Thursday, 19 February 2004

Thursday, 19 February 2004

Thursday, 19 February 2004

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week in the House priority will be given to progressing the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill, the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill, the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill, and the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Immigration, Minister—Conduct

1. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Immigration: Does she now regret her behaviour and the behaviour of her department in relation to the treatment of a sexually abused Sri Lankan teenager who was forcibly deported last Thursday?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration): The Associate Minister’s decision not to intervene in the removal was justified, but I regret my handling of the subsequent media issues.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister now regret praising the care plan that the Associate Minister put in place for the girl in Sri Lanka after hearing a TVNZ reporter say that members of her family in Sri Lanka were not even approached about any such plan?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am glad that after the High Court decision, when the Associate Minister’s decision not to intervene was upheld, he still felt it was important to ensure that she was not returned to her family, but was returned to somewhere safe.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Can the Minister assure the House that her department behaved properly at all times, and that it did not remove, copy, or leak any information, notes, or documents that were addressed to, or the property of, the Sri Lankan teenager or her lawyer?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: That is the advice I have received.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister tell the House whether she thinks it is the obligation of the New Zealand taxpayers to look after this girl, or the obligation of her very comfortable, professional mother and family?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The Refugee Status Appeals Authority considered that very question on two occasions. It said that it was not New Zealand’s obligation to offer that protection.

Metiria Turei: In sexual abuse cases should not the safety and mental health of the child be put ahead of all else, and is it not absolutely clear that the safety and mental health of the Sri Lankan girl would have been better protected in New Zealand, but is far from guaranteed in Sri Lanka where there are unknowns as to what family members—including those who abused her—might do?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The Refugee Status Appeals Authority considered that very question and determined that the services were available in Sri Lanka and that the family was capable of calling upon them. They had not done so.

Sue Kedgley: Does the Minister agree that it is a very traditional strategy to seek to discredit and play down the experiences of a survivor of sexual abuse, and does she also therefore regret that an Associate Minister in her Government—which seeks to portray itself as women friendly—used this strategy to try to undermine the girl’s experiences of repeated sexual abuse by male relatives when he said that some men had been a little bit unkind in their treatment of her; if not, why not?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I have discussed that matter with the Associate Minister. He did not intend to downplay what had occurred. He, in fact, looked very carefully at her case in making the decision not to intervene. He agonised over it.

Keith Locke: Given the Minister’s use of the media in this case, does she now regret attacking the lawyers for using the media, and being willing to do so when institutions here in this country failed this poor girl?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I regret the way I handled this matter.

Hon Richard Prebble: In clarification of Mr Locke’s last point, does the Minister agree that this House is entitled to know whether a person who is publicly applying for residence in New Zealand is telling lies? As MPs, are we also entitled to know whether the lawyer who is appearing on media every night is engaged in a public relations campaign; if that is so, does the Minister now realise that she should tell this House—that is why she has parliamentary privilege? I invite her to consider whether her proper course of action should be to table that letter in this House. We are entitled to know whether people coming to New Zealand are telling lies, and whether their lawyers are running truthful public relations campaigns.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I did attempt to table the letter yesterday, but that was declined me in this House. But on Tuesday I did table the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision. I commend all members to read it.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I cannot seek leave, but can I invite the Minister—now that we understand what the letter is, and everything else—to make the application to table the letter?

Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister wants to seek again to table that particular letter, she can do so; but only the Minister can do that.

Immigration, Minister—Conduct

2. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister of Immigration: Does she stand by her response on Morning Report on 18 February that she did not put potentially legally privileged notes, relating to the 16-year-old Sri Lankan girl recently deported from New Zealand, into the public arena; if not, why not?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration): No, because I accept it was misleading.

Judith Collins: When she told the media this morning that she was technically correct when she denied putting the documents into the public arena, how can that statement be correct when in the very same interview today she admitted to giving the Dominion Post a copy of the same information? Just how reckless with the truth can this Minister be?

Mr SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I made it very clear that I gave it to the Dominion Post after the TV3 item had screened, and it asked me for a copy of it. The Dominion Post was the only other media organisation that asked me for that, at that stage. With regard to the first part of the question, I regret making the impression that I was not responsible for releasing the information to TV3—I was responsible.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What does the Minister make of the Sri Lankan girl’s lawyers’ claim that the documentation was given to their client—one who apparently was unable to read English, and spent all her time crying in the corner in a state of utter depression? In what circumstance would the Minister believe that that is a true story from the lawyers for the Sri Lankan lady?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I explained yesterday how I understood the matter was referred to the Mt Albert electorate office. It was from that office that it was sent to me.

Hon Peter Dunne: In the light of various claims about the origin of the document, and how it came to end up, at least temporarily, in her possession, does the document she released contain a fax header number; if so, whose number is it?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No, it does not.

Gerry Brownlee: In light of the Minister’s admission that she misled the media and the New Zealand public, and her acceptance that the public will have concerns about her credibility, will she resign her ministerial warrants; if not, why not?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I made it clear to the Prime Minister this morning that if she had lost confidence in me I would offer my resignation without reservation.

Simon Power: Why should anybody have any confidence in anything that Minister and the Immigration Service may say, and do, in light of her serious abuse of the ministerial office, and the “lying in unison” incident?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I believe I have been a very good Minister of Immigration. Yesterday was a lapse in judgment. It was a mistake, and I have fronted up and apologised for it.

Hon Roger Sowry: Does the Minister believe that the New Zealand public should have confidence that when she next gets into a tight situation, she will not once again trundle around the press gallery with documents leaked from personal files?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: That does not reflect the correspondence I have had from the public today.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was whether the Minister believed that the public should have confidence in her, given her treatment of confidential information. When I was the Minister of Social Welfare, if a Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Service case had gone public and I had trundled around the press gallery with a piece of paper on it, that would have been seen as an outrage. That is why I asked that question of the Minister. She did not address or answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought she did. She did not accept the member’s premise.

Judith Collins: I seek leave of the House to table an affidavit by the girl’s lawyer, Carole Curtis, dated today, as well as a letter from the lawyer dated today.

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

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Quite frequently, when people stand in this House and attempt to table documents, you are quite hard in terms of making sure that the member indicates to the House what is in them. Now would it come as a shock to the House, for example, if the affidavits that Ms Collins wants to present contain material quite unrelated to this case? Surely the member tabling a document should be required to say what is in them.

Mr SPEAKER: If any member from any party other than the member’s own party had asked for a further explanation, I would have sought it. No one objected, so the documents were tabled.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As long as I have been in this House, when a member seeks to table a document following the Standing Orders, they are also required to state briefly what the document covers. That has been the normal course of action. I note that the member who sought to table the documents is a relatively new member. I do not think she has attempted to table an affidavit before in the House. I just ask that the same procedure as usual be followed.

Mr SPEAKER: The same procedure will be followed. The documents are now tabled. Any member, and any member of the press, can come up and get copies of them.

Civil Defence—Emergencies

3. DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What steps have been taken to address the current civil defence emergency, and what advice has he received regarding ongoing weather prospects?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Civil Defence): The Government is committing millions of dollars through a range of Government agencies. These include a number of one-stop shops that are being established to coordinate Government assistance. Transit has been working to restore roads and bridges, and will continue to do so. The civil defence emergency operations centre has been activated in the basement and is also working with areas impacted by the floods. Recovery managers have been appointed, and various emergency services and volunteers are working closely with civil defence staff. Defence forces personnel and assets have been made available. I have been advised that the weather prospects over the next 24 hours are not good in the affected areas, with the possibility of up to 100 millimetres of rain in some of these areas, and this could have a devastating effect.

Darren Hughes: What reports has the Minister seen about the money the Government has committed?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I have seen a number of reports, but I must say I have also seen erroneous reports that have been circulated. They appear to have been an attempt to grandstand and score cheap political points. These false reports—

Simon Power: Get out of the helicopter!

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: —the guilty squawk—appear to be an attempt to grandstand and score cheap political points. These false reports—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister will please be seated. I will not have all those interjections in the second person. The Minister is entitled to give an answer, then members can ask supplementary questions. I do not mind the occasional interjection, but they must be in the proper person. [Interruption] I now warn the member that if he interjects again when I have said that, he will leave the Chamber immediately.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I will start again. I have seen a number of reports, but I must say erroneous reports have been circulated. They appear to have been an attempt to grandstand and score cheap political points. These false reports about a mere $20,000 have been circulated by Simon Power, when in fact millions have been committed. He is adding more misery to those who are already suffering.

Simon Power: What discussions has the Minister had with the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Police to aid those farmers trying to shift stock and who have reportedly been clamped down on by local transport officials for overloading stock, and logging too many hours in their logbooks?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The issues that are raised are safety issues. Overloaded trucks on bridges where there are washouts at the moment could cause them to tumble over, but the person the member is talking about, John Seymour, of Seymour Transport, had a discussion with the police and is well satisfied with what the police told him.

Brent Catchpole: What initiatives is the Minister taking to ensure the availability of sufficient machinery and manpower locally, and where necessary brought in from outside the area, to effect speedy repairs to stopbanks, and to essential services such as roading, water supply, gas, and bridges, to ensure the health and safety of the people in the area affected by the flood damage?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The Government is taking every reasonable step to get that there. Every request is being answered, and I am sure that with the goodwill of the local people, the volunteers, and the companies involved, power, gas, telephones, and housing issues are being met. The one-stop shop is answering concerns of the local community. This Government cares about these people, and will continue to provide services.

Marc Alexander: Can the Minister state what, if anything, is being done in light of incidents of looting that have occurred in flood-stricken areas of late, and will he ensure that the full force of the law will be brought down on these scumbags who take advantage of people facing arguably the lowest point in their lives?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: People who burgle homes that are empty in an emergency are, indeed, scumbags, and the police will take every action to make those people responsible come before the courts.

Georgina Beyer: Have members of the Government been to see firsthand the flooding?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Yes. Yesterday the Prime Minister and I travelled through the affected region. We went to places like Tangimoana, the Waitotara Valley, and Waverley, amongst others. Early this week I also inspected the affected areas, as I will do again tomorrow. We had actually spoken to victims and volunteers and answered their questions, rather than just grandstanding to the media like Simon Power did.

Hon Steve Maharey: Can the Minister say whether the member for Rangitikei has represented his constituents’ interests directly to Ministers, such as myself, who are responsible for funding assistance to the area, or has he avoided doing that on behalf of his constituents?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as the question relates to Ministers, the Minister may answer.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to have a look at the question that was asked and tell us how on earth it could possibly relate to the Minister. It is just cheap political stuntsmanship.

Mr SPEAKER: That is why I sought advice. The question was asked specifically to Ministers and will be answered in so far as what representations to Ministers have been made. That part of the question can be answered but nothing else.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can a Minister have responsibility for whether another Minister has been talked to? To answer that question, the Minister of Civil Defence has to say whether he knows whether Mr Power has talked to—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is the only warning today.

Hon Roger Sowry: —every other Minister. That is clearly something that the Minister of Civil Defence will not know.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me just say this. This is a civil defence issue, and, of course, that goes beyond the Minister of Civil Defence. I am inclined to suggest to the Minister that this is a very brief answer, indeed, because it is a question that was given as a specific question and can have a very specific, brief answer.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am asking you to look at this again. The question was asked of him as to what representations have been made to Ministers. We know that the fellow has done very little about the problem up there, and we are supposed to accept that what he has done over the last few days is ring his mates to ask whether Simon Power called.

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that that was not a point of order, and he knows he was doing that to make a political point. He has made it, and I think, on reflection, that I am going to move on.

Immigration, Minister—Confidence

4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: How many times has she told the House that she has confidence in her Minister of Immigration and does she still hold that view?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: Fifteen times in the last year, including three times when confidence was expressed in all Ministers. But clearly the current issue has not been handled to her usual high standard.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How did the Prime Minister lose two of her answers? It is 17 times.

Hon Paul Swain: Why did you ask the question then?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I wanted to be told the truth; that is why I asked the question. Given that it is 17 times, and that they included, for example, the event in 2000 of blaming the officials, then the “lying in unison”, and the “Puff Daddy” PR scheme, and now this issue of having the ability to explain documents, yet lying about them, or—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —I apologise—grossly misleading the media about them, about when would the Prime Minister think that this Minister is not conscientious or competent?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I said 15 times in the last year. We did not go back beyond that point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that it was 17 times in the last year, and not 15, that the Prime Minister has endorsed that Minister and said she was hard-working and conscientious, what is conscientious about making a statement to the media that is demonstrably and palpably not true, and what does it take in the Labour administration for someone to be fired for straight-out incompetence?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Clearly, as I said, the Minister’s handling of the current issue was not up to her usual high standard. Equally clearly, yesterday in the House she attempted very early on to correct the impression she had left, but was denied leave by a member of the member’s own party.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it was National.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, it was denied by Ron Mark.

Hon Richard Prebble: Would he comment on those 15, or 17, questions, and is it not the reality that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has been attempting in question time for the last 3 years to destroy the Minister of Immigration, with no success, and yesterday, Judith Collins, a junior National Party back-bencher, asked one question and now the Minister is toast. Where is the fairness in that?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I understand that Miss Collins used to head the Casino Control Authority. Maybe she learnt something about luck in that respect.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Prime Minister think it acceptable for any of her Ministers to release personal information about individuals without their permission; if not, why is Lianne Dalziel still in her job?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The information was made available to the Mt Albert electorate office from the lawyer’s own office, and that is clear. It was sent over—[Interruption] I am not interested in an affidavit from the lawyer. It came from the lawyer’s office, including the cover sheet on the Refugee Status Appeals Authority document, which I have here. It is correct to say also that permission was given for the release of information into the public arena in that context—not the material that was sent to the office. I am happy, therefore, to seek leave to table the cover sheet.

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

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The answer that has just been given to the House by the Deputy Prime Minister does serve to exacerbate the situation somewhat, and it might cause us to reflect a little bit about where we go from here. It seems that the Minister of Immigration was able to engage in a meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday morning after being on the Morning Report programme, and then go on the Sunday show—

Mr SPEAKER: This is debating the answer.

Gerry Brownlee: No, it is not.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Gerry Brownlee: It is quite simple. The Prime Minister was asked a question about the acceptability of an action. What Dr Cullen then did in his answer was suggest that they knew the source of this letter all along, yet there are three documented cases, three televised interviews with the Minister of Immigration, saying that she had no idea what the source of the information was. If the validity of question time is to be upheld, members answering questions must be truthful.

Mr SPEAKER: I certainly hope that is the case, and I accept the word of members. The Minister chose to answer the question in the way that he did, and it certainly addressed the question. It might not have been what the member wanted, but there is an opportunity—[Interruption] If the member is happy about it, then I wonder whether we could carry on.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When a member asks the leave of this House to table a particular document, one would expect that the document tabled would be the document the Minister has asked to table. The document that was tabled by the Minister is not a cover sheet. It is not from the lawyer’s office. It is, in fact, a copy of the document the lawyer gave to the little girl.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The letter is the letter from the Refugee Status Appeals Authority to the lawyer, and that is what was given. That is what she both doodled the guinea pig on and wrote her media strategy on.

