Thursday, 9 October 2003

Thursday, 9 October 2003

Thursday, 9 October 2003

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Intelligence and Security Committee, United Kingdom

Mr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing honourable members that members of the Intelligence and Security Committee from the United Kingdom, led by the Rt Hon Ann Taylor MP, are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish they be welcomed.

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 Supreme Court Bill and the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill, and progress will also be made on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of next week’s business. I would ask: at this time of the year, how many bills not yet showing on the Order Paper might he expect to see completed through all stages; has he set aside some time for the seabed and foreshore legislation to be considered prior to Christmas; and is there any likelihood of urgency in the next 2 weeks?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Yes, the House can anticipate urgency the week after next. As usual, that will finish by 6 o’clock Friday. In relation to the seabed and foreshore legislation, when it is ready, time will be made available. There are a limited number of bills to be passed that are not yet on the Order Paper. I think there are probably seven or eight bills to be passed. Of course, there will be a number of other bills for first reading—quite a few of those.

Points of Order

Referral to Privileges Committee

Mr SPEAKER: I hereby present a report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Co-ordination and Collaboration in the Criminal Justice Sector and a draft agreement on policing functions within the parliamentary precincts.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the draft agreement on policing functions within the parliamentary precincts to be referred to the Privileges Committee for its consideration.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.

Apologies in the Chamber

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Late last evening the Hon Damien O’Connor apologised for a minor misleading of the House yesterday during question time. Subsequently, I believe, you offered some apology for an altercation between you and me at the time of that question.

Mr SPEAKER: And I have sent the member a copy.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I have not received it.

Mr SPEAKER: I sent it about a minute ago, after I received a phone call.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I was in the House a minute ago, so I have not received it. My point is simply this. Firstly, I think the way in which question time was conducted yesterday got a little bit fractious, and it is not particularly pleasing for a member to hear a Minister correctly, get into an altercation with the Speaker, then find that that Minister sneaked into the House at 5 minutes to 10 that night, when no one is really listening, to make his apology. I accept that the answer will be that he has to make his apology at the first available opportunity, and that, of course, with the House being in Committee, was at 5 to 10 last night. I ask you to consider whether in future when Ministers make mistakes in question time that lead to the sort of situation we had yesterday, they should be required to make their correction and apology at the start of question time on the following day, so that those around the country who do follow Parliament and do not want to stay up until 5 to 10 at night, will know that the Minister made a mistake and that the Opposition was right all along.

Mr SPEAKER: Of course, the point about the matter is that that was with the leave of the House, so no one objected, but I take the point the member makes, and I will give it consideration.

Question Time

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have two questions down to be asked of the Minister. I was not aware that he had made a correction and, that being the case, I am sure that some of my supplementary questions may be misdirected. I wonder whether it would be possible, through you, for the Minister to seek leave again and help us through this question time.

Mr SPEAKER: That is something the member could approach the Minister about personally. It is not for me to do that.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Supreme Court Bill—Interest Groups

1. RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) to the Associate Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement that the Government was acting in the “wider interests” regarding the Supreme Court Bill; if so, what are those wider interests?

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice): Yes, because the bill will benefit not only large corporations and those who can afford to have a second appeal; it will also give that opportunity to all New Zealanders. In addition, the Government accepts the reality that, if we do not leave the Privy Council, it will leave us.

Richard Worth: Does the Minister agree with media reports regarding the Supreme Court Bill that state: “To pass it into law would be an act of breathtaking arrogance. To assume that a wafer-thin majority is sufficient to enact fundamental changes to the legal and constitutional fabric of New Zealand is nothing short of an abuse of power.”?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: No. Not to introduce the bill now would actually create enormous injustice to many New Zealanders, who would be denied that second right of appeal.

Tim Barnett: Has the Minister received any reports from the United Kingdom on leaving the Privy Council?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: Yes. Privy Counsellor Lord Bingham of Cornhill said in May 2002 that the Privy Council can be seen as a body in its death throes. Privy Counsellor Lord Steyn said in September 2002 that the British Government sees the Supreme Court Bill as a crucial affirmation of New Zealand’s self-reliant sovereignty and national identity. Furthermore, Sir Thomas Legg, former Permanent Secretary in the Lord Chancellor’s Department, at a conference on UK judicial reforms at Cambridge University last weekend, said that non-UK users of the Privy Council should be politely invited to consider alternative arrangements, and that the new Supreme Court judges should not be burdened with Privy Council work.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What percentage of the Privy Council does the number that she has outlined represent, or is it in keeping with the way she is ramrodding this through Parliament—a minority Government without mandate at the election time, because the total number of votes, of the votes that could have been cast, was less than 36 percent; is that the reason she finds those minority statements out of the UK so favourable to herself and her colleagues?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: I am not entirely sure I understood the question. I would appreciate some help with it.

Mr SPEAKER: Could the member please restate the question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, certainly. If she does not understand, I do. What percentage of the Privy Counsellors do those comments by those people represent, or is that minority view out of the Privy Council in keeping with the minority support that this matter has in the country and in terms of a parliamentary mandate?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: I thank the honourable member. I now understand the question. I do not know what percentage and what all the Privy Counsellors’ opinions are, if they even have one, on this issue. What I do know is that when I met with many senior members of the British judiciary in June, they all wondered why we were still going to the Privy Council when we had such excellent judicial officers ourselves in New Zealand. They love seeing us, but they could understand perfectly why we would want our own court.

Nandor Tanczos: Do the wider interests that the Minister has referred to include the concern that New Zealand does not currently have a fully functioning final court of appeal, because the restricted nature of access to the Privy Council means that it deals with too few cases to play that function and because the heavy workload of the Court of Appeal means it cannot deal exhaustively with matters of law in New Zealand; and does she believe that the Supreme Court Bill will rectify that and give us a fully functioning final court of appeal?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: Yes. That is a very important reason we need our own Supreme Court. The second level of appeal does in fact enable the court to consider questions that have been refined through the first appeal process. That is what has been lacking for the majority of New Zealanders in this country. It is overdue that they should have the right to have a consideration of their matters at that level.

Hon Richard Prebble: Do the wider interests she referred to include the fact that this Government needs to remove New Zealanders’ right of appeal to the Privy Council, if the Government is going to achieve her ambition to destroy our Westminster parliamentary system and replace it with her vision of a socialist republic of Aotearoa?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: No. I think I understand what is behind the member’s question, but I can assure the House that I am a dedicated supporter of the democratic process and the system we have.

Richard Worth: Given her particular constitutional responsibility as Attorney-General and chief law officer of the Government, why has she abused her office by ramming this legislation through, when on 10 October 2001 she said to the media that “maximum agreement” had to come from the business community if there was to be any change, and when in fact there is no support from the business community for this change, at all?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The matter is not being rammed through. As the member knows, the matter has been under discussion here for over 4 years. Also, I believe there is real support from the real business community, which can be seen in the latest Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion, which affirms the upward trend in net optimism in the business sector. If in fact there was so much concern about this issue from that sector, I am sure we would have heard about it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If she says she is a supporter of the democratic process, why does she not put her mouth where her money is by putting it to the people of this country and letting them decide—not some temporary, short-term politician, such as herself?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: I think it is money where mouth is, not mouth where money is. I would note that, as the member knows, referenda in this country are used rarely and are on matters relating to electoral matters—although, as the honourable member knows himself, when he sponsored a referendum on superannuation it turned out to be a referendum on him and not the issue, unfortunately.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There we go. A business confidence survey is interpreted by the Minister as being an indicator of business support, or otherwise, of the Privy Council—surely, drivel. Now she refers to a past referendum, where at least the people got to decide, and not her. Unlike her, I kept my seat—she did not.

Mr SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

Richard Worth: Why did the Associate Minister of Justice say, in answer to one of the supplementary questions, that an advantage of the new Supreme Court is that there would be two levels of appeal, when it is now the case that there are two levels of appeal, and when there would be a further restraint with the new court in that it would be accessible only by leave?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: I realise that the member is not a litigator, but in many instances there are not two levels of appeal—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Minister to answer the question.

Hon MARGARET WILSON: On many matters there are not two levels of appeal for many New Zealanders. That fact is known, and that is why it is absolutely essential in the interests of justice that we have the Supreme Court to provide that. Of course it would be available only by leave, which is the same requirement for every final court of appeal, as it is in the Privy Council at the moment. One cannot get there by right.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You pulled the Minister up and asked her to get on with her question, but you missed the point. Yesterday the Assistant Speaker spent a lot of time in the House hauling me over the coals for apparently using unparliamentary language in describing the seven Māori MPs as “the seven gnomes in the bottom of Helen’s garden”. That was apparently a derogatory allegation made against them. Margaret Wilson, in starting her comments today, had a go at Mr Worth, who is a litigator, has appeared before the Supreme Court, and is well respected in the New Zealand legal community. She should be required to withdraw and apologise for her ridiculous comment.

Mr SPEAKER: No, because the member’s comments were not out of order in terms of parliamentary wording, but they were irrelevant to the question and that is why I asked her to continue with the answer.

Te Whānau o Manawanui—Closure of Mental Health Unit

2. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister of Health: Does she support the closure of the inpatient service of the Auckland region’s only residential Māori mental health unit, Te Whānau o Manawanui; if so, why?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Health), on behalf of the Minister of Health: The decision to close Te Whānau o Manawanui was made by the Auckland District Health Board, following a review of the service and following extensive consultation. Poor facilities were one factor that continued to impede the development of the service. Furthermore, the landowners, Ngāti Whātua, terminated the lease, effective from January next year. I support the decisions made by the board.

Sue Bradford: How does it make sense to close Manawanui—which, with its mental health inpatient beds, could have been shifted to another site—when we all know that Auckland mental health services are desperately short of acute and sub-acute beds; and where will the homeless find a home, and those without whānau find a new whānau, in the nebulous packages of care proposed to replace Manawanui?

Hon RUTH DYSON: A comprehensive range of services is being proposed by the Auckland District Health Board—including residential inpatient beds—either with non-governmental organisation providers or with the Auckland District Health Board itself. I do not agree with the description of the wrap-around packages, but I do agree with the underlying concern raised by the member regarding the continuation of those residential services, and they will be offered—the tender for those is going out right at this very moment.

Dave Hereora: Has the Minister received any advice regarding alternatives to Te Whānau o Manawanui?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes. I am advised that the Auckland District Health Board announced on 24 September a new direction for kaupapa Māori mental health, which includes a provision that those who need 24-hour care as part of their intensive rehabilitation package may access beds at the Auckland District Health Board, or beds provided by a non-governmental organisation. This a new service that will offer wrap-around packages of care and intensive kaupapa Māori services, which will be tailored to meet the expressed needs of the patients, delivered either at home or wherever they are most appropriate. There will be greater flexibility in arranging beds and respite to suit the needs of the clients. I am happy to provide, at the end of this question, the full list of services that will be offered.

Dr Lynda Scott: Why is this Government so determined to allow the closure of specialist inpatient psychiatric beds, when we all know the lack of bed space for mentally ill patients is causing a crisis for patients who are discharged too soon, for staff who are leaving because of stress, and for families who are tortured by fear; has not deinstitutionalisation gone too far?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Our Government is not prepared to support the continuation of sub-standard services.

Pita Paraone: Are Māori given any priority of access to mental health care; if so, how does the closing of the one Māori mental health unit by the Waitemata District Health Board address this priority?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As I indicated in the answer to the primary question, the decision to close the unit was made after extensive consultation, and ensuring that the alternative Māori health services required would be provided. The other consideration is the fact that the lease on the land expires in January next year. The reconfigured services are in line with the Māori mental health strategy, which does address the specificity that the member addressed in his question. We have acknowledged the longstanding problems with Auckland’s mental health services; we are seeking change. I quote from the Māori mental health strategy: “Insanity is doing the same thing, but expecting a different result.”

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister aware that affected staff have not received any documentation showing this apparent extensive consultation, which was apparently carried out with Māori in the Auckland region, despite their repeated requests—so can the Minister herself produce any such documentation of extensive consultation; if not, why not?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I do not have, in the House with me right now, written information about the consultation process, but I will provide that to the member and table it as soon as possible. I have been advised that the extensive consultation I referred to included consultation with the staff, and at the beginning of the proceedings there was 100 percent support for the process, but at this stage it has not been as united.

Sue Bradford: Given that Manawanui served not only the Auckland District Health Board area but also Counties-Manukau, Waitemata, and Northland district health board areas, and given the ongoing shortage of acute beds in all those districts, in particular Waitemata where there are many Māori patients, how—with the closure of this unit on top of everything else—can the Minister say that having a few beds in non-governmental organisations is going to meet the needs of often homeless and displaced Māori people with mental illness?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I make two points in response to that question. First, that was a very inaccurate representation of the answers I gave to the member in the previous question. Secondly, my understanding is that part of the reconfiguration of services will include allocation of funding directly to the Northland District Health Board, so it is able to provide services more locally in its own area; that Counties-Manukau is satisfied with the level of services of provision in the south; and that the inter - district health board arrangements between Waitemata and Auckland will continue under this configuration.

Prime Minister—Personal Comments

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does she still stand by her comments “I sometimes wonder whether I’m a victim of my own success as a popular and competent Prime Minister.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, and I am confident that the tall poppy syndrome is alive and well in New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can she ever imagine good Prime Ministers—such as Maggie Thatcher, Tony Blair, Menzies, Hawke, Howard, Seddon, Savage, Fraser, Holyoake, Muldoon, and Lange—ever being so arrogant and conceited as to make a comment such as that?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do not recall the late Sir Robert’s name being mentioned. I do think that humility is an important part of public office, and I aspire to meet that standard.

