Thursday, 28 August 2003

Thursday, 28 August 2003

Thursday, 28 August 2003

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Obituaries

Hon Michael Aynsley Connelly

Mr SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 27 August 2003 of the Hon Michael Aynsley Connelly CMG, QSO, who represented the electorate of Riccarton from 1956 to 1969, that of Wigram from 1969 to 1978, and that of Yaldhurst from 1978 to 1984. Mick Connelly was Minister of Police and Minister of Customs from 1972 to 1975, and also Minister of Works and Development and Minister of Statistics from 1974 to 1975. He was a past president of the Association of Former Members of the Parliament of New Zealand. I desire, on behalf of this House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained, and our sympathy with his wife Margaret and all of the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory.

Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Immigration Amendment Bill, the completion of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill, and the first reading of the Judicial Matters Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): I want to confirm with the Leader of the House that there will no urgency during this session. I wonder whether he might give us some indication of when he would expect to progress the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill, which I understand is due to be reported back to the House about 9 September.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Yes, I can confirm that there is no intention at this point to take any urgency in this 4-week period, barring any untoward judicial decisions that might occur between now and the end of it. I anticipate getting the second reading of the Organisms and Other Matters Bill done in this 4-week session, but probably there will not be a great deal more progress than that.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Sentencing and Parole Acts—Victims and Public Safety

1. MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) to the Minister of Justice: Is he satisfied that the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Parole Act 2002 are working in the best interests of the victims of crime and the safety of the community as a whole?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): I am satisfied that the Sentencing Act, the Parole Act, and the Victims’ Rights Act together provide a regime that far better serves the interests of victims of crime and protects the safety of the community. Worst offenders now receive the maximum sentences, and those have been up to 30 years before parole can even be considered. The Parole Board may not release offenders sentenced under new legislation where they constitute an undue risk, and automatic release at two-thirds has been abolished. However, amendments can, and will, be made to the law over time, taking into account how the courts are applying it.

Marc Alexander: How can the Minister be satisfied with the Government’s parole policy when, after the families of the victims of a manslaughter and arson case were informed by the Department of Corrections about the impending release of one of the offenders, Jeremy Tahi, they were invited to a meeting with the Parole Board only to be told by the department before that meeting took place that Tahi would be released anyway?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am not aware of the particular case, and probably could not comment on it if I were aware of it, but I can assure the member that if any corrections official said there was going to be a decision one way or the other before the Parole Board had even heard the case, they would be grossly out of order. I doubt that any corrections official would have said that. If he or she did, they were very foolish.

Richard Worth: In face of ongoing criticism about loopholes relating to home detention, the changes that have been made to the Sentencing Act in respect of fines defaulters and non-payment of fines, the criticism about mitigating factors in sentencing, and ongoing criticism of the Parole Board, does there not come a point where even a wise Minister would say that it is time to amend this stuff?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am aware that a whole range of people within the justice system—judges and lawyers—have praised the legislation. Let me quote one of the member’s former colleagues, a High Court judge, who said: “The Sentencing Act in most areas is a huge improvement on the mishmash of law that applied prior to 1 July on sentencing. It greatly assists the court.” That was said by one of the former high officials in the member’s party, who is now a High Court judge.

Tim Barnett: What major changes has this Government made to recognise the rights and interests of victims?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The Victims’ Rights Act represents a quantum leap forward in the recognition of victims’ rights. It makes victims’ rights no longer simply vague principles but mandatory rights. Victims on the notification list can now attend parole hearings and make submissions. Victims can present their victim impact statements orally in court. These and other changes, such as the placement of victims’ advisers in every court, are major improvements to the way victims are being treated.

Ron Mark: How appropriate and meaningful does he think his Victims’ Rights Act, his Sentencing Act, and his Parole Act are to the family of David McNee, the murdered television interior designer, given that the man charged with his murder, Phillip Layton Edwards, was released from prison having served only half of his sentence, and was known to be a violent offender?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Edwards, who is before the court—and I do not want to comment on his personal position—had been mainly convicted of minor offences. He was not regarded as a serious, violent offender. That is the information I have received on that particular case. He was released not on parole, but because of the length of his sentence, after he had served half of that sentence.

Marc Alexander: How can the Minister be satisfied with the operation of the Parole Act when in the case I outlined—that of Jeremy Tahi—it is utterly apparent that the lack of coordination between the Parole Board and the Department of Corrections means that victims are being denied effective involvement in parole decisions?

Hon PHIL GOFF: As the member knows, under the Victims’ Rights Act, victims have the statutory right to be involved in parole hearings if they are on the notification list. That was never the case under the National Government. Victims can attend and make oral submissions, and any victim can make written submissions to the Parole Board. That is written into law.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister not understand that all over New Zealand ordinary people simply look at the case of, for example, Michael Carroll, and the ridiculous decision made by the Parole Board in that case, and the subsequent result, where the man was lost in Christchurch City—at large for more than 24 hours—and consider that his attitude towards parole has been simply unworkable and not sensible?

Hon PHIL GOFF: As the member knows well, the Minister of Justice cannot—and never has been able to—comment on individual decisions by the Parole Board.

Marc Alexander: Why does the Parole Board place the likelihood of reoffending before the need for certainty on the part of the victim that the offender will be put away for a defined period, or does that reflect an ethos that parole is more about finding reasons that someone should get out early, rather than reasons for keeping him or her there?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Absolutely not. The new Parole Act makes it absolutely clear that the Parole Board must not release any offender who would constitute an undue risk to the safety of the community. What is more, the member will be aware that the Parole Board can now defer parole hearings for up to 3 years, and has done so in the case of Paul Bailey and Raymond Ratima. That never happened under that Government—it did not give a damn about victims’ rights.

Ron Mark: Noting that answer then, can the Minister tell the House what will he do to a Parole Board that makes a decision to release a person who subsequently proves to be a danger and a risk to the community by carrying out an act of violence?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Any Parole Board is made up of human beings, and human beings from time to time make errors. If the member looks at the statistics, he will note that what is remarkable about the Parole Board is that most of the time it does get it right.

Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Document Disclosure

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Why didn’t the Prime Minister and her officials ensure that all documents, including memoranda from her department, relating to GM-contaminated corn were disclosed to the public of New Zealand during the 2002 election campaign?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister made it clear publicly that all relevant advice should be released. She was not aware until well after the election campaign that some items had not been released.

Hon Bill English: In the light of her statement on 11 July 2002 on National Radio that “I believe in full disclosure”, will she volunteer to show up to the select committee inquiry into “corngate”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister did, indeed, make that statement and did, indeed, order full disclosure of all papers. In the case of this paper it was first released in November of 2002, discussed in a magazine article in February 2003, given to the Local Government and Environment Committee in April 2003, and discovered by the National Party on 26 August 2003.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are seeing this happen increasingly in this House, and I would like you to comment on it. When the Government is on a difficult question the Minister makes a half-baked attempt at a joke, and the Labour caucus has clearly been instructed to clap and laugh, to try to deflect the question. It is terribly orchestrated—

Mr SPEAKER: I heard a member make an interjection during a point of order. She is very lucky not to be asked to leave, and that is the only warning today.

Rodney Hide: It is clearly orchestrated. I do not want to relitigate this particular one, but I would ask you to keep your eye on that. It is not helpful to question time to have that forced laughter from the back benches.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me put it this way. I would be the first to enjoy the Standing Orders Committee coming down with a recommendation that there be absolutely no interjections whatsoever during question time, and I would fully support that. However, this is a Parliament where I believe we are able to have a bit of toing and froing. I did not see anything that occurred then as being different from other parties doing similar things at similar times.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that Minister’s answer, it is important the House knows that I was specifically advised by the Clerk’s Office that I could not release those papers without that being a breach of privilege, until such time as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet had appeared before the select committee.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, and the member knows it.

Hon Ken Shirley: In view of recent revelations based on the documents and memoranda that were withheld by the Prime Minister’s department during the 2002 election campaign, does the Prime Minister now regret calling John Campbell of TV3 “a little creep” last July—yes, or no?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No.

Hon Bill English: Given that the Prime Minister won a Broadcasting Standards Authority complaint against TV3 on the basis that she was “ambushed” on “corngate”, why will she not accept the considered invitation of the select committee to show up and explain her role in “corngate” at the legitimate inquiry of this Parliament?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Apart from anything else because, as I have just said, the document now being referred to was first released in November 2002, reported in a magazine article of February 2003, given to the select committee in April—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I heard the member start his comments with “because”, and that is an answer to the question. Let him finish.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: And also because the document referred to is simply a cover note for a Cabinet document, which was released before the election.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why did the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet not release any of its large bundle of papers during the election campaign, when the Ministry for the Environment released its two boxes of papers, and why did it take an Official Information Act request by Metro writer Steven Price, many months later, before any of that material was released?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am advised by the chief executive that in his judgment, following the principles of the Official Information Act, confidential memos within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet were not to be subject to release. That clearly was directly contrary to the Prime Minister’s instruction to release all material.

Hon Peter Dunne: In the light of that last answer and the Prime Minister’s earlier comment in July last year, I recall, about disclosure, has the Prime Minister—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member will now leave the Chamber. I have told the member there will be no interjecting during questions. The member interjected. I warned the member. Please leave the Chamber.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With all due respect, this is one of those situations that get a little tricky. We had a circumstance last week where Mr Tamihere was ejected from Parliament, and was then brought back to answer a question. I notice that question No. 4 on the Order Paper is in the name of Dr Nick Smith. It is not unusual for there to be some interjection during the course of question time. It has been very noticeable in the last week that there has been a lower threshold of tolerance on your part—that is the standard you wish to set. But in this case, it seems, on an issue that is very sensitive and where there are quite serious issues of accountability being examined by the Opposition, it simply does not look good if one of the questioners—in this case, Dr Nick Smith—is expelled from the House and is unable to ask his question.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has his facts slightly wrong. I ejected Mr Tamihere, and I was asked to recall him because he had a subsequent question. I thought, on balance, as that was a request made by the Opposition, I would do so, and I was generous in that regard. But I have made it perfectly clear—and there has been no change to my standard over the last 3 years—that during the asking of questions there are to be no interjections. That was a very, very noisy and unprovoked interjection, and the member must leave the Chamber. Please leave.

Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Peter Dunne: What about my supplementary question?

Mr SPEAKER: The member may have his supplementary question.

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Bearing in mind the decision you have just made—and we are not disputing that—Dr Nick Smith does have a question, No. 4. I ask that he be allowed to return to the Chamber to ask question No. 4, and then leave.

Mr SPEAKER: I want to be reasonable about this. I think I will allow him to do that, but that is the only time he is to be in the Chamber during question time.

Hon Peter Dunne: In view of the previous answer and the Prime Minister’s own comments in July last year about full disclosure, what action was taken, either at that time or subsequently, in respect of a standard of behaviour by Dr Prebble that was clearly less than that expected by the Prime Minister with regard to that disclosure?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think that Dr Prebble has made it clear that he now thinks he made an error of judgment. It was a matter of his judgment, on the balance of looking at things in the light of the Official Information Act. I do not believe, and I do not think the Prime Minister believes, that the lack of judgment in that particular case was sufficiently serious for disciplinary action to be taken against an excellent public servant.

Hon Ken Shirley: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that neither she nor any other Cabinet Minister instructed the Government members of the Local Government and Environment Committee to block the request of that select committee to call on the Prime Minister to explain the situation, in order to help that committee with its inquiries? Why did Government members and United Future members block that request and prevent the committee doing that inquiry?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I allow the question, was that part of the meeting held—[Interruption] There is a press statement. All right.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister is not responsible for the actions of Government members on select committees.

Hon Bill English: I repeat my question to the Prime Minister: did she or any other member of her Cabinet, or the whips, instruct the Labour members and the United Future members of the select committee inquiring into “corngate” to vote against the select committee invitation to her to show up to explain her role?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member cared to read the Standing Orders, he would understand that it is not appropriate to instruct members of select committees to do anything.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Twice now I have asked Dr Cullen direct questions that he simply refuses to answer. I asked him quite explicitly—not about the Standing Orders—whether the Prime Minister or any whip or Minister had given instructions that Labour and United Future members were to vote against Helen Clark coming to the select committee. That is a pretty straightforward question. I do not need a lesson in the Standing Orders; I know them. What I know is that this Government is unlikely to have followed them. I asked him a direct question, and he should answer that question.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: First, I take exception to the notion that the Government would not follow the Standing Orders. In fact, the member is trying to accuse the Prime Minister of a breach of privilege. If he wishes to do that, he should do so by way of a letter.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I need nothing further.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any further assistance. If the Leader of the House chose to answer that question in the way that he did, then that is the way he chose to do so. He did address it.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will the Prime Minister answer my previous question, which was different from Mr English’s question and did not relate to the two particular memos, but asked this: why did the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet not release any of its large bundle of papers during the election campaign, when the Ministry for the Environment did; why did it take an Official Information Act request months later for it all to come out, and could it all have been covered by the matters that Mr Prebble relies on in explaining his decision?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I could not quite follow the last part of the question. In terms of the first part, I am advised by Dr Prebble that it was his judgment that, guided by the principles of the Official Information Act, there was no overriding public interest. What I can say is that having looked at the document itself, nothing in that material is essentially different from the Cabinet document that was released before the election.

Light Armoured Vehicles—Defence Capability

3. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: Is he confident that the Army’s new light armoured vehicles have the capability to carry out defence operations in the South Pacific?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Acting Minister of Defence): Yes, and, more important, the Army is.

Ron Mark: Why, then, are there no plans to deploy the LAVIIIs into the Solomons along with the 125 infantry soldiers who have just been deployed there?

Hon PHIL GOFF: There is probably a variety of answers to that, including, firstly, that they are not regarded as being needed there at the present time, because not a shot has been fired, to date. Usually light armoured vehicles are put in when that is anticipated. Secondly, my understanding is that the vehicles have just started to arrive. The first of them came just a couple of weeks ago. The two plans have not fitted together, in any case.

Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: How will the capability of the LAVIII differ from the capability of the M113 in relation to deployment to Pacific Island countries?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I think the difference between the two vehicles is that we are comparing a vehicle from the 1960s with a vehicle that has been built for the 21st century. There is a range of things that the LAVIIIs have. They have greater protection for their occupants, and I think that is most important. They have better firepower. They have night-fighting capability. They can actually fire while they are moving, which the M113s could not. I think in just about every sense they are superior vehicles.

Gerry Brownlee: Notwithstanding the Minister’s answer, has he read of the United States Army’s concerns over the vulnerability of the LAVIIIs to rocket-propelled grenade fire, and of its resulting decision to fit extra slat armour to the vehicles destined for Iraq in October? Will the New Zealand Army be purchasing and fitting extra armour to its light armoured vehicles; if not, why not, and, if so, at what cost?