Mr SPEAKER: I want to rule on the point of order. If the member feels that the House has been misled, there is a way she can deal with that, and she should do so.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having regard to Mr Prebble’s question and the fact that, clearly, it is beginning to emerge that the confidentiality issue was waived by the girl’s solicitors—and that is a key point here—how was I to know that Lianne Dalziel would take a cap gun, turn it into a howitzer, and turn it upon herself?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: All I can note is that on all the previous occasions the member has sought to express no confidence in the Minister because somebody has been allowed to stay in the country. This time, when somebody has left, he seems to again want to express no confidence in the Minister.

Prisons—Management

5. MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he consider that the privately managed Auckland Central Remand Prison delivers a lesser standard of management, with lower outcomes, than State-managed prisons; if so, why?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections): No. All prisons in New Zealand, including the Auckland Central Remand Prison, are Government-monitored, and on the whole are well managed.

Marc Alexander: In light of the fact that the privately managed Auckland Central Remand Prison achieves a yearly saving of $29,000 per inmate, yet the Minister’s continued ideological objection to private prisons means that such facilities will close, has he informed the Minister of Finance that his decision forfeits a potential saving of half a billion dollars to the taxpayer per year; if so, what was Dr Cullen’s response?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Firstly, I do not agree with the figures. It is important in this debate to compare apples with apples. My understanding is that when the costs of remand prisoners in the private prison are compared with the costs of the prison service around the country, one finds that the public prison service is about $7,000 cheaper per inmate. Secondly, the reality is that the Government thinks that incarcerating people, taking people’s liberty away, should be the role of the Government, not the private sector.

Martin Gallagher: Why has the Government decided to take the administration of the Auckland Central Remand Prison back into the public sector?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: The taxpayer funded the building of the Auckland Central Remand Prison, and the previous National Government turned the state-of-the-art facility over to the private sector to manage. Labour made it clear in two election manifestos that the management of the Auckland Central Remand Prison would return to the public sector. That is consistent with the Government’s belief that punishment and incarceration should be the responsibility of the Government, and should not be contracted out to private operators to make a profit.

Ron Mark: Is it not the case that a man described as a serious security threat to our country—a man who has had a security risk certificate issued against him because of his terrorist links—Mr Ahmed Zaoui, has been transferred from the State-run maximum security prison of Paremoremo to the medium-security Auckland Central Remand Prison, because it is safer, better run, and more secure, and will stand up better to Amnesty International’s investigation, or is it because the Minister does not consider Zaoui to be a threat?

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is inaccurate, because the security risk certificate is not applied under any terrorism criteria in the Immigration Act, but under national security criteria. It does not refer to terrorism.

Mr SPEAKER: I had a look at the question. Mr Mark showed it to me. That can be something that is subject to debate in question time, but I allowed the question.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: No. The reason why he was transferred was after discussion. He needed to be kept in prison and it was felt that that prison was more appropriate.

Nandor Tanczos: Does the Minister think that the positive performance indicators of the remand prison are due to it being privately managed, or is it some other factor, given that the operator, Australasian Correctional Management, has been the subject of numerous allegations in Australia, including allegations of poor management, unsafe working conditions, substandard services, and child abuse, according to Dr Louise Newman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I have been advised that there have been concerns expressed about Australasian Correctional Management facilities in Australia. However, the reason why the Government has decided to return the prison to the public sector is not a concern about the management; it is a concern about the importance of the Government being responsible, ultimately, for the incarceration of individuals in New Zealand.

Marc Alexander: How did the Minister respond to the chair of the Pacific sector of his own party, who said that outlawing private prison management would remove “innovation and excellence from the prison system”; is that proof that not all members of the Labour Party have succumbed to the dogma that stands in the way of common sense?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: In the Labour Party we encourage people to have a wide range of views. The important point about this issue is that although that prison has introduced some innovation, I can also tell the member—as he will see if he is prepared to go and visit other prisons—that there is a huge amount of good work and innovation being done in public prisons around New Zealand.

Marc Alexander: What can the Minister say to the six northern iwi who have invested so much time and energy into developing rehabilitative prison programmes in partnership with the Auckland Central Remand Prison, other than: “Sorry, all of your hard work has been a complete waste of time.”?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Those programmes will continue under public management.

Marc Alexander: Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s opposition to the Auckland Central Remand Prison is based on allegations that it is merely “a ‘claw in the door’ for this ‘golden vulture’ ”, the multinational The Wackenhut Corporation, which is apparently guilty of sadism, violence, and sexual abuse—concerns expressed by someone who should loosen the ties on his oft-worn tea cosy?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: No.

Immigration, Minister—Conduct

6. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister of Immigration: Is it acceptable behaviour for her or her staff to distribute personal information or notes relating to individual cases to the media, and what confidence can the public have that their personal immigration information would not be made public without their express permission and knowledge?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration): I accept that in this case I made a mistake. The public can be confident that I have learned from the experience.

Judith Collins: How can anyone have confidence that the Minister will not leak personal immigration information, given her denial yesterday of any knowledge of the leaking of the document and her new admission today that she personally delivered it to the Dominion Post?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I have already explained, in answer to a previous question, that I gave the information to the Dominion Post after the TV3 item had screened. The question related to the information being in the hands of TV3.

Judith Collins: Can the Minister prove that the documents she leaked to the media this week were provided to the Prime Minister’s electorate office by the girl’s lawyer; if not, why not?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: That is the advice I have received from the electorate office.

Gerry Brownlee: If the document tabled by Dr Cullen is verified as coming from the source he has named—and therefore, permission was presumably given for its release—why did the Minister, after meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday, continue to deny all knowledge of the document’s source, or was she led to believe that it simply came via the tooth fairy?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to inquire of the member what the authentication is for the supposed denial. If it is the television clip, that was pre-recorded some days ago.

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the question.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The television clip, which will be screened this Sunday, was recorded at around 11.15 a.m. yesterday. It was not until 1 o’clock yesterday that I established how the electorate office had obtained the material. It is true that I wanted to protect the source—not the electorate office, but whoever had given it to the electorate office. When I discovered that the document came from the lawyers’ office itself, I felt that I did not need to offer that protection.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think that the point of order from Dr Cullen was particularly helpful, and I do not think it has helped the Minister. We expect to be given honest answers in this House. We do not expect a Minister to give us the sort of talk that we have just heard. We know that the Minister met with the Prime Minister after Morning Report yesterday. The document was leaked the night before. Is the Minister trying to tell us that she leaked this document, having no idea where it came from?

Mr SPEAKER: No, I have ruled on that matter.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Minister whether it is her view that the issue of the privacy, or confidentiality, of client-solicitor relationships was waived by the lawyers in question; in that event, why on earth did she say something that was not true, and how many times in the past in this House has she done that?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am aware that individuals or their authorised representatives can impliedly waive the right to privacy by making their case public. I am aware that Judith Collins’ signed authority from the Sri Lankan teenager and her grandmother authorises her to release sensitive and privileged documents to the media only if it is her belief that the release of confidential documents would assist them both.

Simon Power: Why would anyone ever believe the Minister again when she is asked to comment on immigration cases—she says that she cannot comment on individual detail, but has demonstrated that she is quite prepared to leak that type of detail to the media?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: In the covering letter from the Refugee Status Appeals Authority—which was annotated with notes from the lawyer—I took out the names of the individuals. I did not breach their privacy.

Hon Richard Prebble: Given the seriousness of the allegations and the credibility issues that they raise, is the Government prepared to see that an independent inquiry is set up to look into this matter, and is the Minister prepared to repeat to this House the statements that have been reported in the media in her name: that if it turns out that any of her officials in the department have behaved improperly, she will resign? What is the answer to those two questions?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: In respect of the first matter, that is something that I believe the Prime Minister will look at. In respect of the second question, yes.

Modern Apprenticeships Scheme—Progress

7. HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): What reports has he received on the progress of the Modern Apprenticeships scheme?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)): It is all good news. The latest figures show that the Modern Apprenticeships scheme continues to expand, reaching 6,259 trainees across 30 industries in December 2003. The figures start at the time when the first graduates from the scheme complete their training. A total of 215 young people have now completed their Modern Apprenticeships, gaining industry-recognised and nationally recognised qualifications—in most cases, with 3-year certificates.

Helen Duncan: What initiatives does the Government have in place that help prepare school students for a Modern Apprenticeship?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: There are 126 schools around the country now participating in the very popular Gateway programme. It provides structured workplace learning for senior school students. In 2003, 2,608 students participated, and the Tertiary Education Commission has contracted for 4,000 students to be involved this year. Of course, we have plans to increase that even further.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Is it not true that the Modern Apprenticeship Training Act requires that particular regard be given to the needs of women, and, given that only 6.6 percent of modern apprentices are women, is it not equally true that the Minister has grossly failed to ensure that the requirements of his own legislation have been met?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I thank the member for his interest in that gender-based policy, and point out that one of the issues we obviously face is that 26 of those occupations are what are called “traditional male areas of work”, such as plumbing, and so on. We have been doing our best, and we have just renewed our programme with the equal employment opportunities person, by the name of Judith McGregor. For example, in the round of contracts coming up next, coordinators will be required to meet targets for that gender-based policy of ensuring women come into core areas of apprenticeships.

Hon Peter Dunne: Was the head of the Tertiary Education Commission, Dr West, expressing Government policy—or intended Government policy—when he said that parents and students should look at vocational training programmes such as Modern Apprenticeships ahead of entry to tertiary education, and that universities should be limited to those who are academically most able to benefit from them?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Dr West was certainly representing the Government accurately when he said that we would like parents to look afresh at the range of options, many of them work-based, where young people might find themselves getting an education more suited to their needs and careers in the future. We currently have a skills crisis in this country, and Dr West was pointing out that we need young people to come through industry training to provide skills for our industries in the future.

Primary Health Organisations—Funding

8. HEATHER ROY (ACT) to the Minister of Health: Given the Prime Minister’s statement that the Government’s policies are to be “thoroughly based on need”, will she remove the loading for funding primary health organisations that provides 20 percent extra funding for patients of the same sex, income, and age, simply because a patient is Māori; if not, why is primary health organisations funding based on race, not health needs?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): Some members have consistently failed to understand the formula for primary health organisations. There are five factors that make up the formula: the age of patients; the gender mix; the ethnicity mix; the level of deprivation in the community, using the New Zealand deprivation index; and the number of high-user health cards. The funding is allocated to the primary health organisations on the basis of those five factors, and then the benefits are spread across all patients of that primary health organisation, irrespective of race, age, gender, religion, or income.

Heather Roy: Can the Minister explain why the Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia, on a Minister’s salary of $195,000, is eligible for $10 visits to his doctor simply because he lives in a Māori-loading area, while someone living in Invercargill who earns just $20,000 a year pays $50 for a doctor’s visit?

Hon Annette King: Disparities in terms of what people have paid have existed for a long time, because only those with a community services card were considered to be poor enough to have subsidised primary health-care. However, what this Government is doing is restoring funding to subsidise primary health-care. We started with those with the highest need first, we then moved to all of those under the age of 18, and in July we are going to fund all those over the age of 65.

Steve Chadwick: Does the Minister consider funding of health on the basis of age, as is the case with the under-sixes policy, the recent under-18 policy, and the soon to be introduced over-65 policy, to be ageism rather than funding on the basis of need?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That is a very good question. No, because there is obviously a link between age and the need for health care, and that is well established. The highest users of health care are the youngest and the oldest in our community, particularly the oldest. However, there may be a child of a millionaire who is receiving a free under-six visit in Invercargill; we have not been funding that policy on the basis of individual need, but across all under-sixes.

Dr Lynda Scott: Is the Minister aware that only 9 percent of general practitioners think primary health organisations will improve health care; and as the best predictors of death and illness are poverty and poor health, will she scrap the divisive race-based funding for the access formula for primary health organisations, and return to funding patients on their individual need, not on race?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The funding for primary health organisations is based on need, not on race. I would have thought a person who was a doctor would have some understanding of population health; would have some understanding of the high health needs of low-income New Zealanders, of Pacific and Māori people in New Zealand, of older people in New Zealand, and of people who live in different parts of New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which party introduced the greatest number of Māori health providers, and what has she read since then of that party disowning its authorship of that policy?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The development of Māori health organisations and Māori health providers occurred in the 1990s under a National Government. In fact, I have read, very recently, comments Bill English made when he was the Minister of Health, where he said that one of National’s major achievements was to develop Māori health providers and funding for them. I do not know why it was all right then but is not now.

Metiria Turei: Does the formula used to fund primary health organisations bear any resemblance to the Targeted Funding for Educational Achievement introduced into schools in 1995?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes. In fact, the funding for primary health organisations is very like the decile funding that was introduced in 1995, then increased in 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. It had six factors: income, occupation, educational qualifications, household crowding, income support, and—wait a moment—a weighting for Māori and Pacific students.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have read the speech Dr Brash made at Orewa, and what the Minister says therefore cannot possibly be true. I want her to reflect on that and confirm whether she is telling the truth or not.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am happy to table the papers on decile funding for schools, which started in 1995, and was increased each year in 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, under the previous Government, so that the member can see that I am, in fact, telling the truth.

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that the original point of order was not a point of order, and that comment was out of order, too.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It arises straight out of this point of order. The Minister says that we can now see that she is telling the truth. She just gave an answer where she said that the funding for these primary health organisations was not based on race, then she got up and said it is based on a similar formula to education, read them all out, and said that the final category is Māori. Well, that is race. How can the Minister possibly say there is no race-based formula, then say it is based on Māori, or are Māori not a race any more?

Mr SPEAKER: The member has made his point in his point of order.

Stephen Franks: Can the Minister please explain why Janet Mackey, who is on over $112,000 per year, can get her local doctor’s help solely because she can hitch-hike on the Māori loading for her local public health organisation—

Mr SPEAKER: I prefer members of Parliament to be left out of this particular type of question. I am perfectly happy for any other person to be referred to. It might not, strictly speaking, be within the Standing Orders, but I would prefer that we not use members of Parliament in this way, unless it is a specific reference to a specific action that the member himself or herself has actually taken.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just remind you that I listened in this House to a Labour Opposition of which you were part, and you yourself frequently raised and pointed out to the country the fact that a member of Parliament was on a certain salary and getting this or that privilege, and a member of the public was not. In this case it is perfectly reasonable to take Janet Mackey as an example, because she happens to live in an area where the Government is giving a special loading based on race, then extending it to others who happen to live there, without extending it to other people in New Zealand who have exactly the same circumstance. Using a member of Parliament is a very good way of pointing out—because every one knows that MPs do not get the average wage—how inequitable and unjust the Government’s race-based formulas are.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The suggestion is that the question is hypothetical and is, therefore, ruled out on those grounds. The second thing is that the question implied that a member of Parliament is unwell or sick and in need of health services, when everyone knows that Janet Mackey is the picture of health. For that reason it should be ruled out, as well.

