of Act”, which states that it is to be no later than 2 years. That indicates that this Government suddenly realised that this bill did not have the substance, and it certainly did not have the confidence of the Government. If the Government had had the confidence, it would not have needed this particular clause, so why have a clause that basically will review the whole thing and say that this could be a total disaster? I hope that once the Government does the review it actually looks at the review and does something about it, because nothing in this bill requires the Government to action that review and do anything about it. It states that the Government has to do a review within 2 years, but if anything is found that is amiss in the review, then there is no requirement by the Government to do anything about it.

This bill lacks substance, it certainly lacks integrity, and it certainly lacks any compliance and teeth. That is the reason that we were unable to support it any further than the title.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 96

Noes 20

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7.

Bills

Māori Purposes Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): I move, That the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. Māori purposes bills generally tidy up legislation that relates to Māori affairs, Māori land, and other Māori purposes. In this instance the bill proposes amendment to the following three statutes: the Treaty of Waitangi Act, the Broadcasting Act, and the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act. The subject areas covered by the bill range over the operations of the Waitangi Tribunal, the responsibilities for the Māori Broadcasting Funding Authority, and the number of fishing licences available to the people of Ngāti Tuwharetoa under the 1926 Act. Māori purposes bills can be viewed as a convenient and necessary vehicle to provide updating and ongoing maintenance of the wide range of legislation that affects the affairs of Māori.

Part 1 proposes amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act in relation to the operation of the Waitangi Tribunal. Clause 4 proposes to give statutory validation to changes of membership that occurred in three tribunals, these being the Wellington inquiry, Wai 145; the Kaipara inquiry, Wai 674; and the Hauraki inquiry, Wai 686. The clause will clarify the status of the changes of membership that have occurred in the three inquiries mentioned.

The main amendments in the part are in clause 5, and give express statutory powers for the replacement of members and presiding officers, and the appointment of acting presiding officers. The circumstances and conditions required before these statutory powers can be exercised is also specified. The new provisions will make the position very clear.

I wish to comment on the amendment proposed by the select committee to Part 1. The intention of the select committee’s amendment is to impose a requirement that only a member of the tribunal who is a barrister or a solicitor of the High Court of at least 7 years standing is qualified to be appointed as an acting presiding officer. The select committee has indicated that it is satisfied that the bill as drafted reflects advice given to Te Puni Kōkiri by the Solicitor-General and the Crown Law Office.

The amendments in Part 2 are to effect technical changes following the transfer of ministerial responsibility for Māori broadcasting policy from the Minister of Broadcasting to me as the Minister of Māori Affairs. The transfer took place in the year 2000, and the amendments in Part 2 are straightforward technical amendments.

Part 3 proposes an amendment to the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act, to increase the statutory number of licences issued to members of Ngāti Tuwharetoa to permit fishing for imported species in Lake Taupo. The number of licences to which Ngāti Tuwharetoa is entitled has not been adjusted since the Act was passed in 1926. The number of general fishing licences for the lake has increased substantially since 1926, by 1,515 percent.

I urge that the bill proceed through its remaining legislative stages with some urgency. With particular regard to Part 1, the need for urgency for the rapid passage of the bill has been expressed in submissions by claimants awaiting the release of the report in relation to the Wellington claim. The urgent nature associated with the bill’s passing has been consistently reiterated by the Waitangi Tribunal and claimants. The proposed clauses in Part 1 provide clarity and certainty in terms of the status of the specific tribunal inquiries, the ability to appoint replacement presiding officers or members, and the ability to appoint acting presiding officers. The clauses thereby address significant concerns of tribunal claimants, the Crown, and New Zealanders as a whole.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge the members of the Māori Affairs Committee for the diligence and the care they demonstrated in their consideration of the bill—all members. That is reflected in their report on the bill to the House. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): I have much pleasure in rising to make a contribution to the report back of this bill. I note that it is rather ironic that the Minister of Māori Affairs said he hoped this bill would proceed with some urgency. We are in urgency, but I note that this bill has been ready for report back for some months now. That is why we in National are very pleased to be in the House to progress the bill to its conclusion.

In respect of the first part of the bill, which deals with changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act, there is a clause that validates the constitution of the Waitangi Tribunal for three inquiries. I have a bit of personal understanding of the difficulties that can be posed by the fact that there have been changes of membership in relation to the Kaipara, Hauraki, and Wellington Tenths inquiries, so I am pleased to see that this bill moves to validate those inquiries. In a sense, there is a slight—but only slight—modification, under clause 4, to the rights to challenge, but in all other respects the existing rights to challenge remain in place. I think it is not only sensible but proper that that be done, and it will enable the release of the Wellington Tenths inquiry report, which was one of the main issues that submitters came to the committee about. It was a real concern that a report has been waiting to be issued. Hopefully, the minute that this bill is passed into legislation, that report will be brought out. So the validation clause is supported.

There are also changes promoted to the Treaty of Waitangi Act to give the chairperson the power to replace presiding officers and to replace members. There was an issue there, which we covered reasonably exhaustively in the select committee, and that, of course, was the issue of natural justice—the underlying principle being that only those who hear should decide—and the right to a fair hearing. Again, advice was sought, first of all by the Minister, before the bill came to the select committee, and we also satisfied ourselves that those changes were necessary.

They are proposed on the basis of a quite strict set of criteria, and I want to refer to those, from the bill itself. The chairperson may appoint a replacement presiding officer, and may also appoint a replacement member, but, as I said, there are strict conditions applying before those appointments can occur. The power can be used only if the presiding officer concerned has ceased to hold office—and that is in relation to his or her actual appointment—if the personal circumstances of the presiding officer or member holding the office are such, in relation to his or her physical or mental condition, that he or she ought to be replaced; and if, in the opinion of the chairperson, it would be unreasonable to expect the presiding officer or member to continue to participate in an inquiry. There is also an additional criterion, which is that the chairperson must not exercise that power unless there is an adequate record of the part of the inquiry that has already been heard. That is pretty important. The tribunal is to make sure, as it proceeds with claims and hearings, that there is an adequate record in existence, and the provision also states that it is reasonable to expect that the replacement officer review that record.

Although clause 5 does throw up an important underlying issue, the issue of natural justice, it is the conclusion of the National caucus that, on balance, provided that the strict criteria are followed, and provided that the power is used only in relation to those criteria, the clause probably makes sense, the set of changes are appropriate, and we support them.

One other matter in relation to clause 5 is the provision for the chairperson to appoint an acting presiding officer. The original proposal could have brought into the chair a person or persons with no legal background. There was agreement by all committee members that that probably was not appropriate in the context of a semi-judicial body, so the power to appoint an acting presiding officer will occur only when it results in a replacement presiding officer who is a barrister or solicitor of 7 years’ standing. That proposal, in relation to that part of the bill, is supported by all of the committee’s membership. On that basis, National is very happy with that amendment, as well.

In terms of Part 2 and the Broadcasting Act, National has some problems with this part. It has been signalled that we will be voting against this part. It may be a technical amendment in that, as the Minister said, pursuant to a Cabinet minute, the responsibility for Te Māngai Pāho has been with the Minister of Māori Affairs rather than with the Minister of Broadcasting. But we are tending to look at this amendment in relation to all of the debacle that has occurred over the last 2 years with regard to Māori television, Māori broadcasting generally, and the inability of this Minister to get that television service up and running. It has seemingly been one set of unfortunate circumstances after another. It is now understood that that television service might be up and running by the end of the year. This change might be a proper change to make, but we do not have a lot of confidence—not that the Minister of Broadcasting always engenders confidence, either, I might add—that the change is actually warranted.

In relation to the third part of the bill, there is a note in the select committee report about my standing at a distance from this provision. I do not intend to refer to it at all in any of these comments, and neither do I intend to vote on it.

So, in all, the National Opposition is very pleased to see that at long last this bill has come up, and that the intention is to pass it through all stages today. We are very supportive of the changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act, particularly the change that validates the three inquiries. Although the changes are sensible and appropriate, they do raise an underlying issue that this Government must address—though it is not addressable in this context—and that is the chronic underfunding of the Waitangi Tribunal and its lack of resourcing. These changes are necessitated by the fact that Waitangi Tribunal inquiries are lengthy, complex, and take a number of years to progress. I was one of the original members on the Wellington Tenths inquiry, which started in the early 1990s. I am now here in Parliament, so I will be very pleased to see the report on that being issued.

But I think this Government has put maybe half a million dollars of funding in the last 4 years into the operations of the tribunal. That is an underlying issue that must be addressed. It is not right. Justice delayed is justice denied. Some of these claims are taking too long, and I ask the Minister to needle his colleague the Minister for Courts, and see whether there is an opportunity to get some more funding to the tribunal.

I just raise again the issue of the potential conflict of interest for me, in relation to Part 3.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): United Future supports this bill in its entirety. Perhaps, in beginning, I can comment on United Future’s involvement in getting legislation through with urgency. I want to commend, first of all, the Labour Government for working with United Future on this urgency week, and addressing with us the legislation that should or should not be contained in the urgency motion. I am delighted to see the progress that the Government has been able to make under urgency. It was somewhat of a surprise when I realised last night that I might be speaking on this bill, if not last night, at least this morning, and that, effectively, we are up to No. 14 on the Order Paper. It is pleasing to see the legislation being passed so quickly, given the backlog of about 90 bills at the time that United Future first arrived here in the House.

Hon Richard Prebble: Because of the Greens.

MURRAY SMITH: The backlog, as I understand it, was because of a lack of cooperation by the Green Party. United Future is pleased to have a good relationship with Labour that allows our involvement at that level, and that has enabled us, for example, to promote the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill but also to exclude legislation that we felt was too contentious to be dealt with this week.

I am concerned, though, about the Government’s delays in progressing Treaty of Waitangi grievance settlements. I alluded to that matter during the reading of the Ngāti Ruanui legislation, and, do so again with the Māori Purposes Bill. I believe that the delays in getting this much-needed legislation through the House are reprehensible. I note that the Waitangi Tribunal claim was filed in 1987; the hearings took place between 1991 and 1999; and the decision was issued, as I understand it, in late 2002, although I note that in April 2002 the Evening Post suggested that the Government was unduly delaying the progress of the bill, and questioned the reasons for that. So it has taken some 15 years for this claim to be resolved.

Given the continuing comments made by the Government, and, in particular, the Attorney-General, about the progressing of claims in a timely fashion, it seems astonishing to me that the issue raised in the first part of this Māori Purposes Bill—namely, the inadequacy of the legislation that allowed changes in the make-up of the tribunal—was not dealt with years ago, during the course of the hearings. I know, for example, that my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, as she has stated, was on the tribunal in 1994, and, clearly, had to leave the tribunal upon becoming a member of Parliament. So it is clear that the issues that are giving rise to this bill, in terms of there being sufficient authority for the tribunal actually to issue a decision despite changes in its membership, are things that the Government has been aware of for many years. It is a concern that it did not address those issues, in order to have them dealt with, until after the decision had been made.

One can understand that the Government might delay dealing with the issue until it became a matter of significance, but surely this legislation should have gone through before the decision on the Wellington Tenths Trust claim, in particular, was completed and was ready to be issued, instead of our having this ridiculous situation where the tribunal has made its decision but cannot release it until this bill is passed. We have had to wait for months and months to have this legislation passed, so that a decision that has already been made can be released. I know that, already, details of some of the effect of the decision have been released, although they should not have been. I myself have heard of some of the impact of the decision that is going to be released, and comments have been made in terms of the findings.

That is the danger we get into: because the decision has been reached, but the court has not released it and has held up actually making it public, all of a sudden rumour and speculation, and even informal advice in terms of what the decision will contain, get out into the public sphere. That undermines the whole judicial process. It undermines the whole treaty settlement process. It is not conducive to our resolving treaty grievances, either in a way that is sustainable or in a timely fashion. There are those who, having heard rumours of what might be in the decision, are worried about the impact of it—about how much Wellington land will be going to the Wellington Tenths Trust, and things of that nature. This delay serves only to fuel those concerns, and make things difficult in terms of the resolution of grievances and reconciliation between Māori and the Crown.

So I am astonished that that delay has occurred, but at least we have finally got the bill back in the House. I notice that it was introduced in March 2002; that its first reading began in May 2002, but was interrupted by the election, and was completed in September 2002; and that it was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. The committee spent approximately only 3½ hours on hearing submissions and considering the bill. It seems to me that that could have happened fairly quickly, the bill could have come back to the House, and we could have been dealing with this matter a lot sooner instead of waiting until April 2003. So I am concerned about the Government’s lack of commitment to speedy or timely resolution of grievances.

There are other examples of that, such as the delays in the release of the report on the Gisborne casebook inquiry, which we were promised in September—6 months ago—was being finalised. I understand that it was completed in December but is yet to be launched publicly. I am concerned about the reason for the delays before that report is released, because they will impact on the budgetary process and on the ability to extend the casebook process beyond simply the Gisborne case. I would like to see it addressed in the Budget, with funding being provided to use that process for the resolution of all treaty claims as far as it is appropriate.

The Ngāti Ruanui bill, again, had to come through under urgency, and has taken far longer than it should. I can only hope that the other stages of the bill—the Committee stage and the third reading—happen very promptly, so that we can get that one signed off and out of the way, and can allow Ngāti Ruanui to get on and organise their affairs with the settlement proceeds.

The first part of this bill deals with the primary conflict between natural justice issues and the need for the tribunal to resolve issues and bring claims to a conclusion. That is a balance that has been discussed within the select committee, and it is fair enough to have that debate. On the one hand there is the natural justice issue of a tribunal that starts hearing a claim being the one that finishes hearing the claim. Litigants can be justifiably aggrieved in situations where they give evidence to one tribunal, then suddenly find, at the time the decision is being made, the tribunal making the decision is not the one that heard what the litigants said, but is a substantially changed panel.

Nevertheless, I do not agree with the Greens. I do not support their claim that natural justice overrides the situation. I think there is an urgent need to resolve these issues and bring claims to a conclusion; it is a matter of urgency. This has taken 15 years. The hearings by the Waitangi Tribunal took 8 years, and to say at the end of 8 years that the tribunal has to go back and start all over again, because of the changes in the tribunal’s make-up, is, frankly, ridiculous. It does nothing to help resolve the grievances we all want to see resolved. To have to rehear everything and relitigate everything after 8 years of hearings is simply a waste of time. Although there is a natural justice claim, the need to resolve issues and bring claims to a conclusion is in everybody’s interests, and is in the interests of both sides of the issue—namely, the Crown and the Māori organisations and iwi that are involved.

There is a parallel, of course, with the select committees. I could not help seeing the parallel with some of us who came into the House and were faced with select committee situations where the submissions had been heard, and the committee that was making the decision was substantially different from the one that had held the hearings. That was the case with the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Retirement Villages Bill, where five of the seven members now on the select committee did not hear the bulk of the submissions. The Greens did not seem to object at that point. But we were able to cope with that, because we were able to read the written submissions and we were able to rely on the officials’ reports. Although that is not the most desirable course of action, and is unfortunate, it is nevertheless unavoidable. We managed to cope, in the same way that the tribunal is also able to cope in its hearings.

I support Part 1, and we commend the bill to the House.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First): New Zealand First supports the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) and recommends that it be passed. Part 1 amends the Treaty of Waitangi Act in relation to the operations of the Waitangi Tribunal. Part 2 deals with the Broadcasting Act, in order to give effect to technical changes in relation to ministerial responsibility for Māori broadcasting policy and Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi, also known as Te Māngai Pāho. We of New Zealand First have always had a concern about the time factor and the delays that have been taking place—taking into consideration the challenges that have been put before the select committee and those responsible for this area. In respect of the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act, we are happy it has finally been looked at, and that the 1,515 percent increase in general fishing licences can be sorted out and made more equitable.

Basically, we are talking about the amendments in Part 1, which are a result of membership changes during the Wellington Tenths, Kaipara, and Hauraki inquiries. The bill gives guidelines as to the appointment of tribunal presiding officers; the mandates and skills required to be a member of that organisation; and the accountability required.

It has been recommended by the committee that section 5AD(2) of the second schedule, in clause 5, be deleted from the bill, because it would not offer any protection to either claimants or the Crown. The proposed amendment to that clause of the second schedule provides that only a member of the tribunal who is a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of at least 7 years’ standing shall be qualified for appointment as presiding officer under clause 5(1)(a) of the second schedule. The Act currently requires the presiding officer to be either the chairperson, a judge of the Māori Land Court, or a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of at least 7 years’ standing appointed by the chairperson. Under a proposed new clause of the second schedule, the chairperson may exercise the power of appointing an acting presiding officer, only if he or she considers that the tribunal can properly continue to exercise its functions to inquire into the particular claim or other matter with an acting presiding officer. Any person appointed an acting presiding officer would have the same powers as a presiding officer under the Act, and would be able to exercise those powers only for the period of time specified by the chairperson.

In 1996 the acting registrar of the Waitangi Tribunal sought advice on the powers of the chairperson of the tribunal to reconstitute tribunals where members are unable to continue in office. In response to the request, the Solicitor-General advised that if the tribunal was to have express power to permit a substitution of a presiding officer or panel members, the Act should be amended to make sure that the intention to depart from the standard principles of natural justice to meet the needs of the tribunal process was indicated in terms that were clear and unambiguous. As a result of discussion and advice from Te Puni Kōkiri, the Solicitor-General, and the Crown Law Office, the amended clause 5AD(2), on Supplementary Order Paper 76, was recommended. That ensures that only a member of the tribunal who is a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of at least 7 years’ standing shall be qualified for appointment as presiding officer under clause 5(1)(a)(iii) of the second schedule.

Last night we heard the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill being read. We heard from those who were against it and from those who were for it. I am happy that the bill has been passed and the people can get on with what they should be doing. There was a spirit of contention during debate on that bill, because, as we all know, others disagreed with it. It will probably be the same with this bill. But for the sake of the citizens of New Zealand, which we all are, we need to move ahead on what is already happening today.

I commend the Māori Affairs Committee for looking at these amendments and making changes that will make this organisation more efficient. I am reminded of the comments made by the National MP Georgina te Heuheu about the funding for the Waitangi Tribunal, and the time it takes to sort out these claims and settle them. I am sure that they can be more efficiently administered, too, and that, rather than our waiting for the year 2050 or however long it will take to settle these claims, they can be more efficiently processed, and the people concerned can be satisfied and get on with life.

As a member of New Zealand First, I recommend that this bill be passed with the amendments made by the Māori Affairs Committee.

MITA RIRINUI (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I stand, naturally, with previous speakers from this side of the House, the Minister of Māori Affairs in particular, in supporting the passage of the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2). It is interesting to note the amount of Māori legislation that has gone through the House in the last 24 hours. Last night we saw the second stage of the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill, and I value very highly the contributions that were made by all members of the House. I am sure we unanimously support Ngāti Ruanui in the challenges ahead of them.

I know there is a parliamentary discipline that we do not bag our friends, particularly in this House, but the fact that the Ngāti Ruanui bill and the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) are being heard in urgency is a strong indication of this Government’s commitment to getting all legislation on the Order Paper through the House. I do not think there are too many members of the House who mind sitting through the process. It should not be seen as a full performance on the part of the Government, but as a very strong commitment to its legislative programme.

It has already been intimated by a number of previous speakers that a particularly sensitive part of the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) is Part 1, and the amendments that have subsequently been made to the bill to allow the Waitangi Tribunal to proceed with hearings, so that claimant groups and communities, particularly the Wellington Tenths with Wai 145, Kaipara with Wai 674, and Hauraki with Wai 686, can get on with their business, have their hearings concluded at a reasonable pace, and not have them held up just because there is no quorum on the tribunal. When we consider it, we realise that the tribunal not hearing these cases because there is no quorum is quite ridiculous, and the amendments are appropriate. I acknowledge all parties that have spoken previously. I also acknowledge that the National Party member on the Māori Affairs Committee has issues with Part 2, in terms of the Broadcasting Act. She has stated quite clearly that she will not be supporting that part. We live in a democratic society and I accept that that is how things fold out, but I am sure that by the end of these speeches she will have considered that issue again, and, with a bit of luck, she may change her position. Who knows, miracles do happen in the 21st century!

In my brief speech I also want to cover Part 3, which relates to the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act of 1926 as it affects the people of the central North Island, in particular Ngāti Tuwharetoa and their charter licences. There have been no adjustments in this area since the legislation was enacted in 1926. I have to say that for the people of Ngāti Tuwharetoa, this issue has the same effect on them as the peppercorn perpetual leases in, for instance, Taranaki and on the West Coast of the South Island. They have a resource but are not getting any material or financial gain from it. Therefore, that part of the bill is long overdue, and, certainly, will be positively received by Ngāti Tuwharetoa.

I acknowledge too the contributions of the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, in particular the chair for keeping things steady as she goes, as usual, and for allowing all members of the select committee to make a valuable contribution. I particularly acknowledge the submitters, who came from a number of parts of the country to speak to us about their views on various aspects of the bill. I heard a previous speaker say that there were objections to parts of the bill in terms of the charter licences. I can recall only one objection, and it was not a very well put argument in terms of why there should be no increase in licences. I think, overall, the vast majority of those who made submissions agreed that adjustments are well overdue.

I commend the bill to the House, and I congratulate the Minister of Māori Affairs on getting it up the Order Paper.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): The ACT party does not support this bill, for the same reasons as were set out in September 2002 when dealing with the bill in the House. We are dealing with a symptom, not the problem. I have just checked with my colleague Georgina te Heuheu about the Wellington Tenths Trust. The inquiry into that case started in 1991, and Georgina te Heuheu was on the tribunal when it started hearing that case. I have just checked with Georgina, and the tribunal still has not reported.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member may not use a member’s first name only. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement). Members may be referred to by their full names, their titles, or their portfolios.

RODNEY HIDE: Thank you. I have just checked with Georgina te Heuheu, and the tribunal still has not reported on that case. Georgina te Heuheu has left the tribunal and become a member of Parliament—

John Carter: And a very good one.

RODNEY HIDE: —and a good one—so there is a potential challenge to anything that the tribunal might find. We have the situation of Manu Bennett, who was a young 73 years when that case—

John Carter: Very able.

RODNEY HIDE: He was very sprightly and able, and was thinking about becoming a National Party MP. But, sadly, he died at the age of 85 before the case was concluded. So there is a potential challenge there.

This bill allows the chairman of the tribunal to gloss over that and to change its members. But the problem we have is why those cases are taking 12 and 13 years and are still not heard. That is a problem, because how can we have justice if a case before a quasi-court takes a dozen years to be heard and concluded? We could have a situation whereby a tribunal was reporting, yet none of the people doing that reporting had actually heard the evidence. How could that possibly be just or fair? We should be speeding up the process, not allowing a revolving-door policy because members go off the tribunal and become MPs or, sadly, pass away.

I have another concern and it is this. I think that Georgina te Heuheu would agree that there are politics in the Waitangi Tribunal. However, we have a situation whereby the chairperson can throw off a presiding officer because of his or her personal circumstances. How can it possibly be just that the chairperson of the tribunal can get rid of someone who is hearing evidence and replace that person with someone else, because of his or her personal circumstances? I look across to my Māori colleagues, and I ask in which court does that occur in New Zealand? Nowhere! So why are we doing that to Māori people? Why are we not addressing the problem by providing proper resources? The ACT party will be voting against this bill because it denies natural justice.

Part 2 had me a little confused, so I consulted my Ngāi Tahu brother, the Hon Parekura Horomia, the Minister of Māori Affairs. I have been addressing my questions on Māori Sportscasting International to my Ngāi Tahu brother, believing him to be in charge of Te Māngai Pāho—I am getting better at pronouncing it, and I see that the interpreter is nodding his head. I am from the South Island and the Minister knows that our dialect is a wee bit different down there. I have discovered that we are to put the Minister of Māori Affairs in charge of Te Māngai Pāho here. I am pleased about that, because I have been hassling him about that organisation for some time, not realising that that was actually the fault of the Minister of Broadcasting. It was the Minister of Broadcasting who caused the problems in the first place, but it is Parekura Horomia who is doing the clean-up job on Te Māngai Pāho.

I have a few more things for Parekura Horomia that need to be cleaned up. When Mr Peter Bushnell from Treasury comes across to my office I will reveal a bit more to him, and it is along these lines. We have an interesting situation. We have heard about the great capacity-building booze-up, when $5,400 from a capacity-building grant that was supposed to be used for training went on a dinner and drinks for the Labour Party.

David Benson-Pope: Go and have a lie down and take your medicine.

RODNEY HIDE: Those members do not like democracy, do they? Let us have a look at this question, which I mistakenly put to the Minister of Māori Affairs. I said that Māori Sportscasting International interested me, because its commentators watched a game and broadcast it on Sky or on the iwi radio network in te reo, and that was great.

Hon George Hawkins: Talk about the bill.

RODNEY HIDE: This is about the bill, because the bill is about the Minister who is to be in charge of Te Māngai Pāho. I am pleased that Parekura Horomia is to be in charge of it, because he is doing the business of cleaning that up. I will make a revelation, because Parekura Horomia said to me that Māori Sportscasting International is paid—and I want to read this figure—on average $2,111 per broadcast.

I want to know, and ask that Minister to find this out when he is doing his clean-up, where that money is going. His executive assistant is one of the broadcasters, but she is a volunteer. So how can it cost $2,000? The Minister may say that may be because of the equipment. Well, Sky has been providing, until recently, the studio for free. There is no equipment cost. Te Māngai Pāho has been paying $2,000 per broadcast for volunteers to call a game. In fact, Hemana Waaka once called a game sitting at home with the TV on, and calling into a microphone. Putting the commentary into Māori in that way is very enterprising, but why should that cost the taxpayer $2,111?

That amount is the average. Some of those broadcasts cost $6,000. Thousands and thousands of dollars were spent on the civil servant who was in charge of managing the contract. That is why, when I look at Part 2 and I see that my good friend Parekura Horomia is taking over the Te Māngai Pāho mess from Steve Maharey, I am very pleased. The one thing I do know about Parekura Horomia—and I want to pay him this compliment—is that he actually does not go along with that nonsense. Not from the first moment that I raised the issue of Māori Sportscasting International and the usage of that money on a dinner and drinks, did that Minister agree with that. He sent a message to Te Puni Kōkiri and to Te Māngai Pāho that that is not the standard that we in Parliament and the Government expect.

I did not hear the Minister of Broadcasting say that, nor did I hear the Prime Minister say that. I did not hear Dover Samuels and John Tamihere—who were sucking up the largesse from Te Puni Kōkiri—say that. But the Minister of Māori Affairs has sent a message to Te Māngai Pāho, and I make a commitment to him in this debate that now that he will be, in law, the Minister in charge of Te Māngai Pāho, I will work with him to help him in sorting that out. [Interruption] Oh, I know, the Minister is so pleased. I will be making more and more revelations, but mostly I will just go across the House to him and tell him there is a problem that we need to fix. If we are to spend $12 million on Māori broadcasting, let us make sure it works. Let us stop pretending that spending $12 million is an answer, because the issue is how that money is spent. The Minister knows that. He is not satisfied with what has gone on with regard to Māori Sportscasting International. He is not satisfied that his colleagues have been taking capacity grant money and enjoying the largesse.

I say Parekura Horomia is the sort of Minister that we want to have in charge of Te Māngai Pāho. I look forward to Peter Bushnell coming over to my office as leader of the review team into what has gone on at Te Māngai Pāho, and I tell the Minister that I will be sharing my extensive files and pictures with him.

MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am sufficiently inspired to say about the previous speaker, the honourable member of the Opposition, that he referred to the Minister of Māori Affairs as his Ngāi Tahu brother. [Interruption] That is fairly close. One of the unfortunate things about our whakapapa is that we cannot do anything about it. I look forward to a response from my electorate of Te Tai Tonga as to the putative claim of the member’s Ngāi Tahu - tanga, and whether that iwi greets that with the fond reminiscing that that member over there on the Opposition benches so often indulges in.