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

Hon PHIL GOFF: The United States is clearly not concerned about the vehicle; it has purchased 2,200 of them. I will record for the member what the congressional committee said about that quite recently. The report stated that the Stryker, which is the same as the LAVIII, was “more survivable, faster, roomier, more comfortable, and less logistically demanding than the alternative M113A3”. The vehicle armour is very good. It can take at point-blank range a 7.62 millimetre bullet without the appliqué armour. It can survive a mine of 7.5 kilograms, which is larger than a normal mine. It will blow a wheel off, but the vehicle will keep going. In just about every respect it provides greater protection, and that is why the Army made the decision to purchase that vehicle.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table an article from the Washington Times entitled “A study finds new Army vehicles too vulnerable”. The article outlines the problems—

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

Hon Peter Dunne: In the event that there was to be a deployment of any light armoured vehicles to any South Pacific theatre of action, is the Minister confident that we actually have the means of physically transporting them swiftly and safely to such a deployment at present?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The answer is yes. On every occasion when the New Zealand Army has deployed armoured vehicles, they have been shipped by sea. They can be transported by aircraft, but it is a rather expensive way of doing that. The C130 will take a LAVIII, but as in East Timor, if we were to send armoured vehicles to a particular theatre of action, we would send them by sea. Generally, of course, we would contract a vessel to do that, as we did with regard to East Timor.

Ron Mark: Is the Minister aware that on the 13th of this month, as a result of concerns expressed to the US Army’s Training and Doctrine Command Centre at Fort Monroe at the impending deployment to Iraq of a brigade of Strykers—concerns as to their vulnerability—that centre has announced that a battalion of helicopter gunships will now be assigned to protect the brigade of Strykers; if so, when will New Zealand purchase its supply of helicopter gunships to protect our Strykers, and what will the cost of that be?

Mr SPEAKER: Two of those questions can be answered.

Hon PHIL GOFF: It has always been the case that when we have deployed troops, in particular to a theatre of active warfare, there is air support, and that that is provided by allied countries. We did not use our air combat wing, because its aircraft were too old to use in such theatres. I say this about the deployment to Iraq: any armoured vehicle can be disabled and destroyed by armaments. Seven US tanks have been so destroyed in the Iraqi war theatre. Generally, one does not use light armoured vehicles where there is that sort of risk. If there will be heavy armaments, one deploys other vehicles. And our troops would not do that, either with the older M113 or the new LAVIII.

Genetically Modified Organisms—Election Policy

4. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) to the Minister for the Environment: In what ways has the Government honoured Labour’s 1999 election policy that they would “ensure that agencies with responsibility for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) including GM foods, are accountable and involve the public in decision-making processes”?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): We achieved that through, among other things, increasing funding to the Environmental Risk Management Authority by 35 percent and implementing the recommendations of the Environmental Risk Management Authority review to ensure it can carry out its task.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where is the accountability, when she promised extra tests, which did not exist; when she wrote an article damning a book, which she did not read; when she said there was zero tolerance, when all the papers state there was 0.5 percent tolerance; when she said there was no contamination, when the head of the Environmental Risk Management Authority said: “You couldn’t say there was no contamination.”; and given all those errors, why do we not see some accountability, by her resigning?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: This may be a long reply. I will not attempt to deal with all the four objections, but let us deal with the first one. The first matter I was accused of then, was of not following the policy of zero tolerance. At no time did the Government, in the area of November-December 2000, decide to break the rule—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—by deliberately allowing, and knowingly allowing, any new organisms to enter the country. The policy of zero tolerance was followed through, to the letter.

On the question of no contamination—I think that is what I heard—and whether I could say there were no seeds that were contaminated, at no stage did we ever say that, although in shorthand time, in some arguments, one will find that people say “no contamination”. When the Environmental Risk Management Authority was asked this question, it said that one can never say that one is absolutely positively sure that no seeds have entered the country, unless one tests every seed. In the testing of every seed, one destroys every seed. The question that the officials were arguing about, and trying to explain to people out there, and to Ministers and to Cabinet, was setting the statistical limit of tolerance to be able to detect down to 0.5 percent.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Does the Minister have confidence that agencies with responsibility for genetically modified organisms can carry out their responsibilities, after the expiry of the moratorium on applications for general release?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Yes. Parliament imposed the moratorium to enable the Government to implement recommendations of the royal commission, and to ensure the Environmental Risk Management Authority has the tools to do its job. The work included revising the law to include conditional release, and that is the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill before the House; the strengthening of liability, which is also in the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill before the House; a review of the Environmental Risk Management Authority; and a biotechnology strategy for New Zealand—to name a few.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Given the answer to the previous question, will the Minister confirm that the Government has demanded that the Environmental Risk Management Authority develop more robust tools for analysis of economic cost benefits and risks, but that officials do not have to report back until 31 October 2004, creating a 2-year vacuum from the time of the expiry of the moratorium?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: With due respect, the questioner is actually confusing two different pieces of work. The Environmental Risk Management Authority has been working to strengthen its current decision-making methodology to take economic considerations into account, and will have finished that strengthening of that work by the time the moratorium expires in October. Treasury and other people are involved in ongoing work, which it is only wise to do on any possible monitoring of the markets out there, in terms of economic impact.

Hon Ken Shirley: Could the Minister please explain to the House what she meant when she told the Local Government and Environment Committee this morning that she resisted the temptation to read important technical reports, because it might contaminate her thought processes and memories?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I will give a serious answer. When, in 2002, a book was published that included reference to many papers and many arguments, I decided, at that time, to concentrate absolutely on what had been given to me, what had been told to me, and what had been reported to me, so that it was, therefore, a process of my decision-making and my advice to my colleagues in Cabinet—rather than reading all the reports and arguments that occurred between officials. There is a difference between argument between officials, and advice officials give to Ministers.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why did her officials involve the corn seed industry and its scientific and public relations advisers in the decisions about how to interpret test results and what to do about the Novartis corn that had been planted, but not involve the organics industry or the neighbours of the farms where it had been planted?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I am not actually responsible for whom my officials engage with, but I would make the point that officials did talk because it was the industry that raised the issue with the officials, and they communicated backwards and forwards on that. It was not a decision about whether we pulled out the genetically modified corn. Because there was no genetically modified corn, there was no need and there was no threat to the organic farmers next door.

Larry Baldock: With regard to Labour’s 1999 election policy, is the Minister prepared to be publicly accountable by using her call-in powers under the Hazardous Substances and Other Organisms Act if, after the moratorium expires in October, the Environmental Risk Management Authority receives an application that may have significant effects on the New Zealand economy?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Once the Environmental Risk Management Authority can receive applications on the release—in other words, once the moratorium has been lifted—I will be advised of applications as they are received. In fact, I am currently advised of applications as they are received. I am prepared to call in an application that may have significant economic impacts.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting that the Minister, by my count, on 23 occasions has said that there was no cover-up, what is deliberately withholding from public release an important gap in the paper trail, if it is not a cover-up?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I had released from my ministry all the documents that were known at the time.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: With reference back to the primary question about involving the public in decision making, in what ways will she involve the 68 percent of the public who do not want the moratorium lifted, in decisions about that moratorium?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I think that this Government has done the absolute ultimate. It has set up a royal commission, which is the highest body we have for giving advice to the Government. That royal commission gave us the advice, 2 years ago, to proceed with caution.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting that the Minister deflected my earlier question about her repeated statements that there has been no cover-up and that a key document was not released, can she simply answer how deliberately withholding an important gap in the paper trail, as the Government did, is not a cover-up?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I am making a presumption here, because which document it is has not been stated in the House in that question. I presume the member is referring to the document from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. I undertake that that document was advice on top of a Cabinet paper, so it does not add any significance. However, it was explained very clearly this morning by the chief executive officer of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, when he was giving the reasons that he withheld that document.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister say to Parliament that the document was of no significance, when the official who attended more meetings than any other, Ruth Wilkie, said in a note to the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet that it left an important gap in the paper trail.?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: There were two documents, and I understand that the document that is sometimes quoted by Dr Smith is a document that is the cover page, which adds no more information than is in the Cabinet paper that was released to the public.

Economy—Current Position

5. CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Finance: What recent economic data has he received and what do they show about the state of the economy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Business confidence continues to rebound. House prices are rising, increasing household net wealth, and the latest National Bank regional trend survey showed 11 of 14 regions recorded growth in the last quarter, which was expected to be a weak one.

Clayton Cosgrove: How is the New Zealand economy performing relative to other economies, and how is this affecting international perceptions?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Very well. Fitch Ratings, the third of the big three international credit-ratings agencies, recently upgraded our foreign currency rating from AA to AA+. It quoted the economy’s strong performance, its increasing resilience to external shocks, sustained improvements in the public finances, and a clear sense of private-sector external debt risk management.

Hon David Carter: With the Minister congratulating himself on the usual springtime blip in business sentiment, is he prepared to reinstate the Prime Minister’s early promise to New Zealand—namely to get New Zealand back into the top half of the OECD by 2012?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can say with absolute confidence that no Government Minister ever thought about getting back into the top half of the OECD by 2012. If the member wants to ask the right question, the date was 2011, and that target has not been used for a long time.

Dail Jones: Has the Minister read the economic data from Quotable Value New Zealand, showing house price inflation at 14.2 percent nationally, and the Statistics New Zealand economic data, showing an estimated trade deficit for July of $471 million, with exports down by 9.7 percent, which is the largest July deficit from the last 17 years; if so, does he have any concern for the difficulties of potential first-home buyers and exporters due to the poor state of the New Zealand economy after 4 years of a Labour Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is actually 3⅔ years, but never mind—I am sure to the Opposition it seems like 4 years. The high level of the New Zealand dollar, which is a consequence of the fall of the US dollar, is certainly a problem for the exporting sector, and is obviously leading to substantial expansion of the current account deficit. The domestic economy continues to perform very strongly indeed. There are signs of the US dollar beginning to pick up, which hopefully will reflect in the value of the New Zealand dollar before too long.

Rod Donald: Is the Minister concerned about the July trade deficit just mentioned—the worst in 17 years—and the fact that the July year trade deficit of over $3 billion was the worst in New Zealand’s history; and will he commit to extending the tariff freeze in order to help keep the trade deficit in check?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The average New Zealand trade-weighted tariff is less than 1 percent. The amount spent on imported shoes and cheap clothing is not a massive factor in New Zealand’s total external current account deficit. If we are to go to the Doha round and expect people to expect to sign up to free trade in agriculture, increasing protection in New Zealand is not a very powerful counterargument.

Māori Television Service—Progress

6. Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: What Government decisions and other major steps remain to be taken for the Māori Television Service to commence transmission and what is the projected on-air date?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): The to-air date is still dependent on a number of operational activities, as identified in the Māori Television Service’s 2003-04 statement of intent. Good progress on these operational activities has been made.

Hon Murray McCully: Can the Minister recall a press statement from the Prime Minister on 24 July 2001 announcing that “A Māori Television Service will be on air from June 2002”; and can the Minister explain to the House why, 14 months later, the Māori Television Service is not on air, has no on-air date, has no contracted transmission services, and has so far appointed and lost two chief executives?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I can recall, in July 2001, the announcement of the establishment of the Māori Television Service, including the intended on-air date of June 2002. That time line has changed because legislation was not passed until May 2003—this year. A revised operational budget was approved earlier this year, but an initial chief executive officer appointment and the present one have created delays.

Mahara Okeroa: Can the Minister outline for the House why it is important to have a Māori television channel?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister can briefly comment on that.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Both the Crown and Māori recognise obligations to protect and promote te reo Māori as a taonga. The previous National Government gave undertakings in the broadcasting assets case in 1991 to provide for Māori television as one means of meeting that obligation. We will get it done.

Deborah Coddington: Will the Minister confirm that he knows exactly what happened at the Māori Television Service between Derek Fox and Joanna Paul; and that he and the Government are sitting on this knowledge in case Mr Fox, who came within 695 votes of beating this Minister at the 1999 general election, should decide to resurrect his political party, stand against this Minister, and beat him?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: As I have said repeatedly, anybody can stand against me and amass the figures and the distance between this member in the last election, and the Opposition. That matter is a board matter. To dwell on the filthiness that keeps on in some people’s minds is not the issue; it is an issue for the board.

Marc Alexander: Does the Minister agree that although the Māori Television Service’s statement of intent mentions goals in its 5-year plan—like building a sustainable audience and normalising te reo—should not the primary goal listed on the 5-year strategic plan be for the service to be on air first; if so, why has the Government so far ignored the option of the eminently more modern, cost-effective, and ready-to-go Sky television platform?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: There are still decisions to be made, and Cabinet needs to make a decision along with the board.

Hon Murray McCully: Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister has described the departing chief executive, Mr Derek Fox, as “the pre-eminent Māori broadcaster of his generation”, yet the Māori Television Service is already 14 months past its stated on-air date and has no new on-air date, has now appointed and lost two chief executives, and still has no contracted transmission arrangements; if that is the case, what else would have gone wrong if the Government had not appointed the Prime Minister’s “pre-eminent Māori broadcaster of his generation” to lead the project?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Mr Fox’s prowess and experience in this field is well known both in Māoridom and in the rest of the country. There are slippages, as there were when that member was the Minister.

Deborah Coddington: How can this Government claim to be opposed to sexual harassment and violence against women in the workplace and not demand that the Māori Television Service board undertake a full and complete investigation into exactly what happened with this Government’s appointee at Māori Television Service?

Mr SPEAKER: The question is about transmission. It is not about that particular issue. That particular issue can be put down as another question at another time.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I notice that when Dr Nick Smith called out whilst a question was being asked he was immediately ejected from the Chamber. We have just had an example—and you know exactly who it was—of a Labour back-bencher who interjected on you when you were on your feet. I notice that he has not been ejected. I think there should be some balance.

Mr SPEAKER: Now that the member has brought the matter to my attention, I ask the member concerned to leave the Chamber.

Mark Peck withdrew from the Chamber.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to get a degree of consistency about the way in which questions are ruled as being appropriate or inappropriate. You might recall that yesterday a supplementary question was asked by, I think, David Parker from the back of the House that in my view was a mile wide of the stumps when it came to being in line with the substantive question. I think the ruling that came from you related to the fact that there was at least a vague reference to matters that were of concern in the thread of the question. When Deborah Coddington asked her question today, it would be a wild stretch of the imagination to suggest that the current difficulties at the Māori Television Service, which have seen the chief executive exit and the various rumours and other allegations that circulate around that exit, are not part of the problem that has prevented the service getting to transmission, and that is going beyond the pale. Quite clearly, this organisation has been dysfunctional for one reason or another for a very long period of time, and that is surely part of it.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any further assistance on this matter.