Mr SPEAKER: I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 37/6: “I cannot see that I should rule out of order a reference to the status of a member, but I should like to discourage this practice, because I believe there is a distinct danger of reducing the standard of our debates if members refer to the status and private affairs of other members.” I will not rule the question out, so I will allow the member to ask the question, if he so desires.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am obliged to you for your ruling, but I just want to draw it to your attention, and that of the House, that yesterday when Labour members of Parliament rose and said that Dr Brash, in promoting a tax cut, would personally get, I think, $168, you did not object. I say that this question is just the reverse coming back at them.

Mr SPEAKER: All I can say is I made a mistake. I do make mistakes. I do not claim to be perfect. I apologise. I now ask the member to ask his question.

Stephen Franks: May I begin again?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, start again.

Stephen Franks: Can the Minister of Health explain why a member of Parliament from Gisborne, who may earn more than $112,000 per year, can get her local doctor’s help for $15, solely by hitch-hiking on the Māori loading in that public health organisation, while a poor white worker in Invercargill with exactly the same symptoms must pay $50; exactly how does that represent discriminating on needs, not race?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I can justify it on the grounds that an ACT list MP in Wellington could get free under-6 care for his children because it is based on a number of factors, not just on race. This Government is moving to ensure that all New Zealanders will have affordable primary health-care, not just those who have a community services card or a high-user health card, some of whom could be millionaires.

Metiria Turei: Has the Minister received any reports or concerns from the ACT member who raised the primary question about health funding targeted by age, gender, or ethnicities other than Māori; if not, does she conclude that this can be only a race-based attack of the most dangerous kind?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I cannot recall having any representations from the ACT member Heather Roy in relation to any other ethnic group. I do not believe I have had any other representations. But there does seem to be a little bit of talking out of both sides of the mouth on this issue.

After all, I do have here an email that was sent by Sue Ryan, press secretary to Richard Prebble, to someone on Tuesday, saying that ACT would not cut funding for kōhanga reo. However, ACT does not really want to defend National, because National made so many mistakes, including cutting benefits in the 1990s.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could we have that email tabled?

Mr SPEAKER: Is the Minister seeking leave?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I seek leave to table an email dated Tuesday, 17 February from Sue Ryan, press secretary to Richard Prebble.

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

Deborah Coddington: How can she claim that Labour’s policies are based on need and not race, when the Ministry of Health website explicitly states that if doctors have a majority of Māori and Pacific Island patients, they get 20 percent more funding than doctors with a majority of Pākehā patients?

Hon ANNETTE KING: They also get 20 percent more funding if they have a majority of people who are elderly or young. They get 20 percent more funding if they have a majority of low-income people, people who are deprived. I read out five factors that have a 20 percent loading based on need, not race.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do ask you to consider the Minister’s answer to that question, which in no way addressed the issue, which was the fact that Māori have a 20 percent loading. Just because there is a loading for age does not get away from the fact that the formula is race based.

Hon ANNETTE KING: It is age based.

Rodney Hide: It is also age based, but it is race based as well.

Mr SPEAKER: As far as I am concerned, the Minister addressed the question.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do apologise to you, but the Minister was calling out when I was making my point of order. Normally you assist a member who is being attacked when he or she is making a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that is a fair comment. I will ask the Minister to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Heather Roy: Can she deny that doctors in primary health organisations are funded 20 percent more for Māori and Pacific Island patients than for other patients, where more than half those enrolled are Māori or Pacific Island New Zealanders, and can she deny that this is the first time since the creation of the welfare State that central government has large-scale subsidised doctors’ visits on a race basis?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I read out the factors that make up the formula. They actually have a 20 percent loading on each of them: age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation, and high-user health cards. They are the weightings. I notice that the member is not objecting to our putting more money in for gender, for age, or for deprivation—only for Māori. I wonder why.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was kind enough to table my press statement, so would she now be kind enough to table the formula for primary health organisations.

Mr SPEAKER: Only if the Minister herself wishes to ask for that leave.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Can I assist the member and suggest that if he looks at the website of the Ministry of Health he will find the formula there.

Dr Lynda Scott: I seek leave to table the question asked of general practitioners in the survey—“Do you think the PHO framework will deliver better care to patients?”—to which only 9 percent of 300 general practitioners said “Yes”.

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

Deborah Coddington: I seek leave to table the text from the Ministry of Health website that does set out the loading for Māori and Pacific Island patients of 20 percent more funding.

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

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have raised this question with you before, and I realise I referred to it wrongly, but I just wanted to remind the House about Speaker’s ruling 127/8, which states: “Leave should only be sought to table papers that are not readily available from other sources. The tabling of a document is not an occasion to make a point; it is an opportunity to produce for the House a paper that other members may not see or may not have seen.”

Mr SPEAKER: Well, let me just say that I think many members from all parties do occasionally seek to table papers on other than a strictly needs basis. Obviously. I deprecate it, but I will not ban it.

Retirement Savings Scheme—State Sector

9. DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister of State Services: What progress has been made to date towards implementing a retirement savings scheme in the State sector?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services): A selection panel has selected four providers: AMP, ASB, AXA, and the Global Retirement Trust.

David Benson-Pope: Can the Minister detail the particular benefits of the public service retirement savings scheme?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It sets a good example for employers, it will help up to 100,000 people to better prepare for their retirement, and it will help the State sector to recruit and to retain good people.

Rod Donald: While agreeing with the scheme, I ask the Minister what are the retirement savings applications for teachers and principals in the State sector who are losing their jobs or seniority as a result of his destructive school merger or closure plans?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I do not know of one teacher, other than a principal, who has lost his or her job, other than voluntarily, under these arrangements. It is my hope that every principal who is a good principal will win a job on merit. I do not accept that member’s approach, which would allow people whom boards regard as not being up to the job, to have a job.

Floods—Financial Aid, Lower North Island

10. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Civil Defence: Is he satisfied with the amount of money given by the Government to the victims of flooding in the lower North Island, including the Manawatu and Rangitikei; if so, why?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Civil Defence): Yes, because we are working to meet the needs of the community as those needs are identified by local and regional government civil defence organisations. These needs are also being addressed by Government agencies. The Government will give millions of dollars. We are working to support the victims, not grandstanding with false information, as the National Opposition has done.

Simon Power: Why is the Government so reluctant to commit a substantial sum of money to bring relief to flood victims, when the Farmers Mutual Group has contributed $100,000 to the cause and has challenged the Government to match it, and at 2 p.m. today the locals have already raised $650,000, including goods and services, to help the clean-up?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I am very pleased that people are contributing. When New Zealanders are in trouble through natural disasters, Kiwis are at their best. This Government is also at its best.

Darren Hughes: How important does the Minister think it is that in civil defence emergencies accurate information is given to the public?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: It is vital that the information that is circulated is accurate and reliable, rather than grandstanding off the misery of one’s own constituents, as Simon Power has been doing.

Simon Power: Will the Government immediately match the Farmers Mutual Group contribution, and the immediate relief of $1 million made to the Southland relief fund in the floods of 1984, especially given, as the Minister said earlier today, the looming bad weather forecast for this weekend; if not, why not?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: This Government is providing money that is needed, and we are helping with the overall situation. We are not grandstanding on anything.

Simon Power: They need the cash.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The member is rubbing his fingers again. He knows that the Government is giving millions of dollars—I have told him how, many times. I told him on Tuesday afternoon just outside the House, and then he chose to tell people something different. That tells me more about his political gumption than anything else.

Witnesses—Children

11. MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Courts: What programmes does the Ministry of Justice have in place to assist children appearing as witnesses in court proceedings?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): Recently I launched a new national service that will provide education support for young witnesses in criminal proceedings, and their families and whānau. This new service, called court education for young witnesses, has been developed with input from a number of agencies. It will be delivered in both the High Court and the District Courts as part of the Ministry of Justice’s services for victims.

Mahara Okeroa: How will the new service be delivered?

Hon RICK BARKER: Going to court can be a very scary experience, especially for a young child, and the child’s evidence can affect a family member. To assist children, trained victim advisers will work with them and their families before the actual hearing, to help the children to understand the court process and what is being asked of them. The information will be presented in a colourful, user-friendly range of material, with activities books. There will also be a video for the child and the caregivers. The victim adviser will show the young witness around the courtroom before the case begins, so he or she can be familiar with the proceedings. There is an example of that here.

Mr SPEAKER: Is the Minister seeking to table it?

Hon RICK BARKER: I will send a copy to every member of Parliament.

Immigration, Minister—Confidence

12. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Immigration; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, because she is hard-working and conscientious Minister. As the Minister herself has said, she has not met her usual high standards over the handling of one issue.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Prime Minister believe the claim by the Minister of Immigration that the document in question came from the lawyer’s office, when the Minister of Immigration herself said in answer to question No. 1 that there was no identification on the top of that fax; if so, how can she possibly know where it came from if it was not from inside her own department?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In early July the Mt Albert electorate office contacted Marshall Bird and Curtis asking for certain documents. Those documents were faxed. The Refugee Status Appeals Authority document and the covering letter were faxed slightly later than other documents. The fact that a fax number is not on the top of a document does not mean to say it was not faxed. One can actually set a fax not to have those numbers on the top.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Prime Minister aware that when asked by the Press Association after the TV3 report on Monday night whether she knew how TV3 obtained the lawyer’s notes, the Minister replied: “No, they didn’t discuss that with me”, and in light of subsequent revelations, does the Prime Minister believe the Minister’s answers to be technically correct, and is that acceptable for a Minister of the Crown?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister’s has accepted that she gave misleading answers. She has apologised to the Prime Minister, and yesterday sought to apologise to the House for that.

Question Nos 4 and 12 to Minister

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 343 to correct part of an answer I gave previously. Today I indicated that Mr Ron Mark refused leave for the tabling of a document. Mr Peters has checked with Mr Mark and has assured me that that was not the case, and that the objection was taken only by Judith Collins.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I seek leave of the House to table a facsimile document from Marshall Bird and Curtis, which clearly shows that the document is marked with the name “Marshall Bird and Curtis” and the fax number that it came from.

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

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I seek leave to table a statement from the Mt Albert electorate office that the documents received in that office were from Marshall Bird and Curtis.

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

Bills

Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): I move, That the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill implements the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court, which supplements the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The bill will allow orders to be made for the court and personnel employed by it, under the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act, similar to those that already exist for other bodies. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has recommended unanimously that the bill be passed without amendment.

Before turning to the specifics of the bill, I wish to flag that I have written this week to all parties in the House to seek agreement to make a further amendment to the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act by a Supplementary Order Paper to this bill. The need for this amendment has become apparent in the context of implementation of an establishment agreement with the European Community concerning the office that it is setting up here. The European Community is defined as an international organisation and not a country. For that reason, under the current Act, the normal privileges and immunities conferred on the families of diplomats do not apply to the European Union mission. The Supplementary Order Paper will simply extend to an international organisation those privileges currently enjoyed by country missions; and the indication I have received so far is that the parties that have replied are in favour of that Supplementary Order Paper.

On the bill as introduced the select committee received only one submission, and that submission supported the bill. The bill adds two new sections to the Act. New section 10D deals with three situations in which privileges and immunities are conferred. These relate closely to the functioning of the International Criminal Court.

The first situation deals with protections for the court itself. The second relates to protections for the International Criminal Court judges and staff, and the third relates to the more limited protection for others involved in International Criminal Court proceedings, such as witnesses. These protections help to ensure that the International Criminal Court and others involved in proceedings can perform their functions or role, free of interference. But the protections do not mean that the International Criminal Court and its staff can do what they like in New Zealand.

It is important, in order to avoid confusion, to say what the bill does not do. It does not affect procedures relating to surrender of persons to the court jurisdiction. The International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act sets out the procedure to be followed in New Zealand if a request for a surrender is made. It is similar to extradition, involving scrutiny both by a Minister and by a court. The grounds on which the International Criminal Court’s request can be refused, include the situation where the person is already under investigation or being prosecuted in New Zealand.

The International Criminal Court is a court of last resort. Under the principle of complementarity, States that have jurisdiction over a particular incident have the opportunity to investigate and prosecute. It is only if they are not willing or able to act that the International Criminal Court steps in.

The International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act has made all the conduct over which the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction an offence under New Zealand law. I expect that New Zealand would, of course, prosecute any New Zealanders involved in genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes, which are the areas of jurisdiction the court has.

The question that underpins this bill is a narrower one. How do we want International Criminal Court judges and staff to be treated when on official business? Although the court is based in The Hague the reality is that much of its work will be done elsewhere. Those doing the court’s work should have the protections they need to do their job properly, wherever they happen to be. This bill shows that New Zealand is willing to give protections to the court, its judges, and staff, if their work brings them here to New Zealand.

The second provision in the bill is new section 10E, which relates to meetings of the States that are party to the Rome Statute. It implements article 13 of the agreement, which gives representatives of States who attend these meetings certain protections. It is standard practice for representatives of States who attend international meetings in other countries to have protections similar to those given to diplomats. Generally, these protections are given to persons holding letters of credentials from Foreign Ministers or other high-level authorisation.

Existing orders under the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act give such protections to those attending meetings in New Zealand organised by bodies such as the United Nations, the OECD, and the World Trade Organization. Section 11 of the Act caters for international conferences organised by bodies in respect of which there is no order. It allows a Gazette notice to be made extending protection to persons attending a specified conference. These protections are limited in nature and duration. Moreover the protections do not belong to individuals but rather to the State or body that they represent, and they can be waived. We would expect these protections for New Zealand representatives who attend meetings in other countries. We therefore need to be able to give them to others in the event that meetings are held here.

New Zealand has long supported the establishment of an International Criminal Court as a means of ending impunity for the worst crimes. The passage of this bill and early ratification of the privileges agreement will reaffirm New Zealand’s support both for the International Criminal Court itself and for the ideals that it embodies. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I follow on from the comments of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and although this is slightly irregular I wonder whether I can ask across the House which member from our party the Minister wrote to regarding the Supplementary Order Paper.

Hon Phil Goff: When I seek agreement for a Supplementary Order Paper I write to the leader of each of the parties. It would have gone to Don Brash.

SIMON POWER: Thank you. If the Supplementary Order Paper is as the Minister stated in his opening contribution to the debate, we will not have any difficulty in supporting it. We await its final form. I understand the reasons outlined by the Minister, and provided that those are reflected in the Supplementary Order Paper, there will be no difficulty from the Opposition on that front.

I certainly endorse what the Minister has said regarding the aim of the bill in respect of amending the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act to implement the agreement on privileges and immunities of the International Criminal Court, and, of course, as the Minister has said, to give full effect to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. I have to say we have no real difficulty with the issues raised in the bill as outlined by the Minister. The National Party will certainly continue to support this bill, subject to, as I say, our sighting the Supplementary Order Paper referred to by the Minister.

I have one very quick comment to make, and it is about the statement of the public policy objective. On page 4 of the explanatory note, the narrative states: “New Zealand has an interest in seeing the perpetrators of the most grave international crimes brought to justice. … The establishment of the ICC helps to make this possible,”. From memory the ratification, by way of domestic legislation, of the International Criminal Court via the Rome Statute was supported by most, if not all, parties of this House at the time it went through, some months ago. It is fair to concur with the statement in the narrative: “By becoming party to this Agreement at an early stage, New Zealand demonstrates continued commitment to the ICC …”. The National Party certainly pledges that commitment, alongside the Labour Government, on this legislation.