Hon Roger Sowry: Given her statement: “I sometimes wonder whether I’m a victim of my own success as a popular and competent Prime Minister.”, what particular events made her think she is a victim?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Precisely the false allegations that I had taken personal responsibility for and directed issues around alleged GM contamination of corn, when I had not.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can she cast her mind over the following matters: the Yelash affair, the maltreatment of Dover Samuels, the “paintergate” affair and the denials that were patently not true, and the “corngate” affair; and can she tell us which of those affairs bespeaks confidence, popularity, or honesty—or is it a case of “It’s so hard to be humble when you’re perfect in every way.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would observe that, notwithstanding the so-called mini-scandals, the Government was re-elected and the Prime Minister continues to be held in rather high regard.

Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill—Contracts, Non-governmental Organisations

4. STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) to the Associate Minister of Health: Has he received any reports on smoke-free contracts provided by non-governmental organisations?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health): I have received reports from the Ministry of Health outlining contracts that it holds with non-governmental organisations advocating non-smoking activities. I am advised that standard advocacy clauses have existed in these contracts as far back as the mid-1990s—a period when the National Government was in power and Bill English was, for a time, the Minister of Health.

Steve Chadwick: Is the Minister reviewing whether this practice should continue?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yes. The ministry has been instructed to review all current contracts and the most recent amendments, to ensure the contracts are appropriate for a Government agency. I am not satisfied with the current situation, and intend to tighten the rules around advocacy clauses. In this regard, I have asked my officials to seek advice from the State Services Commission in reviewing contracts.

Dr Lynda Scott: Were the members of the Health Committee, chaired by Steve Chadwick, ever informed by the Ministry of Health that its advisers to the select committee had, in fact, paid some of the anti-smoking groups to prepare a submission on Miss Chadwick’s own member’s bill; if not, why not?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am not aware whether the select committee was informed. I am aware of contracts that go back to 1993 that have as a core part—if I am allowed to quote from one of them, the 1995 contract between the Northern Regional Health Authority and Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)—“LIAISON/ADVOCACY SERVICES. The provider will liaise with government and private health agencies, members of Parliament, political parties, the media and any other appropriate organisations to raise public awareness of tobacco related issues …”.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister quoted from a document, and I require that document to be tabled.

Mr SPEAKER: The member can seek leave.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am more than happy to table it.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the document. Is there any objection? Oh, the member is required to table it—yes. Please table it. And he will.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I will table it after question time.

Mr SPEAKER: Table it as soon as the question is over.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Firstly, the Minister is required to do it, so leave was not required, but, further, there is another question on this matter further down the Order Paper. I think it would be helpful to the House if we could have that paper from Mr O’Connor tabled now.

Mr SPEAKER: He must table it now, and I ask him to do so. [Interruption] There are a couple of supplementary questions to come. As soon as those questions have come, I will ask him—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know what you have said, and it would be helpful to my parliamentary colleagues if he did table it now, but he is not required to table it until the end of the day’s sitting.

Mr SPEAKER: No, that is slightly different. If he is quoting from an official document and he is asked to table it—and he says it is an official document—he must table it straight away.

Document laid on the Table of the House.

Heather Roy: Does he find it acceptable that his officials paid ASH, the Smokefree Coalition, and Apararangi Tautoko Auahi Kore to lobby MPs and make submissions to select committees—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Mr O’Connor was asked to table the document. Could he please table it now.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Clerk has advised me that Mr O’Connor, by walking to the Table, putting the document on the Table, then walking away with it, has tabled it, and has decided to keep it for himself for the rest of question time. This is the same Minister who was caught out yesterday misquoting a document, and had to come down to the House. Mr Speaker, I seek your help and assistance in ensuring that the document is tabled and other members have access to it. If it means that we leave the question and come back to it, so be it.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister must table the document right now. Please table it.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that the Minister actually has tabled it. His having tabled it, any member can pick it up, and he was the first to pick it up. [Interruption] No, he is absolutely entitled to do that. He can put it down and pick it up again. He has picked it up, and that is what he is entitled to do.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me just say that, as always, Mr Prebble has an interesting point of view, and technically he is correct, but I am going to ask the Minister to table the document now, as requested—right now.

Document laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Richard Prebble: In that case, I seek the leave of the House for this question to be stopped now, and for us to do the next one then come back to it. It is just unreasonable for a Minister who is using a document not to be able to quote from it. Let us have time so that other copies can be given. Why do we not wait until after the next question on notice?

Mr SPEAKER: All I want to say is that that is a sensible suggestion. I am moving on, and I will come back to the question. Question No. 5.

Dr Lynda Scott: Supplementary question—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am coming back to the question.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I see no point in the document being tabled so that it can be xeroxed so that other members can have it and the Minister can have it back, if then the deputy leader of National is going to sit there reading it.

Hon Roger Sowry: I have just asked the Clerk to photocopy it, and was told by the Clerk that he would not photocopy it because he would not let it leave the room.

Mr SPEAKER: This is getting quite out of hand, and I want it to stop right now. I ask the Clerk to have it photocopied now. [Interruption] We will come back to question No. 4 later.

United States—Free-trade Agreement

5. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) to the Minister for Trade Negotiations: When does he expect New Zealand will get a bilateral free-trade agreement with the United States, in light of comments contained in a speech that was to be given by American Ambassador, Charles Swindells, which said: “the United States Government is not prepared to schedule bilateral trade negotiations at this time.”? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am not going to stop again. When questions are being asked, people will be leaving if they start making a noise.

Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations): As the ambassador said, “not … at this time”—although I do not rule it out.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why does the Minister think New Zealand was not invited to a key meeting of friends of free trade, hosted by the US Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, at the recent World Trade Organization ministerial at Cancun—a meeting of the countries with which the US is planning trade negotiations in the next few years—if it was not because the US is not planning trade negotiations with New Zealand in the next few years?

Hon JIM SUTTON: My understanding is that the breakfast referred to was for countries with which the United States has already announced it will do trade agreements—mainly as part of regional or plurilateral agreements. As we are not one of those, I was not surprised not to be invited.

David Benson-Pope: What action has the Government taken to advance the case for a trade agreement in Washington?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The Government, our embassy in Washington, and the business community in New Zealand have been making continual efforts to recruit support amongst the US business community and in Congress for a trade agreement with New Zealand. We have continued to promote the need for a trade agreement in discussions with the US administration, including talks I have had with the US Trade Representative, Bob Zoellick, and other senior members of the administration.

Dail Jones: With reference to Ambassador Swindells’ speech, from pages 7 to 10, will the Minister draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the following words in the speech: “With honesty, understanding, and hard work, we can create a relationship in which the US and New Zealand are allies in the broadest sense, not merely in security terms, but across the spectrum: in economics, business, science, and the environment.”, and will he remind the Prime Minister that it does not help to abuse the President of the United States with references to Al Gore and the like—an attitude that ensures we do not have honesty, understanding, or hard work in our relationship with the United States?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I believe that the Prime Minister has read the speech that the ambassador had planned to deliver. I think she would have been particularly taken with the part that stated that the bilateral relationship “is fundamentally strong, deep, and healthy. It is a longstanding friendship that has withstood the test of time, and … occasional differences.”

Hon Ken Shirley: Does the Minister acknowledge that New Zealand’s ban on the visit of nuclear-propelled vessels is a major obstacle to our hopes for our bilateral trade agreement with the United States; and in light of the Somers report findings that there is no public safety or environmental risk reason for continuing the ban, what are his Government’s reasons for refusing to remove this paramount obstacle to a negotiated free-trade agreement with the United States?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I accept the assurance of several members of the United States administration that the two issues are not directly connected.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does the Minister believe that the Prime Minister’s recent comments to this Parliament that the US Trade Representative, Bob Zoellick, has looked to make room for this country to come into a list for trade negotiations conveys the same message to the public as the US Ambassador’s statement: “not … at this time.”; if not, which of those two statements tends to mislead?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I do not believe that either of those two statements tends to mislead.

Hon Ken Shirley: In view of the Minister’s response to my earlier question, which part of the following quote from Ambassador Swindells’ statements does the Minister disagree with: “The nuclear issue inevitably colours important policy decisions on both sides, limits the scope for further deepening of cooperation in key areas, and plays an unhelpful role in how we respond to one another. Twenty years on, a re-examination of this issue could benefit us all.”?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The ambassador no doubt accurately conveys the views of the US Government. However, where I differ from the member is I do not want New Zealand to abandon its nuclear policies in order to get negotiating coin.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call question No. 6, I want to say I intend to come back to question No. 4 just before question No. 11. Both those questions deal with the same subject, and that gives members a chance to look at it if they wish to do so.

Employment Initiatives—Industry

6. CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What initiatives is the Government taking to promote employment in industry?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Formal employment partnerships with industry are a part of the recently announced Jobs Jolt package. The first of these industry partnerships was signed last night with the hospitality industry. An agreement has been signed between Work and Income and the Hospitality Association for it to take people who are on a benefit, train them, and employ them in that industry. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Hospitality Association, in particular its Chief Executive, Bruce Robertson, for its commitment to industry partnership and to job growth.

Clayton Cosgrove: What other employment partnerships are proposed, and how many job seekers will be helped into jobs as a result?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Hospitality is the first of a number of industry partnerships for employment. We plan to sign job partnership agreements with a number of high-growth industries in the immediate future. Road transport, tourism, retail, and trades will join the hospitality industry. By working with industry and unions to address training and skill needs, we aim to get at least an additional 2,500 people into work as part of the overall 22,000 jobs that are to come from the Jobs Jolt initiative.

Katherine Rich: Why does the Minister not admit that this agreement is nothing new, and that Work and Income has regularly entered into agreements with organisations that are designed to put people into work, since well before Jobs Jolt; and why does he not explain to the House why the number of long-term unemployed has increased by 50 percent in just 4 years—50 percent on his watch?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It would be news to the Hospitality Association that it did not sign an agreement for the first time last night for these additional 200 jobs, as part of this programme. I tell that member that in 2001 this country enjoyed the fourth-highest job growth in the OECD, and in 2002 the second-highest job growth, at 2.9 percent, compared with the OECD average of 0.1 percent. I say to this House that we have the lowest unemployment rate in 16 years.

Peter Brown: What initiatives is the Government taking to expand employment in the shipping industry—noting that several years ago the Government commissioned a review that outlined several initiatives, and nothing positive has happened since, at all?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The role of the ministry that I am responsible for—Work and Income—is to match people to jobs, and we will take initiatives to match people to jobs wherever they appear.

Schools—Zoning

7. DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Education: Further to his answer in the House yesterday that “children have the right to attend their neighbourhood school,” will he step in and protect this right for those children whose neighbourhood schools are under threat of closure?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)), on behalf of the Minister of Education: This Government is committed to providing children with the highest possible quality of education. We want to see money spent on teaching and learning rather than buildings. As the size and make-up of communities change, schools must also change to meet their students’ needs. The current round of network reviews that we are engaged in may result in some school amalgamations or closures. If those kinds of changes are necessary, it is better to begin planning early rather than delaying until issues have become so difficult to deal with that the options are limited and communities end up being short-changed.

Deborah Coddington: How can he justify depriving parents of choice on the grounds that the Government is saving money on empty buildings, when in the Wellington area alone, 2 years after five schools were closed, buildings worth $4 million are still sitting empty and unused, and are wasting away?

Hon Steve Maharey: I say on behalf of the Minister of Education that the issue is one of quality of education. This is not a policy designed to save money; it is a policy designed to ensure that money that would be spent on buildings will instead be spent on teaching and learning. Although Mr Power might shake his head, his Government followed the same policy.

Lynne Pillay: What are the risks of not conducting area reviews?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Across many parts of New Zealand there is a primary school roll decline. That will flow through to the secondary school sector. If we do not proactively review the school network to address those changing demographics, we run the risk that schools will fall over in an ad hoc manner, removing parental choice and jeopardising the quality of education. That appears to be the policy being advocated by the new, far-right, ACT-National coalition.

Simon Power: Will he guarantee that children attending rural Taihape schools currently under review will be able to continue to attend their neighbourhood schools—schools that are providing a quality education to Taihape children?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In line with the policies followed by both the previous National Government and this Government, we will ensure that those children in Taihape get a quality education and have a right to go to their neighbourhood schools.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Is not the real truth that, by giving in to New Zealand Educational Institute demands, the Minister has created gold-plated staffing ratios for small schools and that has jeopardised their future existence by pricing them off the market; is not that the real reason so many small schools are having to be closed under his watch?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I say on behalf of the Minister of Education that I quite often bow to the member’s knowledge in these matters, but on this occasion I am sorry to say that he is wrong. The Minister of Education is not used to giving in to anybody other than the Prime Minister! On this occasion he is simply trying to ensure that quality education is there for New Zealand children.

Murray Smith: Does the Minister accept that even schools in close proximity to each other, like Pinehaven and Silverstream schools, can have different cultures and identities that can impact on a child’s educational achievements; and if he is really interested in children’s educational achievements, why will he not factor the need for a variety of school cultures into his consideration of Upper Hutt school closures?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I say on behalf of the Minister of Education that, yes, he does accept that different school cultures do need to be taken into account when an area review is being undertaken. If Mr Smith had bothered to reply to invitations to two briefings on this matter involving Hutt schools, he might have learnt that some time ago.