Hon Ken Shirley: I have a—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. I have heard the point of order, and I do not need any further assistance. Will the member please read the Standing Orders. I looked at the original question, and I took advice. The question asked by Deborah Coddington was outside the scope of the original question.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on that. I am not relitigating your decision at all, but I think the point that has been made here is that my colleague’s question is probably the reason that the transmission is not occurring. That is the point that she wished to make—that is, that there have been a number of problems within Māori television. We can only presume that those problems directly relate to the issue of the lack of transmission. I ask you to reflect on that, because I think my colleague’s question was a very reasonable one.

Mr SPEAKER: I have reflected on that question, and if that had been the question that was put down, it would have been answered.

Te Māngai Pāho—Māori Sportscasting International

7. RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: On what date did Te Māngai Pāho’s former Chief Executive, Mr Trevor Moeke, discover that Mr Tame Te Rangi had received cash from Māori Sportscasting International, and who were the officials responsible for advising him on his reply to question for written answer No. 257 provided on 24 February where he stated: “I am advised by my officials that there have been no payments of cash by Māori Sportscasting International to any employees of Te Māngai Pāho.”?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): I am advised by my officials that the former chief executive could not confirm that any cash payments were made until the external review into the activities concerning Mr Te Rangi commenced in March 2003. When questioned by the former chief executive on previous occasions, Mr Te Rangi denied receiving any payments. Officials responsible for the original answers were from Te Māngai Pāho.

Rodney Hide: How does he square the answer he has just given with the emails he has released to me under the Official Information Act from Mr Trevor Moeke to Tame Te Rangi, and the replies, which state that on 21 February Mr Tame Te Rangi advised Trevor Moeke that he had been receiving cash from Māori Sportscasting International? I repeat that this Minister released those emails to me under the Official Information Act.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Quite simply, at that time nobody informed the Minister.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on that answer to my question. The Minister has clearly given an incorrect answer to my primary question, where he stated that Mr Trevor Moeke did not know. I then pointed out that Trevor Moeke did know on 21 February. I asked him what was going on, and he just flicked it away and said that no one told the Minister. If that were the standard, this Minister would not answer any questions in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question.

Darren Hughes: What feedback did he receive on the external review concerning Tame Te Rangi, which was undertaken by Te Puni Kōkiri and Treasury?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I know that Mr Rodney Hide wrote to both the Secretary to the Treasury and the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri to thank them and the joint team for the very good work they did in preparing the report, dated 4 June 2003.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, I draw your attention to the fact that Trevor Mallard yelled out very loudly while the Minister was on his feet answering his question—so loudly that we could hear him at the back of the House. When the Hon Dr Nick Smith did that, he was ejected from the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. I have not ruled out interjections while answers are being given, at all. There will be no interjections during the question. The member knows that and he should keep quiet.

Hon Murray McCully: Before he released the emails, can the Minister recall reading that the response that Mr Hide has just reported in his question was in response to a request from his officials that said these words: “The Minister would like to know who the staff member was from TMP, and what events were attended. The answer will not be included in the response, but the Minister would like to know in case he is asked.”, and can he explain to the House how he could possibly have given two incorrect answers subsequently to a question for which the officials had clearly requested information to give to him?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: There were corrections on 11 June, and the Minister is only as good as the officials’ advice.

Rodney Hide: Can the Minister explain why he told the House on 24 February, in answer to a written question, that his officials had advised him that no cash had been paid to any employee of Te Māngai Pāho, when he has released to me an email from Mr Trevor Moeke to Mr Tame Te Rangi that says: “Re PQ257, thanks. What were the amounts in detail and in total, and how were the payments made?”, and Tame Te Rangi replied: “The payments were cash. I have no recollection of the amounts.”? That email was on 21 February; the Minister answered falsely on 24 February. Is this another example of this Government and this Minister, with officials, lying in unison?

Mr SPEAKER: The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise right now for any suggestion that any member of this House is telling a lie.

Rodney Hide: I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister can address any part of the question, but not that part.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: As that member knows, when he first waved around the supposed emails he had containing that information, that was advice given to me. It was followed through at that time. I released all the information to him, which took hours of officials time. All of that is in the report, and he knows that full well.

Rodney Hide: I seek leave of the House to table the emails that took no time to assemble because the Treasury had done that as part of its brief. They were released by his ministry, and he pretends not to know about them.

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

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to get a clearer picture on your ruling that suggests that Mr Hide could not use the term “lying in unison” to suggest that members of this House were lying. If I recall his question, he certainly did say “if Ministers and officials”—in other words, Ministers and officials “lying in unison”. The point I want to make is that increasingly we are being told by Ministers that it is the fault of officials, or that officials acted without ministerial authority, or that officials have gone off and done something unbeknown to the Minister. We know from the record that the term “lying in unison” was suggested by a group of officials.

Mr SPEAKER: Please come to the point very tersely.

Gerry Brownlee: I am coming to my point very tersely.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, no the member is not—

Gerry Brownlee: If we are not allowed to associate a bureaucrat suggesting to other bureaucrats that to protect the Minister the way through the issue is to lie in unison, then where is the line between accountability for departmental matters and a Minister’s responsibility?

Mr SPEAKER: The member is perfectly entitled to suggest that. What the member was ruled out of order for was associating the Minister with lying, and that is out of order.

Gerry Brownlee: That is exactly the point I am making.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, that is out of order, and if there is any suggestion that the Minister is lying, there is a particular way of writing to me about that matter, where the Minister is accountable.

Reading and Writing—Primary Schools

8. HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) to the Minister of Education: What initiatives are being introduced to improve teacher responsiveness to students’ reading and writing difficulties at primary school level?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): This morning I released a new book called “Effective Literacy Practice in Years 1 to 4”. I expect that this publication will have a significant impact on developing successful reading and writing skills for children.

Helen Duncan: How does this initiative fit within the Government’s wider programme to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes for our school students?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: One of this Government’s top education priorities is to make sure that all children, regardless of their background and life experiences, have the chance to reach their full potential. This initiative is an important part of that.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the need for this initiative demonstrate that many teachers are not adequately prepared through their pre-service training to provide appropriate analysis and remediation in these core curriculum areas; if so, what is he doing about pre-service training programmes to ensure that all teachers are adequately equipped?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes. An important part of the work this Government is doing through the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission and the Teachers Council is to work towards improving the standards of pre-service teacher education. One of the advantages we now have is high-quality research that tells us what should be done—something that has not been available up until the last couple of years.

Driving Licences—Fees for Older Drivers

9. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Transport: What law changes, if any, are being considered to ease the cost of renewing driving licences for drivers 80 years and over?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport): The Government has addressed the cost issue by reducing the application fee for older drivers’ licences from around $36 to $18.30, and retaining the older driver test fee at $41, rather than increasing it to the actual cost of $49. Older drivers also have been offered one free re-test if they are not successful in their first attempt. In addition, I am considering a range of other proposals to do with older driver testing, and decisions and announcements will be made in due course.

Peter Brown: When can we expect these further changes to take effect, and by how much will they reduce the current cost?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: In due course, and those issues are all under consideration.

Peter Brown: When the Hon Ruth Dyson was speaking in a public meeting in Nelson the other day, she said that several law changes were being considered around costs and the driving licence regime for older drivers. Will the Minister tell me whether she was speaking the truth, or was it a figment of her imagination?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: That member always speaks the truth.

Peter Brown: I seek leave to table this newspaper cutting that states: “Dyson pledges to ease the way for older drivers”.

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

Seabirds—Fishing Vessels

10. DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister of Fisheries: What is the Government doing to protect seabirds from incidental catch by fishing vessels?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Fisheries): Recently the Minister of Conservation and I released for public consultation a draft plan of action to reduce seabird deaths caused by fishing. This plan supports voluntary measures being taken by the fishing industry to reduce seabird deaths, but provides for the Government to introduce mandatory measures if the voluntary approach fails.

David Benson-Pope: Could the Minister detail the specific measures that will be introduced under this plan, and when they will take effect?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The plan proposes that codes of practice for managing seabird by-catch in key fisheries are developed by mid-2004. These codes will specify fishing practices, limits on seabird deaths, public awareness and compliance measures, and penalties for non-compliance.

Food Safety, Minister—Confidence

11. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister for Food Safety in light of the Minister’s inability in this House yesterday to name the food products that tested positive for contamination by genetically engineered ingredients in the recent New Zealand Food Safety Authority report on food produced using gene technology; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.

Sue Kedgley: Does she agree that parents feeding their babies soy infant formula have a right to know which infant formulas contain unlabelled GE soy; if so, why does she have confidence in a Minister who is suppressing this information?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister is not suppressing the information. Like many other surveillance and audit samples, the tests are aimed at ensuring compliance with the law. Compliance was confirmed in this case, no further action was taken, and the names of the products are, therefore, not reported.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Is it little wonder that more and more people distrust GM when they simply cannot trust the PM?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I note in the latest opinion polls that the Prime Minister was the first choice of some 40-odd percent of the public. I think the level of support for the Leader of the Opposition was below the tolerance level for GM content.

Sue Kedgley: Why does she have confidence in her Minister for Food Safety when scientific bodies such as the UK Royal Society have expressed severe reservations about the safety of GE infant food when it has never been tested on humans or babies, or for its long-term health effects, yet her Minister is allowing such contaminated food to be fed to New Zealand babies?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The evidence so far is that there may be some benefits and some detriments involved in the feeding of soy products to infants, but the clear position of the New Zealand Government is that the priority is, first, breast milk; second, cows milk; and, third—a long way behind—soy formula.

Ian Ewen-Street: Is the Prime Minister concerned that the lack of public confidence in her Minister for Food Safety is resulting in groups like Mothers Against Genetic Engineering calling on parents in New Zealand to boycott all soy infant formula in the marketplace until such time as the Minister discloses which brands have been found to be contaminated with GE; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There is no evidence that soy formula that contains GE products is any more or less harmful than ordinary soy products.

Marlborough Mayor—Iwi Consultation

12. Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) to the Deputy Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement regarding the mayor of Marlborough that: “If the Marlborough Regional (sic) Council had talked properly in the first place to the iwi with interests, if they had not had a racist as a mayor … if there had been proper talking to at the local authority level in Marlborough, it is very doubtful this issue would ever have arisen in the way that it has.”; if so, why does he believe that Mr Harrison is a racist?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): Yes, in very large part, with one exception. Clearly, the current mayor was not mayor at the time the original applications were made.

Dr Lynda Scott: In the light of the fact that Mr Harrison was not a member of the council at the time eight South Island iwi laid claim to the Marlborough Sounds seabed and foreshore, why is he blaming and naming a person who was not even involved at the time; is it not the case that if someone disagrees with this Government on Māori issues, that person is simply labelled a racist?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, though Mr Harrison was a member of the resource consents committee deciding marine farm applications. I certainly think that the mayor, in stating that those iwi who won the Court of Appeal case were Māori bully boys, was going well beyond the grounds of reasonable public discourse.

Dr Lynda Scott: In the light of his false, misleading, and defamatory remarks regarding the Marlborough mayor, Mr Tom Harrison, will he now apologise to Mr Harrison; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I said the mayor was not mayor at the time the original applications were made, but he has made a range of extraordinary comments. For example, he says Parliament is dominated by feminists, homosexuals, politically correct zombies, and separatists.

Gerry Brownlee: That’s on your side!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Even if that is meant to be a summary of the Labour Party, we are under half the House.

Dr Lynda Scott: I seek leave to table a letter from the mayor, Tom Harrison, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, talking about the grossly misleading statements made in the House of Representatives by the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is none.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just so I do not get myself in trouble in future, can I take it that as the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that a man who describes people as Māori bully boys is a racist, and given the rhetoric that he levelled at Tau Henare, Rana Waitai, and Tuku Morgan, I can call all the Labour members racists, legally and legitimately?

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that is not a point of order.

Dr Lynda Scott: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just seek clarification. Did we have an objection to table this document?

Mr SPEAKER: No, there was no objection. I said there was none.

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

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I probably should know the answer to this, but I seek your advice. Does Mr Harrison have any recourse to have his viewpoint heard by this House, if so, what can be done?

Mr SPEAKER: The member should read the Standing Orders and he will see that there is a course of action he can follow.

Dr Muriel Newman: Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to repeat outside Parliament his allegations that the mayor of Marlborough is a racist; if not, will he do the decent thing, retract his statement, and apologise to Mr Harrison right now?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said, anybody who can refer to the leaders of the iwi who won the case in the Court of Appeal as Māori bully boys, I think, has a rather strange view of life.

Dr Muriel Newman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister did not address the question at all. I ask you to ask him to do that.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought the Minister did address the question. I thought the implication was that he was not going to withdraw.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, in short he was asked whether, if he believed what he said, he was prepared to say those same words outside Parliament. That is the question we all heard him being asked. He did not answer it. He sought to evade the question by reference to a comment he had already made, which did not have any bearing on the question and had not been raised by the questioner. He should be asked now to answer the question. It was a simple and plain question: “Have you got the courage to say outside Parliament what you say inside it?”.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I intend to follow the example frequently demonstrated by that particular member in this kind of case.

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

Mr SPEAKER: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, Mr Speaker, you’re not getting away with that.

Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. I am not satisfied with that answer. I want the Minister to address the question.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Which meant no.

Bills

Immigration Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation), on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: I move, That the Immigration Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I commend the select committee to the House for the excellent work it has undertaken in considering the Immigration Amendment Bill. Of particular note is the select committee’s work in addressing all the concerns raised in the submissions. The bill makes a number of changes to the Immigration Act to establish a more flexible legislative framework for the Government’s residence policy to enable the active recruitment of migrants and more effective management of residence applications. The bill gives effect to the Government’s desire to see New Zealand shift from being a passive recipient of skilled migrants to being a country that assesses what its needs are and goes out to the world actively recruiting and inviting skilled migrants to meet those needs.

The bill amends the Immigration Act in three broad areas. Firstly, it enables the Government’s residence policy to provide that certain applications for residence can be made only following invitation to apply for residence. Secondly, it establishes new appeal procedures in respect of residence decisions. The Residence Review Board will replace the Residence Appeal Authority and there will be no rights of appeal or review where a person is not invited to apply for residence. Finally, it provides for the future lapsing of immigration applications, including expressions of interest in residence. That power will be used as part of the management of future flows of applications to ensure that the number of places available under the Government’s annual immigration programme is not exceeded.

The select committee received 31 public submissions, 15 of which involved oral submissions. A number of submissions expressed overall support for the general intent and direction of the proposed amendments, with particular support coming from business and industry groups and an organisation representing immigration consultants. Business New Zealand supports the concept of expressions of interest, followed by invitations to apply for residence. It sees that process as providing greater certainty and a more streamlined approach that will advantage those individuals that New Zealand needs.