One does always have to be wary with legislation such as this, in the sense that I am always a little cautious about international conventions, the role of international agreements, and the impact they may have on the raw sovereignty of any particular State to conduct its affairs in the way it wishes. But I have to say that we on this side are satisfied that this bill does not impinge on that statehood—if one likes—in respect of any nation being able to carry out its day-to-day activities.

If the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister referred does include European Union representatives, because, as the Minister rightly pointed out, the European Union is not a country and does not enjoy the same diplomatic privileges and immunities as nation States do, then that makes perfect sense, particularly given the expansion of the role of the European Union over time in terms of diplomatic postings and offices throughout the world.

I do not propose to labour this point any further. I advise the House that the National Party will be continuing to support the passage of this bill.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State): This bill implements the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court, which supplements the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It is unlikely that the International Criminal Court will ever sit in New Zealand, but it is important that investigators, should they need to do so, are able to operate freely within our jurisdiction. More important, this measure underlines that New Zealand has long supported the establishment of an International Criminal Court as a means of ending impunity to the worst crimes. It continues a strong and distinctive New Zealand tradition of support for multilateral legal institutions, at a time when the international institutions are under severe pressure. We note the pressure that has been applied to the UN in the context of the current conflict in the Middle East, the pressure on the World Trade Organization in the context of the Cancun conference, and the current pressures underlying the situation of NATO. So we are proud, not only of the specific purposes of this International Criminal Court matter but also of underlining our commitment to multilateralism, which New Zealand is putting forward in this bill.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First, I express our support, once again, for this legislation. I thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade for writing to the Rt Hon Winston Peters about the matter, and indicating the desire of the European Union, for example, to set up an office here. I understand that it has an office in Australia already, and it seems very appropriate that it have one here. Clearly, with the expansion of the European Union by an additional 10 members on 1 May 2004, our having a greater number of contacts, at all levels, with the European Union is very practical and very necessary for our future trade. In so far as the International Criminal Court aspects of this matter are concerned, it is disappointing that, as I understand it, the United States is not a party to this convention. But those of us in the remaining part of the civilised world are only too willing to be a part of it and ensure that there is a multilateral way of dealing with wrongdoers. New Zealand First supports the legislation.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this bill. It is important to give proper diplomatic protection to all the judges and people involved in International Criminal Court proceedings and international conferences, as specified by the Minister, and, of course, UN conferences that may be held here, and to extend the immunity to representatives of the European Community. I think it could in certain circumstances put us in an unusual position. For instance, under clause 3, which inserts a new section 10D(2)(d) into the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act, it states that we would have to give immunity to people participating in International Criminal Court hearings, such as counsel, witnesses, victims, experts, or other persons.

Let us take the case, for instance, of an International Criminal Court hearing that, as the Minister said, could be assigned to New Zealand. Hearings do not all take place in Europe, or The Hague, or wherever, but they can be assigned around the world. Say there was a hearing of the court in New Zealand on the situation in Algeria where, as Amnesty International points out, the regime is happy to boast that it has “neutralised”—to use their term—20,000 people. The estimates are that tens of thousands of people have been killed, mainly by the regime, although some have been killed by terrorist groups opposed to the regime. Clearly, in terms of the provisions of the International Criminal Court’s own statute, the Algerian regime has committed crimes against humanity. It could qualify for a special hearing, perhaps in New Zealand, on the crimes that it has committed in order to try to bring to justice those who have been part of that regime in committing those crimes, many of whom continue in power in one form or another, particularly in the military, in Algeria today.

Under this provision, one person who might be called as either a witness—he is certainly a victim of the regime—or he could be considered an expert, is a chap called Ahmed Zaoui. It would be somewhat ironical, for under this provision a person who, because of the very bad policy and procedures of this Government has been rotting in jail in New Zealand for 14 months, has to be released to appear before the International Criminal Court hearing. That is very possible under this provision.

There is under the new section 10D(2)(e), to be inserted by clause 3, the provision that representatives of States have to be given protection. Particularly in relation to the international community, the role of an organisation called the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS)—to go back to an Algerian example—could be interesting. There is a certain parallel for non-State actors to be given some form of diplomatic status. I am referring to the Palestine Liberation Organization, which is recognised by 125 States and does have a certain diplomatic status in various countries, particularly in Europe, and a certain status in relation to the UN as a non-State actor in some senses.

One could envisage in a certain international climate and the commitment of many States to democracy in Algeria, that the FIS could also be given some diplomatic status or attached to a European Union delegation coming to one of the hearings or specified conferences that is held in New Zealand under this provision. There could be the irony of an official representative of the FIS in some form coming to such a conference, either as a semi-diplomat in the sense I have outlined, or just as a participant in one of these specified conferences or perhaps a meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Committee dealing with the situation in Algeria. There could be official FIS representatives coming here, getting all this diplomatic protection, who are colleagues of Mr Zaoui, yet Mr Zaoui is still rotting in prison, even though he has similar status. Possibly, the FIS might say that it wants to attach Mr Zaoui to its delegation. Would he be let out of jail and given immunity to proceed in that way? So there are a number of scenarios that could create problems for the Government, and I am telegraphing them in the context of the Green Party’s full support for this bill.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): First, I want to throw a few brickbats, not at the Government, but at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The committee has produced a report on the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill that says absolutely nothing. It does not even go as far as to accurately record the introductory words the Government said. That is a puzzle to me, because ACT is not represented on that committee.We rely on that committee to make sure that the hard-won liberties, rights, and defences of New Zealanders are not undermined by the Crown pushing through loopholes and exceptions to our domestic law, for the benefit of diplomats and others whom they hobnob with in the international organisations they want to retire to.

This committee has not even picked up the warnings of members of the major parties. For example, I looked at the Hon Lockwood Smith’s warning, when this bill had its first reading, that it worried him. He asked why the Minister talked about new section 10D and not about new section 10E: “Sure, there can be no question that article 13 of the recent agreement requires us to do something in this area.”—that is, provide immunities—“But when the select committee examines the bill, I want it to have a good look at what new section 10E provides, because it confers very important immunities and privileges on a whole range of people who are not remotely involved in the functioning of the International Criminal Court and who may not require those immunities and privileges, at all. I think we should think very carefully about how we implement article 13 of the agreement in new section 10E.”

Behind those section references is a new set of immunities from New Zealand law for inter-governmental organisations, basically for persons who may well be from the kinds of non-governmental organisations that make life a misery around the world for countries that adhere to the values we hold dear. They may be representatives of States that think that the rule of law is just a joke. They may be representatives of countries that have absolutely no respect for notions like habeas corpus.

What this bill does is that when the International Criminal Court—comprising people who have no necessary belief in the notions of innocent until proven guilty, or the right to face one’s accusers—says, “Jump”, this bill says to New Zealanders, “Jump, and allow these people into this country immune from our law.” The select committee appears to have made no examination of even the concerns of its own members—or if it did, that is not reflected in its report.

ACT will not vote for this bill. We acknowledge that it will pass, and if it passes, it might as well add in the people from the European Union, but none of the concerns that we expressed in the speech on the first reading have been addressed, as far as we can tell, either by the Minister’s speech or by the woeful, pitiful, three-paragraph report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

This bill was a chance to re-examine the naive and over-hasty signing up by this country to the International Criminal Court. The United States, for very good reason, has stayed away. It breaches so many of the values in the law that we hold dear. It is a court that can define offences as it goes along. It can prosecute something called “apartheid”, when no one knows what “apartheid” will mean. It can pursue crimes of aggression, when no one knows what a “crime of aggression” will mean. It could, if it all goes to custard, be a victors’ tribunal of the worst kind. It could validate the overturning of the values of the Enlightenment—the respect for legal process that has taken so many centuries to evolve.

The United States has secured the agreement of something like 60 countries for exemptions. It is a court that threatens the country that is, realistically, our major ally, and whose consent was essential to make it practical. If the select committee and the Government had been doing their jobs, they would have been saying that they are being asked to give a free pass—a “get out of jail free” card—in advance to people of whom they know nothing. As the Green member, Keith Locke, has already said, members of that international body may represent regimes that are absolutely abhorrent to New Zealanders but that may have membership of that body because it is too gutless to apply its own rules—as, for example, the United Nations was in relation to Iraq.

Representatives would be able to come to this country and wander about, flaunting their immunity and living high on the hog, while New Zealanders would be able to do nothing about offences that they might commit here. This legislation should have had a good, solid, sceptical look given to it, because the Act that it amends, by which New Zealand signed up to the International Criminal Court, was done in a rush of good feeling. The National Party has new-found realism about the way in which treaties—including good and honourable treaties like the Treaty of Waitangi—can be misused by those who want to use them for political purposes some time in the future.

I would have hoped that the National Party, on coming to its senses about the gross misuse of the Treaty of Waitangi, might have been slightly more realistic and sceptical about a bill like this that is supplementary to an equally well-intentioned and nobly begun, but equally potentially dangerous, treaty such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which New Zealand has signed up to and which we have now implemented in our domestic law.

I will remind members, when we get to the Committee stage of this bill, that it could well be used in the future against—for example—our people who have been in the Solomon Islands, because what is being done there to try to remedy some of the strife actually creates separation zones. It acknowledges the de facto separation of peoples in order to try to achieve civil peace. If Mr Mapp happens to go and look at the definition of the International Criminal Court’s offences, he may well find that that is the crime of apartheid. It may well be that if someone wants to attack New Zealanders and embarrass us in 15 or 20 years’ time, New Zealanders who went there in all idealism could be hauled before a court that is simply the willing or unwilling agent of those who wish to attack the United States or its allies.

Those who wish to attack a major power not infrequently attack one of its allies to see what the reaction will be. It is possibly a 10 or 15 percent chance only, but it is something that this House should have taken into account when it passed the legislation ratifying, in effect, the Rome treaty, and it is something that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee should have taken into account when looking at this bill, even if our Minister did not. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Goff, may be far more interested in glad-handing Mr Arafat in Palestine, and may want to be able to run around and say that we are in the club, we will do whatever the international community says, and we will jump when pushed, irrespective of the legitimate concerns of the United States. If he wants whatever the United Nations equivalent is of knighthood, maybe he will get it, at New Zealand’s expense, but the select committee might have been a little more sceptical. It might have taken notice of at least one or two of the members—Keith Locke may come from the wrong direction completely, but at least he is raising the right issue. This is law for New Zealanders that we are creating loopholes in. It is New Zealanders who should be retaining sovereignty, and, at the very least, the committee members should have been making sure that the immunity was narrowly confined to those essential to the operation of the court, not handed out to any hangers-on whom they might wish to bring. This legislation could be used purely to embarrass New Zealand.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I say to the member who has just resumed his seat that that speech was characterised more by its irrelevance than its contribution to the debate. This bill does not set up the International Criminal Court. That was the subject of previous legislation. This bill, simply and narrowly, confers certain diplomatic privileges—which we confer on all diplomats who come to this country—on officers and officials of that court, should they ever come to sit in New Zealand. It is not an issue of the wisdom or otherwise of establishing the International Criminal Court. To try to use this bill to relitigate those broader issues is, in the most charitable view, mischievous, and, at its worst, ill-informed and out of place.

The member criticised the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for the brevity of its report. I chair that committee, and its report was so brief because the number of issues, the level of public submissions, and the level of concern from the members of that committee—representing all parties bar his own—were not significant. This is straightforward legislation. We are not in the business of trying to manufacture scandal or controversy where none exists. I am a great believer in brevity where appropriate—if there is nothing to say, do not spend a long time saying it. The member seems to have preferred us to be somewhat more voluminous in our response than we needed to be.

The only issue I want to raise in conjunction with this bill—which is given added flavour by the Supplementary Order Paper—is that we have a companion piece of legislation called the Consular Privileges and Immunities Act. It is, word for word, the same as the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act, except that it relates to the consular activities of diplomatic representatives in New Zealand, rather than the diplomatic ones. It seems to me that it is probably time to look at overhauling both Acts, and to streamline them into one.

I wonder, with regard to the provisions in the Supplementary Order Paper relating to the European Union, whether we will face the possibility, in future, of a European Union office having, in effect, a consular branch in another city of this country. As the law stands at the moment, consular privileges would not be extended to those diplomats unless they were extended by a specific piece of legislation. It seems to me that the only really substantive issue we ought to be looking at is whether the time has come to combine the consideration of diplomatic privileges and immunities with the consideration of consular privileges and immunities—because they are so similar—and put them in one place rather than continue to have them in two. This bill is, as I said, a straightforward technical piece of legislation, given the legislation that preceded it. I intend to delay the House no longer. United Future supports this bill and the Supplementary Order Paper, and I think that these matters should proceed.

HELEN DUNCAN (Labour): I am pleased to rise in support of the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker said, it is largely a technical bill to put in place provisions that New Zealand needs in order to support its place in the international community.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): I have been following this debate with a great deal of interest. The reason is that I gave a strong speech back in 2000 supporting the original bill that established New Zealand’s ratification of international crimes and the International Criminal Court. I believe that it was the right thing for New Zealand to do. It is worth remembering that Australia, Britain, Canada, and virtually all the nations of the world have signed up to the statute establishing the International Criminal Court. I am aware that the United States has not, and that it has particular concerns, but I believe that, in time, the United States will accede to the statute.

The statute was established because of the practice of establishing ad hoc tribunals for the gravest of war crimes—those that arose out of the tragedy in the Balkans, in Rwanda, and in places of that nature. It is those kinds of crimes that the International Criminal Court is charged with dealing with. Article 8 refers to grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, and to other serious violations of the laws of armed conflict. It is not intended to be aimed at the minor and the, frankly, unimportant. There is a high threshold to be observed before the court is seized with jurisdiction. I believe that the precedents set by all the other ad hoc tribunals will play a part, and have flavoured the creation of this tribunal. It is noteworthy that two of the major combatants in the Iraq war acceded to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court—namely, Britain and Australia.

It would be extraordinary, I believe, for a small country like New Zealand, which has put a great deal of faith in international institutions, and a great deal of faith in international law, not to be party to the convention. I listened carefully to the speech made by Mr Franks—a speech not dissimilar to the one he gave some 3 years ago—and I state now, as I stated then, that his fears are misplaced. It is the right thing for New Zealand to be party to the convention that establishes the court. Today’s legislation is essentially mechanical—to enable the court to undertake its work.

When the issues around new section 10E are raised, as they have been, it is worth reflecting on who would get immunity: representatives of States parties, representatives of States attending meetings, or representatives of inter-governmental organisations. Those people are not from non-governmental organisations; they are from internationally recognised institutions. In reality, the people who represent nations at such meetings are invariably diplomats. Diplomats invariably have the benefit of the convention. But, of course, the agreement is necessary in any event, because one would clearly expect judges of the International Criminal Court also to have the privileges and immunities that diplomats have—and that is intended in this case.