Having said that, most of the technical aspects of this bill—Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3—have been more than covered. However, as well as being the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I stand here as someone closely involved with one of the claims that is in this bill. There are three there: the Kaipara, Hauraki, and what is commonly known as the Te Ātiawa claim, but is, essentially, the Port Nicholson claim.

As people have alluded to, there has been a significant time-lapse between this legislation being mooted in 1996 and finally entering this House in 2003. As the honourable member Bill Gudgeon said, the concerns surrounding the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal were first mooted by the then deputy registrar. I must say that this legislation was in 1996. Having been mooted in 1996, it has taken as long as this to reach the second reading. But since we have been in Government we have moved to introduce the bill in 2002, and now to progress it in 2003. I fully support all the measures and provisions that have been taken in the part of the bill that deals with the Waitangi Tribunal’s membership. In doing so, I compliment not only the Minister of Māori Affairs but my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee for ensuring that this legislation goes forward.

With regard to the trout fishing licences, the only thing that concerned me was that that matter was last visited in 1926. In that respect, I do not think there was very much disagreement from the select committee.

Again, I will refer back to the previous speaker. After speaking in such glowing terms about the Minister of Māori Affairs and his absolute bent towards transparency and accountability, and his undertaking to review maybe—that may be the wrong word—the actions of both the agencies mentioned by the member, I fail to understand how Mr Hide can now be against the bill. After all, he has just extolled the virtues of the Minister of Māori Affairs. There seems to me to be an apparent contradiction between Mr Hide’s presentation and his objection to the bill. Maybe that draws some notion of the confusion in your ranks. [Interruption] I prefer to say “confusion in your ranks”. We understand what is happening over here on the Government benches, as has come to the media. What is happening over there in the Opposition?

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know it is unusual to do this through a point of order, but the member on his feet has asked me a question. He did not quite understand why the ACT party objects to Part 1. I thought I had explained that in terms of natural justice. If Mr Speaker wants to point out that the member can yield the call and give me 2 minutes, I will make an explanation and answer his question.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is perfectly normal. It can be done, but it is not often done in the New Zealand Parliament.

MAHARA OKEROA: That was quite a significant judgment there, Mr Speaker; I give you my congratulations.

In conclusion, therefore, I stand unreservedly as a Te Ātiawa member. If members are talking about natural justice, then they are talking about natural justice from a particular perspective. The design of this bill is about speeding up the process. It is about affording natural justice to the claimants, so there is a two-sided coin. Nō reira, i runga i ngā kōrero nei. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia oti pai tēnei taha.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is the member just going to ask for an interpretation?

Rodney Hide: Sure.

MAHARA OKEROA: Having regard to his Ngāi Tahu ancestry and the difference in dialect, I assumed that that member fully understood what was going down. For the benefit of that speaker I will translate on my behalf, in the sense of drawing to a close. I think it has been a very good outcome, and I thank the select committee.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I pointed out that the member could yield the call, and I notice that the member did not take the full allotment of his time. I just wanted to ask, given that he asked me two questions during his speech, whether he was yielding me the 2 minutes that remain of his time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No.

Rodney Hide: Is the member prepared to yield that? It is up to the member.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No. The member will be seated. The member has already sat down, and I now intend to call the next member.

Rodney Hide: Oh, so he did not really want answers to the questions.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Greens are very pleased to support this bill, and I echo my colleagues in the Māori Affairs Committee in saying how relieved we are that the bill is before the House and will go through all its stages this week. The provisions in the bill relating to the Treaty of Waitangi Act are urgently needed for the effective management of claims through the tribunal. I will talk about that briefly in a moment, but let me first mention the provisions in Part 3 of the bill.

Part 3 allows for an increase in the number of fishing licences to Ngāti Tuwharetoa. Yesterday I received a number of letters from people who are concerned about that, many of whom have been very active in environmental restoration around Lake Taupo. They are concerned that the increase in licences will cause environmental problems, and I want to assure them that the increase in the number of licences from 50 to 200 will not have a massively detrimental effect on the overall fisheries in Lake Taupo or on the surrounding environments. The licences are issued under existing statutory rights under the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act, which vested ownership of Lake Taupo in the Crown while providing, amongst other things, the right of Tuwharetoa to fish and catch, for its own use, indigenous fish in Lake Taupo waters. The number of licences for that right has not, as has been said, been changed since 1926 but general licences have increased considerably. The committee considered that the increase is long overdue, small though it is.

For the Greens, the most important part of the bill is the change to the Treaty of Waitangi Act. Those amendments validate changes in membership, either to replace or to substitute members during the course of tribunal hearings. Those changes are essential in order to ensure just outcomes from the tribunal. It is part of the process of natural justice, though, that only those who hear evidence should decide on it. Generally, if a judicial officer is unable to complete a hearing, the matter is reheard from the beginning. But for the tribunal, and particularly for the participants, that principle has to be weighed against a greater injustice, since claimants spend up to 10 years before a tribunal, and the membership of that tribunal has to change due to unforeseen circumstances. On balance, the injustice caused to the claimants by having to repeat their claims from the beginning is, frankly, too great to contemplate. It is an extraordinarily long and exhaustive process that exacts a huge toll on those involved. A number of longstanding claims are waiting for this bill to pass, so that they can be completed. The Wellington Tenths is one of them, but there are claims as well, such as Wai 262. We look forward to their eventual completion.

The select committee’s report notes a concern from the Greens that clause 5AC(2)(c), inserted by clause 5, gives the chairperson, subject to the protections in subclause (3), a broad discretion to replace a member. I do not imagine for one moment that that discretion is intended to be misused or will be misused, but I am concerned that in this case we are enacting legislation that does not expressly require the member to agree to being replaced. I realise that some members—although not the member for ACT—may consider that point a little pedantic, but I am solely concerned with the standing and reputation of the tribunal. As a semi-judicial body, I do not want it to be considered to have a lesser standing than any other similar body in this country. I am concerned that any deviations from the principles of natural justice and from general practice are confined, as much as is possible, to curing the mischief. However, that said, the Greens do support this bill and look forward to its speedy passage. Kia ora koutou.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): I had not intended to speak in this debate, as New Zealand First has indicated its support for the bill. But when I heard the contribution from the United Future party earlier—on its black charger with a white flag with a surrender mark on it, as it came to the aid of the Government with regard to urgency—I thought it was quite extraordinary. That charge was accompanied by a comment, and I wondered whether that was going to mark United Future’s interest in matters Māori. The United Future member, if I understood him correctly, said that there is a need for resolution above natural justice. He then went on to say that the process is all important. As that member can boldly make that statement in the House, on matters that are before the House now, I wondered what comprehensive knowledge of Māori grievances that member and his party have. Let us hear it again: “Resolution should be above natural justice.”

Māori have cried out for 150 years for natural justice on those issues. Their grievances were heard in the House last night, and partly remedied, and, with this bill, we are about to attempt to do the same—that was the attitude of a party in this House, and I find it deplorable. That is not the basis for this bill. This bill attempts to correct a number of anomalies that have occurred in the past. The first one is—and the Minister should take great heed of the comments already made—that the Waitangi Tribunal is under-resourced. It is under-resourced in personnel, research independence and objectivity, and most of all, in funding. We will never get beyond what we have now, which is a piecemeal, year-by-year, partial process with two or three decisions, unless that issue is seriously addressed. Other speakers have already said that justice is denied if justice cannot be heard, and that is the fundamental issue here. If the tribunal is properly managed and resourced, how come an issue that arose in the House in 1996 has come back to the House so much later? I heard the speaker’s comment about the fact that it was 1996, but the actual issue is that 4 years later that administration seeks to correct an anomaly.

Unlike others, I am not connected to Wellington, but I am connected to Kaipara, and I take the issue of the concern in Kaipara seriously. I just hope, in our support for this bill, that we are not sliding over some of the issues of contention. Members are well aware that judicial review processes would take into account the course of the deliberation, the veracity of the evidence heard, and the way in which it was finally considered, all of which should, in most tribunals that I know of, be heard by all, with the decision given only by those who heard the deliberations. I know that the Government does not worry about that—it has three persons on a committee of 11 that is being asked to consider serious matters. I know that they are not concerned about the process, but we are. To that end, we hope, by our support, to aid that slip, if one likes, with regard to the original Act, and to account for the issues that were overseen with regard to membership.

The second issue I refer to is that I, personally, am very pleased to see the responsibility for Te Māngai Pāho transfer from the Minister of Broadcasting to the Minister of Māori Affairs. Te Māngai Pāho was considerably compromised in its deliberations in its earlier years by its tenuous affinity, somehow, to the Ministry of Commerce. Those who were associated with the establishment of that agency in its early years found that the Ministry of Commerce had far more power to deliberate upon the day-to-day operations of Te Māngai Pāho than the Minister of Māori Affairs, or the officers who were under that Minster, ever had. That was wrong, and it accounted for some of the problems that that agency had in the late 1990s. The accountability is finally being put directly on the Minister, as has already been mentioned by Mr Hide, and that is very, very worthwhile indeed. I hope that the Minister has regard to the funding needs of Māori radio if it is to continue into the future. As has already been indicated by my colleague, New Zealand First supports the passage of the bill. We hope that the slip that took place regarding membership does not overcome natural justice, and perhaps those matters can be explored further in the Committee stage.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

Ayes 109

Noes 7

Bill read a second time.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

ACT New Zealand 7.

Instruction to Committee

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) that it take the bill part by part.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National): Even though there has been an instruction to the Committee to take the bill part by part, I wonder whether the Committee would consider having one wide-ranging debate over all the parts. It would allow the debate to flow, and I seek leave accordingly.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Leave has been sought to take the bill as one question. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

Clauses 1 to 10

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): I have some comments in relation to clauses 4 and 5. The Minister, of course, has a Supplementary Order Paper in relation to clause 5. He will seek to insert a new clause 5AD in relation to the appointment of a temporary presiding officer. In anticipation of that, and in relation to two issues raised by previous speakers, I might have said in my second reading speech—but in case I did not, the thought was there—that the changes proposed to the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975 contained in clause 4, the validation clause, and clause 5 are serious changes. I guess it is only proper that some comments might have been made that flag concerns with those clauses. I am on the Māori Affairs Committee, and we were pleased to see that the officials had sought a considerable amount of advice in relation to clauses 4 and 5. The committee gave serious scrutiny to those clauses, too. Because the Waitangi Tribunal is under scrutiny all the time, we were very much aware that potshots could be taken, and so wanted the changes we were going to support to be proper.

In relation to clause 4, the ACT member raised an issue about the length of time the Wellington Tenths Trust inquiry is taking. It is proper to raise that issue, but it is also proper to understand that the change being sought modifies the rules of natural justice only in relation to membership of a tribunal. No other existing right for anybody who might wish to challenge the findings of the tribunal is influenced or changed, and I think it is proper that we make that point.

A question was raised in relation to clause 5. I have a very personal stake in these matters, as I was a member of the Waitangi Tribunal, and that is why I make these points now. Again, the ACT member, Rodney Hide, raised the issue of personal circumstances. What are those? Is it that a chairman can just throw somebody off the tribunal? It is not that simple. It is related to the rest of the clause, which basically says “by reason of his or her physical or mental condition”.

Rodney Hide: Where does it say that?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Rodney Hide should look at the clause. I forgot to point it out to him, but a chairperson cannot just chuck someone off the tribunal. We on the committee were very mindful that if someone is to be replaced—either a presiding officer or a member—the conditions under which that can occur should be very strict, otherwise the power to do that will not emanate. I might have got Mr Hide’s arguments slightly wrong, and I hope he will bear with me if I did, but the point is worth making that somebody cannot be chucked off the tribunal for reasons of personal circumstances relating to anything in the world. There has to be a clear connection to a person being unable to carry on by reason of his or her physical or mental condition.

Rodney Hide: But paragraph (c) can stand on its own, can’t it?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: The Minister might do that. Clause 5AC2 sets out three conditions, one of which is that of personal circumstances related to physical or mental incapacity—

Rodney Hide: It does not say that in paragraph (c).

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Yes it does. There is no carte blanche power to throw somebody off the tribunal because of personal circumstances that are not defined. But if the member wishes to disagree, that is fine.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): I want to raise again exactly what we are doing in respect of clause 4. What we are doing—and New Zealand First agrees with the bill—is validating the actions of a commission, the Waitangi Tribunal, some years later, with regard to the matters that it is able to deliberate upon, notwithstanding the fact that one or more members of that tribunal did not hear the submissions or the evidence. The more I think about it, the more I begin to question why, with a four-person tribunal, should one member, by the reasons advanced in clause 5AD of the bill, not be able to be a member of the tribunal and continue hearing submissions and making deliberations, that tribunal should not be reduced to a three-person or even a two-person tribunal—should the tribunal wish to hear the expert material that the member would have been able to give guidance to the tribunal on, seek outside expert legal evidence, or maybe cultural evidence, in order to aid it in its final deliberations, so we do not have a tribunal being set up to hear a whole course of submissions of great import and at the end have a decision made by some members only. We support the general thrust of the bill. We merely ask that greater consideration be given to those matters.

With regard to a matter raised by Mr Hide, he is exactly correct. Paragraph (c) in clause 5AC2 states, and it is not qualified by any other paragraph: “in the opinion of the Chairperson it would be unreasonable to expect the presiding officer or member holding office under clause 5(1) to continue to participate in the inquiry into the particular claim or other matter because of his or her personal circumstances.” There is no qualification here, as mentioned by the previous speaker, about physical or mental condition, at all. That paragraph stands absolute, on its own, and does give the ability for subjectivity, personal bias, or other political matters to come into the actions of the chairperson of the tribunal. That is a matter that should give some cause for concern.

Last of all, I again applaud Part 2, which at long last gives the Minister, or the person who sits in that office, the ability to deal with Māori broadcasting in a way that has been constrained and limited in the past by other agencies—some with a remote concern for Māori broadcasting and much more concern for limited financial funding.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): I think we have a problem here, and I look forward to the Minister taking a call to answer whether that is what this Committee intends. I also picked up on what Mr Jim Peters said, and I ask him whether he thinks that is a good idea.

I now turn to page 3 of the bill and ask whether new clause 5AC(2)(c) should be struck out, given what we have heard today. The National Party said it was not the case that a chairperson could get rid of a person because of his or her personal circumstances. I think that Georgina te Heuheu now accepts that clause stands on its own. I have checked with the officials, and as I understand their explanation, they have said yes to that. With the greatest respect, I say that cannot be right.

Murray Smith: You are wrong.

RODNEY HIDE: I look forward to United Future’s explanation. What am I wrong about?

Murray Smith: It does stand on its own. It does not—well, I will speak to it.

RODNEY HIDE: I shall read it for the member: “in the opinion of the Chairperson it would be unreasonable to expect the presiding officer or member holding office under clause 5(1) to continue to participate in the inquiry into the particular claim or other matter because of his or her personal circumstances.” In common language that means—and Murray Smith says I am wrong—that if the chairperson thinks that because of a Waitangi Tribunal member’s personal circumstances, he or she should not sit and hear that claim, then he or she is gone. Am I wrong on that?

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Yes.

RODNEY HIDE: So says Georgina te Heuheu, and I look forward to her explanation. I pay due homage, because I am in that mood today, to Murray Smith and his expert legal training and insight into this matter. However, I am afraid that the courts would look at what the Minister said and would not consider what Mr Smith thought. I would like the Minister to take a call to explain the scope and discretion provided for under new clause 5AC(2)(c) that would enable someone to be replaced. What does the Minister think are the personal circumstances that in the opinion of the chairperson would enable a person to be replaced? I say that sincerely, because I think that we could find ourselves in a situation where—given the politics, the years, and the difficulties of the claims—clause 5AC(2)(c) would have some input. I tell Georgina te Heuheu that it will not be enough to say that a person can be replaced only if he or she is sick, because paragraph (c) is not needed. As I understand it, paragraph (b) takes care of a person if he or she is sick and physically cannot participate, so why does the legislation have paragraph (c)?

Jim Peters: It stands alone.

RODNEY HIDE: It is a stand-alone clause, and I hope I am not doing the officials a disservice when I say that it has been confirmed as a stand-alone clause. I think that is what they said, but it is not right. With advice from his officials, I would like the Minister to take a call to explain that, because I think that any judge would look at that provision and say: “Yes, the chairperson has the ability to decide that a person should not participate, or continue to participate, in an inquiry, because of his or her personal circumstances.” What on earth could that person’s personal circumstances be? They could be anything whatsoever. It seems to me that we are giving a chairperson the power to take a person off an inquiry and put a new person in, but why would we allow that power to reside with the chairperson? If that is not what that clause is about, what is it about?

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): Although United Future acquiesced to the motion to deal with the three parts of this matter together in the Committee stage, nevertheless I wish to comment on each of the parts, and may seek another call as a consequence.

Dealing with Part 1 in particular, I notice that the Green Party is concerned—and once again, I am surprised that the Green Party and ACT are both singing a similar song—that new clause 5AC(2)(c) gives too broad a discretion, and therefore should not be there. I reiterate that new clause 5AC(2)(a) allows a chairperson to replace a person in circumstances where he or she can no longer operate, or has ceased to hold office. Paragraph (b) gives the chairperson that power where the personal circumstances of the presiding officer or member holding office make that person unable by reason of his or her physical or mental condition to continue to participate. The third, and controversial, option—paragraph (c)—allows for replacement when in the opinion of the chairperson it would be unreasonable to expect the presiding officer or member holding office under clause 5(1) to continue to participate in the inquiry into the particular claim or other matter because of his or her personal circumstances.

Although paragraph (c) is written in a broad manner, I believe it is important that it is left reasonably broad. “Personal circumstances” can be very wide. One could think of examples—and I note that Mr Hide struggled to do that—where a member suffered the death of a spouse or close relative; where it was not a matter of his or her own physical or mental condition, but nevertheless, a situation that made it unreasonable to expect that member to continue to participate. There could be more subtle reasons. Financial circumstances or other confidential matters could give rise to situations where it might be unreasonable for a member to be expected to continue.

To answer Mr Hide’s query as to whether that provision gave the chairperson the right to remove somebody, we see that it is a follow-on clause from clauses 5AA and 5AB. Under new clause 5AC(2) the power conferred on the chairperson by clauses 5AA and 5AB may be exercised only if (a), (b), and (c). So we have to look at new clauses 5AA and 5AB to see what that power is, and clearly, it is a power to appoint. There is no power under new clauses 5AA or 5AB for a chairperson to remove anyone; therefore, the power can only be exercised if somebody has vacated by way of retirement, or some other legitimate way of relinquishing the position that he or she holds. Only if there is a vacancy can the chairperson agree to the appointment of another person, and he or she has to do it on the basis of one of those three headings. That is the answer to the question.

If Mr Hide looks at new clause 5AA, he will see that subclause (1) states: “For the purposes of an inquiry into a particular claim or other matter under section 5(1), the Chairperson may appoint another member of the Tribunal …”. It does not state “remove and appoint”; it just states “appoint”. New clause 5AB states: “For the purposes of an inquiry into a particular claim or other matter under section 5(1), the Chairperson may appoint another member of the Tribunal …”. It does not state “remove and appoint”, just “appoint”. Therefore there is no power for the chairperson to remove, only a power to appoint, and that presumes that there is a vacancy for some legitimate reason. So I do not see that the concerns that have been raised by either the Green Party or the ACT party are concerns that need to trouble this Committee.

Rodney Hide: Did the member sit on the committee?

MURRAY SMITH: No, the member did not sit on the committee.

The other issue is the striking out of subclause (2) in clause 5AD, which effectively provided that any acting presiding officer did not have to be somebody who was a barrister or solicitor of 7 years’ experience. That then gave rise to a balance of issues. Firstly, one could see a rationale for exempting the chairperson from being a barrister or solicitor of 7 years’ standing in so far that if a presiding member had to be replaced mid-hearing, it might be more appropriate for another member to take over the role of presiding member rather than to appoint a new person from the outside—given that no other members had the requisite qualification. Therefore, bringing in a new chairperson who was brand new to the inquiry was not so good as allowing another member to take over.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): My standing is not to take a call, when it might be more appropriate for the Minister, because clearly Mr Hide wants some confirmation from the Minister. But I do stand to apologise to Mr Hide because I wrongly thought his comments were made in relation to paragraph (b) of clause 5AC(2). In fact they were made in relation to paragraph (c) of clause 5AC(2). We have had a little conflab while sitting here, and Mr Hide is correct. Paragraph (c) of clause 5AC(2) does stand on its own, as each of those provisions in that clause does, but the implication was that the chairperson can just sort of throw someone off without any proper cause. It was certainly a concern for committee members whether this was a provision that suited the chair more than it might have regard to the circumstances of the person being replaced. As I say, if one reads paragraph (c) of clause 5AC(2) quite carefully, I think it does contemplate that someone is wishing to go. I think this was put to the officials, and that is certainly what was envisaged—a member wishes to be released.

Rodney Hide: That’s what is envisaged. It does not make it the law.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Hang on, there is no power here for any presiding officer or chairperson to remove someone without there being good reason to do so. But as I say, maybe the Minister wants to take a call and reassure Mr Hide on that. The purpose for my standing was basically to recognise the error I had made in terms of the clause that Mr Hide was talking about.

One other point I would make, because it was shared by the officials, is that there may be a case where the wife or the husband—the spouse of a member—is not well. In fact, that may have already occurred in the history of the tribunal. In those circumstances, where a member requests that he or she be released, then it seems entirely unreasonable for a chairperson not to be replaced. As I say, the committee was reasonably satisfied that that provision—

Rodney Hide: Oh, I’m not going to believe you on this, I have to say!

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: That is OK. I am just saying that the committee examined it. We feel we examined it reasonably thoroughly. We got some explanations from the officials, and on balance, as I say, we are reasonably comfortable by majority that the power is to replace; it is not to remove willy-nilly, and not to dismiss willy-nilly.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): It is very important that I put on the record the Green Party position in respect of clause 5AC(2)(c). It was an issue that was discussed extensively in the Māori Affairs Committee, and we made sure our position was put forward in the select committee report. Our concern is solely with the fact that in the clause the person who is to be replaced is not expressly required to approve of his or her replacement. Now we have no concern with the nature of personal circumstances, and we agree that a wide number of personal circumstances could lead a person to be unable to perform his or her function, which are not included in the phrase “physical or mental condition”. That has to be taken very seriously. But what we are concerned about is that the person who is replaced does not have to express his or her consent to that replacement. That is the concern that the Greens hold. That is the concern about the nature of the broad discretion.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I have come to this debate after it has already begun on this point. This is the question whether the chairperson of the tribunal should have a power to replace a presiding officer, a member sitting on a tribunal, or sitting on a matter. I am looking at this, obviously, as a lawyer with a very long period of practice, and trying to work out why this measure has been made retrospective. It seems to me that if it were a clause merely for the avoidance of doubt, or to avoid future problems, one would not have subclause (4) of clause 5AC. One would simply have the clause drafted because it was thought that at some future time there might be a difficulty. Presumably this has been prompted by a difficulty of some kind in the past. But if, in fact, what we have here is a clause that is intended to gas an existing member or to take him or her from the tribunal on a matter, then this Committee needs to know the detail. We need to know exactly what it is that has made it necessary to put an explicitly retrospective provision in a clause designed to give the chairperson of the tribunal the power to replace a member once a hearing is under way.

The normal thing is that one would have a power for a member to resign and to be replaced. That would be perfectly straightforward. Why is that not there? It does not say here—

Hon Member: Yes it does.

STEPHEN FRANKS: No, a power for a member to resign from a particular hearing. That is quite different from resigning from the tribunal. Of course a member would get off if he or she resigned. But the normal power here would be a power to retire from a particular matter because the member considers that it is not appropriate that he or she continues to sit. But that does not even appear to be one of the grounds. So just exactly what circumstances have prompted this? The officials must have in mind—they must be able to brief the Minister in the chair on what the circumstances are that have given rise to this. Because if they have not, why craft such a tortured provision? Why craft a provision and then make it retrospective?

Why craft it with two categories? There are the personal circumstances that make a person unable by reason of his or her physical or mental condition to continue; or there is the more broad issue, which would cover the earlier one anyway: that it would be unreasonable to expect the presiding officer or member to continue to participate. Is this aimed at Dr Michael Basset? Is it aimed at a position of personal circumstances where some parties to a hearing do not like someone? Is that what we are getting at? Is this aimed at allowing the tribunal chair to start crafting or recrafting tribunal divisions halfway through a hearing, when a member is unpopular with some of the claimants, or perhaps it is the Crown? We do not know. We have to protect the integrity of the tribunal proceedings from overbearing behaviour by the Crown just as much as from overbearing behaviour by a claimant.

Let us think of a circumstance where one has a tribunal chair who is very anxious to be promoted, and who perhaps wants to get on a new Supreme Court, or who perhaps wants to go to the Court of Appeal, and therefore wants to curry favour with the Government. Should we be providing—in something that is supposed to have judicial independence and a reputation for judicial impartiality—a power for that chair to perhaps craft an awkward tribunal so as to resolve the doubts of the Government? The chair can say that it would be unreasonable to expect, say, Dr Bassett to continue to participate in the particular claim because his personal circumstances are such that he has appeared on Television New Zealand and said that the researchers for the tribunal are biased. Is that what this is all about? It could be that it goes the other way. Maybe it will be like Wai 262, which is one of the very, very difficult conceptual claims, where there are enormous political implications. Will people be replaced once it becomes clear that their inclinations are not what the Government would like them to be? Will some personal circumstance then be found for the chairperson to use to replace them?

This is a significant matter. There is already enough doubt about the integrity of the court process. Māori claims are based on the fact that, over the years, the Māori Land Court was not acting in the interests of justice, but in the interests of land-grabbing Pākehā or the Government.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I have just a couple of brief comments to make about clause 5AC. I am pleased to advise that the officials have agreed that my interpretation of those provisions is correct. Another quite appropriate example of where clause 5AC would be necessary is the situation that arose when the Hon Georgina te Heuheu became a member of Parliament. Those are personal circumstances that would mean she would have to stand down, and which would require a replacement to be made.

I was previously dealing with clause 5AD, and talking about whether the chairperson should be another panel member who is appointed to take that role, if he or she does not have the requisite period of 7 years of legal practice. To balance that, the role of the presiding officer is largely a chairmanship role. That is its distinctive function. It is important that the person who takes on that role is able to bring the skills to look at correct judicial procedure, natural justice principles, and rules of evidence, and that the person has the sort of training that lawyers have in order to conduct the hearing fairly. It is no more important for the presiding officer to have knowledge of what has been going on in the hearing than any other member placed in the situation. On balance, I think it is important for the replacement chairman to have those skills. I therefore support the select committee’s decision to recommend that that clause be struck out, so that the chairperson needs to have legal training; that is the correct way to go.

In looking at Part 2, and at the changes to the references there, I note that the National Party has objected to it on the basis that it believes that Te Māngai Pāho should be accountable to the Minister of Broadcasting. That is totally irrelevant to those changes, because it is a legitimate decision of the Government. It is the Government’s prerogative to make that decision. The situation we face is that, in its powers, the Government has agreed that responsibility for Te Māngai Pāho should pass to the Minister of Māori Affairs. That having been done, the clause then makes for a bit of a nonsense, because it states that the Minister—that is the Minister of Māori Affairs—must consult the Minister of Māori Affairs.

My only concern is that that may be so for the current situation, but a future Government may decide to change that in some other fashion. I would have preferred to see an amendment that said something to the effect that, where the responsible Minister is not the Minister of Māori Affairs, then the Minister shall consult the Minister of Māori Affairs. That would have left open the option to allow another Minister to take part, while still having to consult the Minister of Māori Affairs. As we now have the clause, if Te Māngai Pāho went back to the Minister of Broadcasting, he could exercise his discretion without any consultation with the Minister of Māori Affairs, and I am not sure that that is really desirable or something that ought to be encouraged.