The Council of Trade Unions supports the objectives of the bill and notes that it will allow a clearer matching of skill requirements in the economy and migrants. Similarly, the New Zealand Immigration Institute noted that it supports the intent of the bill, as it is designed to ensure that New Zealand selects migrants who will benefit this country. The Industry Training Federation supports the objectives of the bill and recommends that it proceed. It believes that the changes will benefit industries in addressing skill shortages. Venture Southland considers that the bill provides a positive foundation for the recruitment of skilled migrants.

In clause 5 the words “or any aspect of the processing of a visa application” have been deleted. That change is made in response to issues raised by the Human Rights Commission. Clause 8 has been amended to clarify that any decision to lapse an application must be made in accordance with the rules and criteria applicable at the time the application was made. Clause 13 deals with appeals to the board against refusal of residence, visa, or permit. Clauses 13(2), 13(3), and 13(4) have been deleted, having the effect of removing the proposed restriction on appeals to the Residence Review Board for residence applications that are off shore.

The issues around restricting appeal rights on the basis of connection to New Zealand are finally balanced. On the one hand it is questionable whether people who have never been to New Zealand, and who have no or few ties here, should have any appeal rights. On the other hand, the Government acknowledges the concerns raised about the need to provide an independent review of all declined residence decisions in order to prevent the perception of unfettered decision-making by individual visa officers off shore. It is clear that many submitters considered that the current Residence Appeal Authority process places an important check on the Immigration Service’s use of power. To alleviate concerns, and as part of the initial implementation of the new residence framework, the current rights of appeal for persons declined a visa or permit have been retained.

Concerns were raised by various submitters, including the Auckland District Law Society and the Council of Trade Unions, about how discretion will be applied and how transparent the policy will be. Under the new skilled migrant category, there will be clear criteria for expressions of interest, with certain prerequisites that must be met. These include employability and capacity-building, which will be assessed using a points system. Those who rank the highest will be invited to apply for residence.

The use of the word “discretion” to describe the process of issuing an invitation to apply is consistent with the nature of other immigration-making—that is, residents in temporary entry. It is consistent with the general framework of the Immigration Act. The exercise of discretion is qualified by Government residence policy. Rules and criteria concerning the issue of an invitation to apply will be set out in Government residence policy.

Finally, I wish to read an email that the Minister of Immigration, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, received after the policy was announced. It says it all. “I own an IT recruitment agency. My team and I see the issues of migrants on a daily basis. I personally have worked with many immigrants. In my first year in New Zealand I secured positions for 61 IT professionals who were overseas, and then proceeded to help them and their families migrate to New Zealand. I really do understand how important the right immigration policy is to our local economy. I wholeheartedly believe that your changes will have a very positive impact on our employment market. I do believe that many of the people raising their eyebrows in the last week”—when this email was written—“have no concept of how difficult it is for many immigrants, who either don’t have the level of English required to survive a Kiwi workplace, or the skills we need to keep our economy alive. I sincerely hope that the media will hold their breath and watch the results of your policy change. In the interim, my thanks and support go to you.”

That was from a new migrant to New Zealand and sent to the Minister of Immigration. That is why the Immigration Amendment Bill is so important to skilled migrants and to New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the next member, I want to say that as a result of the Business Committee discussion, and my own assessment, I now have the order of calls that I am going to give in first, second, and third reading debates and other set debates limited to 2 hours. If members want to come up and have a look at that, they can. The bottom sentence is important as all calls are tradable, of course. Parties do not have to take a call if they do not wish to do so.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney): The Minister, Hon Chris Carter, who just made that speech to the House, would have done credit to the Iraqi Minister for Information, because he just told this Parliament that there were many submissions in favour of this bill that the Government seeks to read for a second time today. If one in 10 is many, then I guess it is the truth. I suspect that only the Iraqi Minister for Information would consider that sort of thing to be the truth, apart from maybe the Labour members of the New Zealand Parliament.

After hearing the 15 submissioners who sought to be heard, the National Party members on the select committee had this to say about this bill—and I will quote it because it is quite important—“The National Party has concerns that this legislation could be applied in such a way as to compromise some fundamental human rights principles. Its lack of transparency in procedure could lead to corruption. While it is recognised that there is a need to better match the skills of residence applicants with skill requirements in the New Zealand economy, National members believe that this can be done in a more transparent manner that does not compromise New Zealand’s international reputation.”

National’s minority report was a very measured response to some of the submissions from very important organisations that we heard from at the select committee. When we get groups such as the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties saying that this legislation worries them because it could lead to corruption, and when the Auckland District Law Society says exactly the same thing—that it is concerned that this legislation could lead to corruption—I think members of this House should take some notice.

This bill gives the Minister of Immigration absolute power to choose who can be invited to apply for residence in our country. That is a huge power to give to a Minister. The Minister can extend that power to officials within the Department of Immigration. They are the very same officials who are being investigated for the possibility of lying in unison. They are the same officials in the same department who, it was revealed in this Parliament, talked in a memo of “lying in unison”.

This legislation gives those people, plus the Minister, extraordinary power. We heard at the select committee that no other country in the world is implementing a scheme like that, which gives such unfettered power to the Minister of Immigration and the Minister’s senior officials. Some members may say that the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties does not matter much. Some Labour members may argue that the council’s concern that this legislation could lead to corruption is not a concern. I thought it might have concerned United Future—but, still!

The Auckland District Law Society, though, is a different kettle of fish. The Auckland District Law Society has not only said that this legislation could lead to corruption, but also it told the select committee that this legislation could damage the image of New Zealand. It is its view that this legislation could damage New Zealand’s image because it could show New Zealand and its Government in a light that some could interpret as tending to be racist. It was not just the Auckland District Law Society saying that it would lead to corruption, that it could damage the image of New Zealand. The society said that it was ashamed that this kind of legislation was in front of its Parliament. That is pretty powerful stuff, coming from a law society. That is how deeply it felt that this legislation offended concepts of fairness, of natural justice, of transparency in Government decision-making. The law society felt that it so offended those principles that it was ashamed it was before the Parliament.

Some might say the Auckland District Law Society does not amount to much. Maybe that is the way Labour views the law society. But the Human Rights Commission appeared in front of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on 5 August of this year. I have detailed notes of what it had to say to us. The Human Rights Commission was concerned about the human rights implications of this legislation. It told us it was concerned about natural justice issues, in respect of this legislation. It was concerned that the lack of transparency in decision making that this legislation provided for, could lead to unfair use of discretion.

Right up to the end, on 14 August—the last day the select committee considered this legislation, which is only a few days ago—committee members were worried about this; and not just Opposition members. There was debate going on, on 14 August, according to my notes. There was concern being discussed at the committee that this legislation could be used in a racist manner. It is quite clear that that is possible.

I have to say that if the previous National-led Government had dared to bring to this Parliament, had been unwise enough to bring to this Parliament, legislation that could be used in a racist manner—where the law society, where the Human Rights Commission, expressed such concern about the issues of fairness and justice—that bunch over there, those Labour members, would have howled us out of this Parliament. Today they seek to read, for the second time, this bill that could be used in such an unfair and discriminatory manner.

The bill gives the Minister the absolute power to choose who can apply for residence—not absolute power to decide who is granted residence, but absolute power to choose who may apply for residence. Indeed, it is interesting to observe that recent legislation lapsed the applications of thousands and thousands of Indian applicants. These thousands were largely applicants from India. They speak English; they had high education. One is led to a conclusion—in asking the question as to why those applications were lapsed by this Government—it smacks of racism.

But it is not only the absolute power to the Minister to choose who can apply but also the fact that no one can appeal, if the Minister chooses not to invite that person to apply. The Minister does not have to give any explanation—nothing!—in making her decision that that person is going to be invited to apply, but some other person is not. Given the recent track record of the Minister and the Ministry of Immigration, this legislation is too dangerous, because it will tarnish New Zealand’s reputation. Inevitably, issues of discrimination will arise. Inevitably, where one has a system so lacking in transparency, there will be challenges of discrimination, of unfairness, and discrimination based on race. Our Parliament, our country, should not be passing legislation that could so tarnish this country’s fine reputation.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): As the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that considered the bill, I want first of all to acknowledge the contribution made by all the members from just about every side of the House, who participated in that consideration. They all contributed constructively and positively, and the bill that has emerged, as a result, is a much better bill. It is much better, not just for their contribution but also because in substantial part the submissions made and the concerns raised have been listened to and accommodated in the revised draft that is before the House.

Let me put on the record, too, the fact that the significant majority of submissions received on the bill opposed its original provisions. The committee listened very carefully to a range of those concerns, some of which have been paraded before us in the previous speech, in somewhat colourful language, and they have been addressed.

Dail Jones: No, they haven’t.

Hon PETER DUNNE: The points raised—

Dail Jones: Rubbish!

Hon PETER DUNNE: I say to the member from New Zealand First that I will come to that matter shortly. The points raised by the Human Rights Commission, and many others, have been addressed in the way in which this legislation has been drafted.

I turn to the comments made by the previous speaker in respect of the National Party’s minority report. I make this observation. What he is essentially saying is that it is unacceptable to have a situation where the Government of the day has any immigration policy, whatsoever. The Government of the day has no right, according to his argument, to have any view about the type, number, category, or whatever, of people coming to this country. That immediately puts him at odds, of course, with the New Zealand First Party, whose minority report decries this bill, not for its content but because it does not put in place a numerical limit on the number of migrants coming here.

What both those views demonstrate to me is an actual lack of understanding or appreciation about what this bill sets out to do. I view it purely as a matter of process. The previous speaker alluded to the fact that the legislation that was passed a few weeks ago cancelled the applications of a significant number of people—20,000, I think, or thereabouts. One of the problems that we have had in immigration policy under successive Governments for a long time is a huge backlog in the number of people applying who wait for inordinate lengths of time to get their applications considered, and who are often not even in this country at the time they are awaiting that decision. Most of them have either remained overseas or been here and gone back to their place of origin awaiting an outcome. It is an unsatisfactory situation and no one could argue, in justice, that it is appropriate to lead people on for that length of time.

I find it ironic that now, having taken a stand that states that, at a certain point in time, applications that have not been processed will be allowed to lapse, the same people who argue about the delay argue about the high-handedness of putting a deadline in place.

As I understand it, this bill states that what the Government will do from here on in is to put in place a procedure whereby people who meet a certain level of points or criteria are put into a pool and from time to time the Government, based on its assessment of the numbers it wants to admit, will invite people from that pool to apply for permanent residence. There is no sinister suggestion that the Minister will look through the pool and say: “Oh, that one looks OK, but I don’t like the look of that one—don’t invite them.” Rather, if members look at the provisions of clause 7, in which the Government residence policy is set out—although the bill is not obliged to take account of that in every respect—they will see that the general criteria by which we seek to admit people to this country will be honoured. It is simply a vast leap of imagination to think that there will be some sinister plot by the Minister—either this Minister or any future Minister—to hand-pick the migrants who come to New Zealand. That is frankly absurd. It is interesting, despite the puff and the rhetoric of the previous speaker, that that is the only point of concern that the National Party raised about this bill during its examination by the select committee.

The previous speaker is correct: there was concern around the committee table about the issues that were raised with respect to human rights, justice, and the opportunities provided for applicants to be considered, and they have been addressed in the reworking of the legislation.

I want to make a comment about the New Zealand First position. I respected the contribution that Mr Jones made to the committee. By and large, it was a reasoned and informed one, which immediately singled it out from some of those of his colleagues. But it would be fair to say to him that this bill did not, at any time, seek to address numbers of migrants. This bill is about process. It is not about the actual policy that applies. Whether the number is a net increase of 10,000 per annum, as his party’s minority report suggests, or 45,000 per annum, as he claims the current policy is, it does not actually matter. The procedure that is being established by this bill will be essentially the same.

He can have his argument about immigration levels separately. This legislation is about the process for determining how that level of migration—20,000, 2,000, 10,000, or 100,000—is actually resolved. It has been designed to achieve—and I think the select committee, on balance, has come to a reasonable solution—to establish a situation that is relatively straightforward and relatively efficient in terms of the time it will take for the processing of applications, and that has, in an inherently uncertain environment, one of the highest levels of certainty possible.

Because people will go into a pool, it has an automatic element of uncertainty associated with it. Because they will then be selected, and let us be blunt about it, on the basis of the contribution that they can make to this country—and it is a good thing, surely, that we are getting the best of immigrants—there is an element of risk associated with that, as well. But leaving aside those elements, the process is as certain as it can be.

If we ever got to the situation that Dr Smith fears, in which a Minister was politically or in some other devious way manipulating the flood or flow or immigrants, very clear sanctions would apply. It would be absolutely obvious. The political reaction would be immediate and severe, and I suspect that that Minister would not survive in office for very long, at all.

So let us get realistic. This is not some great new sinister plan to flood the country with immigrants of a particular type. This is simply about saying that, since the mid-1990s, successive Governments have acknowledged that we have a problem in the sense that we have many more people seeking to come here for residence than we can readily and easily process. We need a better system than the current system, which has people stacked up in unreasonable hope for unreasonable periods of time.

It may well be that this is a vast and novel experiment. It may well be that it has not been tried by any other country. Neither of those things, by themselves, damns the measure. They certainly have not damned New Zealand Governments from adopting similar measures in the past. If that was our attitude, we would never have had the economic reforms of the 1980s, for a start.

I say that this bill is about process. It is a better bill because of the work that the select committee has done, which all the members of that committee participated in equally, and I am grateful for that. What is important now is that the message that is sent to potential migrants is that this country is a place that welcomes quality migration and that it values the input that migrants can have. This bill processes that, but a more important issue is that, while attitudes attacking immigration and migrants and trying to blame migrants for every conceivable social ill remain in the community, it does not matter what the process is, this will not be an attractive country to come to.

I say to members opposite who have played the immigration card for so long that we should not use this as the excuse for somehow blaming our immigrants. If we really value the contribution that they make and if we really believe that this can be a better society because of their contribution, as I do, we should seek to encourage their participation and involvement, and stop the dirty game-playing that has been going on for too long. This bill provides a way forward, and I believe that the House should proceed to adopt it.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): The Auckland District Law Society made a submission on this bill that I referred to in the New Zealand First minority report. That submission has been totally ignored by the previous speaker and by Labour. The society said: “(i) the immigration system cannot be trusted”. So are we going to abuse the society now for being racist? The society also said: “(ii) the system proposed by this legislation could be used in a discriminatory or racist manner”. Will Mr Benson-Pope say that the society is racist for saying this bill can be used in a racist manner? The society went on to say: “(iii) the system could be open to corruption”. So we have a lack of trust in the immigration system—but we have that already; we know all about that—and we now have imposed on it a racist means of carrying out its work, and a system that is open to corruption. We know about the corruption already; many members of the staff are being sacked for it at the present time. The society also stated: “(iv) immigration officers could use the powers contained in the legislation to issue unreasonable and unnecessary conditions on permits or make special conditions etc unclearly or inaccurately or with ambiguity.” That is a criticism by the Auckland District Law Society.