Deborah Coddington: As he is concerned about quality education, what does he say, then, to people like Mr and Mrs Osborne from Ngahere, who wrote to me that they want their children to go to their neighbourhood school, rather than travel by bus for 3 to 4 hours a day to attend another school, because the Minister wants to close the Ngahere school in the Grey valley; what is “quality education” about sitting on a bus?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I say on behalf of the Minister of Education that what I would say to those people—and if the member wishes them to ring me this afternoon, I will say it personally—is that we have to ensure that we have schools that are viable, so that students get a quality education, and propping up schools when they are not providing that quality education is not doing that. We are not saying that that is the case at that particular school, but I am saying that it is the way that this policy runs, and we believe that it is the right way to go for quality.

HIV/AIDS—Pacific Region

8. LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: What threat does HIV/AIDS pose in the Pacific region and what steps are being taken to respond to that threat?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): Currently, there are some 8,000 known HIV cases in the Pacific region. Papua New Guinea already is experiencing a generalised HIV epidemic. Several other Pacific Island nations have high and increasing infection rates. Over the past year there has been a significant increase in emphasis on HIV prevention and treatment efforts in the region, including by New Zealand, and we are now, through the secretariat for the Pacific community, developing a regional strategy. Individually, New Zealand last year invested $1.4 million into HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives in the Pacific, and a further $2.25 million into global efforts to combat the disease.

Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: What has New Zealand done to address this impending crisis in the region?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Within the context of the funding that I have just mentioned, and other funding besides, the New Zealand aid organisation funds a number of important initiatives in the region. These include efforts to promote commitment to HIV/AIDS by Pacific Governments and to coordinate externally funded HIV/AIDS projects in the region. We have supported the establishment of a Pacific Island AIDS Foundation, and we work with agencies such as the AIDS Task Force of Fiji and Fiji Red Cross. New Zealand has also supported key efforts to address key risk factors for HIV transmission and the needs of young people to be better educated about sexual health issues.

Emergency Response Unit—Paparua Prison

9. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Corrections: What was his reason for not supporting an inquiry into the operation of the emergency response unit formerly based at Paparua Prison in Christchurch?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections): There were many reasons. That member’s public comment was one of them.

Ron Mark: Noting that one of the reasons the Minister gave publicly yesterday was that he did not want a “parade of former crims” appearing before the committee, why would the Minister say such a thing when he knows full well that most of the people who have called for an inquiry or taken legal action against the Department of Corrections over the goon squad are Department of Corrections staff, such as Maureen Love, John Kinney, Tony Dyer, Nigel French, and a large number of prison officers who are afraid to use the whistleblowers legislation because the managers receiving the complaints are, firstly, their direct employers and, secondly, the very people who have sought to cover up this whole affair?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: A narrow inquiry is one thing, but providing the opportunity for a political platform for that member to have every ex-criminal in the country who has a whinge against the prison service paraded before that committee is not a good idea. The vast majority of prison officers in this country do a great job keeping us all safe. I would expect that member to be showing more support for them, rather than taking the side of every ex-criminal who gives him a ring.

Mr SPEAKER: The last comment is out of order, and it will be withdrawn by the Minister and apologised for.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I withdraw and apologise.

Georgina Beyer: What checks and balances are now in place to ensure that a similar unit could not be established in the future?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Given that the unit was established 4 years ago under a previous National - New Zealand First Government and disbanded under a Labour-led Government, since the abolition of that unit the public prison service has procedures in place for the allocation of prison officers, which means a region can no longer establish such a unit. Also, issues of accountability of the chief executive, ministerial oversight, and complaints by prisoners are all dealt with in the new Corrections Bill currently before the select committee.

Gerry Brownlee: If evidence were presented to the Minister, without prejudice to those who supplied it, showing that senior executives within the prison service were well aware of the activities of the goon squad and often issued instructions on a daily basis, would he then allow an inquiry into the emergency response unit? I tell the Minister that there are people out there who cannot blow the whistle because of the position they currently hold. If they could do it without prejudice, and if the Minister would allow that, then we could have an inquiry that would expose the bad behaviour.

Mr SPEAKER: The question has been asked. That was too long.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I am on record as saying that if the member has new and separate allegations around some of the issues that have been made that have not been dealt with, I will happily look at it and take appropriate action.

Marc Alexander: Can the Minister advise the House as to whether there are former members of the goon squad currently negotiating their employment grievances, and whether such negotiations, past and present, will be made available to the public, who will be paying for those through their taxes?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I can confirm that there are some employment issues, but those are for the Employment Court, not for a select committee.

Ron Mark: Has the Minister heard allegations that the reason the leaders of the goon squad, namely Messrs Smith, Bird, and Kelly, were not dismissed from the Department of Corrections as recommended by the Love report was that they have specific information on their two bosses, Mr Paul Rushton and Mr Paul Monk, regarding dynamite and detonators smuggled into the Paparua prison by Rex Haig, Dean Parata, and Nigel Johnson that would show that Mr Rushton and Mr Monk have not told the truth regarding the hostage-taking incident in order to protect themselves from investigative action; if he has heard those very serious allegations, why has he not launched an inquiry of his own?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: There have been a number of allegations around this matter. They have been investigated and most of them proved to be false or highly exaggerated. I am aware that that member himself makes allegations, such as those around the Ukrainian farm workers. Those allegations were proved to be false, and the farmer is still waiting for an apology from Mr Mark for the allegations that he made, which proved to be utterly without substance.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That Minister knows full well that the statements I made about real salaries for assistant herd managers are available to the public, and that the money those Ukrainians were being paid was not what they were fully entitled to. He is deliberately trying to—

Mr SPEAKER: The member has made his point.

Marc Alexander: Can the Minister deny the payouts the Department of Corrections made to inmates Ra O’Dowd, Richard Tutenaghe, Nikora and John Donnelly—yes or no—and will the Minister justify the circumstances surrounding each case so that the public interest will, for once, be upheld?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I am aware that there has been at least one payout, but, once again, that is a matter for the Employment Court. It is not a matter for a select committee.

Coal-mining—Opencast Mine, Waikato

10. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by her statement in the House yesterday, in relation to the proposed Waikato opencast coal mine, that “If Forest and Bird had a local group, I would have expected it to be consulted”, in light of the fact that the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society has branches in Waikato, Franklin and Thames-Coromandel?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): Yes. I understand the chair of the Environment Waikato subcommittee hearing the resource consent application has said that the local branch of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society should be involved in future consents, and that the applicant is happy to involve them.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: When the Minister said yesterday: “It is not for me to agree whether they have major or minor effects. That is the job of the local authority.”, did she mean that she and her department have no role in overseeing whether councils are carrying out their role as the Resource Management Act intended?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: The Ministry for the Environment does give advice on its website, along with explaining and sharing case law on what is “major” and what is “minor”. But I make the point that the decision about whether something is minor is complex and is not decided on size alone, as we had described in the House yesterday. For example, a small piggery on flat land next to a wetland could have a much more significant environmental effect than a large extension to an existing coal mine.

David Parker: What local organisations with environmental interests were asked to comment about Solid Energy New Zealand’s application to expand its operation at Rotowaro, and what were their responses?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: The Waikato branch of the New Zealand Fish and Game Council was asked for comment, as was the local office of the Department of Conservation. Both consented to the application. The New Zealand Fish and Game Council had no concerns, because the expansion uses existing treatment facilities and will not affect surface wetlands. The Department of Conservation similarly consented because of the limited adverse effects on their interests in freshwater fisheries and vegetation clearance.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister agree that even if a judicial review by the High Court was to find this notification decision to be wrong in law, it cannot reverse it or provide any redress; if so, will she reinstate the amendment introduced by the Hon Simon Upton in 1999 to allow reviews and reversal of notification decisions by the Environment Court; if not, why not?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: As the member well knows, the Environment Court is under considerable pressure. As I have explained before, for the Resource Management Act to be able to work well the load on the Environment Court has to be reduced, and we are doing that by reducing the backlog. Once that backlog is reduced, I will reconsider those questions.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: If this case sets a precedent for the definition of minor effects, because an opencast coal mine excavating the equivalent of two Mount Victorias down to sea level has not been notified, can she suggest any kind of resource consent application that would have to be notified in the future?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I think I reiterated before that major or minor is not decided on size alone—a lot of things are not decided on size alone, including effectiveness. I make the point again that a small piggery beside a wetland could have a much more major effect than the extension of an existing mine.

Question No. 4 to Minister

Mr SPEAKER: I will tell members what I propose to do. I am returning to question No. 4. I had heard a Labour question, a National question, and I think I had called Heather Roy to ask a supplementary question, so I intend to return to her.

Heather Roy: Does the Minister find it acceptable that his officials paid Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the Smokefree Coalition, and Apararangi Tautoko Auahi Kore to lobby MPs and make submissions to select committees; and why will he not demand that those officials who have been running covert political operations be sacked—just as the Prime Minister did with Kit Richards?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I know of no covert political operations run by these organisations.

Stephen Franks: So you knew about it.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware that most international organisations involved with the reduction of smoking are involved through their contracts with advocacy. Some may call it lobbying; others would call it providing information. I do not consider it appropriate that there should be provision to lobby on a specific bill, but I do believe that those organisations have an obligation to provide information to influential people.

Dr Lynda Scott: Can the Minister point to where in the 1995 Northern Regional Health Authority contract with ASH there is a gagging clause and a “lobbying MPs for a law change” clause; and, if he cannot point to it, why is he trying to spin this as a rollover of contract rather than a major constitutional shift by this Government?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The so-called gagging clause, as stated by that member, is one in relation to public statements in advertising. It is clause 17 of a contract signed between Apararangi Tautoko Auahi Kore, the Māori health coalition, and the Health Funding Authority. The one I have here was signed on 1 July 1999 when that member’s party was in Government. This clause is a standard part of any contract, and places an obligation for both parties to speak with one another before they go out in public and criticise one another.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked a very precise question about a 1995 contract and a claim he made around it. He answered by quoting a clause out of a 1999 contract—a completely different contract. He has quoted the clause, and I require him to table the document.

Mr SPEAKER: Will the Minister table that particular document?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reconsider that. I did not hear the Minister quote from the clause—not at all. I heard him refer to the fact that there was a similar provision within the contract; it was not a quotation. The Standing Order is very precise about what it does cover.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member whether he specifically quoted from the document, or whether he answered the question. I know he quoted clause 17.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No, I did not quote directly from this document—

Mr SPEAKER: Right. All I need is for the member to give me that information.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We get into an extreme amount of difficulty then if the Minister, when first asked this question yesterday during questions in the House, gave answers that proved to be wrong so that he had to come down late at night and correct them. Today he quoted from a document during question time when he was required to table it. The document showed that what the Minister was saying was, at the very least, debatable. I think when he reads his Hansard we will probably see him back in the House on Tuesday correcting it. Then we asked him a deliberate question about the document that was tabled—in fact we held the question back so he could have access to the document—and he did not answered the question. He has answered it in relation to a different document from 4 years later. Surely, Mr Speaker, you cannot let that answer stand as addressing the question.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I object to much of the material within that point of order, which in itself is out of order and irrelevant. To keep traversing matters previously raised by points of order ruled upon and dealt with is disorderly, and will invite disorder from this side of the House. The last part is a matter of whether the Minister addressed the question. He most certainly did. The thrust of the question was to see whether there had been any precedent before this Government took office. Indeed, there was.

Mr SPEAKER: The member did refer in his earlier answer to a particular contract. He then tabled that contract. The question asked by Dr Scott related to that contract, and I invite the Minister to answer the question relating to that document.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: There was no such clause in the 1995 document. I am aware of such a clause in the 1999 document, signed by the previous Government, and I am aware of that clause in subsequent documents.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to go back to the question of whether the Minister is required to table the document. Mr Speaker, when the Minister started to explain what he had done, you cut him off. I may have misunderstood the Minister, as well, but it appeared to me that the Minister was actually stating what was in a document, and I understand that he has got it. Well, that is quoting from the document. It is not sufficient for him to say that he was not quoting; if it was from the document, then he has quoted from it—that is what the English language is. If he has done that, he has to table it.

Mr SPEAKER: Could I just say the House has always made a distinction between actually quoting from a document and saying what is in it. I asked the member specifically whether he was specifically quoting, and he said “No”. I have to accept his word on that issue.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister held up the document, so it was in his hand, and the exact phrase that he used was: “Here it has got a clause 17.2”. As soon as he said, “clause 17.2”, surely he was quoting from the document he was reading from?

Mr SPEAKER: No, I made my ruling before. The Minister said that he was not quoting specifically from the document; he was referring to the substance of it. There has always been that distinction, in all of the time I have been in this House.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are absolutely right, and Ministers go out of their way to make sure they do not have to table. Frequently, they come along with a different document. They have it in their hands, and it is not the official document. A Minister does that so that when a member gets up and asks whether the Minister is reading from an official document, the Minister is able to say: “No, these are my own notes.” But that is not what this Minister did, Mr Speaker. We have a junior Minister here, and I think you are in danger of putting him in front of the Privileges Committee, because what he did was that he stood up—as I understand it; he can deny it if he likes—and he gave the impression that that was the document. The moment that he quoted from it, that is what he has done, and to suggest that he has not is just a nonsense.

Mr SPEAKER: I asked the Minister a definite question as to whether he was quoting, and he said “No”. I have to accept his word. I have no other obligation.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not quote directly, word for word, from the document. I do have the document, and I am prepared to table it after question time, but I seek the opportunity to use it for the next question.