That is really the only comment I have to make on that. The legislation will provide a remedy for the immediate future for what would have been a strange situation, with a Minister consulting himself or herself. I just caution that any change will mean that we may have to include those clauses again in a fashion that is hopefully a bit more flexible.

Despite Part 3 being a very brief provision, I believe that it is very significant. I am a little concerned with it, because I do not think it goes far enough in increasing the number of fishing licences for Ngāti Tuwharetoa from 50 to 200. One could say that that is a 400 percent increase, but if one bears in mind that there has been no increase since 1926, one sees that it is an increase of only 5 percent per year. I note that in 1926 a total of approximately 4,900 licences were issued. In the 2000-01 figures from the Department of Conservation, there were 74,293 general licences issued, which is a general increase of 1,500 percent, or an increase of 20 percent per annum. When there are already 74,000 licences, increasing the licences of Ngāti Tuwharetoa from 50 to 200, that is a drop in the bucket—it is only 0.27 percent of the overall number of licences. If we took it on the basis of Māori population, the closest I could get was in 1926, when there were apparently 1,104 Māori in Taupo county. In 1996 it was stated that there were 28,998 Ngāti Tuwharetoa, which is a 2,600 percent increase in the approximate number of Māori.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee is about to begin the “Corngate” inquiry, but I think the cloning process has already started, because on my left over here I heard someone speak for the Government. I was wondering what the Minister thinks of that. I do not accept any comment made by a person who earlier stated in the debate that resolution was more important than natural justice as an all-encompassing authority. I therefore stand to ask the Minister to clarify the exact intention of the second schedule. If it is as the member stated in his personal interpretation of it, then some parts are superfluous—notably clause 5AC(3).

Last of all, I repeat the question raised by the ACT party, in asking what the exact intention of clause 5AC(4) is. Is it retrospectively about a subjective comment made by a full member of the tribunal? Is it in regard to an officer of the tribunal? I want to know exactly what it is. Before the debate on the Committee stage ceases, the Minister should clearly state what he thought this bill means in regard to the future of the tribunal.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): I look forward to the Minister getting some serious advice over the lunch break and coming back and telling this Committee what the law is. We are not interested in what the select committee envisages, or what it thinks this legislation does; we are interested in what this law actually is. I am not very interested in Mr Murray Smith’s thinking in regard to what the law might be. It is very clear. Clause 5AA gives a chairperson the power to appoint a replacement. Clause 5AC says the replacement can be made according to the chairperson’s opinion of the person’s personal circumstances. It has to be wrong that a chairperson who is halfway through an inquiry can replace a person who does not want to leave. For everyone who is sitting there thinking that that absolutely cannot happen, I say it can. A simple matter of drafting could allow people a way round that. All the panel member needs is the ability to resign from the panel—not the tribunal—for the purposes of the inquiry, and if that person decides to resign, he or she can get the chairperson to appoint a replacement.

As it stands, the chairperson has the power to replace a person against his or her will, and that has to be wrong. Given what Mr Murray Smith is saying, what would be wrong with making a quick drafting change to say that if a person’s personal circumstances are such that he or she chooses to resign from the panel, the chairperson may appoint a replacement? I ask the Minister to please get some advice on that over the lunch break, and to come back while we are still in the Committee stage, and let us settle this matter.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

RODNEY HIDE: I thank members of Parliament, because I think we are getting to a position where we understand we have a problem. The problem is to do with section 5AA in clause 5, which relates to the chairperson’s discretion in appointing a replacement officer because of a person’s personal circumstances. I think that it is a growing concern in Parliament about just what the scope of that discretion could be. The Leader of the House has foreshadowed that there may be a change, and we are interested in that.

I just make the point that the first difficulty we are dealing with is that the cases before the tribunal are taking so long. Is Parliament satisfied that cases that started in 1991 have not been reported on? Is Mahara Okeroa saying that he is satisfied? This is a huge problem. Just allowing people to be placed on the panel is not necessarily the best solution, because we will have a situation with this fix—and this is why we oppose the bill—that people could be reporting on a case when they did not hear the evidence. That cannot be right, so I think we need to look at the first problem and try to speed up the process.

We also have a problem with clause 5AC(3), which refers to an adequate record of an inquiry. If there is an inadequate record of the inquiry, then the chairperson cannot replace anyone. I look to the Minister to explain what an inadequate record is. I know that my colleague Stephen Franks is busy drafting an amendment so that the chairperson cannot replace a person unless he or she resigns for personal reasons. I understand that one of the concerns is the nature of iwi and Māori connectedness. People can have connections in a roundabout way. That is a concern, and a person may choose not to go. Do we not then have to look at whom we are appointing to the Waitangi Tribunal in the first place? We have to ask ourselves, if we are to hold the Waitangi Tribunal in a position of respect should not the rules that apply to the Waitangi Tribunal also be the same rules that apply to every other quasi-judicial procedure? I look to Government members and to members who sat on the Māori Affairs Committee to give us some guidance. ACT members will take a further call on this matter, I am sure, because we are not happy with the thought that a chairperson could simply replace a member of a panel because in his or her opinion that member’s personal circumstances make him or her unfit to be on it. That discretion is too wide. In fact, it is unlimited, and it needs changing.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I am sorry I missed the debate before lunch, but I say that members have raised with me over lunch an issue surrounding this bill—an issue that has been alluded to by Mr Hide. I think the issue is a serious one that we do need to think about. It relates to the chairperson being able to remove a presiding officer because of issues of personal circumstances. The powers that exist in the bill are judicially reviewable, but they are judicially reviewable on the basis of a subjective test, because the removal occurs on the basis of the opinion of the chairperson. As members will be aware, a subjective test in that sort of case is quite difficult to apply, and it is difficult to overturn the decision made by the chairperson. In effect, one has to show that the decision made by the chairperson was totally unreasonable and not one that any reasonable person could have arrived at, taking all the circumstances into account.

The amendment proposed by Mr Franks gets us into another difficulty. If the consent of the presiding officer is required, then, ironically, it seems to me that the worst kind of circumstances could emerge. Very clearly, if somebody who should be stood down from a case in relation to his or her personal circumstances—they might include a conflict of interest or other personal circumstances—refuses to go and sits on the claim, that will then raise further doubts in the future about the validity of the decision that has been arrived at by the tribunal. The simple solution—and a Government amendment will be moved—is to simply remove from paragraph (c) of section 5AC(2) in clause 5 the words “in the opinion of the Chairperson”. That then means that if the power to remove the presiding officer is exercised by the chairperson and that decision is judicially reviewed, it is judicially reviewed on the basis of an objective test. In other words, it is judicially reviewed on the basis that reasonable tests have been applied about the nature of those personal circumstances. It cannot be exercised on the basis of whim, if one likes, by the chairperson—on the basis of a form of personal antipathy.

I think that amendment deals much better with the most likely kind of circumstances than does the amendment proposed by Mr Franks, which, ironically, is most likely to fail in the circumstance in which it is most needed, in terms of removing a person as the presiding officer over a claim. If Mr Franks thinks that through, he may come to that view. I have consulted parliamentary counsel on this matter. I understand that the Māori Affairs Committee at one stage did think of removing those words and of making the test an objective one. In my view it will be better to do so, in order to make it clear that the chairperson does not have the power to operate that capacity in a way that might be seen as arbitrary and unfair.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I support the proposed amendment from the Government to remove the words “in the opinion of the Chairperson”, but I do not believe it goes far enough to fix the problem that we have. If we go back to schedule 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act, we find that clause 1 provides: “Any member of the Tribunal whose term of office has expired or who has resigned from office shall, whether or not that member’s successor has come into office, continue in office for the purpose of completing any proceedings heard by the Tribunal before the expiry of the member’s term of office or the member’s resignation.” That gives the situation where a person may have resigned from the tribunal but nevertheless is required to sit on the tribunal until a particular matter has been dealt with. In those circumstances it is difficult to envisage a situation where there would be a vacancy, voluntarily, for the chairperson to fill.

Clause 2, “Vacation of office”, in that schedule allows a person to be removed from office for reasons of “inefficiency, inability to perform the functions of the office, neglect of duty, or misconduct, proved to the satisfaction of the Governor-General.” It seems to me that the powers of removal are already in the Act, but for clarification it is necessary for those powers of removal to be inserted into clause 5AA, which is inserted by clause 5 of the bill. That will make it clear that, effectively, the power to replace somebody by way of an appointment comes into play only in a situation where there has been a vacation of office under the provisions of the Act as they currently stand.

I will therefore move an amendment that would add to the words at the commencement of clause 5 the words: “Notwithstanding clause 1 …”. Clause 5AA(1) in clause 5 would then read: “For the purposes of an inquiry into a particular claim or other matter under section 5(1), the Chairperson may appoint another member of the Tribunal or a Judge of the Māori Land Court to replace a presiding officer or former presiding officer holding office under clause 5(1)(a)”, and would then have the following words added at the end: “whose office has been vacated pursuant to clause (2)”. That would make it clear that it is a power of appointment to replace somebody whose office has been vacated pursuant to clause 2 of schedule 2 of the Act as it currently stands. It would then be very clear that there is no power of replacement invested in the chairperson but simply that the chairperson has a power of appointment, which is what I believe the provision was intended to do. The same amendment would need to be made to clause 5AB inserted by clause 5 as well, because it has the same wording.

I will table my amendment, and members can consider it. I think it will remedy the deficiencies that we have had, but, as I said, I am quite happy with the Government’s proposed amendment to take out the discretionary provision “in the opinion of the Chairperson” so that it takes the subjective element out of the process.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): With all due respect to the Minister’s proposed amendment, it does not satisfy the concerns of the Green Party. Those concerns are primarily that the person who is being removed does not give his or her express consent to that. That amendment will not alter that. If the purpose of this clause is to prevent issues such as a conflict of interest, then that needs to be made explicit. I would have thought that there are already sufficient procedures in place for the tribunal to avoid making those kinds of mistakes when such situations occur.

My understanding of the purpose of this clause is that where there are personal circumstances that mean a person is unable to continue, in those circumstances he or she can be replaced by someone else, so that the claim can continue to be heard with some sense of natural justice. The amendment being put up by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen does not address that issue. In fact, it increases the uncertainty about the reasons that the person can be removed for. Those reasons need to be explicit if they are to do with anything like the inability of the person to perform because of a failure of performance, rather than personal circumstances.

Before I sit down, I just want to acknowledge the hard work, commitment, and endurance exhibited by two very special people who have had to sit through at least 10 minutes of this particularly arduous debate. I proclaim their “fabulosity” and acknowledge the honourable “Camp Leader” and “Camp Mother” who are in the gallery this afternoon.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I appreciate the fact that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen has taken this issue seriously. It is, indeed, a serious matter. When a person exercises a judicial function, whether a Waitangi Tribunal member, a disputes tribunal hearing officer or anyone else, the appearance and reality of independence is vital, and that person should not be subject to improper influence. Our concern about the wording of the proposed removal and replacement power is that it is simply inconsistent with principle.

We can appreciate the concern that if a person who is hearing a tribunal claim appears to have a conflict of interest, there should be a way of making sure that that does not continue. As I understood Mr Smith of United Future, he told us that there is a process for the removal of people by the Governor-General, which, of course, gives it the right degree of procedural seriousness. To consider that a person with a semi-judicial or judicial function has a conflict of interest is a matter that should be taken very seriously, indeed. It should not be open to the presiding officer or to the chair of the tribunal to exercise a power on that basis without that level of process. The alternative is that the chairman of the tribunal, in effect, could hold over the head of all members at any time their potential removal from a matter.

I am particularly concerned that the Government and the Hon Dr Michael Cullen thought that it would be sufficient to turn this into an objective test, by simply taking out the words “in the opinion of the Chairperson”. Firstly, the problem is that it cannot be anyone else’s opinion. With or without those words, it cannot be anyone other than the chairperson’s opinion unless the issue is taken to an external court that applies an independent judgment. So Dr Cullen’s amendment does not achieve the objective. Secondly, I am worried by Dr Cullen’s amendment because, in effect, he acknowledged our worst fears. He acknowledged that the words, “because of his or her personal circumstances” were intended for more than just illness, family pressure, or competing demands on a member’s time. That very amendment itself acknowledges that this provision is really intended to get rid of people who are sitting on a matter that the chair of the tribunal thinks it is inappropriate for them to sit on, and that they should not be there because they are not in a position to do a proper judicial job. If that is the concern, then we have a really serious issue that ought to be dealt with seriously. It should not be left as a matter of discretion.

The amendment I have moved would make it plain that another clause of that schedule would have to be used. The amendment I have moved simply means that the power is exercisable where members have the sort of circumstances that mean they cannot apply their mind to an issue. They may have family pressures or other pressures, and they agree that they should come off the panel. It does no more and no less than that.

Dr Michael Cullen suggested that we have a more serious problem: a standing problem of potential conflicts of interest that the tribunal members will not recognise or acknowledge. If that is a standing problem, then it needs a proper procedure to deal with it. If that is a standing problem, it needs an amendment. I am sure the Committee will be quite happy to see this bill reported back without concluding the Committee stage, so that we actually have a proper process for dealing with that. At the moment all that the Minister has said confirms the original concern that the words “his or her personal circumstances” were code words for dealing with potential outcomes or influences on the decision that the chair considers improper or does not want to see advanced.

When I add to that the fact that I am afraid that clause 5AC(4) in clause 5 makes the measure retrospective, I am even more concerned. That retrospectivity tells us that the chairman of the tribunal perhaps has concerns right now that there are people who should not be sitting on matters because of problems, that this power is needed urgently to get rid of them, and that that is intended to happen without their consent. If that is our concern, and if those people cannot recognise a conflict of interest when it stares them in the face—and, indeed, there has been concern that the chairman of the tribunal himself has been a bit slow to recognise such conflicts—then that should be dealt with by something more than simply making this measure more objective.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): The Māori Affairs Committee went very carefully into that issue. Issues of conflict of interest were not the only issues dealt with under the heading of personal circumstances. There may well be other issues that might come into play. Mr Franks’ argument is actually a very strange one. What he is really saying is: “if in some way a mistake has been made in an appointment.”, and I think that that is actually drawing things far too far. Members should remember that the initial appointment is to the tribunal. What we are talking about in this context is a panel for a particular case. It is very important not to confuse those two things. A person may be a perfectly proper person to be appointed to the tribunal, but circumstances might emerge, for whatever reason, which means that he or she is not the most suitable person to be on the panel for that particular case.

Stephen Franks: What would be an example?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I could take an extreme example—that is, if the person was going to be overseas for the next 6 months and there is some urgency about the case being dealt with.

Stephen Franks: Then they’ll concede.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, they might not concede. That is the point. Mr Franks is assuming that for some reason everybody will act perfectly reasonably. If I were to base my management of the House on that, then I would have to point out that the ACT party nearly always acts unreasonably in terms of House procedures. I have yet to get, ever, anything reasonable through the consent of the ACT party in terms of sensible procedures in this House. We are going to finish the business that the Government wants to do before 6 o’clock tomorrow, and I offered, if we did that, to have question time, and ACT was the only party that turned it down. We will end up doing exactly what we wanted to do anyway, and the Opposition has denied itself question time—and the National Party was very keen to have question time. It was only ACT that turned it down. Mr Franks, an ACT member, has said that he assumes everybody acts reasonably in all reasonable circumstances. I have to say that he and his party members are not models of that kind of behaviour on anything that I have seen around this place. They are classic examples of cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

The notion that circumstances might arise where anybody would see it as reasonable to stand aside is to ignore the fact that one does need a reserve power in these cases to ensure that the case is properly dealt with, and that is applying to the panel. We have said that if somebody is going to be removed, then it should not be subject simply to the opinion of the chairperson about those circumstances; it should be capable of being tested objectively that the removal is for reasonable cause, which is why we have proposed the amendment to remove the words, “in the opinion of the Chairperson”. It turns the test from a subjective to an objective test.

Regarding the amendment moved by United Future, the point there, as I understand it, is that the removal is simply about being on a panel; it has nothing to do with removal from the tribunal. The matters that the member referred to, relate to membership of the tribunal, not membership of a panel. I think that, to some extent, he is jumping at shadows by being concerned that the ability to remove from a panel is not clear in the bill as it stands. The advice I have is that that power is clear and is implicit in the replacement powers referred to in the bill itself. I think that issue has been gone over fairly clearly and everybody is reasonably happy with that situation.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): We have come a long way since this morning with regard to the issues. Mr Cullen has expressed an opinion with regard to the subjectivity, and a passing remark would be that wherever one is able to exercise that—wherever there was discretionary power—one would expect that the circumstances would be legally defined and strictly expressed in legal language. But we will not hold that part of the bill up at this stage. Therefore, on behalf of New Zealand First, I say that this is an improvement. It gets to what we were thinking about this morning. Again, just in passing, I say that it is very unfortunate that the exit from this tribunal, which is a semi-judicial one, is possibly different from that of any judicial body, such as the High Court. It is just a wee bit unfortunate, at this late stage, that the alternative exit will more clearly define the exit pathway, although reviewable, and was not the original basis of this part of the bill. But we will support the intention and thrust of Dr Cullen’s suggestion.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): We have actually had quite an interesting development today. When we started out—and I appreciate Dr Cullen’s “upfrontness” on this issue—we were attacked from all sides when we said that this clause gave the chairperson the power to replace a person on a panel. We heard from various members of the House who had actually sat on the Māori Affairs Committee. They said that that is not what was envisaged. The ACT party pointed out that what is envisaged and what the law says are actually different things. We have now heard the Hon Dr Michael Cullen explain that, yes, this clause—and I want members to be very clear about what they are voting on; and I am looking at the Hon Dr Michael Cullen in case I get it wrong—gives the chairperson the power to replace a member of the Waitangi Tribunal from a panel halfway through an inquiry, and carry on the inquiry.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: On reasonable grounds.

RODNEY HIDE: Yes. At the present stage, that can happen simply because of the opinion of the chairperson. It can happen if the chairperson thinks there is a reason in the person’s personal circumstances. So anything could do. A member cannot be replaced from the tribunal, but he or she certainly can be replaced from the panel halfway through an inquiry. I ask members to picture it. People go before the Waitangi Tribunal panel and present their evidence. Then the chairperson changes one of the people on the panel—and they write the report but they did not hear the evidence. As it stands, the provision gives the chairperson the power to do that, and I also think that the Hon Michael Cullen is saying that it is virtually un-reviewable. It is simply a matter of the opinion of the chairperson. No judge can look at that and say: “We contest that opinion.” So now the Government is saying that it will change that, take out the phrase: “in the opinion of the Chairperson”, and give it an objective test as to whether that is reasonable. Is that the way we want to conduct judicial affairs in this country? Do we want a situation where a panel member, after 5 years of sitting down and hearing a case, is told by the chairperson: “I am going to replace you with someone else from the tribunal, and if you don’t like it, you can go for a judicial review on whether what I am doing is reasonable.”? Most people would say that that is a kangaroo court, that it is monkey business, and that they do not want to be a party to it. They certainly do not want those quasi-judicial officers to seek a judicial review on their sacking. So before lunch we suggested an amendment—and I think my colleague Mr Franks has drafted it—to the effect that the person has to choose to resign from the panel. So the power would be in their hands as judicial officers—it would not be in the hands of the chairperson to sack them.

Then we heard from Michael Cullen. I do not think I am doing him a disservice, because I do not think that select committee members understood this point. He said: “But we want the chairperson to have the power to sack a person from the panel.” That is what the Minister said. My goodness me! Was it really? The reason is that Māori interconnectedness is special and there can be conflicts of interest that a person does not recognise. If that is the case, what about the conflict of interest of the chairperson who is not even sitting on the panel? So he or she can replace someone, and the only defence in this process is that the person replaced can seek a judicial review. That is wrong as a matter of principle and judicial operation. We say that if the chairperson is to have the ability to sack a panel member, then the reasons should be stated. Let us require the chairpersons to get from this Parliament the guidance they will need, because, otherwise, it looks as though we are up to monkey business in this Parliament today.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I agree with Rodney Hide in terms of the inappropriateness of having a chairperson who is able to replace a member of the panel. The amendment I proposed led back to schedule 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. Under that schedule, vacation of office was on the basis of certain things that had to be proved to the satisfaction of the Governor-General—that is, at the point of highest office. I accept Mr Cullen’s comments that, effectively, what my amendment does is clarify a permanent vacancy, namely, someone who has resigned from the tribunal as a whole, rather than from a particular case. I do not see, from what I have heard so far, that the Māori Affairs Committee in fact intended or considered what the mechanism should be in a situation where somebody wants to resign from only one hearing but wants to continue to act as a tribunal member otherwise. That needs some careful consideration.

Given that the principal Act states that the Governor-General has the power to remove somebody from office—and I think that is appropriate—I do not think that we should then say: “No, but if a chairman wants to take somebody off a particular hearing, the chairman can have that discretion.” I think that is fraught with the potential for huge abuse. Even if we take the words, “in the opinion of the Chairperson” out, the provisions are still so broad—and I supported their breadth—that the chairman is allowed far, far too much discretion to do that. My amendment would make it clear that what we are talking about is a permanent removal, and that if there is going to be a removal for only one hearing, then that is a matter that should now be addressed by a separate amendment to the bill—because we are so far down the track—in order to clarify that point. So, from that point of view, I think that we should leave the Act as it is. I note that the Government has not tried to clarify its position, but we have had enough debate today to know that new clause 5AA(1), which clause 5 inserts into the second schedule, is ambiguous. We cannot agree on it amongst ourselves—I still do not agree that that provision is necessarily a power to replace. So if we leave the bill without that being clarified—as my amendment does, albeit that it does not do the job the Government wants to do—what will happen? This will inevitably go to court, because somebody will be removed by the chairperson, and that action will have to be challenged in court. In my view, the way the court will interpret that is to say that if there is no specific power to remove—there is a power to appoint in order to replace; it does not say removal—then that should be construed quite strictly so that, effectively, there is only a power of appointment.

I believe that the courts, faced with a dilemma of ambiguity that this House has thrown at them, will say: “Well, it is ambiguous; it is not clear. Therefore we are going to construe it in favour of the person who is objecting to the fact that they have been removed from the tribunal, and we will construe it strictly to say that it is only an appointment and is not a removal.” I do not think it is a good idea for this Committee to be passing legislation that is ambiguous, leaves people in no-man’s-land then leaves a situation where there will be conflict in court about the situation.

My amendment succeeds in clarifying that matter, and that is what we should do in the interim. Then if there is going to be a discussion and amendment about how we get somebody off one panel, and who should make that decision, that should be considered as a separate issue when we have a bit more time to debate those issues and look at the ramifications in terms of authority. I think we are heading down a dangerous road. The Act as it stands—if it is left as it is—will effectively contain a whole lot of ambiguity, which the courts will have to resolve. It is a real mess. At least my amendment clarifies that issue of permanent removals and would allow us to address the other issues on another day when we have a little more time and are not in a rush, as we are at the moment.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Murray Smith to clause 5 be agreed to:

to amend new clause 5AA by inserting, before the words “For the purposes of an inquiry”, the words “Notwithstanding clause 1”; and

to amend new clause 5AA by adding the words “, whose office has been vacated pursuant to clause 2”.

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

Ayes 16

Noes 101

Amendments not agreed to.

ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Murray Smith to clause 5 be agreed to:

to amend new clause 5AB by inserting, before the words “For the purposes of an inquiry”, the words “Notwithstanding clause 1”; and

to amend new clause 5AB by adding the words “, whose office has been vacated pursuant to clause 2”.

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

Ayes 16

Noes 101

Amendments not agreed to.

ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 5 be agreed to:

to amend new clause 5AC by inserting in subclause (2), before the word “if”, the words “if the presiding officer or member holding office under clause 5(1) consents, and”.

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

Ayes 25

Noes 92

Amendment not agreed to.

ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 76 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia to clause 5, and the following amendment to clause 5AC, be agreed to:

to amend new clause 5AC by omitting from subclause (2)(c) the words “in the opinion of the Chairperson”.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 10 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 101

Noes 8

Clauses 1 to 10 as amended agreed to.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9;United Future 8.

ACT New Zealand 8.

Bills

The Committee divided the bill into the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill, the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, and the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 74.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Readings

Third Readings

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): I move, That the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill, the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, and the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Amendment Bill be now read a third time The Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) was introduced on 13 March 2002. The first reading debate commenced on 22 May 2002 and was completed on 10 September 2002. The bill was then referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration, and submissions were called for. After careful consideration of the bill as introduced and the submissions received, the select committee reported back on 3 March 2003, with one amendment to Part 1, the part relating to amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act.

Māori Purposes bills are used to give effect to amendments to existing legislation that relates to Māori affairs and various matters in respect of Māori land and property. Perhaps the most important of the amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act are those that give chairpersons certain powers. The first of those is the power to replace a presiding officer or other member of a tribunal, and we have been through the amendments here today.

Only one amendment was recommended by the select committee during its consideration of the bill as introduced. The intention of the amendment, which was unanimously adopted by the select committee, was to ensure that only a member of the tribunal who is a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of at least 7 years’ standing would be qualified for appointment as an acting presiding officer. The bill now clearly provides for this. The amendment means that the tribunal will always be presided over by either a judge, a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of at least 7 years’ standing. I acknowledge the efforts of all the select committee members and the guidance the committee has provided to the House. I extend my thanks to the members accordingly. The other amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act clarify the position regarding three inquiries in which membership changes have occurred, namely the Hauraki, Kaipara, and Wellington inquiries.

The second Act amended is the Broadcasting Act. This amendment provides for technical amendments to accommodate the transfer of responsibilities for Māori broadcasting policy from the Minister of Broadcasting to the Minister of Māori Affairs.

The third Act amended is the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Claims Adjustment Act. The amendment to this Act increases the number of fishing licences to which Ngāti Tuwharetoa are statutorily entitled from 50 to 200. The current entitlement to 50 licences was set in 1926, when the Act was passed. I am pleased to move the third readings of the three bills. I commend the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill, the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, and the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Amendment Bill to the House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): It is a bit of a relief to see this bill coming through and finally passing into law. I want to reiterate something I said earlier about an underlying issue that sits in behind these changes, particularly in terms of the validation of the three particular inquiries. It is the issue of a lack of resourcing and proper support for the Waitangi Tribunal, which has a huge job, as we all know, with a mountain of claims before it. Certainly, the tribunal has streamlined its processes, although that new streamlining is now being tested, and we will see whether it proves to have a positive outcome. But the tribunal has an enormous job to plough its way through the claims that sit before it.

Although both the previous Government and this Government sit ready and waiting to negotiate claims, trying to encourage claimants not to go through the tribunal process, the reality is that it is like the old saying—everybody wants his or her day in court. In the end, having waited over 160 years to get some justice for actions they consider to be totally unjust, it is a long shot to think that the majority of tribal claimants from around the country would come straight into negotiations. So there is an issue that underpins, or acts as a backdrop to these changes. It is this issue about a judicial forum of this country that has a big job to do—a big job for all New Zealanders—and is currently without the resourcing to do it.

In respect of the validation clauses in this bill, there will be one immediate effect at least, which will probably be a great relief to the presiding officer, Professor Gordon Orr, who sat on the tribunal hearing of the Wellington Tenths Trust claim. At the point of passage of this bill into law, he will probably feel he can release the Wellington Tenths Trust report that he has had waiting to be released for some time now. Hopefully, any disadvantage that the other two inquiries, Hauraki and Kaipara, have been under, through the necessity to replace members, is now removed. For the foreseeable future, we can see that, no matter how streamlined the tribunal processes are going to be, these claims will still take some time to come through, so there is provision to replace members in certain cases as well. It is a relief, I think, to have this come through.