All we have had from the United Future leader, Peter Dunne, the member for Ohariu-Belmont, who was speaking just before, is an attempt to justify his support for a racist, corrupt system that cannot be trusted. United Future and the Labour Party are hand in hand. He is merely trying to be the person who, this time, supports the Labour Party. If it is not United Future, it is the Greens. If it is not the Greens, it is United Future. A little dance takes place in this House: one time United Future will support the Labour Party, and the other time the Greens will. The only winner in this is the Labour Party. As I understand it, on this occasion the Greens have lodged a minority view, and will be opposing this bill. Peter Dunne has tried very hard to pretend that this is somehow a wonderful piece of legislation, when we all know that that is far from the truth. He is terribly embarrassed at having to make the speech that he has just made to try to justify his existence and his party’s existence as a partner with the Labour Party.

Let us take the view of Auckland Today magazine’s issue of August 2003. What is its view of this legislation? It states: “Future emigrants to New Zealand are more likely to come from Britain and South Africa than India and China, due to changes in the way points are allocated. Immigration specialists say these migrants will fit better into New Zealand workplaces, but they don’t believe the changes are racially motivated.” Well, if people believe that, they believe that pigs can fly. I say at this stage that this legislation is clearly open to the gravest possible abuse—probably more abuse than any other legislation that has come before this Parliament in its entire history of about 150 years. It is an absolute disgrace that this Labour Government and United Future should be supporting this legislation.

At the time I came into this House as a New Zealand First member, at the last election, the Progressive Coalition member used to make all sorts of comments about New Zealand First and its approach to immigration into New Zealand. Well, the boot is surely on the other foot today, because we have no more august body than the Auckland District Law Society pointing out to the Progressive Coalition member just who the racist is in so far as this legislation is concerned, and making that point to the Labour Party. I well remember Helen Clark at the last election making comments about New Zealand First’s immigration policy. Well, the Auckland District Law Society is telling Helen Clark that her policy is racist and cannot be trusted. Who would have believed, just 12 months ago, that I, as a New Zealand First member, would be standing up in this House and, on the evidence of Labour Party legislation, making that statement? It is true, and the Auckland District Law Society supports it—as do so many of the other witnesses.

For example, Mr Justin Glyn went further; he virtually compared this bill to the apartheid legislation of the South African Government. What Parliament is passing, according to Justin Glyn, is legislation similar to the South African Government’s apartheid legislation. Who would have said that the Labour Party would be putting legislation into this House that was similar to the apartheid legislation? That was the evidence of that submitter, and I made that point in New Zealand First’s minority report.

When we first heard all about this legislation, one of the things we heard was that it was supposed to remove the points system. I sat and listened to the officials discussing the matter, and we said to them: “Well, if you are not going to be racist, if you are not going to give Indians a better go over Chinese, or South Africans, or whatever, how are you going to distinguish between them?”. All the suggestions had been that there would be no points system, but, lo and behold, much to my amazement, the fact is the Government is not going back to the 1991 system; it is continuing the failed points system that the Labour Party said it was going to get rid of.

The Minister of Immigration, in her opening speech on this bill, said she was going to get rid of the points system. Well, she has not done that. In order to avoid any suggestion of racism or whatever, the Government has to adopt a points system to give effect to this type of legislation. The Minister really does not know what she is doing, and New Zealand First has said that time and time again. The Minister said at the first reading of the bill that the points system was going to go, and now we find the points system is going to stay and there is no change at all. One has to ask oneself what the point of this bill is, other than to reduce the load of applicants, which is 50,000, 60,000, or 70,000. I do not think the Immigration Service really knows how many applicants it has on its books. Of course, it loses applications every so often; loads of applications go astray and are lost. The Immigration Service does not know and, dare I say it, it probably does not care, because whenever applications are lost, there are 10,000 more to take their place. This desperate Labour Government has created a policy of 45,000-plus migrants coming to New Zealand, but it cannot administer it. It has no way of administering the system, other than suddenly, by legislative means, lapsing people’s applications.

When Mr Carter introduced the second reading of this bill, he said the Council of Trade Unions supported it. He said that Business New Zealand supported it. He was right when he said that Business New Zealand supported it. Of course Business New Zealand would support this legislation. It introduces cheap labour to New Zealand, which is good for people in the Business Roundtable and Business New Zealand. And that is what the Labour Party wants; it wants cheap labour coming into New Zealand.

Hon David Cunliffe: Highly skilled labour.

DAIL JONES: We would not get 45,000 skilled people coming to New Zealand; we are getting people who can drive taxis and can pull pumps. I am sure the member goes home sometimes, and when he drives around Auckland he will find that, time and time again, the pump attendant at the service station is more likely to have come from Bombay India than from Bombay south Auckland—that is for sure. That is where that type of person comes from, and the member cannot tell me that that is a skilled immigrant.

The error that Mr Carter made—he merely read the speech provided from the department—was to suggest that the Council of Trade Unions supported this legislation. If we look carefully at that submission, I believe we will see that the Council of Trade Unions does not support the legislation. When we read its submission closely and carefully as I have done—clearly, Mr Carter has not read it at all, and the Minister and her staff have only taken words here and words there—when we read paragraphs such as 2.4, 2.6, and 2.7, it becomes very clear that the council says things like: “… but the CTU believes the issues of long-term labour supply are also intrinsically linked to education and skill development, fertility, economic development including workforce development, innovation, technology diffusion, wages and conditions, and so forth. It accepts the need for such shortages to be covered by immigration in the short term, but they are less persuaded that much higher levels of migration should be seen as the main policy instrument to ensure adequate labour supply in the future.”

There is very little difference between the policy of New Zealand First and that of the Council of Trade Unions. We made it quite clear in our 15 principles we issued on the founding of New Zealand First that our view on immigration is much the same as, and very close to, that of the Council of Trade Unions. In fact, if members read our minority report, they will see that paragraph (e) states that we believe: “… this legislation continues to facilitate the Government’s policy of excessive immigration … and is contrary to New Zealand First’s view which supports an infusion of overseas skills and expertise but not while we fail to train and improve the skills of our own people. Priority should be given only to immigrants who have the skills and qualifications necessary to further regional economic and social goals.” That should be within a scheme of about 10,000 immigrants, not 45,000, who are causing soaring house prices, roading difficulties in Auckland, health difficulties in Auckland, and suchlike, without any compensating benefits.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Green Party will not be supporting this bill, because we believe that it remains discriminatory and contrary to the principles of natural justice. We were very hopeful that at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee there would be an opportunity for real exploration of the issues, so that the policy and details could be thoroughly canvassed, but that was simply not possible because of the extremely tight time frame for the committee’s deliberations. In our view, present immigration policy is based on responsiveness to the labour market, for the purpose of economic advantage to New Zealand, and does not accommodate social and cultural benefits and cost analysis. Nor is it constructed in a mode of hospitality to immigrants.

Many of the changes the select committee made to the bill were a direct response to the concerns raised by submitters, and the Greens would like to thank all of those who made submissions for their rigorous contribution to such a sensitive issue. I want briefly to go through some of those submissions, which were not deeply canvassed in the select committee report. Submissions were received from very diverse interest groups, ranging from human rights groups to legal agencies and parties with business interests. Most submissions contained deeply held concerns about the bill. Those concerns went to the heart of whether the changes increased discriminatory and unjust processes.

The Council for Civil Liberties opposed the bill as breaching acceptable constitutional standards. The council appealed to the priority of democratic process. It considered that the proposed bill overweighs the discretionary power of the Immigration Service, at the expense of remedial processes available to those seeking residency. It was the view of the council that the modified review process in the bill would create uncertainty for applicants, with the likely outcome that the most desirable applicants under the present criteria—that is, those with the most desirable skills—would be less likely to apply.

The Human Rights Commission referred to the application procedure for those in New Zealand whose applications lapse, who are required to leave the country. The commission reviewed the Human Rights Act and raised many concerns that the proposed procedures would breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act under the auspices of unfair procedures. Like the Council for Civil Liberties, the Human Rights Commission considered that changes made without consultation, warning, or access to appeal might constitute an unfair process. Changing the rules midway through a process was also a concern of the commission. Its submission commented that the spirit of natural justice and procedural fairness is lacking in this bill, although the strict, legalistic criteria may be met.

Business New Zealand had an approach from the other end of the spectrum to that of the Greens, and set out its view of supporting skilled migration into New Zealand, along with domestic skill development, to support the goal of economic growth. Although the Greens are committed to a broader approach to immigration than a solely economic imperative, we note that Business New Zealand in its submission considered that changes to the points required in the general skills category not only had created uncertainty for applicants—possibly dissuading the more discerning applicants—but also increasingly had created difficulties for an important group of skilled migrants, those skilled in the trades area. The submission emphasised that the skills of those groups are desperately needed in a range of industries. Applicants for immigration with these skills do not necessarily attract sufficient points to qualify.

Whereas Business New Zealand, the Council for Civil Liberties, and the Human Rights Commission emphasised the uncertainty for immigrants, the Auckland District Law Society agreed with those concerns but extended its opposition to the bill to include the further impact of uncertainty—that is, uncertainty for employers. With the prospect of applications being lapsed, employers are bound to be resistant to employing people with uncertain immigrant status. They will not want to make a human resource investment in them on the chance of their gaining permanent residency. If we continue to follow this line, the uncertainty for employers will exacerbate the inhumane uncertainty for the applicants. Overall, this and other substantial submissions considered that there has been a fragmentary approach to immigration revisions, and that they have been counterproductive to achieving greater flexibility in responsiveness to the New Zealand labour market. The Auckland District Law Society advocated a comprehensive and robust approach, rather than reactive measures that cause problems in statutory interpretation.

The bill was changed at the select committee, and many of those changes were very positive. One significant change was the deletion of the proposed subsections (2), (3), and (4) of section 18C, in clause 13, so that the current rights of appeal for persons declined a visa or permit are retained. This ensures that there is some capacity for a review of the process for decisions to decline applications. But this appeal right will be available only for those applicants who have been invited to apply for residence. Those who have submitted expressions of interest are not entitled to a review of any part of the process for reaching a decision. In our view that is not satisfactory. Whether a person meets the criteria, and should therefore be invited to apply for residence, is a decision of an immigration or visa officer. The criteria for an invitation to apply are to be published as part of the residence policy. The Immigration Service has argued that the publication of those criteria will provide sufficient transparency and certainty of outcome. We are not so certain.

One of the criteria is having a job offer, which increases people’s points. We question whether this takes into account the well-known fact, which has been established in research, that the highest-ranking means of securing a job is through personal contacts. How can immigrants realistically avail themselves of job opportunities, given that that is a primary job-entry process? Furthermore, immigrants who speak English as a second language are at a disadvantage in New Zealand, where there are many anecdotal and published examples of employers screening out a job applicant when they hear that a prospective employee is a foreigner whose English may be limited or whose accent is rather thick. One submission stated that the bill was likely to disadvantage skilled applicants who failed to meet the International English Language Testing System language requirement of 6.5, even where those applicants met the skill shortage requirements.

We understand that the appeal rights of applicants will form part of the review of the Immigration Act that is to be held next year. It is good that it will be looked at again, although we are very concerned that the intention behind the removal of the appeal rights, in the original version of the bill, may be raised again in the review process, which may not be subject to parliamentary and public scrutiny.

The Greens support an approach to immigration that is beneficial to families and to community interests in New Zealand. Immigration will have an effect of increasing diversity here, and of not only strengthening the skill base but influencing the values and cultural make-up of New Zealand society. We consider the present economically driven approach to immigration policy, which focuses only on economic advantage, through skills criteria, to be an inadequate basis for assessment of immigrants. It has the effect of screening out qualities that may enrich New Zealand communities, such as multilingual skills; contributions to qualities associated with New Zealand, such as environmental conservation and indigenous development; and skills that not only are defined by job fit but take account of the family and cultural contributions that potential arrivals may bring. At present, the economic focus is an example of a silo approach.

The culture and ethos of New Zealand are changing with immigration, but there are no adequate attempts at a policy level to accommodate New Zealanders to these changes. There is a need for much stronger orientation provisions for immigrants in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi and the historical and current issues with which tangata whenua are engaged. These orientation provisions need to be matched with educational provisions in New Zealand on these matters.

At present, the policy of economic criteria for immigration allows no responsibility to be placed on the Ministry of Immigration for the social and cultural effects that are inevitable with large changes to the component of the New Zealand population. What mechanisms have been established to avert negative attitudes from New Zealanders, and what provisions are there to assist immigrants to have respect for New Zealand values? The Greens welcome a review of immigration in which the social, cultural and economic effects are integrated. This would signal a fresh approach to policy where humanitarian considerations in respect of immigrants, and the beneficial influence of immigrants form the framework of policy on immigration.

LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana): I have much pleasure in supporting the second reading of this bill. It will support skilled immigration by maximising and accelerating its contribution to capacity building, sustainable growth, innovation, global connectedness, and thriving and inclusive communities.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill): I also want to support this bill. It has been very much welcomed in my electorate. People in my electorate are looking forward to its rapid passage through the House.

PANSY WONG (NZ National): One can interpret those extraordinarily short calls only as an apology from the Labour members, who know that this is an appalling piece of legislation.

It is ironic that the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, the Hon Chris Carter, is speaking in the reporting-back stage of this legislation, which was labelled by many submitters to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee as discriminatory legislation that will have a racist impact. It will limit the number of migrants from non - English-speaking environments. This same Minister, the Hon. Chris Carter, has visited many ethnic community functions and has taken his interpreter to interpret his speech in Chinese, Korean, and Hindi. Last November his Government increased the level of English required and that, together with this legislation, will firmly close the door on migrants from those areas. In many of his speeches he has said they are exactly the type of migrants that his Government would welcome. I put on record that we want to hear a lot more from that Minister to reconcile his public statements and the type of legislation that his Government brings in.

Ninety percent of the submitters who came before the select committee were against this legislation. It is clear to all the members on the select committee that this legislation was introduced as a result of a lack of leadership and competence by the Minister of Immigration and the officials of that department. This legislation brings in tools—namely, the invitation to apply and the lapsing provisions—that will undermine transparency, certainty, and fairness. Without those principles the immigration system will be subject to even more corruption and discrimination. The Hon Peter Dunne, the chairman of the select committee, chose to misrepresent my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, who made it clear that National believes that immigration policy has to be objective and transparent. We certainly believe in a policy that has upfront criteria and has accountability.