Mr SPEAKER: Right. The member has cleared that matter up.

Smoke-free Environments Act—Lobbying of Members of Parliament

11. Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) to the Associate Minister of Health: How many members of Parliament were lobbied by anti-smoking groups, funded by the Ministry of Health, to “create a climate of support for amendments to the Smoke-free Environments Act”, and were all of those members of Parliament advised that the Ministry of Health had paid those groups to undertake that activity?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health): I do not know how many members of Parliament have been lobbied to “create a climate of support for amendments to the Smoke-free Environments Act”. Amendments were first proposed in 1991, and again in 1993, 1995, and 1997, then in 1999 we had Tuku Morgan’s Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill. The answer to the second part of the question is, to the best of my knowledge, no.

Dr Lynda Scott: Noting that the ministry’s contracts with these organisations required them to provide 6-monthly reports on performance and outputs, is the Minister really expecting the House to believe that the Government and its officials paid those organisations to lobby MPs, but did not require them to prove that they had delivered on the very specific outputs listed in the 2000 contract; and is that an effective way to spend precious health dollars?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have not received reports from that contract. I believe it is appropriate for those organisations to spend taxpayers’ money informing people about the dangers of smoking. As quoted from the 1995 contract, there has always been an obligation for them to “liaise with Government and private health agencies, members of Parliament, political parties, and the media”. That has been a standard part of their contracts for many years.

H V Ross Robertson: Does the Associate Minister of Health have any advice that concerns about contracts containing such clauses—dating from 1993 to the present day—were raised by Ministers of Health with the Health Funding Authority of the Ministry of Health?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No, possibly because the Minister of Health has never been involved in negotiating these contracts, which I presume is the reason Bill English never objected to the contracts while he was Minister.

Rodney Hide: When the Minister met the representatives of Action on Smoking and Health, the Smokefree Coalition, and Apaarangi Tautoko Auahi Kore, did he know that his own officials were paying these groups to see him; if not, would he not have expected his officials to tell him that these meetings were part of their “performance indicators”, with these lobby groups bought and paid for with health dollars?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I meet every day many people whose salaries are paid for by the taxpayer, including members of Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister will come specifically to the question asked by Mr Hide.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I was not informed, but I am aware that they are organisations—

Hon Roger Sowry: Yes, so are we.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: That was not a very good one. They are organisations that are funded by contracts with the Ministry of Health. I know that, along with most other members of Parliament.

Hon Peter Dunne: How does the Minister justify his ministry giving funding to private sector agencies to lobby members of Parliament and others to support the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill, which is a member’s bill that his own Government has thus far shown unwillingness to adopt as a Government measure by virtue of the fact that it still remains on the Order Paper as a member’s bill?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I do not find that satisfactory. That is why I am investigating these contracts, and have asked for assistance from the State Services Commission to review contracts in place.

Dr Lynda Scott: Noting that the State Services Commission has produced a series of fact sheets on political neutrality, and that one of those states that public servants should not initiate oral or written contacts with MPs, or any political party, without the prior knowledge and consent of their Minister, why is it acceptable for the Ministry of Health to contract anti-smoking groups to undertake an activity that they themselves are expressly forbidden from doing, if he is saying he knew nothing about it?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We are currently seeking advice from the State Services Commission on that very thing. I am not sure why the previous Government allowed such contracts to be put in place, either. That is why we are seeking advice on that very matter.

Rodney Hide: Could the Minister tell the House whether the gagging order clause, and the “let’s lobby MPs to affect a law change” clause, were added by the officials without any Minister knowing, or were added at the direction of the Minister of Health; or does this Minister not know who was responsible for a political operation that caught even him?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am happy to quote word for word from the document that was signed in 1999 by the previous Government. Clause 17 is the gagging clause that the member refers to. I had no input into such a clause. The former Minister under the previous Government might have, but I doubt that. It stated: “Neither of us may, during or after this agreement, either directly or indirectly, criticise the other publicly without first discussing the matters of concern with the other in good faith and in a cooperative, instructive manner.” That is a standard clause in any good-faith agreement between two parties.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have quite a serious situation with this Minister. Yesterday everything was OK; today it is not. The situation is that taxpayers’ money has been used to lobby MPs. We want to know whether it was a covert operation directed by the Minister of Health, or by officials. This Minister is talking about documents we have not seen, and that we are not asking questions about. I ask you, for the sake of this House, to get that Minister to answer the question, or just explain that he does not know.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did definitely address the particular question asked.

Member's Bill—Cannabis

12. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) to the Minister of Justice: Has his ministry provided assistance to any member of Parliament who is not part of the executive to prepare a member’s bill; for example, one that seeks to decriminalise cannabis?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): No, the ministry has provided no assistance to provide for any member a member’s bill on decriminalising cannabis.

Hon Peter Dunne: In the light of that answer, can the Minister then explain why his ministry has been working on a civil union bill since 3 May 2002, yet it adopted it as Government policy only in May 2003, and for most of the intervening period that draft bill was a member’s bill in the name of Mr Russell Fairbrother that had not even been drawn from the ballot?

Hon PHIL GOFF: If the member wants to ask a question about the civil union bill, he will have to ask the Minister to whom that particular bill has been delegated. I have done no work in that area, and do not have information pertaining to it.

Hon Peter Dunne: Is the Minister saying to the House that his ministry has done no work on a civil union bill since 2002?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The original question sets down as the example the issue of cannabis. That does come within my responsibilities. If he wants to ask about the civil union bill, he should have used that as an example and asked the correct Minister.

Richard Worth: Following on the question asked of the Minister, would it be the case that if someone like Mr Tanczos were to put forward a bill of the type proposed, there would be support from the ministry to assist in that drafting exercise?

Hon PHIL GOFF: No. If a member wants to introduce a member’s bill, the normal way to go about it is to get assistance from the parliamentary Office of the Clerk.

Hon Peter Dunne: Following on from that answer, will the Minister give this House a categorical assurance that no ordinary non-executive member of Parliament is receiving assistance from his ministry to draft a member’s bill that might or might not subsequently become part of the Government’s legislative agenda?

Hon PHIL GOFF: When I asked my ministry whether it has prepared, or is preparing, a member’s bill for any member, the answer was clearly “No”.

Questions No. 4 and 11 to Minister

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health): I seek leave to table a contract signed on 1 July 1999 between the Smokefree Coalition Trust and the Health Funding Authority.

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

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): I seek leave to table the submission to the Health Committee by Apaarangi Tautoko Auahi Kore, which was paid for by the Ministry of Health but makes no mention of that fact.

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

Bills

Supreme Court Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 8 October.

Part 2 Amendments, repeals, transitional provisions, and savings (continued)

DAIL JONES (NZ First): We are discussing Part 2 of the Supreme Court Bill, and, as I recall, there have been speeches from United Future and two speeches from the National Party, and a speech from Mr Field and from the Minister. So we have a long way to go yet, on Part 2, because we have barely touched on it.

The Supreme Court Bill is being rushed through Parliament by the parties in favour of it, without adequate electoral support for it. At the last election the Labour Party received 31.4 percent of the vote of those eligible to vote. The Green Party received 5.3 percent of the vote of those eligible to vote, and the Progressives received 1.3 percent, making a total of 38 percent. The other parties’ voting percentages were ACT, 5.4 percent; National, 15.9 percent; New Zealand First, 7.9 percent; United Future, 5.1 percent; and others, 3.7 percent—also totalling 38 percent. In effect, in so far as the electoral mandate in New Zealand is concerned, the parties favouring this bill, and the parties opposing this bill, are tied. There was no mandate, at the last election, from those eligible to vote, in favour of this legislation.

That, I think, is a very important fact. We see that a vital constitutional change is taking place, yet the Government, the Progressives, and the Greens are ramming and rushing through legislation without the support of the people of New Zealand. I am quoting from information that has been made available to me from the Parliamentary Library that I requested; it is not something I have dreamt up myself in the last half-hour.

Part 2 has a provision dealing with the work of the Court of Appeal. One of the things that became very clear from the submissions that were put to the Justice and Electoral Committee is that the Court of Appeal is overworked—with about 400 criminal cases and about 200 civil cases. This bill purports to reduce the number of judges on the Court of Appeal. One way the Government proposes to get around the situation seems to be to reduce the number of judges who will sit at hearings of the Court of Appeal. We have a court that is overworked now, yet the Government is going to reduce the number of judges who will be sitting at it. That is really Labour Party logic! This bill will make it even more difficult for the Court of Appeal, and, inevitably, in a court that is currently overworked, there will be more applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, as a result. That is another failing in this legislation.

Mr Field, when he spoke last night, gave us the example of Canada and Australia, but did not mention the fact that when Canada and Australia abolished appeals to the Privy Council they already had a two-tier appeal system in place—and that had existed for quite some time. We cannot compare Canada with New Zealand, bearing in mind that North America was settled by Europeans from the late 15th century—1492. North America was being settled by the French and the British in the late 16th century, and Canada was taken over by the British in 1791, finally, under the Quebec Act, after Wolfe defeated Montcalm in Quebec in 1759. There is no comparison between Canada and New Zealand.

In so far as Australia is concerned, the First Fleet arrived in Australia in 1788, and colonisation got under way at that stage. New Zealand, of course, was a colony of New South Wales. It was part of New South Wales for quite some time, until action was taken in 1839. So comparing New Zealand with Australia and Canada is a clear example of this Government’s trying extremely hard to draw a long bow on its justification for this bill. But the main point is that at the last election the parties that are in favour of making this dramatic constitutional change did not get any electoral mandate to make this change. Extraordinarily enough, it is a dead heat—38 percent each, or 76 percent in total, and with 24 percent of those eligible to vote not making up their minds to vote on the day. Usually a non-vote is an indication that the person does not support the Government.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I am sorry to be debating Part 2 of the Supreme Court Bill. I am sorry we are on Part 2, because on Part 1, where the issues that Part 2 now deals with, in terms of transition, were decided, I did not get more than 5 minutes. I did not get any chance to cover, in Part 1, what I now have to deal with, where it arises in Part 2, on the matters that a proper transition would deal with. A proper transitional provision would have actually dealt with the method of appointment. It would have dealt with the concern that so many New Zealanders have about the political influences that this court is exposed to. A proper set of transitional provisions would have recognised that this is a one-off, when one is sacking one’s entire top court and replacing it with another brand-new court of people appointed by the Attorney-General.

The transitional provisions would have provided, or should have provided, for a special one-off regime, at the very least, for that initial set of appointments. It would not have been left to Government Ministers to leak that they thought they would get the Attorney-General’s arm up her back far enough simply to move Court of Appeal judges upstairs. We would not have had 8 months of speculation about who she might be going to appoint—that has been very damaging to this court. If, right from the start, there had been a proper transitional provision in Part 2 that said exactly how these judges were going to be selected, or if there had been a ministerial statement along the lines that we have seen, perhaps, forced out or extracted in the last few days, there would have been quite a good deal less damage to the judiciary in this country. As it stands, we are stuck with the Part 2 that we have.

We are up to clause 43, after the ACT party has had 5 minutes in this debate on all the substantive clauses. Let us start with clause 43A, “Technical advisers”, a sort of hasty cosmetic change that the select committee managed to get in. It allows technical advisers to sit in criminal cases. I asked during the select committee process what the effect of that was on the very longstanding requirement of our justice system that an accused know the nature of the material before the court on which his or her guilt or innocence would be based, or on which the sentence would be founded. There was no assurance to the select committee that the advice tendered by a technical adviser appointed in a criminal case would be available to the accused. So this Attorney-General and this Government, with a mere flick of the pen, in what they claim is not a constitutional element, get rid, or potentially get rid, of a fundamental provision in our criminal law.

Clause 43A states that a court can appoint technical advisers, but there is no protection there. There is no assurance that the accused or the accused’s counsel will know what kinds of representations and what influences will be brought to bear on the judge in that case. That is not a light matter. Why was it done? It was done, I think, because the select committee was so embarrassed at having had such overwhelming evidence that there was nothing to support this bill, except primitive nationalism, that the majority on the select committee were desperately keen to make some changes that would look as though they had addressed their minds to the issues.

The select committee got through to clause 43A, having dismissed its own misgivings about the appointment process, and having dismissed its own misgivings about the number of judges by providing that there might be five or six—knowing full well that the Attorney-General only ever wanted five, and that she could ensure that temporary judges made up the numbers whenever there was a shortfall; temporary judges, of course, being much more selectable and biddable than judges with secure tenure.

So the committee got to the stage of clause 43A and wanted to show that it was actually addressing its mind to doing something and was prepared to change something in a bill that it was otherwise being whipped to pass. That, I believe, is why we ended up with a provision so poorly thought through that it changes the composition of the court. It is no good saying a technical adviser is not the judge.

LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako): It is a great headline in the paper today, is it not? It states: “Stop this stunning abuse of power”, and to have the Minister’s photo there, with that comment—“Stop this stunning abuse of power”—says it all. As we have heard during the Committee stage of this debate—

Stephen Franks: Is that Snow White, or the wicked queen?

LINDSAY TISCH: Well, it could be both. The member is right; it is a good question he has asked. When we look at the abuse and the changes to the constitution, which I talked about during the Committee stage last night, we see that not one Government Minister, not one Government member, has been prepared to stand up and come out and bat for this legislation. Yet this is a major change to the way the courts and the judiciary are going to operate in the future.