We had a discussion during the Committee stage about when and how the powers of the chairperson should be exercised. The points raised by various members of the House were valid. They were issues that were certainly looked at by the select committee. The Government has moved to get over some perceived difficulties. On balance, it is absolutely proper that this House makes sure that there are checks and balances to ensure there is no abuse of powers. That is a big part of our job in the House. But generally speaking, the amendments that are being made to the Treaty of Waitangi Act are made in the context of the effective operation of the tribunal, to ensure ongoing and functional panels, to prevent the possibility of an inquiry having to start again, and to avert the potential for significant extra cost being incurred by both claimants and the Crown.

I make no comment on the other two bills. I just say that I am pleased that these changes regarding the Waitangi Tribunal have now been made and are about to pass into law.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First): New Zealand First’s views on supporting this bill and the amendments that have been accepted have been expressed in the discussions that have taken place in the House today. New Zealand First recommends that the bill move ahead from where we are today and make further progress, so that tribunal activities in the future can be streamlined further.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I have already talked at length with regard to Part 1 in the second reading debate and the Committee debate. The only comment I want to make about that is that I believe clauses 5A and 5B are a real mess. Nevertheless, it was important that the bill go through so that the claims that are sitting around—the Hauraki claim, the Kaipara inquiry, and the Wellington Tenths inquiry—will get published and we can progress things. But I ask the House to mark my words that the first time somebody is removed from the tribunal without his or her consent and seeks to challenge it, we will find the Courts criticising this House for passing law that is ambiguous, that we cannot even agree upon among ourselves, and that we simply throw to them rather than fixing it now.

Moving on from there, I want to address Part 3, because it is quite important and its effect has been understated. It is worth going back to the part of the Act that it has sought to amend, which is section 14 of the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act. The provisions of that Act were a result of negotiations between the Crown and Ngāti Tuwharetoa. In particular, section 14 of that Act provided that for the purposes of giving effect to an agreement entered into under the provisions of section 29 of the Act: “(1) The bed of the lake known as Lake Taupo, and the bed of the Waikato River extending from Lake Taupo to and inclusive of the Huka Falls, together with the right to use the respective waters, are hereby declared to be the property of the Crown, freed and discharged from the Maori customary title (if any) or any other Maori freehold title thereto:”.

Lake Taupo and the Waikato River are in public ownership, and it was through the indulgence of Ngāti Tuwharetoa, who had legitimate claims concerning ownership of those bodies of water, that we are able to freely enjoy them. They are to be commended for that, even though it happened way back in 1926. The quid pro quo for them giving up those rights of ownership, which one must accept as being quite a substantial right, was, under section 2. It provided that “There shall be reserved to the members of the Tuwharetoa Tribe the right to fish for and catch for their own use any fish in the said lake that are indigenous to the said lake, but no such fish shall be sold except with the consent of the Board hereinafter mentioned”; and later, under section 9(c) of the Act, that “such members of the Tuwharetoa Tribe as are nominated by the Board hereinafter referred to shall be entitled to have issued to them, free of charge, licences to fish for imported fish in accordance with the regulations: provided that not more than 50 such licences shall be issued in any one year without the consent of the Governor-General in Council:”. It is that figure of 50 that we are now seeking to increase to the figure of 200.

At the time that the 50 licences were granted in 1926, the total number of licences in operation was 4,900, so that Tuwharetoa had 50 out of 4,900 licences. Today the Department of Conservation, in its 2000-01 provision of information, states that the current number of licences is 74,293—an increase of 1,500 percent—and Tuwharetoa have continued to have only 50 such licences. We are now looking to increase that to 200. It seems to me that if we had given Tuwharetoa a similar increase, they would be entitled to 1,300 licences today, being relative to the increase in general licences and in Tuwharetoa numbers, which have increased from an estimated 1,104 in 1926 to roughly 29,000 now.

Some have challenged whether customary rights are a power that can be enforced today, but this is not a customary right. It is important that the public understand that the right being granted today—the increase from 50 licences to 200—is not an increase in a customary right, but an increase in a statutory right. It is a right given to Tuwharetoa in return for them giving to the public of New Zealand as a whole, the whole of Lake Taupo and the Waikato River. I think we have done pretty well out of that deal.

The only concern I have relates to the comment made by the select committee in the commentary that the number of fish has decreased. I hope that the Department of Conservation and Tuwharetoa are working together to ensure that the indigenous fish population is environmentally sustained, and that whatever licences are given—and the number given generally obviously far outweighs what Tuwharetoa will use—they will not deplete the fishing resource further. I think it is important to take that into account. None of us wants to get into a situation whereby we are depleting our fisheries resources to the detriment of future generations. I therefore encourage Tuwharetoa and the Department of Conservation, insofar as they both have interests in the fishing resource, to work together to ensure that it is sustained.

I commend the legislation to the House. United Future will be supporting the third reading.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): The Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) had thorough debate during the Committee stage in a way I have not seen on a 3-page bill in the time I have been here. I believe that I correctly summarise the debate by saying that ACT suggested that there was something a little unusual about the chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal having the power to remove members of panels part way through a hearing, on grounds that were at his or her discretion, and which might turn on any circumstance that he or she thought was relevant, because none was defined. Then all around this Chamber, members who had apparently sat on the Māori Affairs Committee were saying: “No, that’s not what it says.” After a time it moved. United Future members were saying: “No, it doesn’t say that, because it doesn’t apply to removal; it only allows the appointment of extras.”—a bizarre interpretation if ever I have heard one. Other members started to have doubts, and eventually the Leader of the House, Dr Michael Cullen, proposed an amendment that would take out what are probably redundant words about the opinion of the chairperson of the tribunal and leave the provision otherwise as it stood.

The net effect is that of all the judicial bodies in New Zealand I am aware of, this would be the only one where a person who had been sitting on that panel could be removed by the chairperson of the panel after perhaps 6, 8, or 10 years of familiarity, because that chairperson had decided that it was not suitable for that person to render the decision. That is a disgrace to this House, to the tribunal, and to Māoridom. It is the bigotry of low expectations. Only in relation to Māori would this House be providing that people on an adjudicatory body, fulfilling judicial functions, could be removed by the chairperson of the panel, without any proof of misconduct, without any proof of unsuitability, indeed, without any proof of anything other than the undesirability in the chairperson’s eyes of the decision that was about to be released.

It is a deep convention in almost every rule-of-law country that judicial independence is protected by security of tenure. In most judicial areas, security of tenure means that the pressure to suck up, to curry favour, is removed by having no provision for reappointment. This tribunal does not have that right. Members do come up for reappointment, so there is already potential for Government pressure to procure tribunal decisions that the Government wants. Of course, that is not enough. Not only do we have the so-called streamlining that New Zealand First talked about—the streamlining of the tribunal by providing for members to be replaced in a hearing, which one would expect if they became sick, their family pressures got on top of them, or there was something else—but we now also have a position whereby streamlining has turned into sacking. That makes the tribunal the chairperson’s creature. It is a contemptible tribunal. It is an imputation on the mana of every member on it that amongst all the adjudicatory bodies, they are the only people who can be sacked halfway through. It is the only body about which I have ever heard the National Party and New Zealand First—both proponents of one law for all—say that that does not apply when it comes to a tribunal that is to adjudicate on Māori claims. When Māori claims are being heard, we do not have to have impartial tribunals, we do not have to avoid pressure from the Government, we can have anyone who is appointed—[Interruption]. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would appreciate—

Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry; I was diverted. I know what the member was going to say. I will now have silence.

STEPHEN FRANKS: The excuse used by United Future for voting for this legislation was that it wanted to rush it through, after telling us that the courts would not be able to understand it. Parliament should be embarrassed about that. The only apparent reason is that there is some urgency to finish early. In the course of this debate, the Leader of the House, who is also the Minister of Finance, told us that this urgency would finish early. He said business would be finished well before the time allotted.

Murray Smith: No, that is untrue.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Mr Smith, you are not the Minister of Finance.

Mr SPEAKER: Neither am I.

STEPHEN FRANKS: I was addressing Mr Smith, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The member can address only the Speaker.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Dr Cullen told this House that we were idiots, in effect, to be continuing to debate this provision when we could get home early. He said that we should not put it aside in the Committee stage and come back to it with a proper solution, because that might mean taking more time of the House, and we were going to finish urgency well before the planned time. Apparently, United Future thinks that is so urgent that it has to vote for this bill, even though it thinks it is damaging and against principle. Dr Cullen admitted that the purpose of this provision was to allow the sacking of members who did not want to go. He could not allow for consent, because they might not want to go. If they are not willing and able to recognise a conflict—which was his reason for saying that they needed to be removed—what are they doing on that tribunal?

There is a procedure in the second schedule to remove members who are unsuitable. It involves the Governor-General, as it should, to protect the independence of the tribunal, and here we had a senior Minister of the Crown saying that they might not consent. We had the National Party and New Zealand First going along with it, and only United Future, the Greens, and ACT saying that we should hang on a minute, because there was some deep constitutional issue, some question of individuals. The Greens voted for those amendments.

This provision confirms that the Waitangi Tribunal is not intended to be impartial—it can be a cabal of politically correct inventors of history. The “holocaust” was not just a flash in the pan; “holocaust” hyperbole is what this Government wants the chairperson of the tribunal to be able to perpetuate. This provision is a deliberate attack on the mana of each member of that tribunal. It means that when those members deliver a decision in future, they may well be suspected of having buckled to pressure—that if they did not deliver what the chairperson wanted, they could get the boot. That is what this Government, the National Party, and New Zealand First, have done to the Waitangi Tribunal. In future, if any of us think that a tribunal decision is wrong or a little puzzling, we can say that it was because its members were not impartial—that they were biased because they were afraid of losing their positions. That is exactly what this provision has done today.

We have an example. Dr Michael Bassett—competent, expert if anyone was, a Minister of the Government that produced the Waitangi Tribunal, with a deep understanding of the system—has been subject to a court application to remove him from a panel, and he was pressured to go from within that panel. What we have now is a bill that not only legitimises that practice but makes it systematic. In future, that can be done discreetly. Instead of having only three appointments to a panel in 9 or 11 years, any of those members can go on any panel until the chairperson of the tribunal decides that they are unwelcome, or that the line they are taking is not the official line, and then removes them. That is not only second rate; it is a kangaroo court.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Greens will support this bill in the third reading, but not with as much joy as we had hoped. This afternoon the debate gave credence to the very real concerns that the Greens raised in the select committee about the clause that gives the chairperson a broad discretion to remove members of the panel. We were concerned then that the power could be used to take people off the panel for such reasons as being considered unfit. We were assured in the select committee that that was not the purpose of this clause, although we were so concerned that we ensured there was a statement in the select committee report about it. I have been pleased that other parties in this House—ACT and United Future, in particular—have also taken up that issue.

It is a real concern that a senior Minister of the Labour Government is prepared to stand in this House and describe members of the tribunal as being entirely unreasonable—so unreasonable that they would not be able to perform their function and would have to be removed by a provision and a means that is not acceptable in any other court in this country. That is a clear demonstration of the deep lack of respect that senior members of the Labour caucus hold for Māori and for that Māori tribunal, which has an enormously important role in this country. That is a very real issue that the Māori caucus needs to take up with its members. It is not something that should be taken lightly. That tribunal is one of the few means by which Māori have any control over their claims and the discussion of them. Under no circumstance should we be allowing it to be so badly disrespected and undermined by the Government in terms of its standing as a semi-judicial body.

That said, we are concerned about the provisions of the bill in the sense that one of the primary reasons members need to be replaced is because the tribunal is so severely underfunded that it is not able to complete its hearing within a reasonable period of time. There is no doubt that the claims need time for preparation, and that they cannot happen as quickly as perhaps in other courts. Nonetheless, in our opinion the delays are almost entirely due to underfunding and under-resourcing. The Green Party supports increased resources for the Waitangi Tribunal, including adequate resources for claimants to prepare and present their cases, and the increased transparency and accountability of the tribunal in that frame.

As a result of underfunding and subsequent delays, and the changes in membership that occur over long periods of time, a number of claims are waiting to be completed. The Wellington Tenths is one that has been discussed, but there are other claims, such as the Wai 262 claim, and I just briefly want to discuss that claim. The claim was nearly completed last year, but could not be, due to difficulties that this bill will in some part remedy. Members from over seven iwi in this country, including my own Ngāti Kahungunu—of which I am very proud—lodged the Wai 262 claim in 1991. Essentially, the claim is that tino rangatiratanga incorporates decision-making authority regarding all the rights and responsibilities attaching to indigenous fauna and flora; that the Crown has consistently denied that authority, and that Crown actions are a continuing breach of iwi tino rangatiratanga over indigenous flora and fauna.

The claimants are seeking from the Crown resources to enable a proper consultation, so that an overarching framework for the protection and promotion of mātauranga Māori is developed, but which is premised on Tikanga Māori and not on the commodification and privatisation of intellectual property. It is an extensive claim, and it will have wide-ranging effects for all New Zealanders, particularly as its basic kaupapa does not rely principally on the principles of the treaty, but on the rights of Māori as tangata whenua in this country. This claim gives all of us—every New Zealander—the opportunity to reconsider the privatisation or propertarian model, and instead apply other values more appropriate to the protection, management, and conservation of our environment and our indigenous flora and fauna.

The Greens are particularly concerned that this claim is heard and finally reported on. For too long the importance of the indigenous peoples in the conservation of biological diversity has been undermined and ignored. The Greens are committed to tangata whenua as kaitiaki, and we welcome the application of indigenous values and kaitiakitanga to the conservation framework. In our view, it is only through cooperation between tangata whenua and the conservation movement that we will be able to truly restore and rebuild the treasure that is our collective natural heritage. In that respect, there is a significant connection between the environmental movement and tangata whenua—as long as kaitiakitanga is respected and becomes integral to the process. The rights of tangata whenua to control, manage, and develop mātauranga Māori must be recognised at both a Government and community level. The Greens look forward to the report on the Wai 262 claim, which will be enabled through the provisions of this bill. We are pleased that it will be completed sooner, rather than later.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South): Now we have heard it all, and I am very glad that those statements, made not by the previous speaker but by her predecessor, have been made. At election time, this Parliament and this country were told by the party that had zero tolerance on crime that it was going to be tough—the party that a couple of days ago could not find support even for the boy racer bill. But now that party has stood up in this House and expressed reservations about appointment procedures. That party that did a rort, did the expulsion deal—the non-expulsion deal—on one of its members so that it could hold on to $111,000 of parliamentary funds.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not relevant to this debate. There are three bills. I will put the question in three parts, as I promised.

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

Ayes 108

Noes 8

Bill read a third time.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

ACT New Zealand 8.

Broadcasting Amendment Bill read a third time.

Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Amendment Bill read a third time.

Voting

Correction

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The National Party wanted to vote one down on the last vote. Is it possible to correct that?

Mr SPEAKER: I will take the leave of the House. I am sure no one will object. Is there any objection? There is none. There will be one less vote recorded for the National Party, which will mean the result is the Ayes are 108, the Noes are 8.

Bills

Hop Industry Restructuring Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture): I move, That the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill be now read a second time. This bill facilitates the regulatory and structural reform of the New Zealand hop industry. It removes the New Zealand Hop Marketing Board’s single-desk powers to procure and export all New Zealand hop products and it restructures the board into a producer-owned cooperative company. The bill is consistent with the Government’s policy for producer-board reform. It is supported by all 26 hop producers and by the board itself, and is in the national interest. The bill will give producers the autonomy to raise capital and to make their own investment decisions in a contestable, commercial environment.

The Hop Industry Restructuring Bill was introduced into the House on 19 March 2002. It had its first reading on 1 October 2002, after which it was referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration. The committee received one written submission on the bill, which was from the Hop Marketing Board. The board gave its support for deregulation of the hop industry and restructuring as per the bill, subject to an amendment to the date of the restructuring day. The board’s preferred restructuring day, and the date specified in the bill, was 1 August 2002. However, that day had passed by the time the bill was referred to the select committee. The board proposed a new restructuring day of 1 August 2003, the first day of the board’s 2003-04 financial year, and that has been recommended by the committee.

I would like to thank the board for its support of this bill and for its constructive comments on it. I would also like to thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for their consideration of the bill and for the report tabled in Parliament on 4 December 2002. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National): As I start my contribution to the debate on the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill, I take the opportunity to congratulate that member both on his remarkable renaissance and on now agreeing to support yet another deregulation of a producer board.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Supported by the producers.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Absolutely, but I thought I would take the time to quote from Hansard, when we had a similar debate back in 1999. Mr Damien O’Connor said then that a blind ideology was driving the Government to deregulate producer boards. “Blind ideology”, the member said. He made comments like: “This will be the death knell of the dairy industry.” He said: “This legislation will lead to”—

Mr SPEAKER: This is about the hop industry, not the dairy industry. Would the speaker come to the point.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am outlining my congratulations to the member on supporting this bill and pointing out the remarkable change in the member’s own philosophy on producer board deregulation.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is perfectly entitled to do that, but not when referring to another industry. He must refer to this bill, which is the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill.

Hon DAVID CARTER: In referring to the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill, I want to again congratulate the member Damien O’Connor on his remarkable about-face since, only a couple of years ago, we last deregulated another producer board, the name of which I will not refer to in this particular debate. But I say to you, Mr Speaker, that I am thrilled that Damien O’Connor has matured so greatly and so remarkably in a relatively short period of time.

Of course, National whole-heartedly supports the deregulation of yet another industry that for too long has been shackled by legislation produced by this House. I was intrigued by the comment the Minister himself made, when he said: “This legislation gives the company power to raise capital and to make its own decisions.” I have no problem at all supporting legislation that gives an industry the power to establish a company, to look after its interests, to raise the capital that it then decides it requires, and, most important, as the Minister himself has said, to make its own decisions. The Minister also referred to the fact that there are only 26 hop producers in this country, so I guess, to be fair to the Minister, it was relatively easy for them to present a united position and to come to Parliament and ask to be unshackled from the burden of legislation. It is interesting that the industry has been able to make that move, and I support it whole-heartedly.

The other thing that should not be forgotten is the significance of the hop industry to New Zealand society. It is essential, clearly, in the brewing of beer, and it has had a remarkable impact on the social fabric of this country. Therefore, we must not underestimate its significance.

It is relatively easy in the hop industry to get a consensus position. There are 26 producers, as the Minister said. Of those producers, only one made a submission to the Primary Production Committee, and as I go through my notes, I see that the committee took just 38 minutes to consider that submission and the officials’ report, to deliberate, and to present the report-back to the House. It is with some regret—although I guess we are getting used to it—that yet again we have had to change the enactment date of legislation because of the Government being unable to present it earlier.

Paul Adams: Why not?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Why not? The Leader of the House would have to be asked, as well as the Associate Minister of Agriculture, who does not seem to appreciate the urgency with which those 26 hop growers have waited with baited breath for us finally to address their very valid concerns.

We have worked very hard. I do not intend to take too much more of the House’s time, except to congratulate the Minister on his renaissance. I am thrilled to see that he now realises the benefit of allowing producers to get on and do their own thing. May that renaissance live long and hard in the Labour Party philosophy. National, of course, supports the second reading of this bill.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): I congratulate the hop growers on forming a cooperative company to market their produce and to sell their hops.

I have just a couple of comments on the points made by the previous speaker. This is not the sort of structure that the previous National Government and the former Minister, the Hon John Luxton, would have suggested for this industry. This is a move to form a cooperative that retains the single seller in all but name. Why? Because it is the sensible thing to do in a small country like New Zealand when we are competing worldwide with other countries that are subsidised. This very small industry has done the sensible, pragmatic thing. This is not what was proposed by the previous National administration, and I congratulate the hop growers on doing what they have done. New Zealand First supports them in their endeavours. New Zealand First supports this bill and wishes the hop growers good luck, long life, and great wealth.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to support the second reading of the bill. To quote the secretary of the Hop Marketing Board: “The restructuring of the New Zealand hop industry is pretty much a non-event.” The industry has been waiting for this for 20 years. There was some initial reluctance to change, as the industry growers, all 26 of whom farm in the Nelson region, felt that the board gave them more protection than a limited cooperative company, but there is also recognition that the regulations the industry is working under are over 60 years old and are virtually unworkable in today’s climate.

The underlying objective of the bill is to enable the hop industry to position itself so that it can respond positively to the challenges of the international market. Whereas the shrinking domestic market once sent grower after grower into the red, these days about 90 percent of the annual hop crop is exported. However, it is worthwhile to remember that New Zealand’s annual crop represents less than 1 percent of the global total.

The old board structure is viewed by the industry as outmoded, and even a hindrance to innovation and entrepreneurship in the industry. The reforms are similar to the deregulation that has already taken place in the apple and pear industry and the dairy industry, though perhaps I should not mention those industries. The bill restructures the New Zealand Hop Marketing Board to create a cooperative company in its place, known as New Zealand Hop Marketers Ltd. As a matter of interest, the original marketing board was set up by a hop grower by the name of Keith Holyoake, which gives us some indication of how old this marketing board must be.

The basic day-to-day operation of the industry will not change, as everything currently under the board’s control will fall under the cooperative. Shares will be allocated to growers on the basis of production, rather than the current situation of one vote per grower. There will be no levies under the company. Instead, voluntary charges will be used to pay for industry-good items, like research, which it must be said is a very innovative approach.

The bill also liberalises the export and acquisition of hops and hop products. Under the Hop Marketing Regulations of 1939, the board is the mandatory sales agent for New Zealand hop growers. This bill removes the compulsory element and will encourage exporters to compete to export hops and hop products. Thus, growers and exporters will be able to arrange their own commercial activities as they see fit, since the export of hops will be part of the normal business environment. This has the advantage of removing the costs and requirements associated with the current regulatory system.

There will be some minor transitional costs involved in the registration of the new company. However, unlike the restructuring of the kiwifruit industry in 1999, the proposed restructuring of the hop industry does not require a restructuring plan or a referendum, because hop producers unanimously support the proposal. This saves some costs for the board in seeking the consent of growers.

The committee received only one submission, from the board itself. Not surprisingly, it was in support of the restructuring. Anyone who heard the first reading debate on this bill would have witnessed Labour and National MPs arguing about whether the Government had changed its view on the deregulation of industries like hop production. We were not disappointed today, when previous speakers sought to raise this point yet again. United Future, however, thinks that the most important thing is to ensure that when industries seek to improve the way in which they operate, they should be fully supported by the Government, whatever their ideological stripe. After all, that is the common-sense position. United Future supports the recommendations of the select committee, and supports the second reading of this bill.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ): Along with my colleagues I take some considerable delight in welcoming this bill back to the House for its second reading. Indeed, I will remark on the fact that on occasions we do have unanimity, but on this particular occasion there is a large degree of unanimity about the need for deregulation of what was once a producer board—an absolute creature of Government. The previous speaker referred to 1939 as the year when the Hop Marketing Regulations first came through. That was over 60 years ago. It has taken a while but we have finally got here, and I am delighted to see it.

I will take a moment to reflect on the fact that this marketing board was a direct creature of Government. It was a creature of a former Prime Minister, Mr Palmer, and also of Mr Caygill, who decided in 1989 that they were going to get rid of these quangos, as they saw them to be at that time. In fact, what happened was that they left the hop board, and indeed the raspberry board, and got rid of a heap of other quangos. But in getting rid of them, they also gave us commissions for everything else but. That is just a little bit of history. However, I think it is also worth reflecting that the hop board did a very good job in that early stage.

I do not want to upset my Green colleague too much, but it was the hop board that ensured the genetic modification of hops and that is not disputed. I am sure that the next time Mr Ewen-Street gets his jaw around a tankard of high-frothing beer he will reflect on the fact that that small grouping of people, under the auspices of the board, genetically modified hops to ensure they became a high-yielding alpha resin. I think it was through the then Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, but I do not have the particular date. Those who are interested in beer, and I am sure that most people in this House are at some stage, would find that very interesting and a sign of the future as well, once we get past this fetish about genetic modification.

As I said earlier, the Hop Marketing Board has run its course. It was a completely unanimous decision of all the members of the select committee, not to mention the members of the hop growing board who decided that the board was no longer appropriate. I take issue with Mr Doug Woolerton, and I regret having to do so, but this is clearly not just some hybrid, single-marketing board. I draw the member’s attention to the commentary on the bill, which states that the bill removes that compulsory element and gives growers the commercial choice of marketer and exporter. No single desk gives a commercial choice of marketer and exporter. Along with Mr David Carter, I applaud the good work of Mr Damien O’Connor in ensuring that the hop industry has reached this new 21st century.

In fact, from what I hear, the industry has a very exciting future. It has the control of its own destiny. It is not relying on Government; nor is it relying on Government to wipe out the $26,500 that it asked for. It is appropriate that the new cooperative—once it becomes so—will be standing on its own two feet. It will find that $26,500 and can say that it is truly an entity it can be proud of—not having to rely on Government, but on itself.

It is really encouraging to hear the ACT party’s philosophy, which has been vilified for so long in this House—and I pay tribute again to my colleague Owen Jennings who pointed out to this House many, many years ago, when I was a mere farmer from Coal Creek, the futility of having statute-controlled producer boards. We still have a few relics to my right. However, it is nice to see that the majority of this House understands that deregulation equates to individual responsibility, and indeed, collective responsibility, if the growers so wish.

I am not about to tell growers that they should not be in a cooperative and that they should be in some other arrangement. If they wish to be in a cooperative, selling their hops, that is absolutely wonderful. I am a member of some other cooperatives in terms of my farming career and selling my products, so I understand how cooperatives work.

It is important to see in the commentary on the bill that the select committee did ask the board to address subsequent shareholding changes to ensure that the industry is indeed very, very well structured. This is so that the industry can progress and not have a run on capital, for example, if others decide to leave the industry, which can happen in a cooperative. It is not a perfect answer, but it is certainly a lot better than a single-desk structure where statute demands not performance, but just this thing called accountability. With every industry, whether it be the hop industry or any other in this country, we demand of ourselves and of our industry a thing called performance, not just accountability. With those few words, I certainly welcome the passage of this bill and commend it to the House.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green): I would like to take a very short call in this debate. I will start by congratulating the hop industry, and sharing my sympathy with it for the time it has spent waiting so patiently for this day to arrive. I also take issue, again, with my colleague the “member for Upper Coal Creek”, Mr Eckhoff, who talked about genetically engineered hops.

Gerrard Eckhoff: Genetically modified hops.

IAN EWEN-STREET: There are no genetically engineered hops in New Zealand. There is a difference between genetic engineering, and selective breeding and hybridisation. They are different concepts. It is quite simple. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member may interject if he wants to, but he should move out of that quarter.

IAN EWEN-STREET: In terms of the passage of this bill through the select committee, as other members have said, we were unanimous—finally. However, I did raise with my colleagues the question of ownership of the shares of that cooperative company. In the end we decided that we would not change the legislation to impose a limit of shareholdings on individual members or the cooperative, but it would be of benefit to the hop industry as a whole to bear in mind the example of what happened to ENZA, formerly the Apple and Pear Marketing Board. When that was privatised and corporatised—

Hon David Carter: Are you mounting a takeover?

IAN EWEN-STREET: There was a takeover. There was a maximum holding of 19 percent, and people assumed that any company that had a maximum holding of 19 percent would not be able to take control of what was a monopolistic export body. However, history has shown that two companies got together 38 percent of the votes and took a controlling interest in ENZA, to the very great disadvantage of the members.

I suggest to members of the hop industry that in the immediate future they set their own regulations to limit the number of shares that anyone, or any group of owners, can have. The cooperative structure obviously is very powerful, but if one allows an organisation, a corporate, or any individual to take control of the industry, it will be to the disadvantage of everyone else.

I commend this bill to the House, and look forward to the third reading in the near future.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): I know there are some wine buffs in this House. I confess to being a beer buff. The hops that are produced by the hop industry in the Nelson region go to the core of some of the best-quality beers in the world, and this Parliament should be proud of the producers of those hops and of the quite unique industry that exists in the Nelson region to support that international reputation.