But the select committee was told, particularly by the Association for Migration and Investment, that the large backlog that occurred last year at the application pool was not a result of the inflexibility of the current immigration policy but, rather, a result of an apparent lack of will to utilise the existing tool. We were told in February 2002 that the Immigration Service had used up the quota of approvals for immigration applications, and that no new ones could be approved until July 2002. But the Minister of Immigration refused to increase the passing marks until very late that year. As a result, a large backlog occurred. So the Minister of Immigration made the mistake and the potential migrants paid the price. She introduced, under urgency, legislation to lapse not 20,000 people, as pointed out by Peter Dunne, but 20,000 applications, which means about 46,000 people, and my latest information suggests that the number could be a lot higher. The Minister went on to say that those people had been affected by the lapsing provisions because they were not able to contribute to New Zealand, but those people’s applications had been accepted because her department, the Immigration Service, had specified those passing marks at that time.

The Minister is very fond of quoting one particular email, and in my hand I have quite a bundle of emails and letters from some of those people affected. I would like to share a couple with the public, just to let people know we are dealing with human beings. One of them, from a woman, states: “I find myself again at a crossroads in a great country known for its greatness to immigrants of all nations. It is formulating laws where innocent people become targets. I wonder how much security I will get after working so hard. It has disturbed my mental and physical peace.” Another one, from a male applicant, states: “Sir/Madam: This bears reference to the change in immigration policy by the New Zealand Government. The decision by your immigration ministry is callous and shocking. It has brought crisis to not only my professional life but also my personal life.” Many of these people have put their lives on hold while they wait for their applications to be processed.

Then the Minister of Immigration claimed that their application fees would be refunded, as though the Labour Government were being generous. That was an outrage. No work was done on those applications, so why should those fees not be refunded? But what about those people’s time? Some have waited for 2 years. The submission from the Auckland District Law Society had this to say on the lapsing provisions: “Decency and fair play have unfortunately given way to political expedience. Retrospective use”—[Interruption]—the Labour member might think Auckland District Law Society members are rubbish, but I beg to disagree—“of lapsing provisions and the enshrining of that in the current legislation amount to perhaps the most serious defeat of the rule of law, let alone section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.”

The Labour members might not agree with the Auckland District Law Society, but even their friend the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, Ros Noonan, in her submission pointed out: “They are informed that such a discretionary invitation scheme does not exist in comparative overseas jurisdictions.” The Auckland District Law Society is a lot more forthright and upfront in telling the select committee that the bill creates a framework for unfettered and unprincipled decision-making. It went on to say: “With the introduction of the lapsing provision as well as the invitation to apply, there is no certainty left in the system. The immigration system cannot be trusted. This also sends a wider message to the rest of the world, making us look unreliable.” It is making New Zealanders look unreliable.

A lawyer, Mr Glyn, who practised law in South Africa, had this to say, and I think it is a sobering statement that Labour and United Future members should really listen to: “This bill infringes values regarded as fundamental in any democracy.” He went on to say: “Unfettered discretions and retrospective policy-forming power in this bill are reminiscent of powers found in much of South African legislation prior to the democratic election in 1994.” It is a sad day when this Parliament is debating the reporting back of legislation that was roundly condemned by about 90 percent of the submitters. Even in the very short and rushed time frame, those people found it necessary to make very strong statements in front of the select committee. I point out that the Korean Society and many Asian community members made submissions to the select committee that backed up those concerns about the racist impact that this legislation will have.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the debate, but there is a bit of feedback coming through the microphones. When my colleague Pansy Wong was speaking there was a lot of feedback. I do not know whether it is affecting other microphones, but it was certainly affecting her one.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for that. Could the Sergeant-at-Arms check that out, please. I call the honourable member Steve Chadwick.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not here at the commencement of this debate, but you took Mr Dunne’s call as the third speaker in this debate. He spoke after Lockwood Smith, Mr Carter having opened for the Government. With respect, we will not accept that order in this House on such a critical issue—an issue that this party has staked its reputation on and campaigned on, and one about which there is a lot of interest in this country. Mr Dunne’s party did not get third in the last election. We did, and we will not accept you or your senior making up the rules as you go along.

I was here when the first MMP Parliament was started, and when Peter Tapsell was in the Chair as the then Speaker of this House. I know full well what the rules were then. They did not go on the idea that one could somehow conveniently sell or give away one’s spot—most certainly not under an MMP Parliament. Just in case anybody has forgotten, I can recall when there was—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just make the point that the point of order should be terse and to the point. That is in Standing Order 84(3).

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, my point of order is very serious, and I will not give it up like that. We will not have the people’s will, set at the last election, changed by this Parliament or by anybody inside it. That goes to the heart of this democracy—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I wish to rule on this.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have not finished yet. I have one last point to make to you. My last point is this. In this Parliament there used to be the right to concede a part of one’s speech for a colleague, and I know full well when that happened—in 1995. This Parliament, through its Speaker, decided to rule that out. Now, this is a very, very important issue. This Parliament decided that that could not be done, even though other Parliaments allow a member to yield and the time to be given over to a colleague. Now, of course, that has all been changed again, so parties can make their arrangements internally, and we have not argued against that. If the Greens want to run their two speakers in a 10-minute slot of 5 minutes each, that is fine by us. That does not foreclose on the 2002 election results. But this decision today does do that. I am outraged and insulted that on an issue that is so important to New Zealand First, and given that we were third at the last election, Mr Dunne should be the third speaker in this debate—or be way above the New Zealand First position. That is wrong.

Mr SPEAKER: I say quite clearly to the Rt Hon Winston Peters that he is wrong in just about everything he has said. This is a decision that was taken at the Business Committee and referred to me for my consideration, and I have made a decision. The decision is that the third call goes to the Government, or that the Government can nominate someone to speak on its behalf when he or she is supporting the Government. The Government did that in this case, and it has an absolute right to do so. This list, now, is the list that will pertain for first, second, and third reading debates. That is it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Let me submit that you are wrong on all counts. The fact that you have relied on the so-called Business Committee, which may conspire against one party in this country, provides no sanctuary or haven from which you can make that argument out. That is the first thing. The second thing is that Mr Dunne is not a part of the Government; every New Zealander knows that. So for you to say that the Government has the right to arrange the non-Government speakers is demonstrably wrong. The third thing I want to say is simply this. I want the kind of precedent I have seen in Europe followed here. Where a party is not a part of the Government—and the antecedents in Europe, in terms of MMP, are far longer than this country has ever had—then it does not get the precedence that Mr Dunne has assumed. I will not settle for a convenient arrangement because it happens to be what certain parties want.

Mr SPEAKER: There is somebody using a flash above me to take photographs. That person will immediately remove himself from the gallery, and I want to see the person concerned. That is not allowed in this House, at all. No one has sought my permission to do that. I apologise to the member, but I had to interrupt him because that occurred not once but about seven or eight times.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I did not arrange that.

Mr SPEAKER: I realise that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I just say that I think the photographer does not know what the rules are.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, he does now. He will not be doing that again in a hurry.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, using that as a precedent, I say that is a longstanding rule from which we have never deviated. Now I want to say that the same thing should apply in respect of the speaking order under MMP. It cannot be that on some days a certain thing happens, and on other days it does not happen. Either the people of this country decided the precedence accorded to the parties, or they did not. I just find it an absolute affront to have to sit here and have Mr Dunne, who is not a part of this Government, being given privileges by members of the Government. I understand the Government to be the Labour Party and Mr Anderton’s Progressive conservatives, and that is it. This is a minority Government—[Interruption] A Minister laughs, but this is known to be a minority Government because it does not have the United Future party’s support in the way that is being made out in this argument. I say that I want this matter to be reconsidered, because we find it to be a matter of grave unfairness in so far as the New Zealand First Party is concerned.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, let me just say that when the Business Committee considered this matter a member of New Zealand First was there—a senior member—and no objection was taken. In the end, it was a unanimous decision. I make that point very clearly. Secondly, of course we can always reconsider the decision. I am of course willing, if the member submits something to me in writing, to be reasonable and consider what he says. But at the present time I have instructed all the people who are in my position, when I am not here in the Chair, to adopt this list, and that is the way it will be at the moment.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have spoken to Mr Brown about this issue, and I will check again with him for his recollection of things. That is not the way he described them to me, but I will find out and report back to you on that.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member, and I invite him to put his comments in writing to me. I will look at that. But at the present time I am adopting this order, and I hereby rule that that will be the case.

STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua): Obviously, the previous speaker was also keen to add his support to this bill, and he is anxious to speak. This has been a long-awaited piece of legislation. The country is waiting for it, our electorate is waiting for it, and I am pleased to support it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): That was by way of a speech in support of legislation that is demonstrably bad for the people of Rotorua, for the Bay of Plenty, for the Māori people that she purports to represent, and for every New Zealander. The simple fact of the matter is that a recent survey—[Interruption] They can scream all they like, because they are nervous—showed that 84 percent of New Zealanders were against this bill. But why am I surprised that this Government carries on regardless? Government members are arrogant.

[Interruption] As for “solar dome” over there, he can make every smart alec comment he likes, but if I looked old before my time, I would shut up. If I looked like an old man in a hurry, I would keep quiet. A nonentity from Dunedin, who spent all his time sycophantically at the local authority, comes to this Parliament—the only promotion he will ever get is to be senior whip; he cannot be a Minister, he does not have the capacity—and sits over there making all the imitations of a walrus.

The reality is that 84 percent of New Zealanders are against this bill. [Interruption] The fiscal benefits, the economic benefits—

Mr SPEAKER: Order.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, Mr Speaker, I do not mind Mr Benson-Pope making a fool of himself. But I know that down in Dunedin they are against this bill. Down in the Deep South they are against this bill. All around New Zealand, the blue-collar worker—the poor guy or woman out there with three jobs, who wants to make a living, but cannot afford a home, cannot get an operation, cannot get an education, cannot get into his or her own town because of traffic jams—is against this bill. No amount of shouting on the part of the Labour Party will change my views on this bill.

Can members tell me why we have over 400 cases of TB in this country today, a disease we once thought we were on top of—when we were young, when once a decent party called Labour, and National, got on top of it? It was not like this present bunch of fly-by-night opportunists. We have over 400 cases of tuberculosis in this country. We have 500 babies born to foreign parents because they want to access our benefit system. I see ladies who cannot get a cataract operation, or a hip operation.

The Labour Party poses as the working man’s friend. Labour members would not know what a working man looked like. Look at their hands and appearance—soft, arrogant, useless! They would not know a worker if they saw one. They come here every day and sell out the working people of New Zealand. That is why, in 2 years’ time, these marshmallow milksops will be out, and they will not be laughing then. Oh, no, they will be down to the job queue then. I hope they have a long time on the job queue, because they are not competent to do anything else.

How come we have New Zealanders who cannot buy a home any more in this country? How come the price of houses in Auckland is going through the roof—up 20 percent in 1 year? What person can save that sort of deposit? I bet David Cunliffe cannot.

Hon David Cunliffe: I bet I cannot.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I bet he cannot. House prices are rising 20 percent in 1 year—what young New Zealander can save that fast? I bet they cannot. Why do I ask them what the working man, working woman, and middle New Zealand think? They would not know about that. This is a strange, queer, odd bunch—an odd assortment. They are not normal, not usual.

Hon David Cunliffe: It’s Pauline Hanson back again!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If I were gay and wanted a home, they would have a policy for that. If I were gay and wanted to get into hospital, they would have a policy for that. But when it comes to ordinary, hardworking, normal New Zealanders, “No thank you” is the Labour Party’s message. House prices are skyrocketing, and there are long waiting lists in our hospitals.

Why do I read in the last Ministry of Social Development report that 7,000 of the people looking for work are recent immigrants, and that in Auckland, 12,000 migrants are known to be unemployed? If I worked selling cars for a Mercedes Benz company in Auckland, how come I would find people of Asian extraction in the main giving me $140,000 in cash?

Government Member: Cash?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Not cheques—straight cash. Do members think that the Inland Revenue Department knows about that? We have an economy going on in this country that those people know nothing about. In Tauranga—and in Hawke's Bay—we are losing tens and tens of millions of dollars a year because picking and pruning in the horticulture industry is controlled by fly-by-night foreigners who do not pay PAYE, accident compensation, and the taxes of the ordinary workers. The Inland Revenue Department has reported to those people over there, and they do not want to know.

Government members have predicated the future on a massive growth rate and immigration. Do members know how many people have gone to Australia from overseas for the last 10 years? Each year, 82,000 go to Australia; for New Zealand last year—a country seven times smaller—the figure was 72,500. [Interruption] As for the Minister of Police, he can make those sorts of noises. He is the most incompetent Minister of Police this country has ever seen. Crime is going through the roof.

Dail Jones: In his electorate.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, in his electorate. The fastest growing industry is the security industry, because he cannot do his job. Fifty-two percent of the people who are burgled in this country do not report the burglary. Of the people who do, he resolves 40 percent. If I were that incompetent, I would resign tomorrow. I would go back to being the incompetent mayor I once was. [Interruption] We can always tell when we have struck a nerve in this Parliament—Government members start shouting and try to over-talk us. They make the noises of animals—not just the noises, but the smells as well.

The reality is that we have a hopeless Minister of Immigration. This Minister is so hopeless that the bill comes back and I did not see her speak to it. This bill is so bad that Lianne Dalziel, the Minister of Immigration, will not make a speech about it. She puts up Chris Carter, the Minister of Ethnic Affairs. I do not know what sort of ethnic affair that is, but we do not want a part of it. We do not want a bar of that sort of ethnic affair. We like things upfront.

Hon David Cunliffe: We know you like things upfront.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Not around the back, like George. If those gentlemen cannot take it, they should not dish it out. We can, and we have a black book as long as their arm. If they want to get smart, then we are the people—Interruption] As Elvis Presley once said: “If you’re looking for trouble, you’ve come to the right place.”

We have a Minister who is not prepared to defend her own bill. That is why it should be thrown out. The fact that the parliamentary lapdog, United Future, votes for it is neither here nor there.

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

Ayes 60

Labour 52; United Future 8.

Noes 50

New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6;Green Party 8.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Subordinate Legislation (Confirmationand Validation) Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Finance), on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. There is routinely an annual bill to confirm and validate a range of regulations. It is normally introduced in spring and passed by December. This year the bill provides for Parliament to confirm and validate 14 Orders in Council made under nine Acts. I will propose that the bill be referred, as is customary, to the Regulations Review Committee, chaired by my colleague Mr Worth.