I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 43, and in particular to section (2)(a). Although the bill does not contemplate changes to the Court of Appeal, it does reduce the numbers. It is going to reduce the numbers of judges from eight—the Chief Justice, the president, and six other judges—to six or seven, being the president and five or six others. We oppose that. We oppose the reduction of the numbers on the Court of Appeal.

The creation of the Supreme Court should not be an occasion or a reason for reducing the ability of the Court of Appeal to do its work. It should not be a reason to reduce the funding. In fact, as Dail Jones mentioned earlier, the workload of the Court of Appeal is such that there should be an increase in the number of judges at that level. In fact, when I went back through the submissions, I saw that the New Zealand Law Society said that there should be eight judges on the Court of Appeal. Yet here in clause 43 we have a reduction, and it is our view that this is wrong, because if there is a reduction in numbers, and the workload increases—and there was absolutely no evidence that there will be a reduction in the workload at the Court of Appeal level—the Supreme Court is not going to take over and simply fill the void. There will be an increase in the workload of the Court of Appeal, and what this clause does is actually reduce the numbers of judges. If that goes hand in hand with the reduction of resources, be they manpower or finance, then, of course, we are very concerned about that.

It was interesting to hear the submissions of the Bar Association, which considered it a very serious error to approach the reduction of the Court of Appeal contemporaneously with the creation of the Supreme Court. This is the association’s comment: “At present the Court of Appeal is seriously overcommitted with a complement of seven permanent judges plus significant resources from High Court judges sitting on rotation in divisional courts, plus the occasional availability of the Chief Justice. It is symptomatic of an unacceptable cheese-paring attitude to contemplate immediate reduction in the judicial resource in the Court of Appeal.” It goes on to say: “The extent to which it can be prudently reduced ought to be left for reassessment after a period of operation of any Supreme Court.” This is the point that we have made.

It is all very well bringing in a new structure, but if at the same time we do not give the resources to what will be a very important part of the judicial system, then we find that a major failing. That is one of the points that came through in today’s New Zealand Herald. The headline states: “Stop this stunning abuse of power”, and the article goes on to state: “To assume that a wafer-thin majority is sufficient to enact fundamental changes to the legal and constitutional fabric of New Zealand is nothing short of an abuse of power.” Here we have the number of judges on the Court of Appeal being reduced, to be replaced by something inferior.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I would like to make a couple of brief points. The first is that for 99 percent of New Zealanders justice under the Privy Council is completely out of their reach. In fact, the Privy Council is of no relevance to 99 percent of New Zealanders for the simple reason that they cannot afford to fly themselves to England to take their appeals to the Privy Council. In certain exceptional circumstances people can get legal aid, but for the bulk of them it is simply out of their reach. People have to hire their counsel, fly them, business class or first class, to England, and put them up in an English hotel. These are huge costs that most New Zealanders are not even able to contemplate. If people lose an appeal in the Court of Appeal and have costs awarded against them, those costs will probably be about $7,500; but if people lose their appeal in the Privy Council, the costs awarded against them could be well over $100,000.

I happen to know some small law firms in New Zealand, and one in particular that dearly wished to take a case to the Privy Council. When that firm added up the costs of lawyers’ air travel, hiring counsel in England, and so forth, it found it was quite simply beyond its reach. I am talking about a small law firm in New Zealand. Many have argued that all lawyers are in favour of the Privy Council. Virtually all the lawyers I know are passionately seeking an end to the Privy Council, because they believe, as I do, that it is a system of justice that does not provide small law firms in New Zealand, let alone average New Zealanders, with access. It provides justice for those wealthy corporates that can afford the costs of flying people across to the other side of the world to put their case, and that is an infinitesimal number of New Zealanders.

The denial of access that people are talking about, is actually the denial of access to all but a tiny proportion, comprised largely of wealthy corporates, and, of course, in a few cases, to people on legal aid who can afford to trek to the other side of the Earth, to hire legal counsel, to put people up in London hotels, and so forth.

The other thing I cannot quite understand is why there should be such discrepancies in terms of access to the Privy Council. Why should people be able to appeal to the Privy Council on civil cases but not on employment cases? Why can people not appeal on environmental court cases? Why is there one set of rules for certain cases of law and not for others? Why should someone who is involved in an Environment Court case not be able to access a final court of appeal? Why should we not have one that can be accessed by whatever class of law it is, whether environmental, criminal, employment, and so forth? I cannot understand why we should have a system that seems to be quite discriminatory—that allows certain classes of law to go to the Privy Council and denies access to others. That does not seem to be fair and equitable. Mostly, I would just like to say that under the present system most New Zealanders are denied access to this Privy Council because of costs. I know of cases where law firms are not able to access that court because of the costs.

JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): There were two short points in the previous speech that will not take long to answer. The first point was why there is no leave to appeal in environment or employment cases. It is probably because the previous speaker, Miss Kedgley, supported legislation that prevented that from happening, because of the statutes involved.

In so far as the question of costs is concerned, I would think that 99.9 percent of New Zealanders do not want to go to court. They absolutely do not want to, and 99.99 percent of New Zealanders would oppose the Labour Party’s increase in High Court fees that made it even more difficult for them to go to court. Of the 12 cases or so that we have going to the Privy Council, I would not be surprised if in many of them lawyers took the case for free. If people think that replacing the Privy Council with a Supreme Court will reduce costs, they have another think coming. The costs of legal attendances in the Supreme Court will be much the same as in the Privy Council. The fares, the hotel accommodation, and the agency fees will not be there, but we can be sure that the cost of legal counsel will be the same. We do not know what this Government will charge in the way of the Supreme Court filing and hearing fees.

What are daily hearing fees now? Are they $1,500 or $2,000 a day? The average New Zealander cannot afford to go to the New Zealand High Court, let alone to the New Zealand Court of Appeal or any further appeal past that. The argument about costs is absolute nonsense. In fact, the Privy Council made the point in the Taito case that it was really the New Zealand Court of Appeal that prevented so many people from going to the Privy Council and having their cases heard, rather than the reverse.

I want to ask the seven Māori members of the Labour Party where they are. What are they doing about this bill, with specific reference to the insertion of new section 58A in clause 44, “Further appeal to Court of Appeal from Maori Appellate Court”? They have been very silent on this bill. Is their attitude a “Dopey” one? Are they “Grumpy” about this bill? Is Ms Turia the “Grumpy” party? Their lack of attendance might indicate they are “Sleepy”, or perhaps they think this is not to be worried about and they are all “Sneezy”.

Pita Paraone: They are “Bashful”!

DAIL JONES: They could be “Bashful”, or perhaps they are “Happy” about this legislation. Finally, maybe they have gone for the doctor, and “Doc” is in charge. Could we describe the views of the seven Labour Māori members of Parliament as “Dopey”, “Grumpy”, “Sneezy”, “Bashful”, “Happy” and “Doc”? Maybe they think this legislation is “Snow White” and they have nothing to worry about. All of them have the view that this legislation is “Snow White”, and they have taken a “Dopey” or “Grumpy” attitude. Maybe they are “Sleepy”, “Sneezy”, “Bashful”, or “Happy” and have gone for the doctor. Maybe that is the view of the seven Labour Māori members’ in respect of this legislation. It could be, for all this Opposition side of the Committee knows, because they have taken no part in this debate.

John Tamihere is very good on talking about the interests of Māori, but what does he have to say about further appeals to the Court of Appeal from the Māori Appellate Court in terms of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act—that famous Act in so far as the foreshore and seabed is concerned? What is he doing to protect the interests of Māori in so far as that is concerned? Where is the Minister of Māori Affairs? Is he “Sleepy” about the whole thing? Is the attitude of Hon Parekura Horomia to this bill a “Sleepy” one? What about Nanaia Mahuta? I presume she is still a Māori member of Parliament, but I am confident that, with this sort of attitude, she will not be a member after the next election.

Dover Samuels is always a “Happy” chap, is he not? But where is he as far as this bill is concerned? He is out there on the marae talking about the foreshore and the seabed, while the rights of appeal of Māori to the Privy Council are being taken away from the Māori of New Zealand. Where is he? What about Mr Okeroa? Where does he stand on this legislation with regard to clause 44 and further appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Māori Appellate Court and the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act? The Māori members of Parliament do not have the slightest interest in this legislation. Their views are as absent as they are.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): I move, That the question be now put.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): I want to make a short contribution to this debate today, and say first that I am very pleased that the Green Party is supporting this bill to the final stage. I do not believe that Māori gain anything from the retention of the Privy Council as the final appellate court of this country. I do believe that it is absolutely essential that there is a second-level stage of appeal, and that that process is crucial to ensuring—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take offence at the description of Māori as “dumb natives”, as stated by Stephen Franks. I seek that you rule that he withdraw and apologise for that statement.

Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I was characterising the member’s statement that Māori do not get any benefit from the Privy Council when, in fact, nearly all the Māori submitters gave evidence that they saw the Privy Council as being of great benefit. It is Metiria Turei who is characterising her own people in that way, by suggesting they do not know what is good for them. If she cannot understand heavy irony, she should not be in this Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Meteria Turei has taken offence, and in those circumstances we ask only for a withdrawal.

Stephen Franks: What do I withdraw? It was not an accusation made at her. I was addressing her view of people outside this Chamber. I have made no imputation on her, other than that I believe she is characterising her own people, whom she purports to speak for, in that way. I have not addressed her in the terms of which she complains. I have alleged that that is the effect of what she is saying about the many sincere Māori submitters who came before the Justice and Electoral Committee. That is precisely the effect of what she is saying. She is saying that they do not know their own minds and do not know what is good for them, because they told us they valued the Privy Council.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member. I guess almost anything one says in this Chamber could offend someone, but in this case the speaker really took offence. In these circumstances, just a simple withdrawal would be sufficient, please.

Stephen Franks: I withdraw.

METIRIA TUREI: In my view I do not believe that Māori gain anything from the retention of the Privy Council as the final court of appeal. It is most essential that there is a second tier—a second level of appeal rights—as it is by that process that decisions made by the lower courts can be assessed against high principles of justice. In my view, and in the view of the Green Party, this bill is a small step in the process towards decolonisation.

I have heard some argument from a number of Māori that the Privy Council provides Māori with a level of protection against the settler Government from which this Parliament is derived, that the relationship with the Privy Council is a treaty-based relationship, and that there is a very serious and deeply considered tie to the British Crown, and to what it represents, through the remaining links to the Privy Council. That is an extremely important point of view. It is a very valid point of view, and not enough has been done to deal with those concerns. I absolutely understand that. But the Privy Council has not been a friend to Māori, nor has it protected us from the harms caused by the thefts by successive Governments since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. I do completely respect the feeling in the Māori community that Māori do need a buffer—some form of independent watchdog over the actions of Parliament and the legislature. But the Privy Council is not that. It has not done that job, and there is no indication to show that it will do that job in the future.

Very few of the decisions by the Privy Council have favoured Māori. Very few decisions about Māori issues have gone to the Privy Council, and very few of those have come out in our favour. I do recognise, though, that there have been some good decisions—for example, the Māori broadcasting case. But many other Māori-focused cases do not get to go to the Privy Council. One area that has been raised is the Environment Court cases, where Māori on the ground are struggling every day with their territorial local authorities to prevent issues like the discharge of sewage into waterways, and are finding that they have no ability to continue those cases through the appeal system, so that Māori values can be recognised as part of the process. The Supreme Court will provide some avenue for that to happen, because there will be greater accessibility for Māori to that second level of appellate court.

It has to be said that along with some good decisions—for example, the Māori broadcasting case—there have been Privy Council decisions that have been very damaging to Māori. I refer to the 1941 case where the Privy Council stated that the Treaty of Waitangi was only enforceable if incorporated into municipal law. That decision has caused us enormous problems and difficulties. It eventually led to the ridiculous notion of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi that came through in the 1970s and the 1980s. That means it is very difficult to have the articles of, and direct references to, the treaty considered to be part of New Zealand law. Instead, we have to look to the principles of the treaty, which are Crown-derived and tend to utterly water down the fundamental decision-making tino rangatiratanga that the treaty guaranteed. That Privy Council decision has invaded and infected the whole of the treaty legislation and the treaty debate in our law since the 1940s. So we must be careful to remember that the Privy Council has done damage to the Māori community, as well as providing some relief in some cases.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri): I move, That the question be now put.

LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako): Part 2 is interesting. Stephen Franks made the point in his earlier address that it relates to the transitional provisions. Because there was not sufficient time last evening to talk at length about the very important provisions in Part 1, it is now left to us to surmise how the transitional provisions will work.

First, I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 48, which, in essence, provides that a case cannot go to the Privy Council unless the Privy Council appeal process is under way before the Supreme Court legislation comes into force. We have an issue with the transitional phase. It was recommended in a number of submissions that the transitional phase should be longer, so that no one would be particularly disadvantaged by that. As a matter of principle, one would have thought that existing rights should not be taken away by legislation, except to the minimum extent necessary to achieve other interests that plainly outweigh any existing rights. We are concerned that the existing rights of appeal to the Privy Council can be defined as applying to those cases that are engaged and proceeding in New Zealand and for which the final court of appeal is the Privy Council. The transitional provision identified in Part 2 is not sufficiently long for that.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the next point, regarding the transitional arrangement for running the court in clause 51(2). Before I do that, we need to ask how the judges will be appointed. Part of the transition—

Dail Jones: There’s nothing in this bill.

LINDSAY TISCH: That is right.

Dail Jones: It should be here.

LINDSAY TISCH: The point I make is that if there is to be a transitional clause, we need to know how the process will work. If we go back to the provision about the constitution of the court, we see that there will be five permanent judges in the Supreme Court and they will determine all appeals. There was a very strong argument that maybe there should be six judges, but that has been left in limbo. How can there be a transitional provision when we do not know how many judges there will be?