I shall make a few comments about the bill, because it brings with it a huge irony. So many of the agricultural debates that we have had in this Parliament over the last decade have been about marketing structures. It seems extraordinary to me that just 6 years ago, when we had the first of those debates about single-desk selling, they were like a political mantra; they were an absolute. In fact, I shall repeat to the Minister who sponsors this bill—Mr Damien O’Connor, whose name is on the front of the bill—what he said about those who opposed single-desk selling. He said that they were traitors. He said that there were traitors in this Parliament who opposed single-desk selling. I shall quote the Minister. He said: “And these traitors will one day attempt to deregulate the hop industry.”

Hon Damien O'Connor: Who was that?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Damien O’Connor said those words. Now I have in front of me a bill that is in the charge of the Hon Damien O’Connor. What is honourable about saying in this Parliament that others who talk about deregulating the hop industry are traitors? When Mr O’Connor says that, it is OK. Would Mr O’Connor like to provide some explanation?

Hon Damien O'Connor: Yes, happy to.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Will the member provide an explanation?

Hon Damien O'Connor: I’ll do it during the third reading.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I hope he does. I also think that he owes the House an apology. Effectively, what we see in the House today, which is unanimous support for the bill, is that National won the argument. So well have we won the argument that even—[Interruption] Can that new young member from Kapiti explain for me why members of the Labour Party said that anybody who wanted to dismantle a single-desk selling operation was a traitor? The word “traitor” is the strongest word one could possibly use. It is the strongest argument one could make. On our criminal law books, being a traitor is the strongest offence one can commit against one’s country. Yet members of the Labour Party accused members of National of being traitors because they dared to suggest deregulation and the free market. Mr O’Connor owes the House an explanation. I also remind him that he stood at the top of Trafalgar Street and said that the Labour Party stood for single-desk selling.

David Benson-Pope: Does that member support this bill?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I do support this bill.

Clayton Cosgrove: What about the numbers man?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We always know when Labour does not want to debate the issues. I want to know from Mr Benson-Pope why Mr O’Connor stood at the top of Trafalgar Street and said that Labour stood for single-desk selling. He said that Labour is a cooperative party, and it wanted single-desk selling. Now, as a Minister of the Crown, he says the opposite. I think the House is owed an explanation.

If he is going to flip-flop on that, what other things can we believe about anything that Damien O’Connor and members of the Labour Party stand for? If he can flip-flop on that, what else is he going to flip-flop on? I have heard the pathetic explanation from Mr O’Connor. He said: “Oh, the difference is because, in this case, the hop industry wants it.” Well, if that is the case, why did Mr O’Connor not stand at the top of Trafalgar Street during the apple industry restructuring and say: “It is not that we are in favour of single-desk selling; it is just that we believe it should be for the industry to decide.”? But that is not what the Minister said, and if that is the case, when we debated the apple and pear restructuring legislation in 1999, why did you accuse Mr Luxton—

Mr SPEAKER: I did not do anything. The member will come back to the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I ask the member opposite, Mr Damien O’Connor, who is in charge of the bill—and this issue is at a the core of it—why it is that when Mr John Luxton debated single-desk selling being changed in 1999 he was accused of being a traitor but now, when Mr O’Connor does it, it is different?

Hon David Carter: It will be the “Maharey principle”.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think it is indeed, and I am pleased we have Mr Maharey here. I think it is the “Maharey principle”—saying one thing when in Opposition, and doing exactly the opposite in Government. I say that that is a complete abrogation of integrity. Then we heard from my colleague Mr Doug Woolerton. He said: “Oh, the reason New Zealand First has changed its position is because this is different.” Well, I have to say to the member that this is deregulation in every sense of the word.

R Doug Woolerton: This is not the model you proposed, and you know it very, very well. They know it is different.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What is the difference?

R Doug Woolerton: Every difference in the world—and that just shows the stupidity of you guys.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Mr Woolerton needs to explain to the House why it is, when it comes to other areas, that New Zealand First members have taken a completely different point of view. They flip-flop all over the place. There is no consistency at all in their position. This bill says that it is for ever more the decision of hop growers as to how they are to structure themselves. It is a complete deregulation of that industry, and it provides a sensible structure. I think that the credit for this must go to the previous National administration, because it set the agenda.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Aw!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr O’Connor argues against it when he is in Opposition, then does it as a Minister. I tell Mr O’Connor that I have not, in my 12 years in this Parliament, ever seen a Minister flip-flop so badly on what he said. I want some explanation as to why he criticised those who said that the removal of single-desk selling was appropriate to hops. I want to know why he said that in Opposition, and why there is now a bill in his name now that he is in Government.

Bill read a second time.

Procedure

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): Unanimity has broken out wildly around the House on this bill, and I want to say “cheers” to members who have made a speech. I seek leave, after my discussions with the whips of all the parties, to move directly to the third reading.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought accordingly. Is there any objection? There is not.

Third Reading

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture): I move, That the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill be now read a third time. This bill was introduced into the House on 19 March 2002. It had its first reading on 1 October 2002 and was referred to the Primary Production Committee on that day. The select committee amended the restructuring day as requested by the New Zealand Hop Marketing Board and reported the bill back to the House on 4 December 2002. The bill restructures the New Zealand Hop Marketing Board into a cooperative company—New Zealand Hop Marketers Ltd—and removes the regulatory controls on the domestic marketing and export of hops.

Hops are grown for the flavouring of beer—for those who do not know. New Zealand production is concentrated in the Nelson-Motueka district, and I am proud to say that about 90 percent of that is in the Tasman district in my electorate. Exports of around $8 million of hops and hop products go from New Zealand each year. The New Zealand Hop Marketing Board was established under the Hop Marketing Regulations in 1939 to coordinate the marketing of hops to breweries both in New Zealand and overseas. The regulations provide that the board is the sole agent of growers in the sale and export of New Zealand grown hops. Today the Hop Marketing Board is the only statutory single desk to retain domestic marketing powers, as pointed out by Mr Smith.

When the board was established the industry was predominantly domestically focused. Today over 80 percent of the annual production of New Zealand hops is exported. The current regulated structure of the New Zealand hop industry is outdated and out of step with the international trading environment for hops and hop products. The board sought the bill on behalf of hop growers to enable the hop industry to respond positively to the challenges of the international market. New Zealand accounts for just 0.6 percent of world production. The price of hops in New Zealand generally reflects the world price, and the worldwide demand for hops is dependent, of course, on beer consumption.

The bill means that the industry can be more flexible in responding to changes in consumer tastes, for example towards speciality beers. The removal of the single desk will improve market signals to growers, we trust.

Hops are unusual in that they are particularly sensitive to the latitude and climate in which they grow. Due to this latitudinal sensitivity, hops are grown in relatively few countries throughout the world, the majority of which are in the northern hemisphere. This enables New Zealand to provide out-of-season hops to the northern hemisphere. New Zealand has unique cultivars bred at the Riwaka research station that demand a premium in some markets. The bill enables growers to retain joint ownership with the Crown of these unique varieties, by transferring the board’s ownership rights in the cultivars to the grower-owned cooperative company.

There is a strong tradition and culture of cooperation and coordination within the New Zealand hop industry. The bill gives effect to the industry’s request for defining its ownership rights in the board, releases the board from the regulatory constraints imposed by the regulations and the two old Acts, and deregulates the sale and export of hops.

The difference in this Government’s approach to producer board deregulation is that we have responded to requests from the industry, not threatened the industry with deregulation, as did the last Government. We have delivered to the hop growers a cooperative structure, not forced on them a corporate structure, as the previous National Government did to ENZA. That is one of the key differences, and that is the reason I support this bill through the House. I wish the industry well in the restructuring of the board, and I am sure that it will do its best into the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National): The National Party, of course, supports the third reading of the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill and, in fact, will facilitate the Government’s progress today and make sure we complete the third reading as quickly as possible and save the particular member leading the debate any further embarrassment. The position the poor member finds himself in, whereby he has changed his point of view completely, has been outlined well in the House in the last half hour or so. But I want to take the opportunity of congratulating the member. He clearly acknowledges now that the damage that he threatened would occur to other industries that were deregulated has not occurred, and he is prepared to be mature enough to acknowledge that, and therefore see the benefit of now moving to also help the hop producers in New Zealand achieve greater wealth for themselves, and therefore for the country.

I guess in supporting the bill I just want to pick up on the latter comment of Damien O’Connor, and certainly the comments of Doug Woolerton in his second reading contribution. Doug Woolerton said that what we are doing here, in effect, is all but creating a producer board under another name.

R Doug Woolerton: I didn’t say that.

Hon DAVID CARTER: That is exactly what Doug Woolerton said, because I wrote his words down, word for word: it is all but creating a producer board under another name. He went on to say that that is not what National proposed. I say to the member that what we have here is exactly what National proposed. As Damien O’Connor has said, what we have here is the ability of the 26 hop growers to belong to a company that happens to be a cooperative company. This legislation does not force any of those hop growers to be part of that company—it is up to their free will, which is as it should be. If they decide they want to be part of that company, they have the ability to set the rules under which that company will operate. Again, I tell Mr Woolerton that that is how it should be. In other words, there is a huge amount of choice and flexibility available to the people who are involved in the industry.

It is nothing like what we have had in the past. I tell Mr Woolerton that it is certainly not a producer board in disguise. Mark my words: as this industry settles down and further develops, those producers will have the ability to remain in the company if it continues to produce results for them as individuals. If the company fails to do that, then I do not see any move by the producers that would cause them to be restrained by the cooperative company—the company will not be able to do that. I have little doubt that in an industry as small as this, which clearly is run in a cooperative way, with issues being debated amongst the 26 members—who, incidentally, are all confined to a very small region of New Zealand, which is the electorate of my colleague the Hon Nick Smith—the growers will arrive at the ability to make decisions and company rules that advance their particular case.

Finally, I question again Damien O’Connor’s earlier contribution. He said he would give the House the benefit of an explanation as to why this remarkable renaissance has occurred, and, if I understood his explanation, it is because the hop industry has matured and developed since 1999, and now exports about 80 percent of its product overseas. The reason Mr Damien O’Connor is now comfortable supporting the deregulation of the hop industry is that it has grown to a stage where it exports 80 percent of its produce overseas.

Hon Damien O'Connor: They have asked for it.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I accept that they have asked for it, but that is the explanation Mr Damien O’Connor gave. I remind the member that when he was so opposed to deregulation, calling members on this side of the House “traitors” for advancing the cause, we were dealing with the dairy industry, which, at that stage, exported in excess of 90 percent of its produce overseas. I leave it to the next speaker from the Labour Party to have a brief discussion with Damien O’Connor, to see whether that obvious inconsistency can be clarified for him.

Debate interrupted.

Bills

Social Workers Registration Bill

Instruction to Committee

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National): I seek the leave of the House for there to be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House that we have one wide-ranging debate on the Social Workers Registration Bill.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Leave is granted.

Bills

Hop Industry Restructuring Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to indicate our support for the third reading of this bill, and also to say how impressed we have been with the level of cooperation in the House this afternoon. It is absolutely stunning when a bill such as this, which is requested and supported by the hop growers, is given to the select committee with no contentious submissions, and is then put through the House with the kind of speed that we have seen this afternoon. It is my first experience as a member of this House to see that level of cooperation. It really encourages us in United Future to think that common sense is spreading throughout the Chamber. The only real glitch this afternoon has been remarks from the National Party, which continues to harp on about the ideology involved in this bill. It does not understand that the average taxpayer in this country does not care a fig about that. The taxpayers would like to see bills passed through the House in this manner more often, so that the good work they are waiting for can be achieved with maximum speed. United Future thanks the House again for being able to speak on this bill, and to indicate our support for it.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): New Zealand First supports the third reading of this bill, and supports it happening very quickly, so I will be brief. I will answer a couple of questions, and read a little bit from the explanatory note to the bill to explain a couple of things, and to give some indication of why I said what I did. It says here that, “on the restructuring day, the Board is converted into a cooperative company registered under the Companies Act 1993”. Further on, it also talks about the conversion of the board into a cooperative company, and so on and so forth. Clearly, the hop industry participants have something in mind along the lines of the old board. They very clearly have a cooperative marketing structure in place, and they very clearly desire to carry on as before, but under a cooperative company. That is what I said, and that is what I believe. That is not what National proposed when the special committee sat to look at the restructuring of industry boards per se. I take issue with what has been said. We have a difference of style and intent, but we are all of one view at the end of the day, and that is to congratulate the Hop Industry Board on getting on with its business as it sees fit. We hope that it will remain for a very, very long time to come.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri): I rise to support this bill. I just want to make one comment about the speeches made by Dr Smith and Mr Carter. Mr Smith knows the facts. The pipfruit industry asked for a cooperative commercial model, and it was Mr Luxton who then ignored it. He did not listen to it, and gave the industry a strict corporate model, which meant that that industry lost ownership of the whole sector. To prove that point, I can recall when thousands of pipfruit growers marched against Dr Smith and Mrs Shipley down Trafalgar Street to vent their spleen.

As for this bill, the hop growers came to this Government to ask for a cooperative model. We listened, and we gave it to them. They have their mandate, they came to us and requested that model, and we listened to them. Pipfruit growers requested a different model, Mr Luxton and the then National Government did not listen, and, as a result, the pipfruit growers lost complete control of their own industry. The Guinness Peat Group did that, and then the growers marched against that member and his then leader to express their angst. This is a good bill. It preserves the ownership structure. It does what the hop industry itself wants, and we support the bill.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ): How we reinvent history in this House! I have just listened to Mr Clayton Cosgrove, who I believe is a former trade union official, and who understands all about producer boards, talking arrant nonsense. What he has just told us about the apple industry is arrant nonsense. I am here to pay tribute—but not to those on the left who have finally woken up to the benefits of deregulation. I believe that it is important in a third reading speech to render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s, if I can put it like that. I believe that it is important to pay homage to people like John Luxton, Owen Jennings, and the free-thinkers of this primary industry of ours, who many, many years ago suffered the slings, arrows, and poisoned shafts of derision, because they dared to challenge the conventional wisdom of control: “We must have a single-desk seller. We must have Government influence.” Those are the things that have constrained our country, and have taken away the ability of New Zealand to be in the top 10 of the OECD.

Mr David Parker mentioned in the Otago Daily Times the other day that we desperately want to be back in the OECD—I do not think he used the word “desperately”. He thought that it might be OK in 50 years’ time. But I and the ACT party are desperate for New Zealand to get back into the top 10 of the OECD, and this Hop Industry Restructuring Bill is, in its own small way, a step forward to what we believe is the only way to achieve it. That is, by our tapping into the natural capital of our people—not of a producer board, not necessarily of a cooperative, not of a Government, and not of some huge monolith, but of individuals’ capacity to go out there and sell throughout the world a product they produce. Whether it is hops, or apples, or kiwifruit, I do not mind.

It is important to recognise at this time a certain irony in that yesterday we passed a bill constraining trade with those who wish to sell kiwifruit to Australia. It passed by 112 votes to 8. ACT did not support that bill, and I believe we will revisit that situation in a very short space of time in order to do another restructuring. It will be a “Kiwifruit Industry Restructuring Bill”, not a Hop Industry Restructuring Bill as it is today.

As I said earlier, it is important to reflect on the efforts of those in the House before us who fought tooth and nail to ensure that finally on this day in April 2003 the House finally understands just what those people were striving to achieve all that time ago. They were vilified for it, either by industry leaders seeking to protect their own little patch, or by those members in the House who did not understand what they were trying to do for that industry. It was not out of any self-interest that John Luxton, Owen Jennings, and others stood up and argued for deregulation. They did it in the interests of this country and of the industry they were talking about at the time.

Again, whether it was the meat, apple, or hop industry does not really matter. What matters is principle, and the principle we must never lose sight of in this House is the right of individuals to sell their product, either in a cooperative or as a single entity, and to the exporter of their choice. What a wonderful word “choice” is. A word I put alongside it is the word “freedom”. That is a word we should be reflecting on very deeply in these days of troubled times in lands far away from New Zealand. These are very, very fundamental issues.

I take the Speaker’s point. He is indicating that I am perhaps moving away from the bill. But whether we are talking about a hop industry or about international relationships, the words “freedom” and “índividual choice” are hugely important. This is a wonderful day for the House, and it is a wonderful day for New Zealand when yet again just a little bit of deregulation finally has been chipped off the huge monolithic block.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green): I rise to speak, again very briefly, in the third reading. I want to pass on the best wishes of the Green Party to the members of the hop industry. I also want to reiterate my recommendation to them that they limit the size of any individual or group shareholding of the shares subsequent to the passage of this legislation. My recommendation would be that for any individual, or for any one holding, the maximum holding should be about 9.9 percent. That would mean that a minimum of six people then have to get together to have a controlling interest in the industry—bearing in mind, of course, that there are only about 25 or 26 people who are contributors to the industry in the first place. Obviously, with that small number of operators, the average holding at the moment would be around 4 percent. It is a strategy that members of the industry could use to maintain the cooperative structure and to allow the industry to continue to be a cooperative into the future. If it is allowed to get into too few hands it will get corporatised. It will get monopolised, and the small player is always the one who will lose out. The Green Party wishes the hop industry very well. I am very pleased to see the passage of this bill into law.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): I want again to hold Labour members to account for what they said. They said: “Labour opposes deregulation”—

Mr SPEAKER: We have had repetition. I allowed the member to go on and on in the second reading speech. In this third reading speech we will talk about this bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There has been a debate on this side of the House that both Labour speakers have addressed. This bill is about deregulation, and I take offence at you saying that I am not allowed to debate issues of deregulation, when very clearly this is a deregulation of the hop industry.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will debate according to the instructions I have given on this third reading; otherwise he will not be speaking.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In respect of the third reading of this bill, I point out what Labour members said prior to the election, and what this bill does. I have here a quotation, which states: “Labour opposes deregulation of the apple, dairy, and hop industries, because single-desk selling gets the best market returns.” That is what Labour said to the people of New Zealand and what it said to the people of Nelson. The commentary on the bill states: “This legislation follows similar deregulation measures already passed in respect of the apple and pear and the dairy industries.” In spite of all the words and all the fancy footwork, the fact is that Labour has flip-flopped. Labour has said one thing and done another. The greatest irony in respect of the third reading of this Hop Industry Restructuring Bill is that the apple and dairy industries have had their single-desk arrangements removed by this Government. Mr O’Connor’s explanation was that it was because of what the growers said. I will quote what he said about the hop industry restructuring in the Nelson Mail—a process that began in 1998.

Hon Steve Maharey: Whinge, moan, moan.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Maharey does not want to be held to account for what was said. Well, I will remind him of what he said, and members on this side of the House will continue to remind him that the people of New Zealand will not accept the “Maharey principle”.

Hon Steve Maharey: No one cares.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They do care—and I care, because I think people should be consistent. People should say what they do, and while Mr Maharey wants to be able to re-invent things all the time and tell porkies, we on this side of the House will do our job as the Opposition and hold Government members to account.

Let us see exactly what was said. In 1998, when National had discussions with the Hop Marketing Board about a cooperative bill of this sort, Mr O’Connor said: “The only reason hop growers have asked for reform is that the axe is being held over their head by Mr Luxton.” That is word for word what Mr O’Connor said. How does he explain that today? If the hop growers in 1998 were asking for reform only because Mr Luxton was holding an axe over their head, why are they asking for reform now? There is absolute silence, because there is no explanation.

Mr O’Connor owes hop growers an explanation. If the only reason they were asking for reform in 1998 was that Mr Luxton was holding an axe over their head, is the Minister holding an axe over their head today?

Hon Damien O'Connor: No.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: He is not, but 26 hop growers today agree to reform the hop industry. I simply say to the member opposite that he has done an absolute about-face. What he said to this Parliament in 1998 was absolutely the opposite. I have to compliment him on his speech. His speech then said: “The only way returns could be guaranteed for growers is through a single-desk structure.” But in the speech he has given today he said that a deregulated environment would provide better market signals. I ask Mr O’Connor whether John Luxton wrote that speech for him. He may as well have. I can accept that people might change their views slightly, but to do an absolute 180-degree switch, as we see from Mr O’Connor, shows him to be the flake that he is in saying one thing and doing the complete opposite. Members on this side of the House—

Hon George Hawkins: Tell us about the National Party leadership!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I see the incompetent Minister of Police has poked his head up. Why does he not organise some police for the streets of Auckland rather than cutting police colleges?

I come back to the bill. The hop industry is a wonderful industry, and it has a great future. This bill had its genesis in the discussions that occurred between National and the hop industry at the time. I am pleased to see that it has come through, but sad to see there has been no reasonable explanation of why Labour has done its flip-flop. The best news is that the hop industry will be able to continue to grow and to control its own future, and that is key.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Social Workers Registration Bill

Second Reading

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment): I move, That the Social Workers Registration Bill be now read a second time. This bill provides a framework for the registration of social workers in New Zealand. It puts in place a number of measures designed to protect the safety and well-being of all New Zealanders who receive the services of a registered social worker. The regulation of social workers has been the subject of debate over a number of years. There has been concern about the lack of credibility of social work as a profession. There has also been a growing expectation from New Zealanders, particularly those who use the social services, that social workers should be more accountable for their work, and that their work should be more transparent. In its 1999 manifesto the Labour Party pledged to establish a system of professional registration for social workers. This bill delivers on that commitment.

The nature of social work requires social workers to assist individuals, families, and communities who have to cope with stressful life events and difficult circumstances. Because those circumstances often make people vulnerable, New Zealanders need to be sure that they are protected from poor social work practice and the harm it can inflict. The proposed legislation addresses that need. The aims of the bill are, firstly, to protect the public by providing mechanisms to ensure that social workers are competent to practice and accountable for the way in which they practice, secondly, to create a framework for the registration of social workers, thirdly, to provide for a board to promote the benefits of registration and to administer the registration system, and, finally, to enhance the professionalism of social workers.

The bill stipulates that registration will be based on a person’s competence and fitness to practice social work. The entry criteria for registration will require an educational qualification and practice experience, followed by an assessment of competence. The person must also be judged competent to practice social work with Māori and different ethnic and cultural groups in New Zealand. The bill proposes that only those people who have been through a competency process will have the right to use the title “registered social worker.” While other people will not be stopped from practising social work, uncertified practitioners will not be able to give themselves that title. The bill also requires that registered social workers renew their registration after 5 years, including the undertaking of a further assessment of their competence. Registered social workers will be made accountable for their practice through the establishment of a complaints and disciplinary process.

The Social Services Committee received 37 submissions on the bill. The majority of those submissions—30 out of 37—supported the intent of the bill, which is to provide public protection, to improve the quality of social work services, to scrutinise the fitness and competence of social workers, and to ensure they are accountable for what they do. Those submitters saw that the bill would benefit the people who use social work services. A smaller number of submissions expressed reservations about the bill. In particular, they questioned whether the bill would be able to achieve its purpose and offer enough protection to the public if registration was not mandatory. I know at least one speaker will raise that issue here in this debate. I would like, therefore, to address the issue of it being voluntary to become a registered social worker.

As the select committee quite rightly noted, it is not viable to introduce mandatory registration immediately. Although the specific criteria for registration have yet to be defined because that is a job of the Social Workers Registration Board, it is likely that a significant proportion of the social workers who are currently practising would not immediately meet the criteria for registration. It would also be unrealistic to expect that employers and individual social workers would have the time and the money needed to gain registration immediately. Mandatory registration is not consistent with other forms of occupational regulation. Voluntary regulation regimes are the most common form of regulating other professions. For example, they are used for accountants. As a result of considering that issue, the select committee has recommended that as part of its regular review of the legislation, the Social Workers Registration Board should specifically consider the extent to which the system of voluntary registration is achieving the purposes of the legislation. I, of course, support that.

As a result of the submissions received on and of its own consideration of the bill, the Social Services Committee has recommended a number of other changes, which I support. I will just skip through them. Members of the committee were concerned to ensure that the registration framework is established as soon as possible after the bill is passed. To assist that, they have recommended that the commencement clause of the bill be amended to require that the members of the Social Workers Registration Board must be appointed within 12 months of the bill receiving the royal assent. That is what we will do. The remaining provisions of the bill will come into effect by Order in Council, and different dates may be appointed for different provisions. Those amendments enable the Social Workers Registration Board to be established as soon as possible, but no later than 12 months after the enactment of the legislation. I, of course, support that change.

The select committee saw merit in one submission that suggested that if a similar complaint against a registered social worker had previously been made and investigated, then that information should be taken into account before a complaints assessment committee makes its assessment of the complaint it has received. The select committee has recommended amending the bill to allow that when assessing a complaint about a registered social worker, a complaints assessment committee may have regard to any previous investigation or considerations, and the consequences, if any, of those investigations.

Another change that the select committee recommended, which I fully support, relates to the complaints procedures that are maintained by the employers of social workers. The Commissioner for Children suggested that the complaints and disciplinary tribunal should have a role in ensuring and promoting the establishment of complaints mechanisms within the agencies that employ social workers. Such mechanisms would assist the tribunal to better manage complaints that are likely to be referred to it. The committee agreed with that suggestion. The bill has been amended to include a new function for the Social Workers Registration Board, which is to promote that process of complaining. I agree with that. It will certainly help with the policing of unprofessional activities by social workers in their employment.

Finally, the select committee recommended that a new penalty be included in the bill. The penalty would be against a person who holds an employee or a professional associate out as a registered social worker, knowing that the employee or social worker is not registered or that his or her registration has been suspended. Again, that amendment addresses submissions that expressed concern that the bill could take responsibility away from the employers of social workers.

I would like to thank those organisations and members of the public who made submissions on this bill. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers and what it has done in bringing this bill to fruition. That association is committed to professionalism—it has been for a long time—and it welcomes this bill. I would, of course, also like to thank the select committee for its work, and for the changes that it has suggested and that we have made to the bill.

I have circulated Supplementary Order Paper 73, which largely makes technical improvements that give more clarify to certain provisions within the bill. The most significant amendment made in that Supplementary Order Paper is to extend the time limit for provisional registration from 6 to 8 years. That will allow social workers who have been granted provisional registration within 3 months of the bill being passed more time to gain their qualifications. I suspect that qualification for registration will take up to 5 years to get, because of the academic and professional components that will be required. Therefore, that increased time is useful.

The measures in this bill provide a process for the registration of all social workers in New Zealand. New Zealanders are entitled to know that social workers are competent and practice safely, that poor social work will not be tolerated, and that people will be held accountable in this profession. As I want to reflect in my third reading speech, this is a profession that I have had a very close association with over a very long period of time. This bill has a 20 to 25-year history before it has come before Parliament today. I therefore thank all those who have worked hard on getting it this far, and I look forward to its further progress.

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National): The National Party will be supporting this bill, because we think it is very important that social workers work towards a position where they can become registered. We think it is very important that every occupational group thinks very seriously about the standards within its own occupation, and, of course, we are a party that has always supported high standards in any occupation, be it social work, engineering, medicine, or any other area.

But I say that this particular bill is a mere shadow of what was expected. There were huge expectations of this bill, particularly from the social work community itself. There was an expectation that it would make a real difference to social workers, by lifting the standards in social work and putting in place a better system of registration. Initially, even the Government was looking at mandatory registration for those working within the Government sector. That is why I think it is a bit of a shame that the Government has made an about-turn when it comes to the provisions that relate to the Government sector.

In Mick Brown’s report in December 2001, which was a very important report, it is stated that the introduction of social worker registration should be given urgency. At the time, the Minister told his Cabinet colleagues that he wanted to have this bill in place by the middle of 2001. Now, here we are, nearly 2 years later than that, having only got as far as this with a very watered-down version of what was originally intended. Originally, it was intended that social workers from the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services and from other Government agencies would be required to work towards registration. We all understood that that would have been an administrative issue for a lot of social workers, but we felt that it was important that the Government put a peg in the ground to say that was the standard it expected of Government-employed social workers, and, in particular, those who exercise statutory powers—in relation to that, those social workers who work specifically with children.