Five of the 14 orders deal with levies that were voted upon themselves by growers of commodities such as passion fruit, wheat grain, milk solids, satsuma mandarins, and herbage seeds. The levies serve to finance industry-good activities, and are payable to industry organisations such as Federated Farmers. Four of the 14 orders applied movements in the consumer price index. Two of them applied increases to social security benefits and allowances and to war pensions and allowances. The third adjusted the excise on tobacco products, and the fourth increased the maximum rate for funeral grants. Another three of the orders prohibited imports or exports. Two of those related to Patagonian toothfish, and the other to dogs of specified dangerous breeds. One order provided for the recovery by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries of related costs from the exporters of live animals and germ plasm. The final order removed a requirement relating to the taking of packhorse rock lobster.

All the orders are unremarkable fare for these annual bills, so I shall not go into them in any more detail.

RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom): It is a privilege to speak in support of this legislation. As the previous speaker has said, National supports this legislation and its referral to the Regulations Review Committee. I would have to say that it is not exactly a bowel-gripping topic. It certainly does not have the same emotion associated with it as the previous legislation that the House has been dealing with. It is legislation in a simple form, comprising three parts. Part 2 is the critical part that confirms and validates a number of orders and regulations.

One can legitimately ask whether it is appropriate that the form of words touching confirmation and validation should continue to be used. It is interesting to reflect that the process has been used over quite a considerable time period. The earliest legislation in respect of which validation of orders was sought was the War Pensions Act 1954. The process continues with legislation enacted in 2001. It is also clear that associated with the passage of this legislation will be the repeal of earlier legislation—in this case, the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act of the previous year.

In looking at this legislation I thought that I would refer briefly to two measures that are the subject of validation steps. The first is contained in Statutory Regulation 2003/118, made under the Animal Products Act. That regulation is reasonably significant and deals with a raft of issues, such as charges for verification services, and the setting of new fees and charges in respect of the export of live animals and germ plasm, being animal semen, animal embryos or ova, or the hatching of eggs of birds. New fees are introduced for the listing of game estates. There are other changes relating to pet food levies, and perhaps surprisingly, a levy of $5 per head is introduced for the slaughter of ostriches and emus. The second order I seek to refer to briefly is made under the Fisheries Act 1996, and deals with packhorse rock lobster. That particular provision is concerned with removing packhorse rock lobster from a schedule to the Fisheries Act, the effect of which is to remove the requirement for commercial fishers to have a minimum holding of three tonnes of annual catch entitlement before they can take packhorse rock lobster.

I do not doubt that the Regulations Review Committee will perform competently, and will faithfully discharge its obligations to the House in considering this particular legislation.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): In considering this legislation, I note in particular clauses 12 and 13. I am reminded of the problems that were associated with the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act 2002, which is referred to in clause 13. In a speech quite similar to the one we have just heard from the Associate Minister of Finance David Cunliffe, we were informed that it was the usual washing-up legislation, it was to go to the Regulations Review Committee, and there would be no problems with it. Last year we discovered that the Government—and I refer to clause 13—had a problem with at least $140 million worth of bills and charges made to fishermen. We had considerable difficulties with that legislation, and the Government was terribly embarrassed by the way in which it had behaved under it. As I understand it, there was a settlement of somewhere around $20 million to $40 million as a result of the Government’s behaviour with regard to the previous year’s subordinate legislation that had been validated.

In this particular legislation I note that there is, again, something to do with the Fisheries Act 1996. Nowadays in this House, anything that says “fisheries” has to be looked at very carefully. Clause 7l refers to the Fisheries (Removal of Packhorse Rock Lobster from Eighth Schedule) Order. I would not know what a packhorse rock lobster was, but anyone who is interested and has been affected by the packhorse rock lobster legislation or regulations should take a close interest in this bill.

I am a member of the Regulations Review Committee, and New Zealand First will be looking at this bill closely at the select committee.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): The Green Party will be supporting the subordinate legislation bill before us this afternoon, but there is one particular clause that I would like to address.

Clause 8 deals particularly with cost of living increases applied to benefits and allowances as of 1 April 2003. I would like to use this opportunity to take a closer look at exactly what the rates of benefits are, due to the widespread misapprehension among many, in some parts of New Zealand society, that people choose to live on benefits, such is the wonderful lifestyle incurred. As of 1 April this year, and as per the legislation before us today, a single person aged between 20 and 24 who is unemployed or sick receives a net weekly benefit of $134.75, entailing a cost of living adjustment of an additional $3.59 per week. On the other hand, for a person who has finally reached adulthood at the impressive age of 25, the benefit has gone up from $157.37 per week to $161.65, giving an increase of $4.28 per week.

There are a number of things to look at here. First of all, I wonder how many people in this Chamber, and how many people outside it who criticise beneficiaries for being lazy bludgers, can imagine what it is like to really try to live on $134 or $161 per week. Even for a single person without dependants, trying to survive on that amount of money anywhere in New Zealand, much less in one of our larger cities, is just about impossible. We have seen news today of the enormous increase in housing costs everywhere, not just in Auckland and Wellington, but all over the country, including horrendous rises in places of relatively high employment, like Nelson. We have also recently had Steve Maharey’s Jobs Jolt, which tells us that the—

Mr SPEAKER: I have the let the member go on a little bit longer, but this bill is about confirming and validating regulations; a little bit of leeway is possible, but this is not a case for a general discussion on benefits. The member should come back to the bill itself.

SUE BRADFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was under the impression that I was talking about clause 8, which relates to benefit rates.

Mr SPEAKER: It validates regulations, and the member can say why she is in favour of, or opposed to, it.

SUE BRADFORD: Fundamentally, the Green Party supports the bill, including that clause, because we do want benefit rates to rise. But the amount they are rising by in the cases I have mentioned—$3.59 and $4.28 a week—and in all the other rate increases in this bill, are way below what this or any Government should be doing with the benefit system. I have been outlining the reasons for that, but evidently one is not allowed to talk about that in this debate.

Behind this, we believe that benefit rates should be raised, and that they should be indexed in the same way that superannuation is. Benefit levels should be protected by being linked to a fixed percentage of the average wage, just as for superannuation. It is about time that Labour brought the principles of sufficiency, universality, and simplicity to our benefit system.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to support the bill. I do not intend to speak at any length on it—a fact that will earn me brownie points with my Petone Community Board colleague MP Moana Mackey, as well as with the Government whip. Clearly, the advantage of the Government being able to move by Order in Council such matters as are contained in this bill enables it to provide flexibility and to move with speed. I note in particular that it has been important and desirable for the Government to be able to move by Order in Council on the Customs Import Prohibition (Dangerous Breeds of Dogs) Order, the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order, the Social Security (Funeral Grants) Order, and the War Pensions (Rates of Pensions and Allowances) Order. The bill provides a useful function in enabling the Government to move on those matters without their immediate consideration by the House and the delays that that incurs. On the other hand, the requirement that such a bill come to the House provides an opportunity for Parliament to consider and debate the matters for which orders have been made, and, therefore, there is a degree of accountability on the part of the Government, and I think that is welcome, as well. United Future will support this bill.

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Regulations Review Committee.

Bills

Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 27 August.

Part 9 Amendments to Medicines Act 1981 (continued)

Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura): I understand that Part 9, if the amendments are passed, will become a separate bill. The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill is going to be split into three bills. Part 9 deals with pharmacies and the way in which they will be owned and operated.

When I was last speaking on this matter, I said I had been in Cleveland, with my good friend Judith Collins. I do not think this Government really understands the pressure that pharmacies and pharmacists are under at the moment. We went to two pharmacies, one of which had just been ram-raided. The pharmacist was shocked. Even though she had put up all the security screens, she then had to pay $45,000, I think, to put up those big metal posts to stop the shop from being ram-raided again.

Parts of this bill talk about pharmacists and pharmacies having to be secure. Believe me, they know the risks and costs of that! We understand the important role that pharmacists play in health care in New Zealand. As a geriatrician, I was very aware that medications, in the elderly, are a big problem and often cause iatrogenic disease. People often get sick because of the pills they take. I was spending a lot of time taking people off those medications. Pharmacists do a fantastic job in this regard. They spend a lot of time looking at the medications that people take—looking at the interactions they could cause. Indeed, every day of the week, pharmacists pick up prescribing errors—all the time. They pick up interactions that may occur.

Those sorts of things that pharmacists do, often are not quantified or paid for. They spend their time learning about drugs and how they work in the body—especially in aged care and with young children. In those groups the medications can make someone very sick, indeed. So pharmacists do a great job in that respect. They are among the most consulted health professionals. People often will go and have a talk to their pharmacist to find out what the pharmacist thinks a problem may be—whether the person needs to go to the doctor. In that regard, we respect the work that pharmacists do and how competent they are to do that.

In the past we have had the situation where a pharmacist could own only one pharmacy, and certainly that rule has caused problems. It has caused problems in rural areas where maybe only part of a practice was really viable, especially in smaller rural areas. So it has been increasingly difficult, with decreasing populations, for those pharmacies to remain viable. On this issue of pharmacists being able to own only one pharmacy, there has been a great deal of debate about freeing up the system. The debate has gone on all around the world about allowing pharmacists to own more than one pharmacy, and whether pharmacists need to own them, at all. Those debates have occurred, and I have looked at all the different areas of the world—for example, in Europe and Britain where they have deregulated but they do have regulations as well that look at local needs. They look at access, they look at improving quality health-care to improve it for the patients who need to use pharmaceutical services, and to see a pharmacist.

That has to be the bottom line, really. It has to be about improving the ability of individuals to get access to medications, in a way that improves their health care. That is what we do have to look for. We appreciate that medicines are not ordinary, commercial items, because medicines have that ability to make people very unwell. There are safety issues around the prescribing and dispensing of medications. The number of people who end up in hospital, every day of the week, because their drugs have made them sick, is pretty extreme. It is always a matter of getting the balance right. We need to know that that risk is monitored and that that is very clear in any changes that one makes.

A big problem at the moment, of course, involves the manufacture of methamphetamine and P. People manufacturing that have got it from pseudo-ephedrine, which is a very common substance in cold remedies.

JUDY TURNER (United Future): United Future has given serious consideration to the many opinions offered on the issue of deregulation of pharmacies, and our decision is that, at this time, we will support the intent of the legislation in this regard. Pharmacists have to contend with a range of interventions that involve their profit margins—namely, Pharmac price-setting, co-payments, district health board contracts, and, in recent times, a return to stat dispensing fees. All these interventions serve to cramp the competitive opportunities for pharmacists. United Future feels that the partial deregulation set out in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill is sufficient at this time.

I take the opportunity to endorse the comments of others who have spoken with high regard of the pharmacy services that are provided by our pharmacy professionals here in New Zealand. We must never lose sight of the fact that that profession is an essential primary health service, and at a time when New Zealanders are facing shortages of staff in certain areas of the health profession, it is important that we look after the interests of pharmacists so that we do not start to face a crisis in that area, as well. United Future will be supporting the bill as is, and we have serious concerns about what the huge step of full deregulation would mean to the industry at this time, with the many issues that it is facing at present.

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

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): Let me first thank the Minister of Health for standing up and taking the brave and courageous stand, as a Minister of Health, of being on the side of the sick, the elderly, and our young people over the issue of access to drugs in New Zealand—drugs that make people well—and the price of the drugs that make people well. We face a big decision on this bill concerning my Supplementary Order Paper. Are we on the side of a legislated monopoly, or are we on the side of enterprise and freedom? No one is suggesting that one should not have to be a pharmacist to dispense pharmaceuticals, but we are asking ourselves whether we should legislate a monopoly on the ownership of chemist shops. The United Future party and the Government are saying that what we have now is nuts. It is nuts, because now, in order to dispense drugs in New Zealand, one has to own the chemist shop. How stupid is that? One can be a dentist without owning the dental facility. One can be a doctor without owning the surgery. Why limit the ownership of chemist shops to pharmacists? Why limit the use of capital?

Judy Turner: You don’t have to own a pharmacy to work in one.

RODNEY HIDE: Judy Turner, the great hope of the United Future party, says that one does not have to own a pharmacy in order to work in one. That is true. But one has to be a pharmacist in order to own one right now, and that is what is wrong. Judy Turner shakes her head and agrees. With this bill, the Government and the United Future party have made it a bit easier and said that one has to own 51 percent only. Where is the logic in that? Why not 49 percent? Why not 47 percent? Why not 62 percent, or better yet, why not do as the Minister of Health agrees should be done, along with the Consumers Institute of New Zealand, Te Puni Kōkiri, the police, and every advocate group of consumers that looks at those issues? Why not come down on the side of the sick, the young, and the elderly and say “None.”? [Interruption] It is all right for David Benson-Pope to criticise the Minister of Health, but he can take a call and make his own speech.

We should do the brave and the right thing. We should join with the National Party, vote for the amendments on my Supplementary Order Paper, and have a Labour Party caucus stand beside its Minister of Health. We should send a message to the chemist shop owners that we respect their work and their professionalism, and that as a Parliament we are not prepared to legislate privilege, a monopoly, or an advantage of a supplier over the customer—because that is what we are doing with this bill. How pathetic is it that a Parliament of 120 MPs should be cowed by 931 chemist shop owners, all scared that someone else might buy into the business, employ them, and offer a better service.

Sue Kedgley: Why would it be better?

RODNEY HIDE: We should let the customer choose. What is wrong with customers wanting to go and get their prescriptions from a pharmacist at the supermarket? We notice that chemist shops are quite happy to compete with supermarkets for a whole lot of other goods. It will be interesting that the Greens, the United Future party, and—it looks like—the Labour Party will be sinking the Minister of Health. Members of those parties will be standing up in the Chamber and saying that they favour a commercial monopoly over the sick, the elderly, the young people, and the working families who are the ones who are paying the bills. Let me have someone stand up in the Chamber and say that a legislated monopoly gives cheaper prices and better service. When has that ever happened in the world?

Steve Chadwick: What about professionalism?

RODNEY HIDE: Yes, what about professionalism? What about a bit of competition and choice?

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

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): I want to take a call on Part 9 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill, partly because I have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that I want to take the opportunity to speak to, but also in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper submitted by Mr Hide. I signal that New Zealand First will not be supporting it. We believe that any suggestion of deregulation at this time is not at the right time. That is number one.

Number two is that the bill is subject to review in 3 years’ time. We should look at it then. If the truth be known, some members on this side of the Chamber support the Supplementary Order Paper without really wanting to do so—because of previous circumstances they are obliged to do so. I reiterate that New Zealand First will not be supporting the ACT member’s Supplementary Order Paper.