It is surprising to have a proposed constitutional enactment prescribing the number of permanent judges in the top court as no more than the number of judges required to decide the cases before the court. That will create a number of problems. The Law Society suggested that the number of judges should be seven or eight, just as it did with regard to the Court of Appeal, which I talked about earlier. The Court of Appeal is covered in clause 43. The society said that, in relation to the Court of Appeal, rather than reduce the number of judges the number should be extended to eight, because the workload would not reduce. At the moment it is six or seven; it should go out to eight.

With regard to the constitution of the Supreme Court, if there are to be only five permanent judges and the Chief Justice, some of those judges may be away. There will be absences for various reasons—for example, one judge may be sick, and another judge may be on leave or attending a conference, or there could be other obligations. Also, judges have their sabbaticals. Within a 5-year period, most lawyers—and we have lawyers in Parliament—would be able to take up those sabbaticals.

Simon Power: I wish I had.

LINDSAY TISCH: That member is a young lawyer who is probably too young to know what a sabbatical is. The point I make is that there will be times when judges will not be available. We believe that the transitional period—and we argued this at the select committee, and the submitters were very clear on this—needs to be much longer than it is now.

LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana): I move, That the question be now put.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): In the debate on this part we have had some quite curiously wide comments, and I will refer very briefly to a couple of them. First, on the question of cost, there is the notion that somehow New Zealanders will be saving something with the commencement of this legislation. Indeed, the cost will come in very early, because the court is to be set up and ready to run by the middle of next year. However, it may well be that people will elect to run most of the appeals that could be run—a backlog, a pipeline, of appeals for several years—to the Privy Council. So we will incur all the set-up costs, we will incur the cost of removing judges from the Court of Appeal and taking them to the Supreme Court, where they will sit twiddling their thumbs for quite a long while if, as we expect, those New Zealanders who can still do so exercise their right to take their cases to an assuredly impartial and independent tribunal. That may be the dozen or so cases a year that we currently have.

This legislation subjects New Zealanders to another 40 or 50 cases a year. We will have the highest ratio in the English-speaking world of final appeals at the third level. We will have around 12 appeals per million people when the court is in full force after the transitional period is over, and I calculate the transitional period set out in clauses 48 and 50 will expire in around 2 years. When that is over, we will have around 12 appeals per million people, and that number will go up, while Britain contents itself with one per million, the United States with even less, the Canadians with around two to three per million, and the Australians with, at most, four to five per million. This Government thinks it is justice to have New Zealanders so engaged in dispute resolution that they carry 12 appeals per million people through, at the expense of approximately $200,000 to $300,000 a case.

I also want to talk about the reasons for the changes recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee to clause 48 and the consequential changes to clause 50. Clause 48 states that a case that has been fully heard in the Court of Appeal or another New Zealand court, and that could have been appealed to the Privy Council, can still go ahead to the Privy Council after the Supreme Court is set up. The obvious reason for that is that the judges who are being appealed from may be the same judges one is forced to appeal to. That is elementary. But what about the cases that have been partly heard? The same problem occurs, but the bill does not deal with it. Of course, the Government is utterly indifferent to the problem of apparent bias or apparent partiality in a court. It just says we should leave things to it, and that is not what it intends.

The effect of the transitional provision is that if one has a partly heard application that has not been completed, or for which a decision has not been rendered, one may be obliged to appeal to the same judges at the next level. If a matter is partly heard and a decision is given after the commencement of this legislation, then the applicant must apply and take an appeal to the same judges. That did not matter to the Minister. She did not want her court to sit twiddling its thumbs and looking idle, while consuming $6.5 million a year and sitting in premises that cost $20 million to set up, because New Zealanders who had a choice continued to take cases to the court they preferred. That would be a very bad look in an election year, so we have this half-cocked transitional provision that does not achieve what it should have achieved. Clause 48 is an abortion to those who believe that justice should be done by courts that patently are not being judges in their own cause.

The other element that arises, as Mr Lindsay Tisch said, is the appointment process. We left that open and had no time to debate it, because we had one 5-minute speech on the previous part. The only way to avoid apparent bias under clause 47, I believe, will be to use to the max the power to appoint temporary judges. And, of course, who does that? The Attorney-General can choose temporary judges who suit the Attorney-General’s ideology. There is no protection in this bill against stacking the court with the favourites who have proved, by their decisions, to suit the Government. The Government can go out and recall Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas made it plain in his submissions how keen he was to be able to develop an indigenous law, and we can expect to see him back as a temporary judge appointed by the Minister to deal with that.

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

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;United Future 8.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 151 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 71

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;United Future 8.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Before we go to the next part, I especially thank Mr Stephen Franks for obliging the Chair during that part.

Schedules

RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom): It is often said that there is not a great deal of interest in the schedules to substantive legislation. This case perhaps proves the validity of that point by being the exception. Within the schedules there is substantial material, structured in an infinite variety of ways and, in many circumstances, calculated to confuse.

I start by dealing with schedule 1. I note that it amends approximately 30 pieces of legislation. When the Attorney-General would have us believe that the schedules are of little consequence, she could not be more wrong. Schedule 1 makes amendments to a raft of New Zealand statutory provisions. I note changes to the Child Support Act, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, the Courts Martial Appeals Act, the Guardianship Act, the Harassment Act, the Human Rights Act, the Summary Proceedings Act, and the Animal Products Act—and the list goes on and on and on—and that is only the first schedule. This bill is characterised by the fact that it has a number of schedules. Schedule 1 is what I have been reading from, but in fact beyond that there are other schedules. Schedule 2 deals with consequential repeals, and there follows, again, a long list of statutory provisions.

Also, and quite unusually, schedule 3 contains, as its heading states, provisions containing references to the former Supreme Court. That touches a raft of what are probably private Acts—the Auckland Baptist Tabernacle Act, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Trust Board Empowering Act, and so on. But what I need to flag for the attention of members of the Committee is that National has made a commitment, when it comes to power in 2005, to abolish the Supreme Court and to repeal this legislation. That will have significant consequences, of course, for those judges who are foolish enough to seek and take tenure in the new Supreme Court. They should be under no illusion at all that that path will be extraordinarily rocky for them, because this major constitutional change starts with no support from many members of the House.

I recall, in the context of statutory history—and relevant to these schedules—that when the Constitution Act was passed, which was a major constitutional change, every member of the House voted in favour of that legislation. No votes of dissent were recorded. Now, in respect of this legislation, there is massive dissent. I refer to the position of the judges because I believe that it should be flagged that their tenure will be wholly uncertain. Whether it appears just as a note in the schedule rather than as a substantive enacting provision, reference should be made to the possibility of insecurity of tenure, so that the warning is loud and crystal clear. The issue arises in constitutional terms because of the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution Act, which deals with two things. Section 23 deals with “Protection of Judges against removal from office.” National would, in effect, with the support of the other centre-right parties, be seeking to cut across that provision. Because it is an issue of substantial constitutional significance, it is appropriate that the warning be clearly expressed, and where better than in the schedules to this legislation. The other section of Part IV, section 24, relates to the salaries of judges and the fact that those salaries should not be reduced. Well, of course, when judges lose their positions, they lose not only their tenure but also their salaries and allowances. That should also be made clear.

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General): I talk to the schedules and small amendments as set out in the Supplementary Order Paper. I first thank the staff at the Parliamentary Counsel Office and those who assisted them, and the officials in the Ministry of Justice and Crown Law who have gone through—as has been mentioned by the member preceding me—the many pieces of legislation that require me to make reference to the Supreme Court, to ensure that the jurisdictions are there. I think it highlights the point that has been made that many of the measures mentioned in this schedule will now enable people to have the right of a second appeal, which they do not have at the moment. That is a point that I think is emphasised by the detail that this schedule goes into.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): What the Minister has said is absolutely wrong. Many of these people will not have the right of a second appeal, in the sense that they can bypass the Court of Appeal and go directly to the Supreme Court. Therefore, they will still only have the right of one appeal under this new legislation. The Minister has forgotten the situation with regard to the Employment Court for example, where people can go directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeal. I am staggered that this Attorney-General should be totally unaware of what is in her own legislation, and that she should come here and tell members that there will be a right of two appeals. In fact when the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions gave evidence before the select committee, it was adamant that it wanted to have this right of direct appeal to the Supreme Court, bypassing appeal to the Court of Appeal.

It shows how little attention the Attorney-General has given to this legislation. It shows that she is interested only in ramrodding it through Parliament, come what may. Before Parliament we have a bill that came back for the report back on Tuesday. I asked the Attorney-General during that debate for the amendments that were to be made, but nothing was forthcoming on Tuesday. On Wednesday we got eight pages of amendments. We even got amendments to the schedules, which we are now discussing. Even at this late stage we now have the Attorney-General indicating she is not familiar with the complete nuts and bolts of this legislation.

The member for Epsom, Richard Worth, went through some of the provisions of schedule 1. We are not talking about a minor schedule, as is often the case. That schedule actually has 12 substantial amendments to the legislation, on top of many other smaller amendments. The 12 substantial amendments that I counted—and when I say substantial, I do not mean a two-line job that just replaces “High Court” with “Supreme Court”, or “Court of Appeal” with “Supreme Court”, but substantial amendments—include changes to the Child Support Act and the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. The amendment to the Courts Martial Appeals Act, which we are dismissing in a matter of moments, actually goes on for two and a half pages. That is the length of the amendments, taking out the fact that one or two parts are struck out—perhaps I will reduce it to just under two pages, to take into account the struck out bits.

But here we have amendments to the Courts Martial Appeals Act totalling almost two pages, which we are having rushed through Parliament. The Crimes Act again has a substantial amendment that is being rushed through. The next major one, the Harassment Act, has a reasonably small amendment. The Human Rights Act has a substantial amendment and we are going to have to rush that one through. The Summary Proceedings Act is the sixth major amendment. The amendments to this start on page 38—if it is taken into account that page 37 is totally deleted—and go through almost to the end of page 39.

Substantial amendments to the Privy Council legislation and the Supreme Court legislation are being rushed and ramrodded through Parliament by this minority Labour Government. There is no majority support for this legislation as far as the votes at the last election were concerned, even taking into account the Labour vote, the Greens vote, and the Progressive vote. They got 38 percent of the vote, and the other votes were also at 38 percent. There is no electoral support whatsoever for this legislation.

Clayton Cosgrove: What was your vote?

DAIL JONES: I have had 9 years in this House as a constituency member and I can tell those members that they do not know what being a constituency member is. The soft life they lead nowadays as constituency members is just unbelievable compared with the good old days.

The Bail Act is another piece of legislation with amendments, and there are one and a half pages of amendments to that legislation. It is the seventh amendment I must mention, and the amendments to the Crimes Act is the eighth major one. For all those practitioners in that area, there are six pages of this schedule devoted to an amendment to the Crimes Act. We will be lucky if we get 5 minutes to speak on this schedule, so that is why I am rushing through in this way. If I start to speak on the six pages of the Crimes Act amendments I will be cut short and not get another chance to speak.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I am very hopeful that either the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rick Barker, or the Hon Margaret Wilson can explain something that the Hon Margaret Wilson’s officials were unable to explain in the select committee about the schedules. There is a mystery in the schedules that, as far as I can tell, is explicable only with some rather sinister assumptions. The mystery in the schedules is that the ability to appeal to the new Supreme Court is extended to people going through the Family Court, the Environment Court, the Employment Court, various courts martial appeals levels, and the Māori Appellate Court. That is fair enough, it is what the bill is set out to do, so why should that be a sinister mystery?

Simon Power: What about the Habeas Corpus Bill?

STEPHEN FRANKS: Habeas Corpus? OK. The Supreme Court Bill also states that such appeals can be on both fact and law. A lot of appeal bodies hear appeals on matters of law only, as a way of ensuring that the poor people tangled up in litigation do not have to spend the money that is required when they may have to readdress factual issues. An appeal on both fact and law is an absolute misery. The Jarndyce v Jarndyce case in the Dickens novel Bleak House is the archetypal case of misery caused by litigation irrespective of the outcome, and appeals on fact and law through three levels cause that. Appeals on fact and law in the Supreme Court are the fate awaiting many New Zealand families in the Family Court, many New Zealand businesses, farmers, and others through the Environment Court, and many other New Zealanders through the other courts.

But there is a very mysterious omission. In all of the other legislation that amends appeal rights that were previously expressed as being on matters of law only, there is one omission. What might it be? Appeals from the Employment Court will not go on matters of fact and law. Why would that be? Would we not think that the Attorney-General would want Employment Court appeals on her little baby—employment law—to be dealt with on the basis of being able to get right to the bottom of the facts, as every other kind of appeal will? I think there is only one explanation. Officials could not give an explanation when they were asked at the select committee. They did their duty, they muttered and mumbled and tried to look as if there were some intelligent reason that perhaps was just escaping me, but the reason, I believe, is inescapable.

The reason must be that the Minister knows she has been rolled on the matter of whom the new court will comprise. She will not be able to go and select her own toadies to sit on the Supreme Court. She might get a chance to put some of them in waiting at the new Court of Appeal level, or put them into the High Court, but the Supreme Court will be made up largely of Court of Appeal judges. So she does not want the new Supreme Court playing around with her creation—our employment law—until a little way down the track, when she has had a chance to stack the new Supreme Court with new judges more to her liking.