That provision has been removed, which was quite a shock, I suppose, not only to the social work sector but also to the Minister himself. When we look at some of the Cabinet papers of the time, we see there was actually a Cabinet recommendation that “all statutory social work functions must be performed by registered social workers. The Minister of Social Services and Employment should require CYFS to include in their purchase agreement that registered social workers must be employed for social work positions, and incremental targets negotiated”. Also, a transition period of 6 years or more was to be allowed to give time for existing Child, Youth and Family Services social workers to gain qualifications required for registration, and one permanent position on the board was to be reserved for a person from Child, Youth and Family Services. That has all gone now. Only some months later all those recommendations by Cabinet had to be rescinded.

Why was that? It was because the Government had not done its homework. When the Government turned round to the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services and told it what the obligation would be, the department said that 44 percent of its front-line staff did not have any qualification at all, and that only 55 percent of the social workers who joined it as new employees had qualifications. Basically, the department advised that that standard was not possible. It would also, in terms of training costs, have cost about an additional $2 million a year to train Child, Youth and Family Services employees up to the level where they could be registered.

I see that as an administrative hurdle, but not as a reason to give up working towards higher standards in social work altogether. The Minister is right on one thing: all New Zealanders deserve to know that when they are working alongside a social worker, that worker is of a certain quality and standard, and has done certain things. That is not to say that life experience is not important, but when we look at registration I think it is important that we put a peg in the ground that works towards a higher standard of service, because social workers are dealing with New Zealand’s most vulnerable people.

This bill is nothing more than a shell of what it was. Most of the provisions have been watered down, and the bill no longer applies to those social workers who work within the Government sector. Registration is totally voluntary, which means people can either decide to call themselves a social worker, or not to do so. Yes, there is provision that only registered social workers will be able to call themselves that, but the average punter out on the street will not know the difference between a registered social worker and someone who professes to be working in a social work capacity. So the bill has been watered down. Even the Supplementary Order Paper has further watered down the provisions. For example, the maximum total period for which a person may hold provisional registration is extended from 6 to 8 years. For a person seeking temporary registration as a social worker, the period is extended from 6 months to 4 years.

Eight years, as a total maximum period in which to hold provisional registration, is the equivalent of someone’s entire childhood. I do not think that is good enough. I do not think those objectives are ambitious enough. I think that it was possible at least to get the Government sector working towards a higher standard for its social workers, and, really, having been scared off by a bit of resource and administrative cost, the Government has just given up on that obligation altogether. So, if we look at this bill, we can see why the social work sector is very happy to get it into the House, at least. It is 2 years late, but social workers are mainly happy because this bill just brings registration into the House for the first time. I think there are some deep concerns about the quality of this bill, and about what will actually be achieved.

When the State is dealing with New Zealand families, and particularly when it is exercising statutory powers, registration is important. There have been concerns about professionalism, and about the experience and education that is needed. In particular, if we look at some of the high-profile cases that have been in the media of late, we see a lot of the concerns the public have relate to the experience of social workers. When we look at the amount of experience that some Child, Youth and Family Services social workers have, we see the majority of staff have less than 5 years’ experience. That is not to underestimate the quality of some of the social work training programmes and the teaching in a lot of those programmes, but life experience does count, as well. There does need to be a greater source of social workers who have a lot more experience. That is also why we are deeply concerned about the shortages of social workers in this country.

Working as a social worker, particularly with the Government agencies, is not a bed of roses; it is a very tough job to do. Social workers are criticised by a wide range of people when mistakes are made, but, equally, the public has the right to have very high standards. By establishing the registration procedure and working towards having a higher standard of professionalism within the industry, we will all be better off. But, in terms of what the Government has done here in this bill, it is sad to see that many of the provisions have been watered down, and that many of the things this bill aims to do have been slowed down. I think that to be able to sit for 8 years on a provisional registration is appalling. The industry was keen to get this legislation into the House and implemented as fast as possible, so that social workers could start working together as an industry to provide a better service. So it is a shame that the Government has not played its part, and that social workers from Child, Youth and Family Services and other Government agencies have no obligation to be involved in registering, at all. A lot of training needs to be done to be able to take social workers to that level, but it seems that the Government has backed away from that obligation, as well.

We will be raising other concerns that we have about this bill during the course of the debate. We have particular concerns about the issues relating to the treaty, and about some of the more politically correct aspects of this bill. But, in short, I say we will support the bill.

JUDY TURNER (United Future): I rise for United Future to support the second reading of this bill. As the Minister has outlined, the bill provides a framework for the registration of social workers. By raising the standard of professionalism for social workers, it is expected that the safety and transparency of social work will increase, for the good of the general public who are served by social workers.

The bill originates from the recommendations of Judge Mick Brown, formerly of the Youth Court, after he had reviewed the service procedures of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services in 2000. He recommended urgent changes to increase the quality of social work.

It is common that when members of the public require the assistance of a social worker, they are in a needy and vulnerable situation that does not need to be further complicated by poor social work practice. Increased public safety is a key aim of this bill, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of the fall-out from social work incompetence. However, it has been recognised that a one-size-fits-all approach to registration would not best serve the present interests of New Zealanders. There are many fine social work practitioners who have had years and years of experience and have a great track record, and who entered social work long before there were any clear requirements or specific tertiary qualifications to be had.

The registration of social workers will come under the Social Workers Registration Board, set up as a Crown entity, and the Social Workers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal. It will include an annual practising certificate for registered social workers, with three tiers of registration: full registration, and limited registration in the form of provisional registration and temporary registration. In respect of full registration, we applaud the matters included in that framework, including the recognition of New Zealand qualifications, the review of competence every 5 years, the requirement that the board be satisfied that a person is considered fit and proper to be practising as a social worker, and the all-important clauses inserted by the Social Services Committee, which we applaud, requiring social workers to have culturally sensitive practice as part of their scope. Obviously, having sufficient practical experience is part of what is required. In respect of provisional registration, there is an 8-year time limitation for existing social workers to qualify for full registration, and that time is allowed for them to become fully upskilled. Special appropriate conditions apply and special restrictions can be applied. Temporary registration is available for people with overseas qualifications, who are either working here temporarily or who are waiting to meet the New Zealand requirements for full registration.

United Future compliments the select committee on the wise way that it has approached the complicated issues that have required grandparenting provisions, so that existing social workers who do not have tertiary qualifications, but who have many years’ experience, can have a pathway to registration. The discussion paper put out by the Ministry of Social Policy in 2000 found that among existing social workers, 57 percent had tertiary qualifications, although it was unclear how many of those qualifications had a direct link to social work. Twenty-four percent had school qualifications, and 19 percent had no formal qualifications, at all. Those people who argue against this bill because registration is not mandatory need to understand that if social workers are to be given the chance to enjoy a professional coming-of-age, then time must be allowed for the current situation to be addressed. This bill includes review provisions that will mean that as professional progress is made over time, mandatory registration could then be considered along with any other issues that may become apparent.

It is interesting that the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers recently made a submission to the Health Committee, requesting that social workers be included under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill. Although there is some doubt as to whether the breadth of setting in which social workers operate makes that bill an appropriate measure under which this profession should be regulated, the request further indicates the very real need felt by social workers for a framework to operate under. There has been concern for many years about the lack of credibility of social work as a profession, and at the same time there has been growing disquiet amongst the public, and, in particular, consumer groups, that people in that occupation are not as accountable or the practice as transparent as is considered desirable.

One of the problems faced by those wanting to legislate for safe practice is that defining social work is difficult. The International Federation of Social Workers, which is an international body with over 80 member countries that approves the ethical standards and principles that are binding on the social work occupation in each member country, acknowledges that difficulty. The focus of this bill is not to define social work; that is always the job of the professional bodies. The focus is to establish the legislative framework that supports and facilitates professional credibility and status. For that reason, United Future is pleased to support the passage of this legislation.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): New Zealand First supports this bill. It has been on the Order Paper for a very long time, and we are pleased to see that at long last it has reached this stage. We all know in this Parliament that social work is becoming an increasingly challenging occupation; that has become very evident over the last few months, with some very high-profile cases. We read about an increasing number of young people who have had problems in their lives, and some of them should have been identified and assisted further by social workers. This occupation is becoming increasingly complex. Social workers make decisions that impact irreversibly on the lives of children and their families, and as MPs we all receive letters and calls about those cases. A registration system for social workers is absolutely vital, as that puts some emphasis back on accountability, and accountability is required in this role, just as it is in other professional roles where people’s lives are involved.

New Zealand First supports the bill in its intent to work towards improving the quality of social work services. It is our view that a registration system will, over time, result in increased protection and safeguards for children and their families, and also for social workers. New Zealand First is aware that the bill in itself will not upskill social workers. But it does provide a framework for ensuring that social work in New Zealand begins to get some of the rigorous discipline that is absolutely required.

Sufficient resourcing and support must also accompany the new registration system. Of course, that does include training. Ongoing supervision will encourage professional development and will provide personal support. It will also ensure that the needs of the client are being adequately met, and that the social worker is very, very clear about his or her role and responsibilities. New Zealand First believes there should be a clear intention for all social workers to be registered, over time. We recognise, too, that this bill will not eliminate poor practice quickly. However, it should begin the process of improving the quality and accountability of social workers. Because social workers are involved with the most vulnerable sectors of society, a quality service is essential. One of the first things that registration will offer social workers is status, and the new registration board should enhance the status of the social work profession.

We know that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services has staff turnover challenges, and registration may be an important tool in the department’s efforts to recruit and train staff. The certainty of professional development usually does attract staff. Recent news releases point to a reduction in the number of full-time students choosing to study for a career in social work. The association of social workers estimates that in the past 5 years there has been a reduction of up to 15 percent in those willing, and trained, to do social work, so the improved image of a department staffed by qualified and registered social workers may also help to attract and retain suitable staff.

We are pleased that only qualified and certified people who have been through a competency process will be able to call themselves registered social workers. Only then can the public be satisfied that a social worker is competent, or is at least deemed to be competent. Social work is becoming increasingly complex, and New Zealand First believes that a registration system will provide a national standard and framework of control for both the roles and the responsibilities of social workers. New Zealand First supports this bill.

GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa): It is a privilege to speak in the second reading of the Social Workers Registration Bill. As the current chair of the Social Services Committee I would like to acknowledge and credit the Social Services Committee of the previous Parliament, which dealt with this bill. Therefore I would like to acknowledge the membership of that particular select committee, with its chair, Taito Philip Field, and Mahara Okeroa, Sue Bradford, Helen Duncan, Dr Liz Gordon, Dr Muriel Newman, Jill Pettis, Katherine Rich, Bob Simcock, and Anne Tolley. There are a couple of names there that we have not heard for a wee while, and it is nice to have them mentioned and given credit for having worked on such an important bill.

The registration of social workers will enhance not only competence but also credibility, and give certainty to the public on the quality of service they could receive from people who work in this area. Social workers are extraordinarily vital to some of the current issues that communities around New Zealand are working on and with. As we do have a numbers problem with social workers, we hope that these mechanisms will enhance the work they do and the confidence that the public has in the work they do. It adds to their bona fides in a very positive way. I support the bill.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): The Social Workers Registration Bill we are dealing with today is one of those unfortunate pieces of legislation that have been left to languish on the Order Paper for far too long. We first debated this issue in Parliament in October 2001, and the Social Services Committee reported back to the House almost exactly a year ago to the day, in April 2002. In the meantime, the professional organisation for social workers, the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers, has grown quite concerned about the delay. The association has been worried that the original impetus that led to the bill’s development may be lost, and that hold-ups in getting the bill passed may slow down the positive but extensive processes that will be needed to ensure that adequate systems, protocols, personnel requirements, and so on are in place to ensure that the bill is implemented successfully and in a timely way.

The association also sees it as critical that the Social Workers Registration Bill is implemented before the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill, as my colleague mentioned earlier, so that the professional standing of social workers within the health sector is assured prior to their inclusion in that much broader legislation in terms of the health workforce. For these reasons, I am delighted that this bill is finally before the House, and I can assure all concerned that the Green Party will continue to support strongly the long-overdue establishment of a regulatory framework for social workers across all sectors in New Zealand.

I sat on the Social Services Committee that heard submissions on this bill during the last term of Parliament, and was impressed by the overwhelming support for registration from all manner of groups and individuals, not just those with the most direct stake in the bill. However, by the end of the process the Green Party was left with one or two reservations about where the bill had got to. Firstly, we felt that in order to enhance the quality of social work, the bill should reflect a commitment by the Government to work towards the mandatory registration of all social workers within an agreed and specified time frame. We were looking at 10 years. We supported the submissions of the Association of Social Workers and others who called for the registration board to be granted sufficient authority to require eventual compliance from all employers in the public, community, and private sectors to employ only registered social workers. We do understand the arguments presented by the Government and others that the costs of compliance with compulsory registration will be, organisationally, very high—and that is not looking just at money—and that it will take time. But, at the same time, we believe that 10 years should be long enough, and is a goal worth aiming for specifically in the legislation, rather than our leaving it up to later reviews of the Act.

The second reservation we had with regard to the bill was that it lacks specific reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and explicit acknowledgment of the obligations of the Crown, as called for by a number of key submitters. However, after learning that groups such as the Association of Social Workers have accepted with reluctance the omission of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the bill, we did not feel able to pursue this matter without community backing, and join with the association in hoping that it will be looked at closely as part of the first review, 3 years after enactment. The Green Party was also pleased that the select committee, in its deliberations, did agree to recommend changes to the bill that will clarify provisions for Māori as distinct from Pacific Island peoples and other ethnic groups, and that the Social Workers Registration Board will be required to maintain mechanisms such as advisory committees or separate caucuses, with the goal of ensuring that the views of tangata whenua will be available and will be heard.

Overall, we look forward to the passing of this bill and the much-needed enhancement of the social work profession that it encompasses.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill): I support this bill.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato): National is supporting the Social Workers Registration Bill, very much because we want to ensure that there are high standards of professionalism amongst social workers. I do note that Minister Maharey pointed out that the genesis of this bill has taken in the order of 20 to 25 years, and I too would like to pay tribute to social workers, who face enormous challenges in their everyday work.

I note that in the 2001 census there were 10,401 social workers in New Zealand. But what I observe, as I go about my electorate work, is that there seems to be a tremendous range of qualifications for social workers. I have certainly seen incidents in my electorate, particularly around Huntly, where situations unfortunately have not been well handled—very, very difficult situations requiring huge levels of skill and huge levels of professionalism. I will cite just two examples. One was a situation where a woman’s husband was found molesting the children. He was sent to jail, and, unfortunately, those children were sent to another family, despite the woman exhorting the department to allow her to keep the children. They were sent to another family, a caretaker family, where they were molested.

On the other side of the coin, I have heard of situations where foster parents who have very high levels of professionalism and great levels of sincerity have taken in children from the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and they have not been given the full information about those children. The children then have turned round and accused the foster parents of molesting them, and those parents have gone through the horrendous situation of clearing their names. That sort of situation is absolutely a great worry, and explains the huge need for this Social Workers Registration Bill.

I note that of the 37 submissions, the three main concerns were lack of explicit reference to the Treaty of Waitangi, the voluntary nature of the registration system, and the lack of recognition of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers. I would like to concentrate a little on mandatory registration, but before I do so I want to point out that in March 2000 Judge Mick Brown was asked by the Minister of Social Welfare and Employment to undertake reviews into Department of Child, Youth and Family Services procedures. In his report, he noted particularly that he had great concerns about the professionalism of social workers, with particular reference to issues of training, qualification, and supervision. It was observed that only 44 percent of front-line staff and only 55 percent of new staff had a B-level social work qualification, and that there could be difficulties in staff being released for training. He also noted the very high turnover rates.

The report included a variety of recommendations, one of them being that the introduction of social worker registration be given urgency. Here we are, 2½ years later, and if this is urgency in the Minister’s terms, I do not know what urgency is. It has taken 2½ years to start finally implementing the recommendations of Judge Mick Brown.

The second point he made was that by mid-2002 social workers should not be able to exercise statutory powers, except when co-working with registered social workers or members of the police. I hope the Minister will be able to assure the House that that is the case. I fear that it is not the case, and the situations that I cited, in and around Huntly, were such instances. They absolutely illustrate the need to implement the recommendations of Judge Mick Brown, which I am afraid this Minister has sadly neglected.

The third recommendation was that the department must set an agreed percentage of registered staff as a goal that must be realised by mid-2002. Once again, I hope the Minister will give an explanation why he has failed in achieving that recommendation.

After the Judge Mick Brown report, the Ministry of Social Policy published a discussion paper on the registration of social workers. Written submissions were received on that policy paper, focus groups were held, etc., and a summary report was published. The report notes that there is general support for a registration system for social workers. All written respondents considered that registration should be compulsory for statutory Government social workers. Again I ask the Minister what he is doing about that. How far as he got in achieving it? This is a hugely important matter for solving the everyday, practical problems that we see hit the newspapers in New Zealand from time to time. I suggest that the Minister has again failed to achieve the very simple, basic recommendations that Judge Mick Brown submitted almost over 2½ years ago.

With regard to mandatory registration, the bill provides for voluntary registration of social workers. Only registered social workers will have the right to practice under that title, but the bill will not stop people from practising social work. I note that the submitters were concerned that non-registered social workers will not be subject to the complaints and disciplinary processes that will be applied to registered social workers. Again, particularly in the statutory area, it is of huge importance that unqualified social workers will not be subjected to the disciplinary processes that we would absolutely expect them to be subject to. I note that the select committee agreed that all social workers should meet a set standard of practice. I also note that one of the great absences in this bill is that it does not mention supervision or supervised practice, nor continued professional education. If ever there was an area for continuous quality assurance, for peer review, and for quality-improvement activities, it must be within the high-risk area of social work. The bill does nothing to address that. I think that is a huge gap, and I hope the Minister will take that huge gap very seriously.

I note that one of the difficulties not sorted out by the bill is that for registration to be made mandatory the term “social worker” would need to be defined. We have over 10,000 so-called social workers in New Zealand, and, despite a genesis of 25 years for this bill to come about, again the Minister has failed to grapple with the fundamental question of what is a social worker. Surely, once we get into the high-risk area, it is absolutely vital that they are appropriately mandatorily registered in order to ensure that there are high standards and to ensure that the public is appropriately safeguarded.

I also note that the board is required by clause 102 to review the operation of the Act 3 years after full enactment. Again, I think that is absolutely important. It behoves the Minister at the time to do so. It may well not be Minister Maharey, because in 3 years’ time we will have a National Government. We will be ensuring that there is a review of this Act. I have said that we will support it at this stage of events, but this lazy Labour Minister, who has failed to achieve the recommendations of Judge Mick Brown, will, fortunately, not be around to do the quite proper thing that clause 102 suggests, which is a review of the Act.

The last thing I want to talk about briefly relates to the Treaty of Waitangi and ethnic representation. I note that a common criticism by submitters was that the bill does not contain special reference to the treaty. Submitters argued that the treaty is the basis from which social work practice is developed. They say that including explicit reference to the treaty would give recognition to the position of Māori as tangata whenua, and to the right that comes with that position for Māori to determine their own social work processes. I am afraid that I cannot entirely agree with that, but we certainly do support the bill.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour): I compliment my colleague Steve Maharey on this excellent bill, which will improve the accountability of social workers and improve social services. I am delighted to support the bill.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ): Here we are again under urgency dealing with the Social Workers Registration Bill. Last time the bill was brought into the House it was under urgency, and here we are again. What a contrast this bill is to the previous bill before the House, the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill. The previous bill was all about deregulation; this bill is all about regulation. We already have self-regulation in the social worker industry, but obviously this Government believes that it cannot trust the industry—the 10,000 social workers in New Zealand—and that it has to come down with the heavy hand of the State.

The Government believes that the State has to step in and take over control of the industry, but it is not doing it. All it is saying is that it is going to register social workers. But it is a Clayton’s bill. It is a Clayton’s regulation, because at the end of the day it is voluntary. Can anyone imagine passing in Parliament a bill that says: “We’re going to regulate an industry, but it’s going to be voluntary.”? I believe that this is the strangest piece of legislation that has been through this Parliament for a very long time.

I tried to think why, if it is to be voluntary, Labour is trying to do it. We have to remember that Labour is a socialist Government, and that socialist Governments love to regulate anything that moves. If it does not move, they simply nationalise it. The basic rule in policy development and passing legislation is that if it is not broken, it does not need to be fixed.

At our hearings in the Social Services Committee, I asked for evidence of a tidal wave of complaints against poor social work practice in New Zealand. There was none. The only major agency that has complaints against it is the State agency. That means that this bill has been brought in to address problems with Child, Youth and Family Services—problems that Mick Brown highlighted in his very good report. Instead of the Government addressing the problems in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, it decided to regulate the whole industry in New Zealand. That is an extreme example of absolutely poor governance, and this bill is a very good example of poor legislation. It makes the Government look tough on poor social work practice, but it is really a Clayton’s bill. It is voluntary, not mandatory.

Mick Brown highlighted huge concerns about competency within the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. Just to refresh people’s memory, this came after the tragic case of James Whakaruru. A number of reports were written about his death, and they found many cracks and holes in the way the department handled that little boy’s case. He ended up dying. Since that time we have seen another high profile case—that of little Lillybing. A whole lot of other cases have also come to the attention of the public of New Zealand—tough cases that the department has been involved in—and cracks have been found in the handling of them. The point is that Judge Mick Brown put forward a plan of action for dealing with systemic failure within the department. I asked the Minister how many recommendations from Judge Mick Brown he had actually put into practice, and he will not tell me. Clearly the Minister is not on top of his job.

Since Judge Mick Brown highlighted those problems within the department, 4,000 unallocated cases of potential child abuse have occurred. Hundreds of those cases were registered as critical and were not seen within the statutory 24 hours. The very urgent cases were not seen within 2 days, and so on. We have had an escalation of the number of children being taken from their homes, put into care, and not being returned to their homes. We have had low morale within the department as it has been restructured time and time again. We found out that the number of social workers with less than 5 years’ experience increased from 67 percent in 2001 to 74 percent in 2002.

So we have a picture of an extremely troubled department. Not only that, we also know that it does not follow best practice. In the corporate world, in most other places, best practice is followed. If one agency is doing well and another one under the control of the same department is not, then it is best practice to find out what is going right and spread it around. The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services does not do even that. It is an agency that has systemic failure that needs to be addressed.

This bill will not address the problem, at all. The reason is that the Minister decided he wanted all statutory social workers to be registered within 6 years. He took the idea to Cabinet, and Cabinet agreed that it would be a very good idea to register them. But some months later, after the Minister had consulted a bit more, he found that it was not a good idea for all statutory social workers to be registered when social workers in non-Government agencies and private practitioners do not need to be. He said that that was not fair, and did a U-turn. He asked Cabinet to change its mind on registering all social workers in Child, Youth and Family Services involved with statutory responsibilities. The real reason is that he suddenly figured out that registering all the social workers in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services would cost around $30 million. That is the real reason the Minister did a U-turn and changed his mind. So we now have a bill that he talks tough on—a bill that he will not even ensure his own department abides by.

This is disgraceful legislation, because it raises many hopes in New Zealand that social work standards will improve. There is nothing wrong with trying to improve social work standards. In fact, it is an honourable goal. But this bill, being a voluntary bill, will not do that. It will create two classes of social workers—those who can afford the $14,000 and those who cannot. The ones most likely to afford it will be those who are employed by the Government. We will end up with Government agencies with registered social workers and private practitioners not being able to register.

The training of social workers is another problem I would like to raise. When the private sector was invited to provide tertiary education, a number of providers decided that distance social work courses were a really good idea, because then social workers could continue in their jobs while quietly working towards registration and building their qualifications. But this Government has come in, and, like a great big Godzilla, has slapped down private training providers. Basically, the Government wants to get rid of private providers from the tertiary education sector. The people who will be hurt will be those very social workers who would like to improve and increase their qualifications. Distance course providers will find that all of a sudden they cannot do it anymore.

So, I say to the Minister that as he is the Minister responsible for tertiary education, as well, and if he really does have a goal or raising the standards of social workers in New Zealand, then he has to promote distance education in the social work field. He has to promote the involvement of the private sector in that, because the polytechnics and the universities will simply not be able to provide the number of courses needed. He needs to have a holistic approach to this issue, and he has to tell himself that the raising of standards starts at home. He is the Minister responsible for social services, and it is up to him to sort out the problems in that department. If it is because the structure of the department is obsolete and we need to look at different models, then he needs to do that before he tries to regulate everyone.

LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere): I am proud to stand in support of this bill. Social workers have been calling for legislation to support and regulate the profession for many years. This bill fulfils a pre-election commitment and is yet another example of this Government keeping its word.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): It is good news that we have legislation that will provide a framework for increasing the professional standards of social workers. That is good. But what that member and Labour have failed to do is to provide legislation that will actually work and do the job.

I commend my colleagues Katherine Rich and Paul Hutchison, who, in the second reading debate, put a clear argument regarding some of the bill’s major deficiencies. I want to speak to those. First of all, I want to put on the record just how important social workers in our community are. When we read of the tragedies that occur with children, we see that it is social workers in practice who are making the decisions—life and death decisions—that affect the children of this country. That is why this National Party stands for high standards in that profession.

I have a number of questions I would like the Minister in charge of this legislation to answer in respect of the detail that none of the other Labour members want to talk about. The first one relates to the gross inconsistency of this Government to occupational regulation and why it does not trust social workers. The bill is about State control of the profession, and that is an oxymoron. State control of the profession will not deliver high professional standards. It is by giving control to a profession and trusting a profession that we get the very best from it. None of those characteristics are in this bill. [Interruption]

I ask the Clayton’s member opposite why it is, for instance, when it comes to my own profession, the engineering profession, that the Government says the members of the board will be appointed by the profession itself. The Government supported that. But when we come to this bill, it says that every member of the Social Workers Registration Board will be a Government appointee. Why the inconsistency? Can Ms Pettis, the member opposite who is giving me a dirty look, answer? Why does the Government trust the professions of nursing, engineering, electricians, lawyers, and accountants but does not trust the profession of social workers? The silence is deafening. People on this side of the House expect some consistency around occupational regulation. Mr Maharey needs to get his head clear and come up with something constructive. The Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers is a perfectly good professional organisation that has set up a set of professional standards. It has set a benchmark. There are hundreds of social workers out there in New Zealand, including my wife, who have gone through all the work to get registered with the association and are now being told they have to go back to base one. Is that going to make sense? Is that a sensible way in which to manage the profession of social workers? I suggest that it is not.

Then we see the level of prescription. The bill has more than 200 clauses that monitor all manner of things and go into all sorts of detail that I think is grossly unnecessary. Why do we not trust the profession to develop sensible rules regarding the level of qualification a person should have to be able to be registered? What are the professional standards associated with the conduct and the ethics of a profession? We trust every other profession to do that. Why is it, when we come to this profession, we do not? The Government’s most recent legislation that dealt with the registration of a profession was the Teachers Council legislation. It said that it would allow members of the profession to sit on the council and make the decisions. What is it about social workers? Why is it that we do not trust them? Why is it that we have a separate, and different, set of rules when it comes to that particular profession? I simply do not understand.

Clayton Cosgrove: It wouldn’t be the first time.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Would Mr Clayton Cosgrove explain to me why we trust the teaching profession to be involved in setting standards and appointing members to the Teachers Council but do not trust the social workers profession to appoint—

Clayton Cosgrove: Read the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have read the bill. If the member reads the schedule he will see that the Minister will appoint all the members of the Social Workers Registration Board. Why is that?

Clayton Cosgrove: Read the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have read the bill. That member is the sort of flunky member we have on the Labour side. Those members cannot answer the substantive questions. The substantive question here is: why is it, when it comes to accountants, doctors, engineers, plumbers, and electricians we trust those professions to develop the rules and to run their own professional body, but when it comes to social workers we do not? Again, we have absolutely no explanation at all from Government members, and that is an issue I will be pursuing in the Committee stage.