I, frankly, have to say to the House and to the listeners to this House that the concerns raised by both the ACT party and, indeed, the extreme Green Party are misplaced. New Zealand has not embarked on some sort of reckless course that surrenders all our sovereignty and places our people at unreasonable risk. We have made a stand, saying the worst breaches of humanitarian law ought to be tried and ought not to go unpunished, and saying we will play our part in that. I believe that is a very laudable thing.

One of the things I must also reflect on in passing is the situation of Mr Zaoui. There is a proper process, established by the National Government in 1999, for a situation like that to be reviewed, and that is through the independent office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Hon Mr Greig. That is the protection for whether the certificate is validly issued. New Zealand sits within the tradition established in countries like Britain, Canada, and Australia, in allowing proper and fair consideration. For Mr Locke and, indeed, Mr Robson somehow to pretend that there has not been due process is simply false. The mere fact, dare I say it, that we have had such extensive litigation indicates of itself that due process is being observed.

But I have to say one particular thing: Mr Zaoui could get on a plane tomorrow—he is not incarcerated against his will. He has a choice and every opportunity to leave this country. He chooses to stay in order to take advantage—at huge expense to the taxpayer—of the legal recourses available to him. And he is exercising them. That will cost the New Zealand taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal aid, plus all the associated costs of running the High Court. It is simply fatuous for the Green Party to claim that Mr Zaoui has not had the benefit of full legal consideration and the most exhaustive analysis possible.

I would like to close on this point. This is important legislation—rather, the framework of the International Criminal Court is important. This particular legislation is subsidiary legislation that simply affirms that the representatives of the court, and representatives of States parties—who would normally be diplomats—will have the usual provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. That is hardly extraordinary; that is hardly novel. It is what representatives of such entities invariably have. This legislation being short, and the report of the committee being short, reflects that ordinary practice.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie): I am pleased to be able to support the second reading of this bill. The report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee quite simply explains that the passing of the bill will enable New Zealand to ratify the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court. As Dr Wayne Mapp has just indicated, that offers protection to diplomats and representatives of our Government who participate in those activities. The bill, I believe, needs to be supported by this House.

RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom): National supports the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill. It is a statement of the obvious to say that it forms part of wider legislation, and that wider legislation is the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act. The bill makes certain amendments to that Act that are needed to implement the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court. New Zealand signed a specific agreement in October 2002, and the passing of this bill means that New Zealand will be able to ratify the agreement.

I have listened with interest to the arguments of the previous speaker from the ACT party, but, as others have observed, the time to raise those arguments has passed. The time to raise those arguments in the New Zealand context passed when we endorsed the plans to set up the International Criminal Court.

New Zealand is a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and under the Rome Statute a permanent court has been established in The Hague, with jurisdiction in a number of areas: jurisdiction over genocide, jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, and jurisdiction in respect of war crimes. It is appropriate to recall the comments of Kofi Annan, the current United Nations Secretary-General. In a speech he gave as to the reasons why we should have an International Criminal Court, he said: “For nearly half a century—almost as long as the United Nations has been in existence—the General Assembly has recognized the need to establish such a court to prosecute and punish persons responsible for crimes such as genocide. Many thought … that the horrors of the Second World War—the camps, the cruelty, the exterminations, the Holocaust—could never happen again. And yet they have. In Cambodia, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Rwanda. Our time—this decade even—has shown us that man’s capacity for evil knows no limits. Genocide … is now a word of our time, too, a heinous reality that calls for a historic response.”

It has been said by others that the International Criminal Court is really the missing link in the international legal system. Without an International Criminal Court as an enforcement mechanism for dealing with individual responsibility, acts of genocide and egregious violations of human rights often go unpunished. In the last 50 years there has been a number of instances of crimes against humanity and war crimes for which no individuals have been held responsible. In Cambodia in the 1970s, an estimated 2 million people were killed by the Khmer Rouge. In armed conflicts in Mozambique, Liberia, El Salvador, and other countries, there has been tremendous loss of civilian life, including horrifying numbers of unarmed women and children. Massacres of civilians continue, of course, in Algeria and the Great Lakes region of Africa.

It is relevant to reflect for a moment on what, exactly, diplomatic immunity is. Diplomatic immunity dates from antiquity when the Greek Government extended special status to foreign envoys. The point of diplomatic immunity is expediency, not privilege. The underlying concept is that foreign representatives can carry out their duties effectively only if they are accorded a certain degree of insulation from the application of standard law enforcement practices of the host country.

Others have spoken about the technical aspects of the bill, and I do not intend to do that. I would note, however, that in respect of the grant of immunity the primary treaty instrument—which is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations—allows for diplomatic immunity to be waived. So diplomatic immunity does not have an absolute character. In the relevant article in the primary treaty, the immunity from jurisdiction of diplomatic agents and of persons enjoying immunity may be waived by the sending State.

Stephen Franks: Yes, but Nigeria wouldn’t waive it.

RICHARD WORTH: In this case, presumably, the waiver would be made by the International Criminal Court, which is not the illustration that the member of ACT has interjected to offer.

Finally, it seems somewhat strange that whereas the principal Act has a very straightforward statement in respect of privileges and immunities under the International Court of Justice, we have somehow seen it necessary to have the number of clauses that are in this bill. The issue was very simply put in section 10 of the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act in respect of the International Court of Justice. I raise the question why it cannot be similarly dealt with in the case of the International Criminal Court. That said, National will support the further passage of this bill.

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

Ayes 108

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

Noes 9

ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 17 February.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour): In the first reading the Minister, when speaking to the House, foreshadowed, as required under Standing Order 282(1), that there would be a motion to refer this bill to the Health Committee. She has discussed this matter with the whips of all parties, and has received their approval for me to seek leave to alter that foreshadowed motion in order to refer the bill to the Social Services Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. When we were last considering this bill the honourable member Judy Turner had 8 minutes and 40 seconds remaining in which to speak. I have been informed by United Future that under Standing Order 117(2) its members have decided to share their speaking time.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): An asset-testing bill has, at long last, found its way to the floor of this Parliament. As all of us here in the House know, the subject matter of this bill—asset testing for senior citizens—has been the subject of great controversy in this country for at least 15 years. My mind immediately goes back to the 1990 election, when the National Party made a promise to the electors of this country that it would abolish asset testing. My memory also extends to what subsequently happened, following that: the $650 million bail-out of the BNZ, which, in fairness, National knew nothing about when it made that promise. The then Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, had to break his word to the people of New Zealand. The circumstances were somewhat extenuating but, nevertheless, I think the lesson that every political party learnt from that episode was that it is better not to make a promise in the first place, if it does not intend to keep it.

Then, of course, the clock goes forward to 1999, and to the pledge card of the Labour Party. I have to be careful here, because I am not sure exactly what was on that pledge card, but in any event I do know that Labour promised to have a serious look at the possibility of repealing asset testing. What we have before us—somewhat late, given that it is now 2004—is a bill that does not remove asset testing, but at least relaxes the rules around it, from here on in.

At my age one of the things that I find quite remarkable about life is its brevity. All of us grow old. Many of the people who were around at the time when Jim Bolger originally broke the promise to repeal asset testing have by now gone on, hopefully to better things. But we still have with us about 463,000 people who are aged over 65. That figure will rise to about 551,000 people by 2010, and to about 1 million people by 2030. Therefore, the issue at the heart of this bill will affect the lives of most New Zealanders. This bill will affect, directly or indirectly, all people who live, say, beyond the age of 65. By that standard, this bill is of great importance to the House.

United Future, along with Age Concern New Zealand, believes that the era of asset testing is an era of social policy that is best forgotten. But important human rights lessons need to be heeded and learned from the unfortunate events that have accompanied this issue over the last 15 years. In an age when we value the dignity of people with disabilities—and no other group has to pay for long-term residential care—it has to be admitted that many senior citizens in this country, and many of us who are fast moving towards that category, saw the issue of asset testing as a core election promise. Age Concern, though, has expressed to us its worry that during the 5 to 6-year wait that has occurred since 1999, the abuse of senior citizens has been allowed to proliferate, as families and caregivers have stopped elderly relatives from going into much-needed care so that their assets are not dissipated. That is an unfortunate comment, is it not, on the realities of human nature? It is good to know that as a result of this bill, let us hope and pray, most of that kind of abuse will quickly come to an end.

At the time of their life where New Zealand citizens should have their assets working for them—after all, all their lives they have put away a nest egg, normally in terms of owning a home, a car, and a few other things on the side, like small investments, so those things can work to give them security in their old age—it is disheartening to think that successive Government policy was seen to have eroded that base. It is good that that will be restored through this legislation. United Future therefore welcomes the introduction of this bill, and looks forward to seeing how the select committee addresses the concerns voiced to us by Age Concern providers, and their fears—and these fears also come from the retirement village operators themselves—regarding the business viability issues that are raised by the bill. We will watch with interest the conclusions of the select committee. The demographic projections I mentioned earlier demand that we continue to encourage a greater level of personal responsibility for our own welfare when we become senior citizens, or if we are already senior citizens. But at the same time, we must develop certainty about the support we can expect from the Government, so that retirement planning can be realistically geared.

With those few remarks, I have pleasure in signalling United Future’s support for this bill.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South): I am pleased to rise briefly in support of this bill. We welcome it in the House, just as many members in the community will welcome the progressive removal of asset testing for older people in long-term residential care. I guess we all regret that that has to be an incremental process, but one of the many things the community welcomes about this Government is its fiscal responsibility. Indeed, there is a degree of confidence and trust that this Government, while delivering on its social objectives, will do so in a way that the whole community can afford.

KATHERINE RICH (National): As I rise to speak to this bill, it is interesting to hear Mr Benson-Pope say he welcomes this bill. I can say to the House today that this bill will not be welcomed by those people in organisations involved in the care of the elderly. This bill will not be welcomed by people who are in elderly care themselves—be it rest home care, care for people with dementia, or hospital care—because what we see in this bill is just another example of broken promises by this Government.

Mr Benson-Pope also said he had some regret about the pace of the introduction. Regret seems to be the theme of today—as we saw in question time, when the Hon Lianne Dalziel used that word time and time again to describe her performance over the last couple of days.

In 1993 Helen Clark, then an Opposition member, was absolutely outraged when asset testing was first introduced. At that stage, she said she would repeal the legislation on asset testing. That promise has been made in election manifesto after election manifesto. If members look at the 1996 manifesto—which those over on the Government side of the House seem to conveniently overlook—they will see it states quite clearly that Labour will abolish National’s asset testing for older people: abolish—not reduce, not dilute, not soften, but abolish.

When Helen Clark went to look at the Cashmere View Hospital in Christchurch in 1993, she told the residents there that the Labour Government would remove the asset test. She said it was causing some older people not to get the care they needed, because they were worried about their homes. Helen Clark has now had 10 years of saying that she will repeal asset testing, and she has not done it. Grey Power is looking at this Government, seeing it become increasingly ideologically driven, and seeing it as a Government that has broken promise after promise and not delivered on some of the clear statements Labour made about asset testing, in particular.

I would like to look at some of the comments made by Michael Cullen. He said in February a couple of years ago that Labour had “undertaken to deal with another source of anxiety and pass a measure to remove asset testing for long-term elderly care.” Well Labour has not done it. Those members said they were going to do it in the second term—they were going to introduce legislation to do it. What we have today is a diluted bill that does nothing to repeal anything. It does nothing to remove the test. Despite all the comfortable, smarmy spin around this bill, this Government has quite clearly broken a promise, and is not going to deliver what it has promised to a lot of elderly New Zealanders.

Sadly, those whom Helen Clark visited 10 years ago at the Cashmere View Hospital might or might not be around today to see that broken promise, but I can tell by the look on the face of that lady there that she believed Helen Clark 10 years ago. I am sure that if she were up in the gallery, she would be very disappointed to hear that Helen Clark has broken that promise today.

Let us also look at some of the comments by the Hon Lianne Dalziel, although I have to say that after her performance over the last couple of days, all listeners and members in the House will be wondering whether they should believe a single word that Minister says. Here is her speech to Southland Grey Power. She said: “And there’s more to come, with work well under way to introduce legislation repealing the asset test for residential care, and I am working closely with Margaret Wilson on this.” That is all very interesting, because here we are 2 years down the track and what we have in front of us has nothing to do with the repeal of the asset test.

There is another reason that those involved in the businesses of residential and elderly care will be very disappointed in this bill. It is because the Government has fixed the price for the provision of services. Once this bill is passed, all businesses—all residential care facilities—will not be able to charge more than $636 per week. That said, many businesses already charge a lot more than that, because they offer a quality service to people who want choice in the sort of care they receive. This bill treats all elderly New Zealanders as if they are the same. I say that if one is in a rest home, a dementia ward, or in a hospital ward, one expects and deserves different standards of care. Someone in a dementia ward needs a lot more care and attention than someone in a standard rest home facility.

The prices, of course, do vary, depending on where one happens to be. Someone trying to offer the service in the middle of Auckland, where property prices are a lot higher than elsewhere, will find it incredibly difficult, and will have to cut back on the services he or she is offering some elderly New Zealanders who are presently enjoying those services. I agree with our spokeswoman, Lynda Scott, on this issue. That particular provision has the ability to bring some rest home facilities to their knees, because a lot of them are struggling already.

I have been speaking to a number of people working in this area in Dunedin, and they said already the cost of bed nights is not meeting a lot of the cost of the services they want to be able to provide to worthy New Zealanders who need their care. This is nothing more than price fixing. When Governments get involved and try to tell businesses what they can charge for their services, they are getting into areas they know nothing about, and that will only end up being to the detriment of a lot of private sector organisations that are providing good services. [Interruption]

It is very interesting to hear Mr Benson-Pope calling out, because in his electorate of Dunedin South this issue really does concern groups and organisations—including many church groups—that are involved in providing good services to elderly Dunedin people. I have three words to say to that member: “Don’t be negative!” He should stay there and be quiet. Either that, or he should get his ears checked, because he seems to be very, very—

Dr Lynda Scott: Hard of hearing.

KATHERINE RICH: Perhaps he needs residential care, Dr Scott? Perhaps he needs to go into rest home care or a dementia ward.

This bill will be going, I think, to the select committee I sit on, and I look forward to hearing some of the submissions about it. I expect that we will get a wide range of opposition to it, because a lot of organisations from both the private and public sectors will be very alarmed when they read the detail of this bill. Hopefully, a lot of groups—particularly groups like Grey Power and others that purport to represent senior citizens in this country—will hold the Government to account for a broken promise that has been repeated time and time again over the last 10 years. I imagine it will be very difficult for the Government to talk its way out of this one, because what we have here is not a repeal, or a bill that will abolish anything. We have a bill that will only dilute the present circumstances that many senior citizens find themselves in.

This is certainly a broken promise. Anyone can look at past Labour Party manifestos and see it in black and white—spin removed. There are quite clear comments from the likes of Steve Maharey, Lianne Dalziel, and Ruth Dyson, as well as from many other Labour Party members who have travelled the country telling elderly New Zealanders that they will abolish asset testing—and income testing, for that matter. What we have here is a bill full of broken promises, which we will address during the select committee process.

LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana): I am very proud indeed to stand to support this bill. I am pleased because it is about time we reciprocate the hard work and the contribution that our elders have made over the many years. Government members are keeping our word through this piece of legislation. We are a Government that is consistent about keeping its word, and working within fiscal constraints. The bill will allow for the progressive removal of the asset testing of older people in long-term residential care, from 1 July 2005. We welcome that, and I am sure the majority of New Zealanders will, too.

PANSY WONG (National): I find it incredible that Winnie Laban, who usually speaks from the heart, would actually stand up and say she was proud of this piece of legislation. That does nothing but show up that the Labour Government is breaking a very long-held promise, which started with the Rt Hon Helen Clark.

My colleague Katherine Rich mentioned that Miss Clark, our current Prime Minister of New Zealand, made that promise way back in 1993. She reaffirmed it in 2002 in her statement to Parliament. She said: “Legislation to repeal asset testing of older people in rest homes and geriatric hospitals will be introduced …”. Does this legislation repeal asset testing? Anybody who has time to read the legislation knows that it does nothing like that. I advise Winnie Laban to start reading the legislation. That promise came from the Prime Minister, who values integrity and honesty, and says she always delivers what she promises. In 2002 in her statement to Parliament she said that her Government would introduce legislation to repeal the asset testing of older people. I wonder what happened between 2002 and 2004. I think there was an election; the year 2002 was before the election and the year 2004 was after the election. The statement that she makes to Parliament somehow has changed a bit. In her statement this year she states that legislation will be introduced to begin the phasing out of asset testing. It is interesting to compare that with the Prime Minister’s statement before the election, when, once again, she had to gain the votes of the elderly; after the election she did not have to.

I also want to comment on a point made by the senior whip of the Labour Government, David Benson-Pope. He said today that he regrets that broken promise; he had the good sense at least to show a little bit of regret at that broken promise, and to say that he is not proud of this legislation being introduced into this House. He said the Labour Government is breaking the promise because it is a fiscally responsible Government and cannot afford the money. It cannot afford the money, so it has broken its promise. Whoever has been following the promises of the Minister of Finance, the Hon Michael Cullen, to younger, working families will know that this year he will be an early Father Christmas distributing lollies to those families. I reckon the Hon Michael Cullen has done the sums and realised that the number of people in working families is larger than the number of elderly. So what does he do? He gives away money to working families and holds it back from older citizens.

But I have more evidence to show that this Labour Government is far from being a fiscally responsible Government. For a start, how much do members think this Government has spent on its new Cabinet office? It has spent over $913,000 on the Cabinet office. How many people benefit from that, for how many hours a week? Suddenly, a Cabinet table that has served Cabinet for I do not know how many years is not good enough for this Labour Government. Guess how much it spent on a single new table for the Cabinet office?

Katherine Rich: $50,000?

PANSY WONG: My colleague has underestimated it. This Labour Cabinet has expensive tastes. It cost $154,519! Not only does the Labour Cabinet have an expensive taste in tables; it also says it needs expensive chairs to go with it. Each chair costs $7,726. I see that Mr Assistant Speaker is indicating that I am going wide of the bill, but the senior Government whip assured the country that this Government is responsible and careful in spending money. I just want the senior citizens out there to listen. Members of this Labour Government, after 11 years of making promises to do away with asset testing, would rather spend money on doing up the Cabinet office, and treating themselves to expensive tables and chairs. This year the Minister of Finance will say that we are having a good year, and have another good surplus, but will those members honour their promise? No, they will not. So I remind this Labour Government that we are looking forward to hearing some of the submitters to the select committee ask them some of those hard questions.

But I also want to repeat a point that was made by my very good colleague Dr Lynda Scott. She is very popular, and has a lot to do with senior citizens as the National spokesperson on senior citizens. She knows their needs. She knows the importance of their care. She is a doctor who actually specialised in geriatric care. She cares, and she understands that it is important that the elderly keep as mobile as possible. So we want this Government to tell us—that is, if another Labour MP will take a call—whether, when it increases this threshold, when it siphons some money off the health care of the elderly to this area, it will guarantee that the same group of senior citizens that we are talking about will still be subject to quality care amenities that help them to keep their mobility. Will the Government honour that, or is it simply going to pinch money from their care, which is also important, to make up for this increase in the threshold?

Labour MPs could really learn by listening to the intelligent argument put by my very good colleague Katherine Rich. She says it is silly to put on a cap and say that these homes cannot charge above $636 per week. For me, as a member from Auckland, once again I want the next Labour MP, if Labour actually cares, to take a decent, lengthy call to explain that to the senior citizens from Auckland. It is very expensive to live in Auckland. I want Labour to guarantee and promise—make another promise— to those senior citizens that if this $636 cap stops new hostels and new care facilities from being built, the Labour Government will place every one of them. I think Labour members should make that promise, because there is no point in their feeling good and looking good because of what is on a piece of paper, if senior citizens end up with no place to go when they need that care. The Labour Government is always very good at doing that. Labour members tell people, for example, that there is free childcare and that they do not need to pay the doctor’s fee, but then we see doctors on television telling them they will not be able to continue in practice, because they do not have enough money to make up for the Labour Government’s shortfall.

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Social Services Committee.

Bills

Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)

First Reading

Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a first time. It is my intention, when this debate has concluded, to recommend to the House that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee. As the House is aware, a Statutes Amendment Bill is a useful annual vehicle for making technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. It allows minor amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed. This is achieved with the support of all parties in the Parliament.

This bill, as introduced, amends 20 Acts administered in eight different departments, and the proposed amendments include: an amendment to the Conservation Act to set out approval process for the transfer or release of aquatic life into fresh water; an amendment to the Maritime Transport Act to clarify the civil liability of certain persons in relation to the pollution of the marine environment; an amendment to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act to change the name of the Residual Health Management Unit to the Crown Health Financing Agency; and an amendment to the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act to correct an omission in that Act that did not revoke the reserve status of a settlement site.

I have received objection to the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act, and, accordingly, the clauses under Part 12 will be struck out from the bill in due course. I commend this bill to the House.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): National supports the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). This is an omnibus bill to effect non-controversial amendments. As the Minister has identified, the bill has 20 parts, and there are two schedules. As has been mentioned, National does not support Part 12, which deals with the Motor Vehicle Sales Act. The reason for that is that this Act came into effect last year, and our view is that it was a comprehensive piece of legislation and it should have been got right the first time. We are not in a position to support that part, and the Minister identified that. The rest of it we are certainly comfortable with, but that is one part we do not support.

Although a Statutes Amendment Bill is non-controversial, there must be very close scrutiny of what the amendments are, and constraints must be in place—otherwise we will find legislation slipping through. If we look at Standing Orders 259 to 262, we see that the omnibus bills are specifically identified. I just want to identify what they are, because it is important that we realise that there is a provision in the Standing Orders to allow that to happen. There are finance bills—and this is in Standing Order 261—or confirmation bills. We have local legislation bills that contain provisions affecting particular localities. We have a Māori Purposes Bill (No 2), and the fourth one is the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, and the fifth is the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) that consists entirely of amendments to Acts, and this House is debating that bill today.

Some of those amendments beg the question why the Government is involved in so many pieces of legislation. One of them, for example, is the Fire Service Act. The Fire Service does not receive any Government funding at all. It is funded by levies on insurance policies, and not one dollar of Government money goes to the service. The racing industry is similarly placed. Briefly, I want to identify what some of those Acts cover. I will not go through them all, because I am sure other speakers will be talking especially about legislation of a legal nature: Part 2, “Conservation Act 1987”, deals with the transfer or release of live aquatic life into fresh water, which is subject to the prior approval of the Minister of Conservation. Before seeking approval an applicant must advertise for submissions, and the amendment provides for 20 working days for the receipt of submissions. That part is fairly straightforward, and we certainly have no problems with it.

In relation to Part 3, “Electoral Act 1993”, members will be aware that an inquiry is going on at the moment into the last election. While this part is important and should go through, there may well be changes later on to the whole Electoral Act, and this part will become redundant. However, currently the Electoral Act concerns the list of candidates that political parties submit to the Chief Electoral Officer, and he or she must be provided with the written consent of each candidate named on the list. That is pretty straightforward, and we have no difficulty with that.

Part 4, “Evidence Act 1908”, is really a legal matter, and I am sure members who are lawyers will be looking at that part, because it is definitely in their field. I will not elaborate on that further, but I would certainly like to hear what the lawyers have to say.

I mentioned the Fire Service Act of 1975, and the point I made earlier was that here we have legislation in which the Government has no financial involvement. What section 3 of the Act does is to establish the New Zealand Fire Service under the control of the New Zealand Fire Service Commission. That amendment is interesting in that the office within the New Zealand Fire Service was abolished in 1990, so it is redundant. Here we are 13 years later amending that Act, and it is a wonder that that has not been picked up before now.

Part 5 also deals with the rural fire management code and national rural fire officers. We are not talking about the 8,500 volunteers in our communities. The Rural Fire Authority has about 300 paid members, and this part clarifies part of their involvement. It also updates the national commander’s powers, with power of entry to assess a building’s evacuation scheme. Part 6, “Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977”, relates to fire safety margins, and there are 9 clauses to be amended in this part. They are fairly significant, but under Part 6 the amendments will be fairly straightforward.

Part 7, “Geneva Conventions Act 1958”, goes way back, and once again I am sure that the lawyers will be giving this part and what it allows great scrutiny. This amendment removes reference to the death sentence. We have not had the death sentence for many years, and the principal Act will be amended by this statute.

Part 9, “Land Transfer Act 1952”, contains 16 clauses that amend sections of the principal Act, and if members look at them closely, they will see that they are mainly of a technical nature.

Part 10, “Maritime Transport Act 1994”, relates to civil liability for pollution of the marine environment caused by ship owners, owners of marine structures, and persons in charge of marine operations. A number of other clauses relate to that as well. Part 11, “Medicines Act 1981” is another amendment. I have said that we will not support Part 12, “Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003”. Part 13, “National Parks Act 1980” is another amendment.

The Minister mentioned the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act in his opening remarks, and the principal Act will be amended to change the name of the Residual Health Management Unit to the Crown Health Financing Agency.

The Minister also mentioned the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act. I mentioned the Racing Act earlier on. The Radiocommunications Act, the Reserves Act, the Telecommunications Act, and the Trade in Endangered Species Act will all be amended, as well.

All in all, there are a considerable number of amendments for the Government Administration Committee, of which I am a member, to consider, and we will scrutinise them more closely. National is happy to support all those parts, except for Part 12, which I identified earlier as the part we cannot support.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): New Zealand First supports this legislation. I am surprised that any member is speaking to the bill at all. Previous practice used to be that the bill would just go straight through. I just make that comment. I thank the Government for corresponding with New Zealand First. We have rejected some matters that are not included in the bill, and we support its progress.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I rise for the ACT party to welcome the introduction of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). This omnibus bill contains a whole lot of minor technical tidy-ups, and the Minister in charge of the bill has been in touch with each party in order to get its comments on it. There are elements in such a letter that raise the curiosity of some parties or some members who have a particular interest in those elements. Other parts of the bill are not necessarily obvious, or the implications of them were not necessarily obvious when the inquiry letter from the Minister was received. So we are pleased that this bill will go to a select committee. The select committee will, presumably, get a more detailed feel for exactly what is proposed. Sometimes something that appears entirely technical and innocuous on first sight to a person who is not well informed on the detail of a matter suddenly becomes significant when that detail is obtained. There are things in this bill that may be in that category, so I hope the select committee will have a close look at it. I will therefore mention those things in this speech as a way of recording them, so that when the select committee does report back, we would hope there will be a little more explanation of them than now appears in the explanatory note of the bill.

Those matters include the changes to the Fire Service Act, which appear to go further than is usual in a bill like this that contains technical amendments and correction. There seems to be the creation of a new scheme for pre-approved evacuation schemes in buildings. I do not know how many buildings will be relevant buildings for that purpose; it may be that it is a very small number. Maybe the people with such buildings are happy to have to get the national fire commander to approve their evacuation schemes. But I am concerned that that provision should be examined closely by the select committee, in case it is yet another one of those so-called fences at the top of a cliff that create a great deal of bureaucratic expense to deal with what is really a reluctance by the authorities to properly pursue people who fail to take precautions for themselves or for others. It may be easier to get the right degree of compliance not by prescribing a process for everyone, but by making sure that the few people who do not comply with a reasonable law are properly pursued and punished. So I hope that that provision will have some more explanation than it has now. The explanatory note does not state how significant it is.

There is a similar question about the fire safety margins under the proposed amendments to the Forest and Rural Fires Act. I think I recall the Minister’s explanation that the amendments are needed to tidy up an anomaly whereby fire safety margins may be created over private property in a way that is unfair. If so, ACT is, of course, pleased to see those amendments go through. But when I look at the wording, I have to bear it in mind that the approvals from parties to include such provisions in a Statutes Amendment Bill are usually given on the basis of a brief description—or a description in a letter—of what is intended, not the actual words that the bill will contain. So the select committee should take a close look at those amendments, to make sure that the fire margin amendment is a technical amendment, and is not an unintended or a covert means of affecting the use of land by people who are unfortunate enough to be the neighbours of State land that, perhaps, has forests or is otherwise a high-fire-risk property.

There is one provision that is just a minor curiosity. I do not think there is any reason to consider it is hard to understand, and I believe that we will support it. But just in case it is an own goal, I will mention the amendment to the Geneva Conventions Act, which is a funny little tidy-up to remove references to the death sentence. It is explained on the basis that the death penalty was eliminated for all purposes in New Zealand by the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act in 1989. The elimination of something like that for all purposes may not be nearly as permanent as people like to assume. The curious effect of completing the process by taking out the relevant sections of the Geneva Conventions Act may be that if a future Government decided to reinstate the death penalty, it could do so in a way that had less protection for the persons sentenced to death than there is at present. In other words, the Geneva Conventions Act deals with the death penalty because there are death penalties in many countries, and the provisions that are being removed restrict the periods within which people sentenced to death may be executed. It prevents the sentence from being carried out on prisoners of war and protected internees, and it could be that in a way this little bureaucratic tidy-up may some day be an own goal for those of us who are concerned that the Geneva Conventions Act should rightly continue to regulate the death penalty. Maybe it is silly to throw those sections of the Act out simply as a symbolic statement by this Government of its abhorrence of the death penalty. The Government should be very careful that its politically correct, feel-good moves do not rebound to become own goals.

The last thing I want to comment on is the amendments to the Trade in Endangered Species Act of 1989. That Act is a very primitive form of conservation. Essentially, it states that if there are feral species that may be poached for trade, the best way to stop that poaching is to deprive those species of an economic value by making it hard to sell what has been poached. That may have been true in 1989, but today a far better way of making endangered species legislation or protection work would be to give some of those endangered species the kind of commercial value that would encourage people to reproduce them. If species are genuinely endangered, the very best thing that could happen to some of them would be that they would have enough commercial value for people to want to breed them—as, indeed, a couple of Czechs presumably did with the orchids they have just been pinching from our national parks. That is now quite feasible, because of advances in genetic technology. I am sorry if it horrifies the Green Party that anything from genetic technology may be helpful, but it could allow the protection of feral specimens, while identifying DNA-profiled strains of the same species in which it would be perfectly sensible to encourage trade.