That mysterious omission of appeals on fact and law, reserved only for employment law, is more telling than anything else in the schedules, about what this bill is really about. There can be no other reason for making a distinction in relation to the Employment Court. It is not because there are already three levels of appeal. That in itself might have been enough to say that Employment Court matters should not be appealed through to the Supreme Court. That gives absolute misery and suffering to many New Zealand employers—when people have their unions financing them all the way through three levels of appeal, employers will roll over and concede, simply because they cannot face the costs.

We have something much more telling here, in that people cannot take their employment case on fact and law, when every other level must. When families go through the Family Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court, they have to face an appeal on fact and law. When farmers, or business people, or developers, or just people who want to build a new granny bach, have to go through the Environment Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court, they have to deal with fact and law. But they do not have to when it is a matter of employment law. The Attorney-General does not want to have Employment Court decisions reopened, and Judge Goddard’s curious findings of fact reversed.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): If there is one amendment that stands out in the schedules, it is the amendment to the Legal Services Act, which will provide for legal aid to be granted to people who want to apply to the Supreme Court. This is an addition that the select committee put in, because we recognised that a failing of the Privy Council is the inability of people to get legal aid to take cases to the council. However, they will still have to go through the same tests for legal aid applications as all other cases, and, in particular, go through tests for prospects of success. Given the leave application that people will also have to go through, it effectively means that cases will have to be pretty serious to get legal aid to go to the court.

That people will be able to get legal aid is a welcome extension in terms of the Supreme Court, but the irony is—as was pointed out by a number of submitters, and in our own discussions—that it would be cheaper to give people legal aid to go to the Privy Council than to set up this court. That deficiency could have been better remedied by allowing people legal aid to go to the Privy Council, and we could have had that advantage far more cheaply than the cost of setting up this court.

One of the things the Attorney-General touted heavily with regard to the bill, and is revealed in the schedules, is the amendments to various pieces of legislation to allow appeals beyond the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court—in particular, employment, environment, and family cases, and courts martial. Previous speakers have alluded to a second right of appeal, and my friend Dail Jones talked about bypassing the Court of Appeal. My concern is that this measure now allows three tiers of appeal for those cases. That could lead to an unfortunate situation whereby plaintiffs and defendants could find themselves, through appeals, being tied up in the court process for even longer and at far greater expense—even in cases where a small amount of money is involved but perhaps a matter of significant principle. So there is a bit of a two-edged sword in allowing a third-tier appeal level. However, the third tier is obviously meant for cases that have serious issues that need to be dealt with. It is the seriousness of the particular issues that the Supreme Court will be dealing with that is at the real heart of this court. It will deal with issues that are more serious on average than those before the Court of Appeal.

That was the problem that the business community in particular, but also the legal community, had when it came to the whole issue of putting the Supreme Court in the place of the Privy Council. That issue could have been easily resolved, and was picked up early enough, with the proposal to have overseas judges, which was something that United Future was trying to achieve. There was a clear lack of confidence in the business community in respect of these third-tier appeals, and a lack of confidence that the Supreme Court would be capable of making the right decisions in all cases. It was not because the business community lacked confidence in the Court of Appeal judges per se, but because it felt that the skills and experience it was looking for in a superior court were far better found in Privy Council judges than in New Zealand Court of Appeal judges. At the heart of it, the business community felt that the Privy Council judges—whom even our current Court of Appeal judges accept as being of the highest calibre—were no longer going to be able to rule on decisions that would involve millions and millions of dollars.

If the Attorney-General had listened and seriously considered the prospect of overseas judges, the issue could have been resolved by appointing such judges to the court, even on a transitional basis. As recently as the last week or so, business community people have said to me that if two out of the five judges were overseas judges with commercial experience, they would be far happier with this court. If United Future could have negotiated that provision, then effectively it would have gone a long way to addressing their primary concerns, and at least some of the business community would have changed their views.

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

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 46

New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 151 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to the schedules be agreed to.

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

Ayes 70

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 46

New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;United Future 8.

Schedules as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Bills

New Organisms and Other Matters Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 7 October.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The question before the Committee was that Part 3 be agreed to. Before I give the call, I wish to correct a vote. When the Committee was last considering the bill, the vote on the question that Part 2 as amended be agreed to was incorrectly announced as Ayes 91, Noes 44. The correct result was Ayes 91, Noes 24.

Part 3 Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 (continued)

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei): In dealing with Part 3 of this bill, members will see that it refers particularly to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act—legislation that no doubt many members will be very familiar with. They will probably not have to refer to the principal Act at all while making their submissions during this part of the debate.

When this bill first came before the House, we learnt very early on that, essentially, it would disappear and be phased into the three Acts of Parliament that are covered in the remaining three parts to this bill—namely, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, the Medicines Act, and the Biosecurity Act. I know my colleague Shane Ardern will be very keen to make a contribution on the Biosecurity Act.

When one looks at Part 3, in particular, it is tempting to just pass over amendments that appear at the end of a new bill like this, but I decided to have a quiet look at the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act and see exactly what those amendments do. I do not recall going into this level of detail during the select committee process—

Hon David Carter: Perhaps they should have done.

SIMON POWER: To be fair, my colleague is probably right. I say to the chairman of the select committee, the Hon Brian Donnelly, that I do not think we spent much time looking at the amendments to those Acts .

Hon Brian Donnelly: We did give you the opportunity.

SIMON POWER: That is probably true enough.

Clause 52 of the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill, “Director-General to withhold information”, looks vague and innocuous at first glance, but it is worth having a bit of a look at it. Subclause (1) states: “Section 12(2) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘immediately notify’, and substituting the words ‘make all reasonable efforts to contact and notify immediately’.’’

Hon David Carter: It’s a cover-up!

SIMON POWER: It is. He says it mockingly, but there are some real concerns about the way these words have been factored in. Let us go to section 12 of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act—that is, the section dealing with the director-general’s right to withhold information pursuant to an Official Information Act request. Section 12(2) states that where the director-general receives a request to release any information under the Official Information Act, the information to which the request relates may be able to be withheld if that information has been classified as commercially sensitive. I see the Minister frowning, but from my reading that is the general gist of subsection (2)—the information can be withheld if it is commercially sensitive, and that seems to make sense.

But at the point the application reaches the director-general, under the current regime the director-general must immediately notify the person who gave him or her the information—in other words, the holder of the commercially sensitive information—that a request to release the information has been received. Under the current Act, the bar is set quite high, in the sense that the person, the commercial entity, or the applicant, must be immediately notified. There is nothing about reasonable steps, or constructive notice—none of that stuff; they must be notified immediately.

In clause 52(1) the words “immediately notify” have been omitted and the words “make all reasonable efforts to contact and notify immediately” substituted. That is quite different from “immediately notify”. It is a kind of wishy-washy version. Does one sort of pick up the phone, dial the number, and if one cannot get through, think: “Well, I’ve made all reasonable efforts to make contact.”? Or maybe one presses the wrong fax number on the machine, and thinks: “Well, I’ve made all reasonable efforts to make contact.” Maybe if one just drives past the business premises, that is enough.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): I rise to take a very brief call to explain New Zealand First’s position in terms of these next three parts and the schedule. I particularly want to point out to my colleagues in National that we did negotiate with the Chair that the commencement date and Part 2 were the significant parts of this bill; we asked for extensive opportunities to debate the issues in those two areas, and the Chair really did accommodate us. So therefore we believe that it is only right and proper now to reduce the amount of debate around these last three parts, largely because they are consequential parts, and as my colleague Simon Power has said, there were no great cries from submitters that they needed drastic change or anything else. Most people saw them as just consequential, flowing on from the legislation itself. New Zealand First is not going to take multiple calls on these three parts.

SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country): I speak, with particular interest, about the part amending the Biosecurity Act and the director-general’s ability to respond quickly by waiving the normal process of notification and the normal stand-down period with regard to veterinary products and drugs in relation to whatever it is they may be responding to. On the surface, that is a very good provision, but it would be interesting if the Minister would take a call and give us an example. I could run through a range of scenarios where I think that might be useful—such as, there might be a new drug being developed somewhere overseas and there could be a major incursion of some sort, like a foot-and-mouth outbreak, or some other such disease where there is a vaccine, or some kind of medical development that could be useful in response to that, and thereby the director-general would be able to say, yes, we are not going to put this through the process that we normally would, through the Environmental Risk Management Authority, and the like, because there may be some new organism in it, and we are are willing to let it go because there is this major calamity on our hands.

That may be what it is for. I suspect that that is what it is for. I do not actually know whether that is true, and it would be really good if the Minister would take a call and tell us whether that is so. I know that in biosecurity matters over recent times there have been some holes in the policy so big that one could drive a whole truckload of foot-and-mouth contaminated cattle through.

So are we here, dealing with the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill, creating another loophole or another cavity that things could slip through? I am just not sure about that. I know that the director-general himself is a very competent person; we have always had very competent people in that role, and I know that that decision would not be taken lightly, and unless there was a reasonable amount of evidence that the drug, or the compound, or the new organism, or whatever it might be, that they are trying to release, was likely to have a positive outcome. But we just do not know; and, certainly, when we read this and we refer back to the respective sections of the different Acts—like section 49B of the Biosecurity Act—it is still not clear. I know that the Minister will be well informed on this, so I will be interested to hear her response on those issues.

I also know that the Biosecurity Act has had a number of amendments, and I am not sure whether they are relevant to this or whether this supersedes those. Maybe the Minister will be able to answer those questions.

The main guts of this part, as my colleague Simon Power said, is the Agricultural Components and Veterinary Medicines Act. I know there was a lot of debate around live vaccines and dead vaccines—I guess that is the way to describe the alternative to live vaccines—at the time that that was introduced. I know that in the case of leptospirosis, for example, and a number of other bovine diseases, there are dead vaccines. Now, will this apply to live vaccines or will it apply to dead vaccines? I am not sure. It is not clear when we read this. It is certainly not clear how wide the director-general’s ability will be to waive the standard rules, the Environmental Risk Management Authority criteria that one has to go through, for this sort of release. It does not say; it is not clear. I know that the Minister will have the answer to that. I am sure the officials have advised her on it. So maybe the Minister can take a call and advise us on that.

I know that in the case of leptospirosis there is a huge controversy out in rural New Zealand as to why the vaccine has to be confined as tightly as it is, and why it cannot be administered by farmers. I know that in some cases farmers do so, and I know that some stock and station agents and others who handle normal livestock-type vaccines want to trade in that vaccine and be part of it, and at the moment it is tightly regulated and only the vets are allowed to administrate it. Vets are the only ones who are allowed to sell it, trade it, and so on. So is there relevance in that? Will the director-general be able to direct whoever it is in that regard?

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 92

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8;United Future 8.

Noes 21

New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8.

Part 3 agreed to.

Part 4 Medicines Act 1981

JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville): It is my pleasure to engage in the debate on Part 4. This part refers to medicines and to qualifying new medicines that would be available to the public. It is important to understand the process that would take place for approvals under the legislation as it is today. There is two-step approval. Two Acts have to be referred to. The first is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and the second is the Medicines Act. Part 4 allows for what is deemed to be a qualifying medicine, and for the approval process that has to take place for a qualifying medicine. There is a process here whereby assessments of qualifying medicines would be made by the director-general, and, in particular, clause 56 refers to the situations where the director-general may grant a conditional release under section 38H of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. In particular, the director-general has to have the consent of the Minister, and he or she must be acting under a delegation from the Environmental Risk Management Authority given under section 19 of that Act.

It is important to look at what a qualifying medicine could be. I note for the Committee’s attention that these are medicines with likelihood of a low-risk to the environment—that is, the kinds of things that are very likely to get into the environment as we know it. This part also applies to veterinarians, not under the Medicines Act but under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act. For instance, they would be in the sort of situation where organisms are injected into a muscular part of the body—they are very unlikely to get into the environment, and are highly metabolic. Those are the kinds of situations we are talking about in particular.

I want to discuss for a moment within Part 4 the approval of emergency qualifying medicines. I will reflect for just a moment on the kinds of situations that I recently came across in the United Kingdom. Some members may remember that in parts of the United Kingdom various people have been suffering from CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease), which is a derivative of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. In a very interesting case a young man, unfortunately, contracted CJD in the United Kingdom. From memory, he was only 19 or 20 years of age. As members will probably be aware, it is a disease that leads to death.

Interestingly enough, the parents of the child actually petitioned the courts for 19 months to have approval of this medicine. The great tragedy of that was that after the courts allowed the approval of it, the young man has shown great signs of improving. It will not be enough to save his life, but we do have to ask the question whether had that great drug been approved earlier on it could have done more to save that young man’s life.

The area of medicines is very exciting. One of the great advantages of genetic modification as we know it is that it is likely to lead to people living a lot longer. I certainly hope that all members in this Chamber will live to well beyond 100, and I hope that it is as a result of this bill. I would like to know that my contribution in this debate was to encourage just a few more members to vote for it, and on the back of it that humanity lived longer. I know that not only my constituents, but also people up and down the country, would be very, very happy with that.

I do want to point out that situation, although I should also point out that should that provision of Part 4 be adopted, and emergency approval be given, there is a differing form of control over it, and use is dictated. That is covered in section 24D, “Approval of medicines required for use in special emergency”.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek leave to amend my vote. When the vote was taken on Part 3 I inadvertently said there were nine votes. In fact there were eight votes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. The result is now 92 in favour and 21 against.

A party vote

That Part 4 be agreed to.

Ayes 92

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8;United Future 8.