The second great contradiction is that when it comes to the early childhood sector, this Government has passed regulations that completely ignore experience. I know of people who have worked in the early childhood sector for 35 years. They are excellent teachers. This Government has come along and cut them off. It said that, no, it does not trust them and it is not going to allow them, after 2005, to continue to work in early childhood centres. Yet this bill says that we are to respect those people that have experience in the sector. Well, both sectors deal with children. The bulk of the issues managed by social workers in New Zealand are to do with children, so why is it that we say experience does not count when it comes to early childhood workers, but when it comes to social workers it does? I would have thought one would come to some sort of consistent approach. We on this side of the House think that experience matters. We are prepared to accept both early childhood workers and social workers who can show they have the experience to set high professional standards. Why does the Government not do that? Why does it have a different view? We have no explanation, at all, in that regard. It is a double standard, and it is not good enough.

Further, why does it take 200 finicky clauses to regulate the social work profession, yet most other professions are being regulated by a fraction of that number? For instance, if we take engineers—of which there are over 15,000 in New Zealand—only 40 clauses regulate them. Only a fifth of the number are required. This bill is far too prescriptive. It sets out all sorts of little details. For goodness’ sake! The people involved should be able to sort those details out for themselves.

John Carter: It almost sets out what they have to have for lunch.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The bill is almost as bad as that—it may as well set that out. If members look at the clauses and the schedules, and at the level of detail, they will see they go way beyond what is reasonable. Basically, it is because the Government does not trust the profession. The Government wants to prescribe and over-regulate every single aspect. My worry is that this will add a whole lot of cost, when far more sensible regulation would not have required it. Why do we have to prescribe for an annual practising certificate every year? The engineers do one every 5 years—

John Carter: They just make the decisions.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They just make the decisions. Mr Maharey believes it is best. This bill has quite draconian powers. The Minister of Social Services and Employment can, with no reason at all, sack any member of the Social Workers Registration Board. Does that apply in respect of any other profession? Is a Minister able to sack a person who regulates engineers, accountants, or electricians? No, he is not able to. No, we do not have that sort of thing. The reason is that this Minister runs such a mess of a social policy ministry—and the Child, Youth and Family Services—that he does not want the Social Workers Registration Board to send any missiles the Government’s way. If the Social Workers Registration Board has some hard things to say about the Government, it will get fired. No reasons have to be given—its members will just be sacked. This is not much better than the sort of thought police we have in other areas.

The strength of an independent body is its independence from the Government. The professional people—whether doctors, engineers, or accountants—should be able to express their free will without the axe that hangs over professional boards like the Social Workers Registration Board. This bill should have provided for legislative backing for the term “registered social worker”, and allowed that to be transferred to the perfectly competent Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers that we are proud to have in this country.

Amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 147 and schedules

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National): This is a very important part of the process. We need to get it right, because the Social Workers Registration Bill will potentially affect about 10,400 social workers who currently work in New Zealand. This debate is wide ranging over the total bill, so I will work my way through some of the concerns that I have and some of the questions that I would like to put to the Minister in the Chair, the Hon Steve Maharey. First, I will discuss the title. Social Workers Registration Bill, as the bill is presently named, is not quite accurate. If it is to be appropriately named, the word “voluntary” has to be inserted, so that it becomes the “Social Workers Voluntary Registration Bill”.

One of the key things we understand about this bill is that social workers do not need to register. I would argue, as many of my colleagues have argued, that if someone happens to be one of the shonky cowboys or cowgirls of the social-work world, would that person go the distance and register? The chances are that he or she would not. When it comes to making sure that this legislation does increase the discipline on the profession, or raise its standard, or increase the professionalism within the sector, that issue can be debated. It can be debated, because many people who presently work within the sector and who may not have the qualifications and may not be implementing a best-practice approach to their profession, simply will not register, at all. I question the bill’s effectiveness in making big changes.

The purpose of the bill is to protect the safety of members of the public and to encourage competency in practice, but once again, if we are looking at really protecting the safety of the public, the State sector plays a role in that. It should be a leader within the sector, and that is why we find it quite alarming that such a big chunk of social workers has been left out of this bill. It was originally intended that they be involved. About 10 percent of social workers in this country are employed either by the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, or by other Government agencies. We have to protect members of the public and especially those who are most vulnerable. People who have to deal with Child, Youth and Family Services in very difficult times will not know whether they are dealing with a registered social worker. We have some concerns about whether the bill will create a framework that will really make a difference.

I turn now to clause 4, “Interpretation”. One of the glaring problems is that “limited registration” can be up to 8 years. That is hardly a limited registration. That is the equivalent of one’s childhood. Limited registration should be for a very short period of time, and it should be a period in which, hopefully, the person is working towards full registration. So 8 years is far too long.

There are some pretty vague words in Part 2, and for that reason we think the registration board, in making decisions about social workers, will run into problems. What is a “fit and proper person”? There is a definition in the bill, but one of the things we do know about social work is that some people come into the profession having had certain life experience that allows them to have greater empathy with some of the people they are working with. At the moment, people are not allowed to be a social worker if they have a conviction that could have been punishable by up to 3 months’ imprisonment. I want the Minister to confirm that that provision will not include people with quite serious convictions that may not have resulted in imprisonment, because the judge decided not to impose a prison sentence. There could still be some pretty serious crimes that could be of deep concern to other New Zealanders.

The next issue relates to the increasingly “politically correct” approach to legislation. This legislation had some really general statements about a social worker having practical experience in social work. That has been broken into two, so that a social worker has to have specific experience dealing with Māori, Pacific Islanders, and other cultural groups. When people are dealing with those who are disadvantaged, then of course cultural issues are important, so they can tailor what they are offering.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): I have some important questions about the detail in this bill that I want the Minister to respond to, and the first of those is a very important issue of principle. The previous issues of occupational regulation and the two most important reforms have been the accountants and engineers. What the Government has done through legislation such as this is provide legislative protection for a term, in the case of a chartered accountant or a chartered professional engineer, and then trusted the profession to develop a set of codes and regulations that can come through a proper process.

In this bill we have a very different approach to occupational regulation, where there is a statutory body completely appointed by the Minster making all the rules and regulations around the profession. I would like to know from the Minister in the Chair, the Hon Steve Maharey, why we have taken, and why this Parliament is taking, such a different approach to occupational regulation. What is it about social workers that means we cannot trust them? Why is it not possible, given all the work of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers, for us to provide some statutory protections and an acknowledgment of that organisation and let them run the system? It was good enough for accountants and engineers; why is it not good enough for social workers? That organisation has gone to a huge amount of expense to develop the standard. That work is all washed away. It has done a huge amount of work for many social workers to be registered. Hundreds of them all over New Zealand have been put in place because the statutory framework has not been there. It just seems common sense to apply those other models. They are working well, and we should do that in this case.

My first question to the Minister asks why we do not trust social workers as a profession. Surely, when we talk about professional regulation the very notion of a profession is that it is able to manage its own affairs. It is not some Big Brother State organisation imposing something on a group of individuals, but the profession having an active say in the development of its own code of ethics and its own disciplining of its members. That, in my view, is the definition of a profession. The Government is not allowing the social work profession to develop in that way, and that is a mistake.

The second key question I have for the Minister—and I will take point after point, as I am entitled to in this debate—is about the very draconian provision in clause 10 in schedule 1. That states: “The Minister may remove a member from office at any time, without compensation,”. That means any member of the board. Why is that necessary? If it were a State-owned enterprise, I could understand it; and we do have such provisions with regard to State-owned enterprises. When the Government of the day is managing a key State asset, it must finally have responsibility. But when it comes to an organisation that is setting the standards for a profession, why do we need that extent of State control? I do not know of any other professional board that has that: not one, and my understanding is that we have statutes for over 28.

I asked the library to find out for me whether there is any other professional board where the Minister has the power at any time to sack a member of that board without giving any reason, and the answer is that there is not. So why is it that this Minister wants us to give him the power to fire any member of the Social Workers Registration Board? Does any member opposite know why that is the case? Why is it necessary to have that power in this legislation, but not for plumbers, electricians, doctors, nurses, teachers, or for any other body?

I will tell members why I think it is. I think it is because the Minister has become so defensive about children and young persons that he is afraid of a strong professional body, like the Social Workers Registration Board—and it is true, Parliament does have a testy relationship with professional bodies representing teachers, or doctors, or engineers, as does the Government, and sometimes those bodies do send a missile across the Government’s way. That is part of democracy. That is part of their being a profession. My fear is that the Minister of Social Services and Employment will use clause 10 of schedule 1—which gives him the power to fire any member of the board, including the chair or the deputy chair—to give them the Kit Richards treatment if they dare say anything.

John Carter: He won’t use it, surely?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister seems to be indicating he will not use it. So why does he need it? Can he provide some explanation in respect of that important clause?

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): The Committee stage is a very important part of the process. I too would like to start with the title. We believe that the debate on the title is a very serious one, because any title must be a fair reflection of the legislation. It should be accurate and self-explanatory. Quite frankly—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): We are debating the whole bill.

BARBARA STEWART: That is right. The title does not reflect the content of the bill. It should definitely include the word “voluntary”.

Like other groups, social workers have been advocating for registration for many years, but we know that the commencement is going to take a fairly long time. Once registration has been introduced, there are many agencies and employers who will be faced with a whole lot of planning and personnel requirements, and that will take some time. Before they can even do this, the Social Workers Registration Board has to be established. Of course, that cannot begin until the board is established and empowered to act.

Clause 6(b) states that a person has to be fit and proper to practise social work. It is important that the definition or interpretation of these words is consistent with other usage. Likewise, clause 6(c) deals with competence to practise social work with ethnic groups, and that raises a big query as to what determines competence. Is it knowledge of language, or protocol, or religion? We do need to know.

New Zealand First, too, believes that any system that registers social workers has to be open, inclusive, and flexible, due to the very nature of social work. We support the establishment of the registration board to overview the practice and the procedures, but we know this is going to be a longer process than we initially thought.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ): I would also like to make a couple of comments about the title of the bill. My colleague Katherine Rich’s idea of calling the bill the “Social Workers Voluntary Registration Bill” is a very good one. It certainly reflects what this bill is all about, and does not put anybody in the situation of believing that this bill means what the Minister’s title says. I did think that a more colourful way of saying it would be to call the bill the “Social Workers (Clayton’s Registration) Bill”. I think that that would again explain to people just what this Government is up to, with this bill. The point is that the way the title is worded would give people confidence that something is happening in the industry, when it is not—in other words, give confidence that is not warranted.

I would like the Minister to take a call. I hope he is not going to sit through the whole Committee stage and not rise to his feet and explain a few things that we will be raising. I want him to explain what he really wants to achieve by putting this bill into our legislative programme. In particular, I want to ask him what changed his mind from deciding that he would require or ask all his statutory social workers to become registered. What caused him to change his mind; to say no, that he is not going to put that requirement on them, that he is going to leave registration to them, so that it remains voluntary? I want the Minister to tell the Committee whether it was the cost—$2.3 million a year, over 12 years, which works out at about $30 million.

If the Minister does not take a call, then the Committee has to assume that he is not prepared to invest in his staff, particularly in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. We have to assume that he is not prepared for that department to take a lead in social work registration in the country; and that he does not believe, in his heart, in raising professional standards, because it seems he is not prepared to invest in the staff. Unless the Minister takes a call, I am afraid that will be the conclusion the Committee has to reach, and it will be the conclusion that New Zealand will reach. So I do implore the Minister to explain to us why he changed his mind.

The other point of concern is the Social Workers Registration Board. Again, I would like the Minister to explain to the Committee how we will know that the board is not going to be made up of Labour Party hacks—candidates who did not make it, and people who are friends of the Labour Party. How can the Minister assure us that that board will be well representative of the profession, and that its members will not simply be the Government’s lapdogs. We do know that this is a Government that likes to preserve its power. The honourable member Nick Smith mentioned Kit Richards, who was one of the first people in the public sector to stand up for a cause that he believed in. And boy, did he get guillotined as quickly as anything! The Minister of Social Services and Employment has made it clear that he is in control of the board, so does this mean that that Minister will have control of the whole social work profession? That is what I believe is intended, unless the Minister takes a call and explains to us that we are interpreting this wrongly.

It is a very serious business if we have political control of a profession, driven through Parliament, when only a very small proportion of that profession works in the public sector and a great many people in the profession work in the private sector. What we do not want in this country is for political control to go beyond the realm in which it should exist.

The other point I would like to raise is in respect of clause 7, which relates to overseas-qualified social workers. Clause 7 has a whole lot of provisions whereby those people will be able to work in New Zealand. We all know the plight of overseas-trained doctors who come to New Zealand full of hope, after being told by the Immigration Service that they will be able to work in this country, only to find that they cannot work. What we do not want is for people overseas to say to themselves: “Well, New Zealand, I’m a trained social worker. I’ve got heaps of experience—years of it. I’d like to come and work in this country.”, only to hear that they will be able to come to New Zealand, but cannot practise.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment): Just because there may well be some people still listening to this debate outside the Chamber, and they may well seriously have taken in any of the arguments that have been put up so far, I will spend a couple of minutes advising them that this is the normal kind of Committee debate, where Opposition members entertain themselves by raising issues that they know the answers to. For example, Dr Nick Smith, who has been a Minister, knows that the Crown entities legislation is reflected in this bill and that the clauses in it are standard to that kind of legislation. Muriel Newman knows that also.

The main reason we have changed from 6 years to 8 years for registration was explained in my second reading speech, and I am sure Dr Newman sat riveted in her seat, listening to it. We have changed it because we believe that probably the most likely thing is that people will settle into a 3 years academic, 2 years practise, requirement to become a registered social worker. Many of them will have to do this part time. It seemed to us that 6 years was a little tight for that, so we have agreed to allow 2 years’ latitude.

Dr Newman had just started on a question about overseas-trained social workers. Yes, we do want to get our share of those skills that move around the world. Some of them will be social workers, and some of them will want temporary registration, and this bill allows that. There will be other questions, for those people who are listening at home to this debate, but I give an assurance that most of them will be rhetorical. Members are asking questions, to which they know the answers.

JUDY TURNER (United Future): United Future would like to draw attention to clause 10 in Part 2, which the Minister has just referred to, where the provisional registration timing has been lengthened from 6 years to 8 years. Initially, we were concerned with the timing of 6 years, then a bit more concerned when it turned to 8 years, but we have considered the advice given by the Minister. We understand that the introduction of registration has to be looked at in context. In the 2001 census, 46 percent of those who identified themselves as social workers had gained only a school qualification, or less. We realise that our current social workers will have to consider either returning to university or starting from scratch if they want voluntarily to become registered social workers. They will need to be given time to do that if they want to continue working while processing their qualifications. Because a large number of women are in social work, they will also have the added responsibility of running households. We want to see that life-work balance considered as we give time for people to upskill and register.

However, with the 3-year review built into the bill, which falls inside that 8-year timing, we suggest that some questions will need to be asked in 3 years’ time—that is, what progress have provisionally registered social workers made towards full registration, how ready are we within New Zealand for mandatory registration, and does the title “social worker”, with time, need to become a protected term? We would like to see protected within the 3-year review that the term “social worker” can be used only by people who are registered, as opposed to at present when the term “social worker” can be used by unregistered people. That is a question that may need to be asked in 3 years’ time, as we see what progress has been made by those people who are provisionally registered.

While it looks as if 8 years is a soft and lenient period in which to gain full registration, we consider that we do need to support current social workers. We have to understand that we are now asking more of people who are already overworked and under-resourced, and we need to support those people in our request that they become more accountable and competence-based in our social work system. United Future’s concern is with that part of the bill. We support it because it provides grandparenting provisions for people to become registered, but we think that in 3 years’ time some hard questions will need to be asked.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): As I mentioned earlier, the Green Party does support the bill as amended. I am taking just a very short call to talk to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 73, which we received only recently. In particular, the Minister deals with clause 11(2)(b) that relates to limited registration being no more than 4 years’ duration. When we looked at this provision more closely we thought that allowing people to continue through periods of 6 months’ temporary registration was too long. We would like to see that reduced. To that end we have put an amendment on the table calling for it to be no more than 3 years. I understand that the Government will support that amendment, and I welcome that. It is part of the social work profession’s desire with this bill to do everything it can to increase and enhance professionalisation, and not to allow people to continue for too long in a temporary situation.

We do understand the need for this, in that we welcome qualified and experienced social workers coming to our country from overseas. All too often they are needed to bolster our workforce, which is in decline in some respects. We also welcome, at times, retired people going back into the social work workforce with all their experience. It is not that we are against people working on a temporary basis, but we do not think it should go on for too long, and therefore we welcome the Government’s support for our amendment.

TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (NZ Labour—Mangere): As chair of the select committee that helped to process this bill, I want to take a short call to say that the provisions in the bill, and the issues we were dealing with in the select committee, provide a good balance in relation to what is needed in a transitional period when we need to promote competent, well-trained and qualified social workers. We have known for a long time, and even from the sector, that there is a need to improve standards. I believe that this bill fulfils the needs that have been expressed by the sector, particularly with regard to registration. We also need to give people who might be well experienced as social workers the opportunity to get themselves qualified and trained to meet the requirements of registration.

After so many years of the issue being raised by social workers and those who wanted to see standards raised, I congratulate the Minister and this Government on this bill finally coming before the House. In relation to social issues and the care of children, there is a great appreciation by the community that we need well-trained and qualified people who are properly registered to be effective in looking after children. That is one example. There are many other areas of social work where registration will help promote standards.

What the select committee and the Minister have done in setting up the regime for registration strikes a very good balance for the next 3 years. At the end of that period, there will be a proper review so that we can look at what has happened in that time, and then look at mandatory registration and other important issues. I congratulate the Minister and hope that members will support the provisions during the Committee stage.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato): I note that in relation to the title of the bill that it has been generally agreed—certainly from this side of the House—that the word “voluntary” should be inserted. I also have another suggestion, and it is that we call this bill the “Steve Maharey Let’s Make Social Work Registration Very Complicated Bill”. As my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith pointed out, we have something like 109 pages of Maharey complications, in order to achieve voluntary registration. This is a tribute to a sociologist’s dream—or a sociologist’s nightmare.

I now cross to the purpose of the bill, which is to protect the safety of members of the public by providing for mechanisms that ensure that social workers are competent at, and accountable for, their practice. Yet we learn here that there are 10,483 social workers, that only some of them will register, and that a large number of them will not be accountable for their practice. Those who do register, only have to do so every 5 years, or is it the practising certificate that has to be—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is every single year.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: As I was saying earlier on, in terms of accountability for practice, some social workers are involved in very high-risk activities. I am extremely concerned by the recommendations of Judge Mick Brown that by mid-2002 social workers should not be able to exercise statutory powers—except when co-working with registered social workers, or members of the police—and that the department must set an agreed percentage of registered staff as a goal that must be realised by mid-2002. I would like the Minister to take a call to tell the Committee what he has achieved, or confirm that he has achieved nothing, or at least tell the Committee what he intends to do about that recommendation. We need a degree of accountability, and there is a huge absence of that from this Minister. It is regarded as one of the important parts of the purpose.

I note that there is no definition of a registered social worker, but again, when we have a bill whose genesis has taken, according to the Minister, 20 to 25 years, it seems absolutely absurd that we do not have a definition of what a social worker is. Apparently, there are over 10,400 social workers, and surely this Minister, who has managed to contrive a 109-page bill, should be challenged intellectually to try to achieve a basic definition of what a social worker is. We find that a certain percentage of social workers will be registered voluntarily, and that is terrific—we support that. We want to achieve high levels of professionalism in this country, but when we have a bill about social workers that does not even define what a social worker is, there is a huge gap in thinking. I have asked the Minister to take a call to give us his thoughts about what a social worker is.

I would like to move to the area of registration and practising certificates. I note that a person who has a recognised New Zealand qualification is entitled to be registered if the board is satisfied that his or her competence to practise social work has been found satisfactory, and that he or she is a fit and proper person etc. The bill goes on to state in new subparagraph (iv) of clause 13(1)(b): “that … he or she—(A) is competent to practise social work with Māori; and (B) is competent to practise social work with different ethnic and cultural groups in New Zealand.” But where there is a lack of clarity is that there are no ongoing quality assurance requirements. Could the Minister explain?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): In response to my earlier points, the Minister gave one of those lecturing-type of speeches in which he said: “Don’t worry. Trust us. What’s in here is the same as all other similar legislation.” I want to challenge the Minister on that point. I want him to tell of a single other professional body or registration board in respect of which there is the power for the Minister to fire any member. Does the Minister have the power to sack any member of the Nursing Council? No. Does the Minister have the power to sack any member of the Engineer’s Board? No. Does the Minister have the power to sack any member of the Chartered Accountants Board? No. Does the Minister have the power to sack any member of the Plumbers Board? No. Having told this House that this is the same as any other legislation, can the Minister tell me whether he has the power to sack any member of any professional board? The Minister has told this Parliament that these provisions are identical. I simply ask him to give me one other example. The library has provided me with the information on 28 other professional boards, and its best advice is that for none of them does a Minister have that particular power.

Katherine Rich: None?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Not one. So how can the Minister stand up during this important Committee stage and tell us not to worry because it is the same as every other provision in every other bill? I ask the Minister to perhaps ask his officials to give us an example of one other case. If he cannot, then he has misled the House—and the listeners—and that is very serious.

My second point is this: we all know that social workers working for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services have a huge turnover. We know that they are under a lot of pressure, and we know that their salaries are not particularly high. I want to ask this Minister whether the fees for this bureaucratic monster that he is creating will be paid for by the social workers in its employ? It is a very reasonable question, because not only do we have the annual registration fee, we also have a fee for disciplinary matters. So what does that mean? It means that if there is a disciplinary action against a social worker, the cost of that will be imposed on all the other social workers. Can the Minister assure me that the levy that will be struck will be paid for by the department, and will not be a sock on the private earnings of those workers in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services? It is a fair question. For instance, I know that the Government has just whacked up the teachers’ fee by 80 percent. This Government says that inflation is only 3 percent, but it has just increased the fee for every one of our 45,000 teachers by 80 percent. Now the Government says that the boards of trustees can make a decision about whether teachers pay those fees, and some of them do and some of them do not. But in this case, the Minister is the employer. We have, I understand—

Hon Steve Maharey: We are not the employer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister’s Department of Child, Youth and Family Services is the employer of social workers. Are those social workers in the department—

Steve Chadwick: There are plenty of other departments.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Indeed, but this is the most significant employer. Can the member from Rotorua give me an assurance that the fees that come from this legislation will not be taken out of the wages of social workers of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services?

Steve Chadwick: It depends on where they work.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So if they work in Nelson they might; if they work in Auckland they might not?

Steve Chadwick: No, in which context.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, if they work for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, will they be expected to pay this fee out of their private wages? The Chamber is silent. Is that not a fair question? Is that not a question that the Minister in the chair should be prepared to answer? It is a simple question—yes or no.

Steve Chadwick: It is up to their employer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, hang on a moment! The employer is the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. The only income the department has is prescribed by this Parliament and this Minister. I want to know who will pay this fee. I do not want to see it as a further imposition and a further nail in the coffin of the huge morale problem within the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. This Minister owes Parliament an answer because he is creating this bureaucracy. He controls that bureaucracy. If he had left the matter over to the profession, there might be a fair argument. He has not, and he should answer that question.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ): I did appreciate the Minister taking a call a little while ago. I now know that he has answered the question I asked about whether he was prepared to invest in his department. The Committee will recall that the cost of upskilling his staff, or registering the departmental staff in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, was about $30 million. I asked him to tell us whether that was why he no longer requires the department’s staff to become registered. Was it the cost? He failed to answer, so that means that we have a Minister who is not prepared to provide the support, if one likes, for his department so that it can take a lead in becoming a registered agency.

I think this is a very serious issue. I understand that there are 989 full-time staff in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and some 580 of them are unqualified. The cost to register them, at $14,000 a head, would be about $30 million. From what the Minister failed to say, it means that he is not prepared to make that investment. If he is prepared to, I would like him to tell the Committee. Does he expect the department, if it is going to support the staff, to find that funding internally? Will he be granting it from the Budget process? I see he is making all sorts of moves with his head, and I would like him to put the answers on record by taking a call.

An issue of extreme concern to me is that the Social Workers Registration Board has the absolute discretion to grant registration based on any criteria at all that it thinks fit. The original assumption was that registration would be based on having a social work diploma qualification. But I understand that that board, which is appointed by the Minister, could change it. It could decide that instead of needing a qualification, that 5 years’ experience would be enough for someone to be eligible for registration. I understand that the Minister has seen papers that outline that to him. It means that this Minister could decide that someone does not need a qualification; someone needs only 5 years’ experience.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN: Before the dinner break I was reiterating that there are some 580 social workers in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services who are unqualified. It would cost the Government around $30 million to provide for their qualification and registration. But now we understand that the new Social Workers Registration Board has absolute discretion to grant registration based on any criteria that it deems fit. I think most of us thought that registration would be granted on the basis of whether the applicant had a diploma or a qualification of some sort. We understand that the board could change the basis of the criteria to the number of years a person had been in practice. Therefore, 5 years’ practice could make a person without a qualification eligible for registration.

The implication for the department is that instead of costing $30 million, it would cost only $12 million to register the 264 people who would now need registration. If the Minister has a lapdog board, made up of Labour Party supporters, he can save the Government a cool $18 million by changing the criteria that everybody expects. I would like the Minister to take a call on that very, very serious matter. I do not think that most social workers in New Zealand realise the discretionary power that the board has. It amounts to an opportunity for political interference at the highest level. A Minister can change the criteria, if he or she has a board that is compliant. I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steve Maharey, to tell us what safeguards the profession has to know that political interference will not be undertaken either by himself or by any other subsequent Ministers.

The Minister has to realise that Labour will not be in power for ever. Many of us hope that at the next election the balance of power will change. The Minister has to think about what he will do if he is in Opposition, and he sees a National Government Minister changing the criteria to suit him or her. It is not in the best interests of the profession. We need high standards in this profession, not political interference.

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National): The Minister of Social Services and Employment said he was looking for some steady debate and some good questions, so I will rise to that challenge, on the proviso that I hope he will rise and answer a few of the pertinent questions that the Opposition has raised about this bill, in earlier parts of the debate, that have not been answered. Unlike what the Minister said, these questions are not rhetorical. We are hoping for some answers and some clarity.

One thing I would like to know is why recommendation 3.5 of the Judge Mick Brown report has not been followed. It was received 2 years ago, and clearly stated that the introduction of social worker registration should be given urgency, but that has not happened. It has been a couple of years.

John Carter: We’re in urgency now!

KATHERINE RICH: Yes, but it is 2 years down the track. It is happening a lot later than many people thought it would.

The second thing Judge Mick Brown recommended was that, by mid-2002, social workers should not be able to exercise statutory powers, except when co-working with registered social workers, and/or members of the police. Why was that not implemented? Judge Mick Brown said that the department should set an agreed percentage of registered staff as a goal that must be realised by mid-2002. Once again, why did that not happen? There was certainly an expectation that it would happen. The Minister wholeheartedly endorsed that report when it was received.

We have not heard an explanation about why the Government has backed away from asking the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services social workers to register. We have not heard the Government’s explanation as to why it has backed away from that. We have a few ideas as to why the Government has decided not to include all Government social workers, as was the original intention. The Minister even went to the trouble of getting it approved by Cabinet, only for it to be rescinded some months later, once further homework was done. I think it is extraordinary that things would go as far as that, only for a total about-face then to occur. We have not had any explanation for that.

At the moment, the country faces a huge shortage of social workers. It will be a real problem for this country if we do not work out better ways to support social workers to undertake social work in this country. There are two reasons for that shortage. The first reason is the number of social workers who leave the country after they have graduated. I come from Dunedin, and I know that there is an English group that comes in every year to actively recruit New Zealand social workers and take them over to the UK. We are also pretty dependent on immigration, on overseas social workers coming in to plug a lot of the vacancies that cannot be filled.