I am sorry that the Government is willing to tidy up the Trade in Endangered Species Act by changing section references, inserting omitted words, and correcting a spelling error, but will not spend the legislative time to actually do something to help protected species, by taking advantage of modern technology. In other words, the Government should recognise that a DNA profile could now create an endangered species member that should be tradable, and we should encourage New Zealanders to profit from that. We should encourage the breeding of those species. Kiwi, in particular, may well come into that category, as, perhaps, could the orchids that have caused so much trouble to a couple of Czech academics recently. I know that the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) is not the place to remedy the foolishness of the Trade in Endangered Species Act, but there is an opportunity for the select committee, perhaps, when it looks at the bill to suggest that this kind of minor tidying-up and tinkering ought to be a trigger for the substantive scheme of the Act to be reviewed.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): I am pleased to signal United Future’s support for the first reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4).

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Government Administration Committee.

Bills

Civil Aviation Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport): I move, That the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I thank particularly the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the priority that it has given to this bill, and for the improvements it has made to the bill after its introduction. I also thank those who made submissions to the committee. The purpose of the bill is to enable New Zealand to implement the mutual recognition of aviation-related certification between Australia and New Zealand, in order to improve aircraft security, to update the Civil Aviation Act, and, finally, to consolidate civil aviation law. The select committee accepted that these were important objectives, and has made improvements to some clauses.

Many of the submitters were interested in the provisions of the bill relating to unruly passenger offences. A number of amendments have been made to those provisions, to improve the workability of the legislation. In particular, if an offence occurs on a foreign aircraft outside, but en route to, New Zealand, and the pilot in command feels that it requires action, the bill provides for that pilot in command to request action by the New Zealand enforcement authorities. Some submitters felt that the penalty levels for unruly passenger offences were too low. The select committee has, therefore, recommended changes to the penalties that more accurately reflect the seriousness of some of the offences.

The provisions relating to liability for delay were an area of contention for some in the aviation community. The bill transfers the liability provisions for passenger delay from the Carriage by Air Act. That means that if a passenger is delayed, the airline is presumed liable for the delay. Liability is capped at 10 times the fare paid for the journey or the total cost of the damage sustained, whichever is the lesser amount. The airline is not liable for damages for delay for events that are beyond the control of the airline; for example, natural disasters, weather and safety considerations, etc.

Some submitters expressed concern that the aviation sector is being treated differently from other transport modes in that regard. That is the case, but in the absence of satisfactory protection from generic consumer protection legislation, it is appropriate that consumers continue to have that existing right. There was some concern that the provisions regarding delay would apply to adventure operators. The select committee has, therefore, made minor changes to Part 9B, inserted by clause 32, in order to clarify that the bulk of adventure operators are not liable for delay.

Part 1A, inserted by clause 7, provides for the mutual recognition of aviation safety certification between Australia and New Zealand. Under mutual recognition, airlines wishing to operate in Australia will benefit from reduced compliance costs, as they will be able to operate under their New Zealand certification and will not have to obtain separate Australian certification. That means that airlines will no longer face the costs associated with dual certification, such as insurance, accident compensation, and compliance with differing requirements for airline operations.

A similar bill containing reciprocal provisions for Australian airlines has been introduced in the Australian Parliament, which will allow New Zealand airlines the same rights. The target for implementation of the mutual recognition provisions in Australia and New Zealand was 31 December 2003. However, the Australian legislation will not be debated until late in March. Therefore, I intend to table Supplementary Order Paper 180 to bring the mutual recognition provisions into force by Order in Council.

The Supplementary Order Paper will also do a number of other things. It will bring provisions relating to the Aviation Security Service into force the day after the date of assent, it will enable the Australian and New Zealand mutual recognition arrangements to be specified in regulations, and it will refine the provisions for unruly passengers by clarifying that the director of the Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for enforcement, requiring alleged offenders to give their details to enforcement authorities, and enhancing consistency with the Civil Aviation Act and the Summary Offences Act. It will also clarify that certain decisions relating to aviation medical certification are appealable to the district court.

One other matter that I had hoped to have included in the Supplementary Order Paper is the issue of search and rescue—the arrangements that control the National Rescue Coordination Centre. One party only has not approved that matter for introduction in the Supplementary Order Paper, and I would respectfully ask, for the sixth time, the National Party to reconsider that matter, in the hope that it can see fit to join every other party in the House and support that measure, which would greatly improve the provision of search and rescue coordination.

This is important legislation. It covers a variety of issues, and reinforces the Government’s commitment to improving aviation safety by extending the measures to deal with unruly passenger behaviour. It also encourages economic development by removing regulatory barriers to the development of the Australian and New Zealand single aviation market. I commend to this bill, as reported back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, to the House.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): Many times in transport debates I have come to the House fired up, brimming with anger, and ready to rip the Government—or the Labour Party, when it was in Opposition—to shreds. Today is not one of them. This is a pretty stock, standard bill that I think all members would like to see go through. It continues a long process whereby we have been trying to get our real targets into line—the Australians. That is where our opposition lies at this point—not in this Parliament, but across the pond. It has been very, very hard to get Australia to agree on what I think are quite common-sense regimes.

For example, we have always wanted New Zealand engineers and pilots who service Qantas planes in Auckland to be allowed to do similar work on Air New Zealand planes over there—on planes that are certified for use and domicile in New Zealand. There may be members who think that Australians are so different that their engineers, planes, and regime should not be the same as ours—again, I am not one of them. I am really disappointed that it has taken us—both the previous National Government, when I was a part of it, and the Labour Party while it has been in Government—so long to address that. I understand that even with regard to some of this stuff, we nearly had a bail-out from Australia on it. I say to the Australians, if they are listening—and they often listen to my speeches, because I often have a good smack at them—that we should be treating New Zealand and Australia as a single aviation market in toto.

It needs to be pointed out that these changes in the mutual recognition of aviation certification do not go all the way. They apply only to aeroplanes with certain seating capacity and of certain weight. I had better explain that for passenger operations, the changes apply to planes with a capacity of more than 30 passenger seats, or a maximum certificated take-off weight of more than 15,000 kilograms. For cargo operations, they apply to planes with a maximum certificated take-off weight of more than 15,000 kilograms, or a maximum payload of more than 3,410 kilograms. Why?

Harry Duynhoven looks at me in despair—I am sure it has been difficult for him. Why could we not recognise all planes? Why could we not recognise a New Zealand plane that weighed slightly less—with, say, 28 passengers on board? What is the difference between 28 and 30?

Hon Harry Duynhoven: It’s two.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I know that someone will tell me it is two; but we are quite good at maths, as well. Regarding the Australians, I simply do not understand why we could not have moved to full, open, mutual recognition at some time in the past. I am still getting counselling about some of the ways that the Australians behaved over the single aviation market and the open skies agreement. I still find their attitude to us condescending and disgraceful.

In the last half of this speech, I will address some of the provisions of the bill, and why I think that the National Party will support its passage through the House. First of all, there are a series of amendments about the definition and carriage of dangerous goods. As the world progresses, all sorts of things that we never knew were dangerous have been identified. For example, when I was growing up and at school, I did not know that fertiliser was a bomb. I did not know that we could blow the entire side off a massive skyscraper building with fertiliser. Now everybody knows that.

Peter Brown: You just told them.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Peter Brown obviously does not realise that there was quite a bit of publicity about the Oklahoma book depository and the fact that fertiliser was used as a bomb. If Peter Brown does not keep up with the news, then we should get him an Internet connection, so that he can.

Clayton Cosgrove: Where would you put it?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I say to Mr Cosgrove that I know where I would plug it, but we will not go there.

Hon Paul Swain: Would it be broadband?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: It would be broadband, all right. So, for members who are at all interested in this, there are products that were around 20 and 30 years ago that we thought were incredibly benign, and which are now clearly identified as being terribly dangerous. I would imagine that we will need to keep upgrading the lists and definitions of dangerous goods and spray cans that we probably thought were pretty ineffectual but that we now know could puncture a hole in the side of an airliner, and so on.

Some of the rest of the bill deals with the treatment of passengers who are behaving badly. I was lucky enough, before my parliamentary life, to work for an airline and to travel just about full-time on planes overseas. I was away a lot, and saw a number of examples. I remember seeing an Australian rugby team, flying out of London one night, and I would not have liked to be the cabin crew telling them to behave themselves, because those guys were absolutely three sheets to the wind, and their behaviour was—

Brent Catchpole: Been thrashed by the Poms, had they?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: No, from what I could understand—although it was impossible to tell quite what they were saying—they had actually won their matches. Never mind. There is some stuff in the bill with regard to penalties for offensive behaviour, etc., etc.

I experienced something on the plane that night that made me laugh. A number of the passengers became very worried, because one of the rugby players tried to open the door of the 747. He took hold of the big handle—he had had enough of the cabin crew being rude, and he wanted to get off. We were somewhere over France at the time, and it would have been an interesting departure. I have good news for members, in case they are at all interested in this absolutely trivial notion: one cannot open a plane’s door when a plane is in flight, because the door on a 747 opens inwards first, and then rotates to go back on out. Because of the pressurisation of a plane, even Charles Atlas is not strong enough to open the door on a plane when it is in flight. The doors do not open outwards. They open inwards firstly, and then outwards. So if in future one sees some idiot racing for the handle of a door, trying to open it, one should feel safe. That person will not be able to do it, no matter how many cornies and Wheaties he has had for breakfast.

The bill goes on, as I said, to deal with intoxicated people, and with demands that there is compliance with the pilot’s instructions. I think that is quite right. The pilot has every right to be in command while in flight. There is not the normal jurisdiction of police and all the other law enforcement agencies around. Again, on aeroplanes I have seen—I think on two occasions—individuals handcuffed by the crew because of behaviour, and so on. The cabin crew do take some pretty abusive stuff along the way.

I know there was a request for a provision by the airlines to remove their liabilities for being unable to carry people because of delays or not being on time, etc. I am pleased the select committee and the Government have not bowed to those requests, because I still think there are some obligations on airlines to make sure they carry passengers. I know for a fact—because I was involved in the design of some of the computer systems—that airlines have a very sophisticated overbooking regime. That is fine; it makes a lot of sense. The airline overbooks by so many people, knowing there will be a cancellation rate, and, hopefully, by the day of the flight the number of bookings is down to just about dead right. But it seems pretty unfair for consumers—consumers who have booked seats, paid for them, and travelled all the way to the airport, to find they cannot go on because the plane is overbooked and full—not to get some form of compensation .

There is some other stuff in the bill. I see that scenic flight operations and air ambulances will not be captured—whatever “captured” quite means. I guess the Minister can tell us about that. I am pleased that the bill complies with the Human Rights Act. I am not quite sure why we need to have civil aviation complying with that Act, but, nonetheless, people will sleep soundly in their beds at night knowing that it does.

There were some matters outside the bill, and I found one of those to be interesting. During the hearing of evidence we were very interested to learn that New Zealand does not have full membership of the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods, which currently has 25 full voting members. Quite frankly, I do not care. The way the United Nations functions these days, I think that it is probably a positive boon that we are not part of the operation, in terms of the bureaucracy and added cost that it makes—although I am sure that Mr Duynhoven will manage to sort it out and get us connected.

Overall, the National Party in Opposition will most certainly, in this case, be supporting the bill—just to reassure anybody out there in drive time who is listening, and who thinks that in Opposition all we do is to argue against things. We do not. We are constructive, we want to assist where we think things are of value, and we most certainly will be supporting this bill right through its passage through the House.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): United Future also supports this bill. I will be brief, because Maurice Williamson in his speech has probably just informed us all of everything we need to know. The bill is largely technical in nature, and therefore it is quite uncontroversial. It will, in effect, serve to enhance the safety and economic efficiency of airline travel within New Zealand. The bill gives legislative effect to the Australia - New Zealand Mutual Recognition Agreement. It will enable Australian airlines to operate in New Zealand under the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s certification and safety oversight, while a complementary measure will be passed in the Australian Parliament with regard to New Zealand’s airlines—or so we hope. That will serve to reduce regulatory barriers to aviation activity in Australia—

Hon Maurice Williamson: They will probably renege.

PAUL ADAMS: They will probably renege—and therefore will cut operating costs for New Zealand and Australian airlines, which I think everyone would welcome. So air travellers win, and the airline companies win. Both countries have similar and very robust safety regulating regimes, so this measure does not give rise to any safety concerns.

I think that sometimes we can take airline travel for granted, and it has been a very safe and stable means of travel. But as one who has travelled quite extensively on airlines, I can say that I have also been present when there have been seriously unruly passengers on board. With all of our concerns now about people who have incorrect motives for being on airlines—such as terrorists—I welcome these regulations that bring in restraints. The pilots in command must be able to control the passengers they have on their airlines. Just because we are so used to planes flying safely through the air, we forget they can also be lethal weapons.

Another part of this bill implements new security measures, and is in part a response to the increasing security concerns of airlines, passengers, and Governments in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The legislation allows for the prosecution of passengers who are unruly on New Zealand aircraft, or on other aircraft flying in New Zealand that come from outside New Zealand’s territory. Unruly actions are those—excluding actual hijacking—that may be considered dangerous, such as making threats, using insulting behaviour towards crew, interfering with the aircraft, operating cellphones when told not to, being blatantly drunk, swearing or being abusive, smoking, carrying dangerous goods, and not obeying seating or seat belt instructions. A series of strong penalties is also included.

This bill brings New Zealand’s aviation security laws into line with Australian, Canadian, and British law, and eliminates certain sovereignty-related complications that in the past have made prosecuting foreigners for offences outside New Zealand’s territory difficult. The safety of passengers on airlines travelling both within New Zealand and internationally should be the top priority, and United Future is satisfied that this Civil Aviation Amendment Bill goes a long way towards helping to ensure that. We also approve of the streamlining of provisions relating to liability for a delay in a domestic air service that is within the airline’s control, such as the delay or cancellation of a flight at the last minute, due to a lack of bookings. Airline customers pay enough for air travel without being subject to unwarranted delays and the extra costs those can bring with them, in terms of lost productivity or, simply, of stress. We commend this bill to the House.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I do not need to take my full 10-minute call on this bill, because it looks as though it is going to go through almost unanimously, if not unanimously. I think the bill is worthwhile, and has been a long time coming. The particular area that I am pleased to see addressed is the situation of unruly passengers. I have had the experience of flying on three planes with unruly passengers and, I have to say, it is not pleasant. Before the member says it—

Hon Maurice Williamson: The New Zealand First caucus?

PETER BROWN: I think he might have just beaten me to it—it was not my caucus fellows. Flying with unruly passengers is nerve-racking, if not scary, and I think the honourable Paul Adams has just referred to blatantly drunk people. I do not know whether the guy who comes to my mind was blatantly drunk or just high on drugs, but he was throwing his dinner around here, there, and everywhere. He was sitting next to a female passenger and it was very, very difficult for the aircrew to contain him. I was tempted to climb over a few seats to get at him, but I thought that might have made the job more difficult for the flight crew.