Noes 21

New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8.

Part 4 agreed to.

was called for on the question,

Part 5 Biosecurity Act 1993

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei): Part 5 makes up the third part of the amalgamating triumvirate of the three pieces of legislation that will be amended as a result of this legislation. People who have been keen to make a contribution on Parts 3, 4, 5, and, no doubt, the schedule, will be pleased to know that I have undertaken some research on the Biosecurity Act, although Part 5, which relates to amendments to the Biosecurity Act, looks harmless enough. To be fair, I have to add that it is pretty lightweight research, because Part 5 does not actually give rise to a whole lot of debate, which is unusual. Often when we glance at these types of parts or clauses, we are inclined to think at first glance that that is the case, but once a member bores down into the detail of those parts and clauses he or she often finds that they are far more complex and, in fact, may pose some drafting difficulties at a later date.

I am pleased to advise the Committee that this has not been the case with Part 5. It seems to be a sensible and straightforward amendment to the Biosecurity Act. I do not pretend, nor will I ever, that I am expert on matters relating to science or biosecurity, but it seems to me that the officials have guided us reasonably well through Part 5. During the Education and Science Committee process, of course, as the Hon Brian Donnelly pointed out to me during the extensive debate on Part 3, members of the select committee were given an opportunity to comment on these three parts.

I have to say as a passing remark that the schedule is more interesting than Part 5. I am pretty much looking forward at this moment to the schedule being debated next. I have been building up because the schedule, in fact, provides members looking to make a contribution with a lot more material than Part 5 does. If members want to turn to the schedule, we could finish the day’s debate on a reasonably high note. There is plenty of material in the schedule for a robust debate about the various vermin, reptiles, and other species contained in that schedule. I just want to assure members that I am advised by officials that none of those particular entries in Schedule 2 are biographical, and members can be assured that they are, in fact, scientific terms, which relate to those matters outlined.

Perhaps the Minister would be interested, when we get to the schedule, in walking us through some of those scientific terms that those of us who are graduates with just law and arts degrees have struggled through. I challenge the Minister to take us through the American grey squirrel’s scientific name, and I am sure she could.

Returning as I must to the narrow Part 5, I want to assure the Committee that it seems—with the work that Brian Donnelly and other members of the select committee have done to split this bill into four pieces of legislation—that it has been done in a way that will be consistent with the general purposes of the bill, and with the operational requirements set out in Part 2. I am confident that matters contained in Part 5 accurately reflect the legislation currently before the Committee. I am sure the legislation will be expedited in a way that will pass it into law within the time frames contained in Part 1, which was debated at so much length earlier in a way that surprisingly divided the House along lines that one would not think were historically reflective of the traditional positions that various parties in the House have taken on other issues.

That has shown that, despite the New Zealand public being of the view that politicians are constantly at each others throats, the two major political parties in this Parliament have managed to agree, in a substantive way, on this legislation. Often that type of cooperation does not make the news, and it is worth making the point at the late stages of this debate that the debate around Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and now the significant debate around Part 5, have been handled in a way that I think is probably pretty constructive. I congratulate the Minister on taking some calls during the course of the debate—something we do not see a lot of from various Ministers of this Government on the legislation that I have been involved with during my 4 short years in this House. But I do know that this particular Minister does—

Sue Kedgley: Is this a valedictory?

SIMON POWER: I tell Ms Kedgley that this is not a valedictory speech, although we might have to get to that if this bell does not go shortly! So there I leave my comments on Part 5, and I look forward to making a contribution on the schedule.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. My colleague is on a roll, and he has already mentioned the schedule. I would like to hear a little bit about the giant African snail, and seek leave that he continue with the roll he is on, and then we vote at the end on Part 5 and the schedule at that time.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Well, I know that the member would like that, but we need to put Part 5 first.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 be agreed to.

Ayes 92

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8;United Future 8.

Noes 21

New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8.

Part 5 agreed to.

Schedule

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei): I am happy to yield my call to the Minister, on the understanding that I am able to perhaps seek your indulgence to have the next call in order to respond to the Minister.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sure that will be possible.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): For the benefit of the Committee and of the listeners to this debate—because this is a delicious schedule—I say this schedule has nothing to do with genetically modified organisms. It is about the Ministry for the Environment tidying up its list of prohibited new organisms arriving in the country. We are not allowed to have any Arctic foxes, any mongooses, any skeleton weed—I miss the fact that we cannot have skeleton weed—or any hairy thorn apples. That is not to do with genetic modification. It is a good reminder that the Act we are amending is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The genetically modified organisms are only one part of that Act. There are many new organisms that could give this country a lot of problems, and we are trying to keep them out.

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei): The schedule is the last part of this legislation. I thank the Minister for taking enough interest to make an initial call. I am delighted to see that Ms Kedgley will also seek a call on the schedule, and that my colleague the Hon Ken Shirley is indicating that he would like a call on the schedule, too. That will be a nice way to round things off.

The Minister has outlined that schedule 2 of the Act lists prohibited new organisms. I have to say at this point that the Minister skirted her responsibility when I asked her during my contribution on Part 5 to run us through the scientific name for the American grey squirrel. Perhaps I could suggest that one of the speakers following me may like to have a crack at that, because it is beyond me.

What caught my eye about the schedule of prohibited new organisms were the references to venomous reptiles, venomous amphibians, and other things, including the prairie dog. I thought that was interesting. The schedule also includes any gerbil, which probably is not very interesting, and any pocket gopher. I would be interested to know from the Minister what the difference is between a gopher and a pocket gopher. [Interruption] “Smaller”, says the Attorney-General from across the House. One assumes that the giant gopher is fine, and that we are quite happy for that particular beast to roam our lands. But the pocket gopher, a creature more difficult to track down, is now prohibited, and that is interesting. I would be interested to know whether there is another breed of gopher that is not a pocket gopher, but that—

Russell Fairbrother: “Gopher” home!

SIMON POWER: Does Mr Fairbrother want to “gopher” home?

I see that the mongoose is prohibited, and any mole is prohibited, which I thought was interesting. Also prohibited are any members of the—and I shall have a crack at this one—Phalangeridae family. How have I done, officials? I do not know what that family is, but, other than the Australian bushtail possum, it is prohibited.

Hon Ken Shirley: Marsupials.

SIMON POWER: I thank the member. The list includes any stickleback and the giant African snail. We have an inconsistency there. On the one hand we are concerned only about pocket gophers—not big gophers—and on the other hand we are concerned only about the giant African snail. Smaller snails that are not from Africa are, presumably, off the hook. I did not see “Any predatory snail”; that must have snuck in there. One has to ask oneself how a snail can be predatory.

The list goes on to include any cane toad, Negro root, skeleton weed, hairy thorn apple, leafy spurge, Star of Bethlehem, and poverty weed. I am no expert on those sorts of things or on witchweed, snakeweed, and butterbur. No doubt Ken Shirley and Sue Kedgley may be able to throw a bit more light on some of those things than I can. Again, the list seems inconsistent. It includes the American grey squirrel and any red squirrel. A squirrel that does not fall into either of those categories—in other words, one that is not an American grey squirrel or a red squirrel—and that is not easily mistaken for a pocket gopher is in. The odds are good, as my colleague Mr Tisch points out.

I shall finish here by saying that this debate has been a lengthy and an emotional one, on an issue that has raised the interest of the New Zealand public in a way that I have not seen before in my time in this Parliament. This legislation has been contentious, and it has not been an easy process for many members of this Parliament. I look forward to participating in the third reading of this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I call Sue Kedgley.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Perhaps you have got the parties out of order with regard to the call. As you know, Madam Chair, the ACT party has consistently received the call in advance of the Green Party.

Sue Kedgley: I would be very happy to have the member of the party of eight take the call.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have been looking at the schedule as listed, and my question to the Minister in the chair is why schedule 2 of the Act lists only macrofauna. It seems that microfauna are not listed. I am thinking particularly of the Asian gypsy moth, the painted apple moth, or the tussock moth—the organisms we are spending vast sums of money on trying to eliminate in the Auckland and Hamilton regions at this time. There is a wide range of other micro-organisms. Perhaps an explanation of that is provided elsewhere, but one issue that immediately leaps out at me is that the organisms listed are just the macrofauna—things like the pocket gophers, beavers, foxes, mustelids, mongooses, and all the ones Mr Power read out for us. That is one question I would like the Minister to respond to.

The other one that leaps out is item 20 in schedule 2 of the Act, which is “Any predatory snail”. The list includes “Any giant African snail”, which is very specific, and then “Any predatory snail”. A lot of New Zealanders perhaps do not realise that we have native predatory snails. They are carnivores, and they are big characters. The Powelliphanta snail and the Paryphanta snail are very prolific in the north-west Nelson region. One can go out at night and the bush tracks are just carpeted with those great big snails as big as one’s fist, and they are carnivores—they are predators. I would like to know how they fit into the schedule. I would hate to think that we are banning our own predatory snail that is already here. Perhaps the Minister could explain that one to me.

Another one is No. 29 on the list—and Mr Power drew attention to it—which is the Star of Bethlehem. I take it the following name, Pua-hoku, is Māori. Perhaps the name is not Māori. However, if that plant does not belong here, why does it have a Māori name? That is a fair question, is it not? How has it got a name in the indigenous language if it is not an indigenous species? We know that Māori made up a name for orange roughy when it was discovered in the 1980s, and perhaps there is a similar explanation in this case. Perhaps the Minister could tell the Committee whether the name comes from elsewhere in Polynesia, because I am not sure whether Pua-hoku is a Māori name or is from another Polynesian language. It is an interesting question. If the star of Bethlehem is not a native plant, how come it is listed with a Māori name? We also have the Latin name Hippobroma longiflora, so that is an interesting one.

The Minister also said she thought we should be able to have skeleton weed. Perhaps the Minister could tell members why she made that comment. She said it is more is the pity it is prohibited, and that she would like to have some skeleton weed. That is a very interesting statement coming from the Minister for the Environment, as the Minister in the chair. Why would she like to see skeleton weed in this country? Perhaps there is a reason for that. I cannot think of one, but I would like to hear from her what that reason may be.

Those are just a few questions, and I would certainly like the Minister to answer them prior to the close of this debate.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): Just before I comment on the schedule, I will respond to a comment that Mr Power made. He made the observation that it was very interesting that the two major political parties—one not so major any longer—agree in a substantive way on this legislation. That is a very, very interesting point, and one that has been noted up and down the land. Why is the Labour Party acting and sounding like the National Party on this bill? Why is it ignoring the majority of the opinion in New Zealand? Why is it ignoring the views of many of its own members? Why is it proceeding with this legislation? Why is it to lift the moratorium and risk contaminating our environment, in order to grow food that there is no market for, that has not yet been safety-tested, and that there are no consumer benefits from, when even the claimed producer benefits have not yet come to pass?

Up and down the land people ask me why the Labour Party is doing this, and why the Labour members are silent on this issue—why they are in a cowed silence. Two days ago in a hall in Wellington, a Māori person stood up and asked why the Māori representatives in Parliament were agreeing to lift the moratorium, why they are silent, and why we never hear them speak out about this issue, when we know Māori have very real concerns about it. It may be a cosy little club in here in Parliament, and, as Simon Power said, the major parties may agree in a substantive way on this legislation. But I can tell that member he is completely out of touch with political opinion and with public opinion in this land—as we will see on Saturday, when people up and down this land will be marching. This cosy little club, where members are all giggling and chatting and patting each other on the back, is completely out of touch. Frankly, most New Zealanders would be appalled to hear this jolly little debate about a bill that will have such serious consequences for the future of New Zealand.

This schedule prohibits the beaver, the prairie dog, and so on. We are worried about introducing a new species like the hairy thorn apple, when this bill will allow what are basically alien species—because that is what genetically engineered species are—into New Zealand. They are novel species. In order to get patents, it has to be proved that genetically engineered species are completely new, novel, and alien organisms. These new organisms are unpredictable in their consequences. We are worried about the red or silver fox, but at the same time we are to allow these inherently unpredictable and untested organisms into our environment, so that we can grow food that there is no market for, and that consumers are rejecting. The only reason any consumers around the world are eating GE food is that they are forced to eat it because there is no proper labelling regime. That, of course, is the case in New Zealand. We are being forced to eat genetically engineered food. Our labelling system is so pathetic that we cannot avoid GE ingredients, because so many of them are unlabelled in New Zealand, and that is the only reason that consumers are eating such ingredients in New Zealand.

So why are we risking our status as a clean, green producer of pure food? Why are we lifting the moratorium, against the overwhelming public opinion of this land? Why is the Labour Party sounding like the National Party? Why is it in substantive agreement, as Simon Power said, with ACT and National on this bill? People are asking whether the Labour Party is returning to the 1990s. Why is it listening to a handful of multinational corporations, and no doubt to George Bush, and ignoring the people of New Zealand? Why are the ordinary Labour Party members so silent on this issue? I challenge the Māori members—there are three Māori members, each of whom I deeply respect, sitting in this Chamber now—to explain why they are so silent on this issue. Why are they not speaking, as the person asked in the hall last night, on behalf of Māori on this matter?

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I specifically asked the Minister to respond to my questions. I have not heard an answer.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. That is not a point of order. It is entirely over to the Minister whether she takes a call.

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

Ayes 92

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8;United Future 8.

Noes 21

New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8.

Schedule agreed to.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2), the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2), pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 144.

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

Ayes 92

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8;United Future 8.

Noes 21

New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8.

Motion agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

The House adjourned at 5.25 p.m.