If I look at the parts of this bill relating to overseas-qualified social workers, I realise how difficult we are making it for them to come here and practise. We are asking overseas-qualified social workers to clarify whether they are competent to practise social work with Māori. A very experienced social worker from the UK, who has perhaps practised in London, will have worked with a wide range of cultures and peoples. I do not think there are any social work courses in the UK that specifically deal with the Māori culture, but I doubt whether that has anything to do with the quality of a social worker, or his or her practical ability when working in this country. It is an unnecessary hurdle. The principles of social work apply equally, regardless of the nature of the client. Yes, a social worker has to be able to react and tailor his or her service to a wide range of people, but to ask overseas-qualified social workers to go on a specific training course is quite unreasonable at a time when we do not have enough social workers to fill vacancies.

The second provision is that someone from overseas is required to live and practise social work in New Zealand. Social work is becoming a very specialised profession, and there will be some occasions where someone who has a specialist interest in a certain area may not choose to live in this country. That person will come over and just work with specific cases. For example, somebody dealing with Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy might live in Sydney and travel to this country.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Whip—ACT NZ): I have to say how disappointed I am in the Minister of Social Services and Employment. It is a huge disappointment, because we know that this is a Minister who is not shy about talking. I would like to try to understand a little bit better why he is not prepared to take a call. I remind him that this bill is being passed through all its stages under urgency. Here we are, late at night on a Thursday, going through the motions, with a Minister who will not talk to the Committee about the issues the Opposition has raised. I believe they are extremely serious issues, and if the Minister does not want to treat this bill with contempt, he will get to his feet and he will answer some of the points that have been raised.

I want him to tell me how we can be guaranteed that political interference is not behind this bill.

David Benson-Pope: Don’t talk to us about contempt.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN: Maybe Mr Benson-Pope would like to stand up and put on record how the Opposition can be assured that this bill is not a mechanism to bring political interference into another area of professional expertise in New Zealand. There are no guarantees in this bill that the Minister will be kept under check by anybody. The point is that if the Minister puts in place a bunch of his mates, they will be driving the profession. They will be able to change the criteria, without any checks and balances. Where are the safeguards for all those people who rely on social workers to help them with their problems? There are none.

I tell the Minister that I believe that this is an extremely serious issue. I am not aware that anybody in the profession understood that the criteria could be changed in the way that they can be. There are no criteria written down in the bill, so it is up to the judgment, if one likes, of the profession. In my mind, changing the criterion from a qualification to a number of years of experience with no qualification is a huge change—the two are poles apart.

That was the official advice the Minister received. It was pointed out to him. He made no decision to try to put it right in the bill—to include it in a form that would assure members of the Opposition or members of the public that it was out of the politicians’ hands. I would like the Minister to take a call to tell us that my interpretation is not the correct one, and that the safeguards are actually written in the bill.

The other point I would like to make is that it costs $14,000 per social worker to get a qualification. Those workers may not even need to get a qualification, according to the advice the Minister has received. Are we to put enormous compliance costs on social workers and on the organisations they work for, when that might not be needed? If he does want them to train for and obtain a qualification, can he tell the Committee what he has done as Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) to ensure that enough providers of services will be out there to help those social workers who would like to gain qualifications to get them? I understand that at the moment the need out there and the actual number of people who can provide help are absolutely out of kilter. There are nowhere near enough trainers in social work to help those people get qualifications, if they so desire.

It is very important that the Minister sets the record straight, and that he tells us exactly what the criteria are to be from his perspective, because he will be the one who is guiding this. He will be the one who sets the basic criteria for how people gain their registration. We have seen two very different scenarios put forward in the advice that has been given to the Minister, and it is only fair that New Zealanders and social workers who have a very, very keen interest in this matter are informed by him. The Committee stage of a bill provides the Minister with an opportunity to address the nuts and bolts issues that are raised.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order paper 73 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to clause 11 be agreed to:

to omit new subclause (2)(b), set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 73, and substitute the following paragraph:

(b) must be such that, when it is added to the duration of any previous period or periods of limited registration of the person, the total is no more than 3 years.

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

Ayes 80

Noes 26

Amendment to the amendment agreed to.

Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 20; ACT New Zealand 6.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 73 as amended in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to, and clauses 1 to 147 and the schedules, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment): I move, That the Social Workers Registration Bill be now read a third time. The key principles of this bill are to provide people with greater protection from the harm that may result from poor social work practice, to enhance the professionalism of social work, and to ensure an investment is made in the people who work in this important occupation. For Dr Newman’s edification, I repeat the phrase “to ensure an investment is made in the people who work in this important occupation”, which means that we have allocated the Department of Child, Youth and Family with funding to ensure that they can make it through to registration.

The bill establishes a regulatory framework for the registration of all social workers. It will be applicable across all sectors where social workers are employed in New Zealand. The bill will improve the quality of social work by requiring that registered social workers are competent and held accountable for their practice. It establishes a system that will provide greater protection to the often vulnerable people who receive services from social workers. People receiving social work support deserve a quality service.

The bill will establish a board to register social workers. The board will be required to promote the benefits of registration of social workers. The employers of social workers, and the public generally, will also be people to whom this concept is promoted. A tribunal will be established to consider complaints against registered social workers, and to manage disciplinary issues.

Under the registration system, only certain people will have the right to use the title “registered social worker”. Only those who have a recognised qualification in social work—and I stress “recognised qualification”—who have enough practical experience, who are judged to be fit and proper people to be in social work, who are competent, and who can practise social work with Māori and different ethnic and cultural perspectives are the kinds of people who will enjoy the “registered social worker” title. The public need to be assured that they can have confidence in people who wield, as many speakers have said, quite considerable power.

This is an enabling rather than prescriptive piece of legislation. A significant amount of detail around registration will, of course, be left to the profession itself, through the board. For example, the profession itself must decide what an appropriate qualification is. Professions have to own the process of registration in their own profession.

A number of submissions were received. A vast majority of submitters supported the intent of this legislation. They were of a view that registration would result in better protection and better safeguards for clients and, can I say, social workers as well. One of the key issues raised by the Social Services Committee was whether registration should be compulsory. Given the shortness of the debate around this bill, we canvassed that issue in the second part of this debate, and people raised it during the Committee stage, so I do not intend to elaborate on it here, save to say that I agree with the view of the House that although mandatory registration is not appropriate at this time, it needs to be constantly revisited by the registration board, to decide when it will be appropriate to move towards a time when perhaps either the term “social worker” is protected, or we have mandatory social work registration. But it is not appropriate to do it right now.

I would certainly like to thank the select committee for all its hard work. It has, I think, produced legislation that will be welcomed by the sector. I would like to thank the sector itself. It has worked for many, many years to get this up and running. It has been closely involved in the registration legislation. I would like to put on the record my thanks to one particular person by the name of Buster Cursonwho has worked with the profession and with the Government right through this process to ensure the liaison has been clear and open and results in good legislation. We now want to ensure that we carry out our promise to social workers that they will move into a professional environment that is good for them, good for the public, and, most of all, good for the clients they serve. I commend the bill to the House.

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National): The National Party gladly votes for the third reading. We think the bill is an important step forward for the social work profession as a whole. However, it is important to inject a bit of reality into the discussion about what this bill will be able to achieve once it is enacted.

We agree with a lot of the comments that the Minister has made. Social workers should work towards the aim of delivering a better quality service, increasing the discipline within the profession, and increasing the protection of those people who use the service, as well as themselves. If members look at all those objectives, they will see that the bill, in its present form, will not be able to enhance the quality of the profession. Certainly, it will not make a difference to the discipline of the profession or increase protection, because this bill states that registration is voluntary. Anybody who does not want to take part and be registered does not have to. I suspect that some of the less professional social workers—some of those more likely not to follow best practice regimes—are less likely to register. I do not think the cowboys of the social work world will go through the process and register. They will just continue to call themselves social workers and, basically, not change their practice considerably.

Yes, the Social Services Committee did a good job with this bill, and I commend the previous chair, Taito Phillip Field. In terms of our side of things, we did our job in a timely fashion, and we listened to a wide range of groups interested in the social work sector. However, I have to say that out of all the advice those groups gave us, and the recommendations they made, this bill took most of their aims and objectives and basically gutted what they were trying to achieve. They asked for the majority of social workers to be required to register. On the first reading of this bill, it was thought that at least State social workers would be asked to register. That, sadly, is not the case. It is the role of Government to be a leader in the social work sector. With nearly 1,000 out of the 10,000 social workers being employed by the Government, or working within some kind of Government agency, it is important the Government works to ensure it is putting the best foot forward for the profession.

At one stage the Government was going to put expectations for registration in place. It had even done the work and taken the recommendations through Cabinet, but some 3 months later the objective to include Child, Youth and Family Services and other social workers from Government agencies was rescinded. That was a real shame. It is a shame the Government did not do its homework to try to find out whether it was realistic prior to putting that in place. Somebody within the ministry did not tell the Minister that the recommendation had gone through Cabinet and been rescinded, because even a few months later he was happily telling the House that he was pleased that the bill would specifically require all social workers carrying out statutory functions to be registered. A certification model was supported by two-thirds of those who participated in the consultation process; that is true. Perhaps it may even understate the support for that particular requirement when it came through the Social Services Committee. So it is a shame.

The pace of this bill has been unreasonably slow. It was supposedly a priority-3 piece of legislation. The aim was to get this bill through by the end of 2001, and here we are years later just ending the third reading now. However, I am glad that at least there is a framework. It is really important that the sector has a framework to enable it to start looking at what the important issues are—that is, the quality of the sector, issues to do with training, and getting the board under way. We will watch with interest to see who the appointments on that board will be. We will want to know that there is a balance on it, and that it will not be just a whole set of political appointments. I am disappointed that Child, Youth and Family Services, being such a significant part of the sector, is not able to put someone on that board. It is a shame that that recommendation, too, was rescinded by the Government. Being such a large employer of social workers, it would have been good to have someone on that board representing that sector.

I suppose that, ultimately, what all of us in this House want to know is where the service will progress from here. As many members in this House will know, we often hear some pretty sad stories from constituents, particularly those dealing with Child, Youth and Family Services, probation, and others areas of social work where things have not got as well as the public expects. Social workers work under immense pressure, and I can see why many have decided to leave the country. Certainly, when we look at their salaries, coupled with the pressure they are under, we can see that their job may not be as rewarding as some other jobs they could potentially spend their time doing. With notifications skyrocketing over the last couple of years, it is important that we address the problems of shortages of social workers.

Social workers are being asked to take much higher caseloads than they had to take previously when we were in Government. The caseloads have increased dramatically in an attempt to get the unallocated case lists down. Those lists are shameful. Certainly, in Southland today, where there are over 200 critical cases, the Minister has to take a long hard look at the service. This is his fourth year of managing Child, Youth and Family Services, and there has been little change. Little progress has been made on unallocated case lists, and still children wait while their files are sent to social workers.

The Mick Brown report, released at the time, was excellent. It made a number of recommendations, but the Government has paid lip service to putting them in place. Of the 57 recommendations made, I understand that between 13 and 15 have been implemented. We will hold the Government to account and work with the social services sector to ensure that we can progress its objectives from here.

TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Social Services and Employment): I want to acknowledge the contribution made by Katherine Rich and other members who were part of the Social Services Committee, and the work they did to bring this bill to a state where it is favourably recommended to the House—which is more than what I can say for her colleague Nick Smith. As a former Minister of the National Government Cabinet, I would have thought that that member would be a lot more knowledgable than was evident by the way he discredited himself with the sorts of questions he asked. This regime of registration for social workers is something that has been recommended. The sector certainly made it clear that it needed such registration.

I want to congratulate the Minister and this Government, finally, after so many years, on giving the social workers sector in New Zealand something that is quite important and encouraging to it, in terms of what it has been asking for. In particular, it is improving the standards of social work in New Zealand, and I commend the registration regime that is to be set up. The board to be set up will be a Crown entity, appointed by the Minister and the Government, and in monitoring the standards of that board, it is important that the accountability returns to the Minister.

The regime also looks at registration on a voluntary basis. I think that the concept of mandatory registration presented in the various submissions, particularly from different areas of the social workers sector, is an important point. But the wise move in this legislation is to look at what happens over 3 years, and then to have a review. Certainly some of the important evaluations that need to be made can be done in 3 years, particularly with regard to mandatory registration.

The other issue that I thought was quite sensible in this legislation was to ensure that people who practise social work in New Zealand have the qualifications and skills to make the right judgments with regard to the care of children, particularly in ethnic communities. There has been some comment in this Committee stage debate about why we have reference to ethnic communities. If we look at the mix of clientele in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, we see that Māori and Pacific Island communities are truly over-represented. Because of the overwhelming numbers, it is only common sense that that service deals with Māori and Pacific Island communities. Other ethnic communities are also growing, and we also need qualified and competent social workers to work in those areas.

I am very supportive of what is in the bill. It ensures that those who practice do so competently, and that the regime will encourage the standards and improve the quality of decisions made. Finally, I say that this bill is good legislation that is well overdue, and I want to congratulate the Minister and Government on getting it through this House.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): New Zealand First supports this bill. It is very important legislation—well overdue, as Taito Philip Field has said—that, appropriately managed, should have a very positive outcome for social workers. It is a step forward for this profession, and it may assist with recruitment and retention of staff, which is something we have a concern with. This increased professionalism will also have a positive effect on the confidence of the many New Zealanders who come into contact with the service and rely on social workers to help them.

Social work, as we all know, has become increasingly complex, and a greater accountability is required in that role. So the setting up of a registration board is a step forward, but it should be representative of all sectors of social workers. The board will also ensure that there is a greater accountability for social workers, which is essential when the decisions that are made impact on the lives of children and their families. New Zealand needs well-trained, well-qualified people in that profession in order to deal with the many challenges required of them, so sufficient resources and support to accompany the new registration system is an absolute necessity. The review element, too, is essential, and 3 years is a timely period for review. New Zealand First looks forward to monitoring the outcomes of the bill, and to having a professional team of social workers in New Zealand working with our children and families.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): I am delighted that this bill is finally having its third reading tonight, and that all organisations involved with employing and/or training social workers will now be able to begin working towards the new era with both hope and confidence. As I mentioned earlier today, this bill has been a long time coming, especially from the point of view of people in the profession, as they have been working towards this moment for decades, rather than months or years. I am sure that there will be some quiet celebrations tonight or tomorrow, when people learn that the bill has finally been passed.

Social workers operate at a number of the frontlines of society, where the details of life are cruel, complex, and, all too often, tragic. Social work is a really hard job to do well, and that is exacerbated by the fact that it is one of the professions most vulnerable to public criticism and comment. Working towards the registration of all social workers, with a board ensuring high standards of fitness and competence, is an overdue and acutely necessary step on the road to lifting the capacity of New Zealand social workers. I am the first to acknowledge that the new Act will not, of itself, heal all the wounds within the profession, or eliminate all poor practice overnight. However, I believe that what it will achieve will be a steady improvement in performance and accountability across all social work settings, which will, in the end, benefit all of us in this country, not just those directly affected.

JUDY TURNER (United Future): During the third reading debate on this very important bill for social workers, I want to reiterate a couple of points that have already been made. I also want to reflect on some of the comments made by other members who were concerned that the outcome of this bill would be to remove the ability for social workers to be self-regulated. The question that pops into my mind is this: if they are so happy with their present level of registration, why would they be applying to come under something regulatory like the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill, which would provide them with the kind of professional status they hope to get out of this bill?

One of the other members, Mr Smith, talked about the fear of State control over a profession. But I reiterate that the aim of this bill is to establish a professional framework for social work that enhances, rather than dismantles, self-regulation. This bill strengthens that position and gives clout to the term “social worker”. The difference is that, on the one hand, a Youth Court judge is calling for higher standards and, on the other hand, a group of what, at present, are employees are wanting to upgrade to the status of a profession, with limited success, to date, in self-regulating. We do, however, want to acknowledge the very good work of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association for Social Workers, and we want to encourage it in what it has done to date. Obviously, it has contributed to where we find ourselves tonight. The association’s attempt to bring all social workers under the umbrella of some sort of regulatory body is to be commended.

The real need for professional status for social workers reflects the very sad condition that many New Zealand families find themselves in. United Future looks forward to the establishment of a commission for the family to provide a strength-based approach to supporting mums, dads, and their kids, so that the heavy workloads of social workers are reduced. United Future acknowledges the hard work done by social workers, and is happy to support the passing of this bill.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ): It is a shame that this bill is again being passed under urgency. It is also a shame that it has taken so long for it to be passed, since the original time frame was for it to be a bill that would be handled quickly.

The Minister told us this is a bill that is meant to give greater protection to the people whom social workers support. It is meant to enhance the professionalism of the industry and the competencies within the industry. I remain puzzled at how a bill can provide for increased professionalism and competency, and greater protections for those people who are involved with social workers, given that registration under the bill is voluntary. How can the Minister stand there and say the bill will do this, that, and the other, if registration is voluntary? People can decide not to register, because it is voluntary.

I say to Government members that this bill is a fundamental contradiction in terms. It is a Clayton’s bill that will not achieve the fine things that the Minister claims. It is a bill that will bring State regulation through a politically correct and politically motivated board, because the Minister did not put my mind at rest in the Committee stage. This bill is imposing State regulation on an industry that practises self-regulation.

The Committee heard no evidence of large numbers of people who were complaining about social workers, except for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. But that department is run by the Government, for goodness’ sake! So why is this Government regulating a whole industry—some 10,500 people—when those who were the subject of most of the complaints were the State’s own department of 1,000 people? It just does not make sense. It is for those reasons that the ACT party will not be supporting this bill.

The point is that the regulation of social workers will not achieve the aim of this bill—namely, to try to improve the standards of social work in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. Indeed, Judge Mick Brown’s report brought all this about. He was very concerned about the competencies within the department. He saw poor practice, he saw systemic failure. We as an Opposition highlighted there were 4,000 potential child abuse cases that were unallocated but were being reported on month after month. One day I asked for the duration figures. I wanted to know how long the children, whose cases were critical, had been waiting; how long had very urgent cases been waiting, and so on. The Minister found, to his horror, that some of those children had been waiting for months and months. The longest cases had been waiting for over 18 months to be seen. There were no provisions in the way the department worked to make sure that those children were safe.

When the Minister got the report back from the department, and it showed these dreadful, dreadful figures, he issued a statement to say the figures were wrong. It took him 6 months to get the figures right—through a whitewash system, I presume! The point is, that was blatantly poor practice operating in the department, and it was these sorts of issues that Mick Brown wanted the Government to address.

If we think about the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services we recall that when it originated, family breakdown in this country was relatively minimal. The number of children with high and complex needs was pretty small. The department actually could cope. But the problem is that things have become worse. New Zealand has the highest rate of family breakdown in the OECD—29 percent of our families are broken families. That means those children are far more at risk. That is what is putting the department under pressure. There are a number of cases of high and complex needs. Many members of Parliament will have received the emails from the family in the last couple of weeks, in which it is crying out for support and help, and saying the department will not help them, and the police will not help them until someone is injured. So these people have nowhere to go, because the department is the last port of call.

I say to Government members sitting on the other side of the House that the model of having one agency is now obsolete. The agency needs to be able to work hand in hand with police, health workers, and education workers. So the idea of a one-stop shop, a community-based agency wrapping all those services together is the sort of model that we should be hearing about in this House today, in response to the concerns that Mick Brown raised in his report about competency concerns with the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.

If in fact we were moving to that sort of model, the ACT party would be very much supportive, because we would see that it was timely and forward-looking, and that it would possibly work extremely well, especially if the police took up more of the forensic work that, we understand, social workers are busy doing. So the social workers are busy investigating, doing forensic work, doing the “removal of children” work, and doing all the stuff that the police should be doing, instead of being able to work with children to make sure they are safe, and work with families to make sure they are safe so that the child can come back home. At the moment, more and more kids are being taken away from their families and they are not being brought back home. The number of children in care is going up month by month, year by year. That is not the best answer for this country, that is not the best answer for these children, and that is not the best that a Government can do.

I can tell the member sitting opposite that a Clayton’s bill that sounds good, feels good, and has all the right buttons, but does nothing, is not the answer. That is why I am so disappointed in the response of this Government to what is the most serious concern this country faces. Every year thousands of children in New Zealand are put at risk, because the agency fails to help them in the way that it would want to if it were better organised, had better practice, or better resources. I do not know what the answer is, but I do know that this bill is not the answer.

If some proper solutions were being presented today, the whole social work profession would suddenly start to feel uplifted, because its members would see that social work is moving in a modern direction. That would be far better than a bill that basically says to the social work profession: “We do not trust you. We are going to put in place to control you all a board that the Minister chooses by himself, with no checks and balances.” What other profession in New Zealand has impositions placed on it in that way by such political intervention? Where are the safeguards for anybody, when that is happening? Where are the safeguards for members of the profession to know that, if they happen to be ACT supporters, or National supporters, that somehow they will not find the weight of the board coming down on them? That is a far-fetched scenario, but it is one that cannot be pushed to one side, when there are no checks and balances in this bill to make sure that the political system does not intrude into that profession.

There are a few other issues that the Minister did not explain to us. Serious concerns were raised during the Committee stage. There is a real worry in the profession that this registration will create an elitism between different sides of the social work profession—those who have qualifications and can be registered, or can afford it, and those who do not. There are compliance cost issues on small businesses that run private provision of social work services, that they may not be able to afford the $14,000 to help their staff become registered, whereas the State will. We have already heard from the Minister that he is going to pull down a big chunk of taxpayers’ dollars in the next Budget to ensure that some of his workers can get registered.

One has to ask whether we need those sorts of compliance costs on an industry that is already absolutely overstretched, to the point where many experienced professional social workers are leaving to seek better opportunities overseas, and to seek better opportunities in other industries. Do we want to impose a whole lot of Government regulation and compliance costs on an industry that was probably doing a pretty reasonable job, except for one particular agency, which, of course, is always going to be the subject of public scrutiny—that is, the agency that is run by the Government itself?

I finish by saying my major concern is the political interference that the Minister did not put to rest. This is a Clayton’s bill, and I am very disappointed that we will not be able to support it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): National is pleased to support a proper regulatory system for social workers, but it has four quite important concerns about this bill. I am disappointed to repeat the fact that these issues were raised in the Committee stage, and the Minister was unable to respond to any of them.

The first of those issues was raised very ably by one of the most effective advocates for children in this Chamber, Dr Paul Hutchinson. He pointed out that social workers do wield enormous power. They have the capacity literally to make life or death decisions about children. Yet, with those sorts of powers, we would have expected that that group of statutory social workers at least would need registration under this bill, but they do not. We are disappointed about that, and it is something that we think the Minister should have responded to. We think that if people are going to have the power to take children away from their parents, then there needs to be some regulatory control around them. This bill is disappointing, because it does not provide for that.

The second key concern National has about this bill is that it treats the profession of social workers like children, in the classical way of this Government’s nanny State policies. This bill says that the profession of social work, unlike any other profession, will be driven by the Government. Is there any other profession in which the entire board is appointed or dis-appointed—sacked—by a Minister of the Crown? Do lawyers, for instance, which some would accept is a profession, have the Attorney-General appoint the Law Society?

Simon Power: Just the bench.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My colleague points out that she appoints the judges, but not the Law Society. I ask the lawyers in the House whether they would accept the Law Society being appointed by the Minister of Justice. No, they would not. They would be up in arms. They would not accept that. Would my own profession, the engineers, accept it? Is the top body that decides the standards and the professional regulation of engineers run by a Minister of the Crown? It would be George Hawkins, and given what he did with the Building Industry Authority I am damned pleased he does not run it. But the law does not allow that. It says it is run by the engineers. If we come to the accountants, or the plumbers, or the electricians, or the doctors, or the nurses—in all of those we trust the profession to elect its own. It is so fundamental to being a profession. It is about a profession setting its standards. It is about a profession disciplining its own members. But what we have here from this Government in this bill is good old nanny State.

The Government does not trust the profession of social workers, and that is a big disappointment, because the truth is this: who set up a system of a standard of ethics and a code for social workers? It has already been done. The Aotearoa – New Zealand Association of Social Workers has done that work. Does this legislation attempt to build on the work that social workers have done for themselves? No, it does not. This bill says that it has to be left to nanny State. Social workers have to set up a statutory authority to do it. We say that is wrong, because we trust professions.

The third area where this party has difficulty with the bill is the costs. The Minister has created a bureaucratic monster here. I do not know why we have to have 200 clauses of very specific, detailed, bureaucratic legislation to govern social workers, yet when it comes to something like my own profession of engineering, and many other professions, it could be done in 40 clauses, a fifth of the number. This is one of the longest professional bills. I ask Mr Taito Phillip Field: how come we need this sort of bureaucracy? Why can we not leave things and trust the profession? Does his Government not understand the sorts of costs it is going to impose on social workers, including my wife, when they go to register?

The other key point is that I asked the Minister during the Committee stage whether he could assure members that the bill for this bureaucratic monster would be paid for by the Crown. No, no, the bill states that every social worker will have to pay a levy every year, not just for registration, but also to pay for the disciplinary process. We all know that the social workers working for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services are stressed, morale is low, and turnover is high. I simply asked the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steve Maharey, whether he could assure me that registered social workers working for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services were not going to have to pay the $200 or $300 a year fee to comply with this bill. The Minister was absolutely silent. Why was he silent? I will tell members why. It is because he is going to bill them for it. We say that is wrong. [Interruption] Will Jill Pettis reassure me that her social workers at the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services in Wanganui will not be required to pay the registration fee? Will the Government meet that cost? The silence is deafening.

I wonder whether the Minister, who is sitting in the gallery, would just give me a nod that the department will meet the costs for the social workers who work for Child, Youth and Family Services. I ask the Minister to please give me a nod. He will not. He will not give that reassurance, and that is wrong. We know what happened to the teachers. This sneaky Government made it a requirement for teachers to be registered, then it put the fee up 80 percent. In the last month every teacher in New Zealand has got a nice little bill, and this legislation will do the same thing.

The last area about which I wish to express concern is something that I want to challenge the United Future party on. It is in respect of the sickly political correctness in this bill. Muriel Newman made a substantial contribution to this debate. She pointed out that if we are to make social progress in New Zealand then we have some big issues to ask about our families and how we can better make society hold those families together. I have been right through this bill, but in all the principles and in all the bureaucratic guff I could not find the word “family”—

Dianne Yates: You had 9 long years.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I challenge the member opposite to tell me where the word “family” appears. If we are going to deal with some of the social issues in New Zealand, we have the treaty—we have to be culturally appropriate, and have all sorts of political correctness—

Steve Chadwick: Blame the social workers for dysfunctional families—how absurd.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I do not, but I say to the member for Rotorua that if we are to get better social outcomes for this country, then we need social workers who understand families. [Interruption] It is interesting to note that I have obviously hit a raw nerve, because what this bill should say is not all this politically correct nonsense about the treaty, Māori, and those sorts of issues, it should be talking about the things that matter for Māori families, for Pacific Island families, and for families of every ethnic origin.

The United Future party went around the country saying that it was going to advocate for families, but all we get in this bill is the damn treaty. I say that the family is far more important to this country than the treaty will ever be, in terms of support for families. The bill should have addressed that, and it does not.

Dianne Yates: Which bill?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This bill about social workers. I do not expect the Labour Party to stand up for the families of New Zealand, but I thought United Future might.

Larry Baldock: We are.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Where is it mentioned? It is not mentioned once in the bill. Good social work practice has to be about social workers supporting families, and that is where Muriel Newman is with me, and that is what makes it different on this side of the House. It is good news that social workers are having a statutory framework. Let us hope it can raise standards. It is a pity about the politically correct nonsense and the Government’s incorrect priorities.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Workers Registration Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 100

Noes 6

Bill read a third time.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8.

ACT New Zealand 6.

The House adjourned at 7.59 p.m. (Thursday)