I want to talk to my amendments to clause 240 on my Supplementary Order Paper. I want to add to the definition of “authorised prescriber”. My Supplementary Order Paper amends the definition by including a little bit more detail as to what the term “authorised prescriber” should mean, or should include. It should include “authorised ophthalmic prescriber”, and again I am referring to the optometrists—following the approaches that members of their association made to me, I was convinced that I should support their call for that.

In addition, I propose another amendment, to clause 240(3), after the words “medical practitioner”, to include the word “optometrist”, with the definition meaning that it is a health practitioner who is or is deemed to be registered as an optometrist with the Optometrists and Dispensing Opticians Board continued by this legislation.

Similarly, that definition should be included within the meanings of “medicine”, “new medicine”, “prescription medicine”, “restricted medicine”, and “prescription optical appliances”. Again, that is in keeping with the approaches made to me by the members of the Optometrists Association. I would like to see a new clause 243A included, referring to the sale of prescription optical appliances by retail. I seek support for that Supplementary Order Paper.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I would just like to say that I am very pleased to see the Minister for Small Business here while we discuss the issue of pharmacy. Perhaps it would be a very good thing for the Minister to examine the 900 small pharmacy businesses in New Zealand. Maybe he could even consider doing a regulatory impact analysis of those businesses, because he would find that under this Government, not only have their co-payments been reduced but 30 percent of their income has been yanked out as a result of stat dispensing. At the same time, we have imposed increasing regulatory and compliance costs on pharmacies in New Zealand. I appeal to the Minister for Small Business, who is sitting in this House, to look at this particular area. There are all these wonderful moves towards reducing the compliance costs of small business in New Zealand, and the Minister has been doing some great work in that area, but I think this is one area he has overlooked.

Turning to this bill, I would like to speak very briefly to Mr Hide’s impassioned speech in favour of his particular amendment. The first thing I would like to say to Mr Hide is that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to stop supermarket operators having pharmacies in their supermarkets right now—nothing but greed. The only reason they are not doing it is that they want to be able to take all the profits for themselves.

Secondly, I would like to point out that we are not talking about sweeties, confectionery, or cakes, but about medicines and pharmaceuticals. As Dr Lynda Scott has intimated, the fourth major cause of disease is adverse interactions with pharmaceuticals. We are talking about potent and toxic substances, and we cannot just compare them with confectionery and cakes. There needs to be a strong regulatory mechanism, and trained pharmacists are needed to make sure that there are not adverse interactions between medicines that have been prescribed. Just as Dr Scott has, I have had letters from pharmacists pointing out that by checking the prescriptions doctors send in, they have avoided major problems. Doctors, for instance, will dispense 11.9 milligrams of something when it should be 1.19 milligrams and so forth, so pharmacists have a very important role in checking the scripts that doctors write. They have a very important role in the whole ethics of a pharmacy, and in making sure that medicines are not dispensed in a way that could be abused, particularly where those medicines could be the basis for drugs like methamphetamines. Pharmacists who own and operate their own pharmacies have a very strong ethical commitment.

The member keeps talking about a monopoly in this area. If this role were handed over to supermarkets, it would be to a monopoly of two New Zealand supermarket chains, both owned by global multinationals. So instead of going into our community, any profits would be sent offshore. We would be giving up 900-odd small businesses in New Zealand to a couple of global multinational corporations. I cannot see how that would advantage New Zealand—quite to the contrary. I think that small pharmacists have done a magnificent job in New Zealand, particularly the community-owned small pharmacists. They function to a great extent almost as social workers in their communities, and we should be supporting them, not undermining them.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115 in the name of Pita Paraone to insert a definition of “authorised ophthalmic prescriber” in clause 240(1) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 13

New Zealand First 13.

Noes 97

Labour 52; New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Heather Roy to omit the words “medical practitioner” and the definition of “medical practitioner” from clause 240(3) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 42

New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6.

Noes 68

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115 in the name of Pita Paraone to insert a definition of “optometrist” in clause 240(3) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 13

New Zealand First 13.

Noes 97

Labour 52; New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Heather Roy to amend the definition of “registered health professional” in clause 240(3) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 68

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115 in the name of Pita Paraone to insert new clause 240A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 13

New Zealand First 13.

Noes 98

Labour 52; New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115 in the name of Pita Paraone to insert new clause 243A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 13

New Zealand First 13.

Noes 98

Labour 52; New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 248 be agreed to:

to insert the following new subclause:

(3) Section 50 of the principal Act is amended by inserting, after subsection (5), the following subsections:

(6) For the purposes of subsection (4), in the case of an application for a licence to operate a pharmacy, individual includes the following persons:

(a) an administrator of the estate of a deceased individual:

(b) an assignee, within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1967, carrying on a pharmacy in his or her capacity as assignee of the estate of an individual:

(c) a liquidator carrying on a pharmacy under the authority of section 260 and the Sixth Schedule of the Companies Act 1993:

(d) a receiver or manager of the property of a company carrying on, subject to the Receiverships Act 1993, a pharmacy comprised in that property.

(7) Subsection (6) does not entitle any person to carry on business in a pharmacy after–

(a) the expiry of 1 year after the date of the death of the deceased individual, or the date on which the individual was adjudicated bankrupt, or the date of the first appointment of a liquidator, receiver, or manager, in respect of a company that has carried on a pharmacy; or

(b) subject to any conditions that the licensing authority imposes, the expiry of any extended period or periods permitted by the licensing authority.

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

Ayes 30

New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 81

Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 249 be agreed to:

to omit subclause (1).

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

Ayes 30

New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 81

Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 249 be agreed to:

to insert the following new subclause:

(2A) Section 51(1) of the principal Act is amended by inserting, after subsection 6(f), the following subsection:

(g) That, in the case of an application for a licence to operate a pharmacy, the applicant is a person who is able to satisfy the condition set out in section 55A.

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

Ayes 30

New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 81

Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 249 be agreed to:

to insert the following new subclause:

(3A) Section 51(6) of the principal Act is repealed and replaced with the following:

(6) If in any case the licensing authority has reasonable grounds to believe the holder of a licence has failed or is failing to comply with any conditions attaching to the licence, the authority may suspend the licence for a reasonable period to enable the authority to consider the case.

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

Ayes 30

New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 81

Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 249 be agreed to:

to omit subclause (4) and substitute the following new subclause:

(4) Section 51 of the principal Act is amended by inserting, after subsection (6), the following subsections:

(6A) If, after giving the holder of a licence whose licence is suspended under subsection (6) a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and after considering any evidence addressed or submissions made by the holder of the licence:

(a) the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder has failed or is failing to comply with any conditions attaching to the licence, the authority may-

(i) cancel the licence; or

(ii) reinstate the licence; or

(iii) reinstate the licence, subject to conditions:

(b) the licensing authority is not satisfied that the holder has failed or is failing to comply with any conditions attaching to the licence, the authority may-

(i) reinstate the licence; or

(ii) reinstate the licence, subject to conditions.

(6B) If the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of a licence to operate a pharmacy has failed to comply with any conditions attaching to the licence, the authority may, instead of or as well as exercising the powers conferred by subsection (6A(a))-

(a) impose on the holder of the licence a penalty not exceeding $40,000;

(b) forbid the licence holder or any person with an interest in pharmacy from holding any interest in or operating a pharmacy for a period, not exceeding 5 years, specified by the authority.

(6C) A penalty imposed under subsection (6B) may be recovered in a court of competent jurisdiction as a debt due to the licensing authority.

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

Ayes 30

New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 81

Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 249 be agreed to:

to omit subclause (5).

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

Ayes 30

New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 81

Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 251 be agreed to:

to omit this clause and substitute the following clause:

251 Duration of Licence

(1) Section 53 of the principal Act is amended by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following subsection:

(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), every licence, unless sooner cancelled under section 83 of this Act, continues in force for a period of 1 year, and then expires.

(2) Section 53 of the principal Act is amended by inserting, after subsection (3), the following subsection:

(4) Subject to section 50(7), in the case of a licence to operate a pharmacy granted to an applicant who is an individual, the named licensee shall be deemed to include any of those persons mentioned in section 50(6).

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

Ayes 30

New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 81

Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 252 be agreed to:

to omit this clause and substitute the following clause:

252 New section 55A inserted

The Principal Act is amended by inserting, after section 55, the following section:

55A Mandatory condition of licence to operate pharmacy

It is a condition of every licence to operate a pharmacy that the holder of the licence must not request or require any pharmacist who is employed or engaged in duties at a pharmacy to act in a way that is inconsistent with the applicable professional or ethical standards of pharmacy practice.

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

Ayes 30

New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 81

Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Heather Roy to clause 253A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 68

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Heather Roy to clause 253B be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 68

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 in the name of Heather Roy to new section 105C(2) in clause 254 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 68

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 254 be agreed to:

to omit this clause.

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

Ayes 30

New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 81

Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 255 be agreed to:

to omit the words “section 55C” in new subsection 114A(1)(b) and new subsection 114A(2) and substitute the words “section 55A”.

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

Ayes 30

New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 81

Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 125 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 9 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 9 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7.

Part 9 as amended agreed to.

Schedules

Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura): Schedule 1 is about the provisions applying to the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. As we know, this bill was supposed to be based on the Medical Practitioners Act, but the medical practitioners do not want a bar of this bill any more. They want out of it completely because they do not like what has happened to it. They do not think it will be anything like as good as the 1995 Medical Practitioners Act, which was, of course, brought in under a National Government, a very good Government that brought in the Health and Disability Commissioner Act and the Medical Practitioners Act and solved the problems of 30 years, which had been happening in relation to dealing with complaints, quality assurance, and credentialing in our hospitals.

We have heard a bit of concern about this bill, with its provisions applying to the Heath Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, from the groups included. I am talking about the physiotherapists and the occupational therapists. They were really concerned about the cost. I bet members do not know how much it costs to run the disciplinary tribunal per day. It costs $20,000 to $25,000 per day. That is a lot of money. [Interruption] That is what they told us. So they were really concerned, as were the 12 groups that will come under this bill, that they would face the major costs involved in running a Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. They were saying they did not want to come under one tribunal. They actually wanted to have their own smaller tribunals that could reduce the costs for them.

The decision was that there would be only one tribunal, but some changes were made to the schedule to allow for a reduction in costs so that the occupational therapists and physiotherapists would not face the huge costs that occur, like the costs that doctors are faced with when appearing before the disciplinary tribunal. It is a very big event, not just for the doctors but also for patients and their families, to go through the process that gets them to the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. It takes some years to work through the gathering of evidence and the investigation. This schedule deals with the powers to summon witnesses, the powers to investigate, witnesses’ allowances, privileges and immunities, and contempt; all the things that are the legal status of a disciplinary tribunal.

We were concerned that there is now only one level of charge. The National Party does not believe that that is the way it should be. We do not think that there should be only one charge. That means that somebody who may be found guilty today of professional misconduct, which is a much lower charge than disgraceful conduct, will be all lumped together under one charge now. That will put extra stress upon the medical profession and the other health practitioners who come under the disciplinary tribunal. It is far better to have two or three levels of charges so people know the degree of severity, though we do have the profession being able to look at cases of fraud or sexual abuse—that sort of thing—under a separate category.

The chair of the tribunal is appointed for 3 years, and can serve no more than 9 years. I think Wendy Brandon did an extremely good job when she was chair of the tribunal. It was her view that we should have more than one charge, but that was not listened to. Changes were made to the fees that will be available. The chair and deputy chair are paid a fee at a rate fixed by majority of the chairpersons of all authorities under this bill. That was something we added. What was struck out was looking at fixed remuneration. We do not want the costs for the other professions that now come under this Act to be too high. Witnesses do get paid allowances, and we did make changes to legal and medical assessors. The words “the tribunal may from time to time appoint a legal assessor” was struck out. What we put in place was that “the tribunal may from time to time appoint a technical adviser.”

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato): These schedules represent the unpleasant ending of a bill, which the chief executive officer of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists described as a dog’s breakfast. These schedules, indeed, are a veritable dog’s breakfast, and how unpalatable! Here we have this whole bill—a monolith of 270 pages, including 90 pages of schedules, just to sort out the huge complexity within which this Labour Government insists on entangling the health services of New Zealand.

In looking at schedule 1, “Provisions applying to Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal”, once again one has that awful déjà vu of the Minister of Health who insists, rather than having the professionals elect their own members, she wants to appoint them.

We go on to schedule 4, and I just happen to see some of the Acts that are being amended, including the Human Tissue Act. In that Act the definition of the term “medical practitioner” is being repealed. The bill goes on and talks once again about this question of competency. Yet here we have a bill where the Minister of Health has failed to define competency, which is what this bill is all about. Despite this monolith of 270 pages, the Minister of Health, once again, has failed to define one of the most elementary features of it.

What a huge pity it is that the medical profession lost confidence in the Minister of Health, Annette King! What a pity that she could not even define competence, let alone carry the medical profession of New Zealand with her in terms of what should have been a very important bill that was based on the Medical Practitioners Act! That is a good piece of legislation that was brought in by the last National Government, yet what a tragedy it is that the Minister of Health lost confidence in those who have to take the ultimate responsibility for the highly complex cases that do come into the health arena in New Zealand.

I go on to discuss the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act. I was interested to see, once again, stated in the Government’s commentary to the bill that: “The objective of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act is to reduce regulatory barriers to the movement of goods and persons in registered occupations. ... The Act does not currently apply to medical practitioners. The Act takes precedence over this bill, as stated in clause 154. This means that health practitioners (except doctors) who are registered in Australia, must be granted registration in New Zealand when they come to work here, if they have complied with competency requirements, including cultural safety.”

Once again that phrase “cultural safety” brings up a déjà vu nightmare in my mind, when I think of that poor nurse I met the other day struggling home from Auckland Hospital where she had undergone her cultural safety day.

She bemoaned to me that she had spent several hours being talked to about the mythical fourth article of the Treaty of Waitangi. Here we are, the Minister of Health of New Zealand, wanting to impose on the poor old Aussies the New Zealand standards of cultural competence; competence that she cannot even define, let alone this concept of cultural safety, which seems in her mind to be focused on the fourth article of the Treaty of Waitangi.

We must finish at schedule 5, bemoaning, once again, what a shame it is that this bill has not received multiparty agreement, due to the failings of the Minister of Health.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Heather Roy to omit the item relating to the Medical Council of New Zealand from schedule 2 be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The remaining amendments to schedules set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 are out of order, in that they are inconsistent with previous decisions of the Committee.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115 in the name of Pita Paraone to insert new regulation 41A in the Medicines Regulations 1984 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 13

New Zealand First 13.

Noes 98

Labour 52; New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 102 in the name of the Hon Annette King be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Annette King to the schedules be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7.

Schedules as amended agreed to.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport): I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill, the Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill, and the Medicines Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 105.

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

Ayes 68

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7.

Motion agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

The House adjourned at 5.44 p.m.