Another time, I was on a plane flying back from Greece. There was a full ship’s crew of us. I was a cadet officer in those times—and I was a well-behaved one, before Maurice Williamson tells me anything different—and one of the junior engineers got tanked up on a Greek plane with a Greek captain in charge. That guy locked himself in the toilet just over the top of Heathrow. The captain, first of all in English, appealed for him to come out, and then broke into rather choice language in Greek. We were trying to break down the toilet door to get the guy out, and he was going berserk by the time we got him out and laid him down. We were in the middle of the approach to Heathrow, and God knows what was outside.

So, I am very pleased that this bill will address the situation of unruly passengers. It does a good deal more, as I think my colleagues have explained, and New Zealand First will support the progress of this bill.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT): The ACT party is also supporting this Civil Aviation Amendment Bill. It is unfortunate that my colleague Rodney Hide is taking TVNZ to task at the moment, as I am sure he would otherwise have loved to come down here and talk about civil aviation. Unlike the National Party, we also support Supplementary Order Paper 180 because—

Peter Brown: Who didn’t?

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I was told that the National Party was not supporting the—

Hon Harry Duynhoven: The National Rescue Coordination Centre didn’t.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I want to talk about the National Rescue Coordination Centre for a minute, because the matter could have been introduced in separate legislation. I understand it is slightly unusual for it to be included in this Supplementary Order Paper, but I think it is important to say these things to show the people out there that we do not always fight and delay legislation in this House. If that matter were introduced in separate legislation, it would have considerably delayed the passing of legislation leading to greater coordination of our search and rescue centre.

That matter arose out of the tragedy in Oamaru where, I think, four or five men drowned. There were delays, and there was confusion because of funding mechanisms and the lack of coordination. The review said that if the things now outlined in the Supplementary Order Paper were done, the service would not be so dysfunctional in the future. I am pleased that has been able to be introduced, and is to be passed, in this Supplementary Order Paper.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: National won’t let that happen.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Surely there are sufficient numbers?

Hon Harry Duynhoven: No, it cannot be put in unless there is approval.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Oh.

Clayton Cosgrove: You’re on 1 percent.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I just wonder whether that member is naturally nasty, or whether he goes home and practises every night, because he obviously has not listened to a word that I have been saying. He should clean out his taringa.

The other area of this bill I would like to address is the part that covers offensive language and behaviour, and unruly passengers. We went over that issue when we were hearing submissions in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and we heard from members of the airline crew union. It is interesting to look at how the public perceives airline crew. They get a lot of unwarranted flak. They are perceived as trolley-dollies, lolly-lovers, and waitresses in the sky. In fact, they are responsible for the safety of all passengers, even when there is no emergency. It is true to say that most responsible passengers look to airline crew as the people who will be there when they need help.

Some of the behaviour that airline crew are required to put up—with the language and sexual harassment they are subjected to by passengers—is absolutely outrageous. I do not think it should be tolerated, and I was one of the people who recommended that the fines be increased for a breach of that clause. I am pleased to see that the maximum penalty is now $5,000, because I think there should be a deterrent to passengers behaving like that, when those people are paid to look after us and make sure we are safe.

The other area we amended was the exemption of intoxicated persons on the grounds of medication. We all have stories about intoxicated people on airplanes. They not only upset the other passengers, but make it a nightmare for the aircrew, who cannot throw them off the plane like they can be thrown out of a restaurant. The crew has to put up with them until the end of the flight, and so does everybody else. I thought that exempting an intoxicated person on the grounds of medication was too loose, as someone could come up with any sort of medication they were taking, or any sort of doctor’s certificate. That area has been tightened up to clarify the situation, so that the offence is excusable only if the person is intoxicated as a result of medication that has been prescribed in accordance with medical authorisation.

Hopefully, this bill will be passed and will provide an incentive for people to behave better on aeroplanes and treat the airline crew with more respect than they currently get. It is respect that they deserve. The ACT party supports this bill.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I recall that one of the first pieces of legislation I encountered in my time in Parliament was the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2), which was all about the certification of medical officers for pilots. I see my colleague the Hon Harry Duynhoven in the House. I think he chaired that select committee—brave man that he was—back in those days. The only way to describe the passage of that legislation was a complete nightmare. I hope the passage of this bill is much smoother. It has far less difficult, intricate requirements and definitions in it—something that caught the attention of the Transport and Industrial Relations committee over a very extended period.

I am disappointed that I was unable to hear the contribution of my colleague, the Hon Maurice Williamson, a former Minister of Transport and somebody who knows a great deal about these issues. My mind, unfortunately, was on other matters. Could I begin my contribution by saying that from the way I read the bill there are essentially three elements to it. First, the bill will enable Australian airlines to operate in New Zealand under Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia certification and safety oversight. I suspect that is probably a victory for common sense and open markets, as opposed to—perhaps I could venture to say—the closed shop of the Australian unions. Hopefully, it will enable the type of safety work that previously could not be carried out in New Zealand to be carried out now by our very highly qualified individuals. Any legislation that essentially enables the opening of the skies can only be good in the long run for the consumer. We on the Opposition side of the House have a longstanding and proud history of supporting any legislation that moves in that direction.

I see the other two branches to the bill involve making provision for dealing with unruly passengers, and I would like to spend a bit of time on that as we move through this bill. The other, of course, is to make provision for civil liability for delay in a domestic service. I suspect that that particular legal right—I am looking at Harry Duynhoven now—has always existed, and all this legislation is doing is reinforcing it. [Interruption] That would be my reading of the legislation. I thank Harry Duynhoven for his contribution there.

Let us go back, if we can, not to the issues around the mutual recognition that I know my colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson will have covered thoroughly, but to those around unruly passenger offences. When members of the public board a flight for a sporting event—particularly to Australia—it is not uncommon, from time to time, for unruly behaviour to occur. I think that this bill deals particularly with people who recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or persons on an aircraft—and that is important, because we do not want to take away from the ability of passengers to be able to enjoy the flight; we have the occupational safety and health legislation to do that for everything else in our lives.

Section 65F in new Part 5A, inserted by clause 24, is quite an important wee section, because there will be some debate, no doubt, about whether—this is probably why the wording is “recklessly” as opposed to “intentionally”—passengers are able to form the necessary intent in their own minds to act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or a person on an aircraft. The reason that "intentionally" has been taken out of the bill, I would suggest, and replaced with “recklessly or negligently” is so that there is no need for the organisation bringing the charge to have to prove intention on the part of the person looking to act in a way likely to endanger the aircraft or any person on the aircraft. Essentially, we are saying here that an offence—call it a strict-liability offence—in the sense that should the authority deem a person to have acted recklessly or negligently in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, that person is caught. That is it—he or she is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine not exceeding $5,000.

When we move past whether a passenger is able to form that intention, we can see that section 65I in new Part 5A deals directly with the issue of intoxication. It is worth spending just a fraction of time on this, because it is an important issue. Interestingly, I see it states: “Every person (except a person under medical care) commits an offence who (a) is intoxicated and boards an aircraft; or (b) becomes intoxicated on an aircraft.”

Now, it would be interesting to hear from a member of the Government as to who will judge that, and on what basis will it be judged. When we go to section 65I(3) members can see that a person is intoxicated if that person is under the influence of an intoxicating liquor—as opposed to non-intoxicating liquor, I suppose; I am not sure why “intoxicating liquor” is in there—or any other substance, to such an extent as to “be incapable of properly looking after himself or herself.”

That begs the question: if passengers are intoxicated, but the authority deems them to be capable of looking after themselves, how does the authority make a decision as to whether they are capable of looking after somebody else—for example, children who may be travelling with them? No doubt the officials have thought this through, but if such people are intoxicated enough to look only after themselves, but not to look after children or anybody under their supervision or care, are they caught by this provision? It seems to me that it is one thing to be intoxicated and be able to stumble through the flight, but what if the passenger is boarding with others—a disabled cousin, perhaps, under his or her care or supervision? What happens under the bill then? I think that is something that should be given a bit more thought.

Offensive behaviour and language are covered, and I think that is important. Interestingly, under section 65L in new Part 5A every person commits an offence who operates a portable electronic device on board an aircraft and is liable to a fine not exceeding $2,500. I presume that somewhere a portable electronic device is defined to include a cellular telephone. Am I right about that? I am—the officials are nodding. Also, we are not allowed to smoke on aeroplanes. That makes sense—we are not allowed to smoke anywhere else, so why would we be able to smoke on aeroplanes? I am surprised that there is not a “prohibition of fun” clause in this bill as well!

But let us just move on to the last part of the bill, which deals with liability issues and limitations of actions. Nobody who travels frequently by aircraft, whether domestically or internationally, has not had an occasion when his or her plans have been disrupted because of mechanical failure, allegedly, or a flight not making it because of bad weather. We often hear of the airport aviation outfit—

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Airways.

SIMON POWER: That is right, I thank Mr Duynhoven—which says they are down; it cannot tell whether or not an aircraft is in the air. It seems to me that we are looking at legislation that will provide a remedy, in a clear and straightforward way, to those people who have a claim for disruption against the airline. That seems to me to make perfect sense.

So that was a bit of wander through the legislation. Nevertheless, I think I have raised two or three issues that, hopefully, the House and the Government will take some notice of. The Government is not taking notice of much else at the moment, so hopefully it will take notice of me on that point. As my colleague Maurice Williamson has indicated, we will be continuing to support the passage of this legislation.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I rise to support this bill.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): This is very important legislation, and National will be supporting it. As members have just heard from the Hon Maurice Williamson, we have over the years viewed the civil aviation legislation as very important. The aviation industry is an integral part of our whole economy and of the way that we do business with overseas countries. The first stop when visitors come into New Zealand is usually an airport, and Auckland International Airport, in particular, is probably the gateway to New Zealand. In fact, I think that airport even has a sign stating that as one goes into the airport complex. That airport is not just an airport but is actually a whole industrial estate, where people arrive or depart.

When we talk about aviation as the means by which we transport goods and people into and out of New Zealand, it is very important to say that we must align ourselves with the other regimes that protect people and property, and make for safe passage. It is interesting to see in the commentary on the bill that it has really been Australia that has not supported the intentions that New Zealand has had for some time. We have asked why it should be, when we have New Zealand engineers, pilots, and flight crew flying Australian aircraft in New Zealand—as in the case of Qantas—that the same regime should not operate in Australia as operates here. Given the close proximity that we have with Australia, and given Closer Economic Relations and the other trade agreements associated with Australia, there should be one set of rules for civil aviation to affect the way that Australians and New Zealanders do business. It is important to carry that through in civil aviation, so when we debate this bill further after this reading we hope that will be allowed to happen.

I want to refer to the commentary on the bill, which, under the heading “Introduction”, states: “The bill aims to remove regulatory barriers to airlines operating under the air services arrangements with Australia by allowing progressive implementation of mutual recognition of aviation certification. This principle will initially be limited to air transport operations using aircraft of a certain seating capacity or weight.” We need to look at that, because this legislation does not apply to all aircraft. A footnote to the commentary states: “For passenger operations, a capacity of more than 30 passenger seats or a maximum certificated take-off weight of more than 15,000kg, and for cargo operations a maximum certificated take-off weight of more than 15,000kg or a maximum payload capacity of more than 3,410kg.” So the principle is actually limited to aircraft that fall into that category, and they are the bigger planes, as one would expect. It is important that we be part of that.

The bill does focus on two issues—it is a twofold bill. This first issue is to improve aviation safety by providing enhanced measures to deal with unruly passengers. I am sure that many of us have travelled on aircraft, and we have wondered how people can react in the way that they do—the language they use, and their behaviour. One often finds that the people concerned have had too much alcohol and once they have had too much alcohol, the abuse can become quite strident. I was on a flight that went from London through to Hong Kong, with a stop-over in New Delhi. I can tell members that the stop-over there relieved a lot of the pressure and the tension at the time. A number of young men on the flight had had far too much to drink, and they were an embarrassment not only to others but to themselves, as it turned out, and their language was absolutely atrocious. The airline staff could do absolutely nothing other than to deny them more alcohol. Such behaviour makes for a very uncomfortable journey when one is in the air for such a length of time. I cannot remember the exact length of time—it might have been 10 or 12 hours—but that certainly was not a flight that I would have wanted to go through again. We know that there are problems with the behaviour of some passengers. Even on smaller flights, where we take it that it may be the first time that some people have ever been on a flight, some passengers do not take other people’s reactions and safety into account, and they think that it is the best thing that can happen to them.

The second part of this bill clarifies what constitutes dangerous goods, and stipulates the level of fines for breaches of those provisions. As was mentioned by the Hon Maurice Williamson earlier on, compounds in fertiliser could actually bring a plane down. I know that if we were to mix hydraulic oil with the fuel in cigarette lighters—I am not a cigarette smoker, but—

Hon Harry Duynhoven: It is called butane.

LINDSAY TISCH: Mr Duynhoven knows all about this. I am not a chemist, either, so members may want to correct me if am wrong, but I understand that if we were to mix the components of cigarette lighter fuel with hydraulic fluids, then we would have combustion and it could bring down a plane. It is not only an issue of being able to bring a potential bomb onto the plane. Those sorts of things could be in one’s luggage, so an important part of the process is to be able to identify them. If members have been overseas in recent times, they will know about the scrutiny that the airlines demand, especially if people are flying to the United States, where officials are scanning and looking for dangerous goods. Any baggage on any flight going into the United States—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am in the middle of a very important debate and I am having difficulty in hearing myself think.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Would members please quieten down?

Simon Power: I offer my colleague my apologies. I was dealing with some procedural matters, and I yield to him to finish his contribution.

LINDSAY TISCH: It was such a great speech that I was having difficulty in hearing myself think. But this is a serious matter to debate, because the bill refers to endangering people’s lives and property. The point that I am making here is that one’s baggage could actually bring down one of the planes that I mentioned earlier—planes weighing over 15,000 kilograms—just by having those fluids in one’s possession. Even if those two fluids are in one’s luggage in the hold of the plane and not taken it on in person, if the two fluids were to mix when a plane is up in the air I understand there could be quite an explosion. Mr Duynhoven shakes his head, but I think I am actually right—

Hon Harry Duynhoven: It would be difficult to do. One would have to be on the wing.

LINDSAY TISCH: One never knows, with regard to those things. Regardless of whether I am right or wrong, it could happen. This bill changes that, and it is now an offence to bring dangerous goods on to an aircraft. That is mentioned in the commentary. That is a very important part of the process.

If members look at other clauses in the bill in relation to actions endangering the safety of aircraft, they will see that the fines are to be increased from $5,000 to $10,000. It is important that we make sure that the punishment fits the crime. In that case, it is a financial figure. If we look at offensive language and behaviour, we see that the increases in the level of the fines are important. Another important issue is referred to on page 6 of the commentary of the bill: the ability of aircrew to restrain unruly passengers. I understand that when planes are outside New Zealand airspace, the crew has not had the opportunity to be able to restrain people. Given the problems that aviation has had with regard to 9/11 and other terrorist activities around the world, the focus must be on the safety of passengers and aircraft. So the clause in relation to restraining unruly passengers is important.

National will support this bill. It is an important bill, and we want to see it pass through the House.

HELEN DUNCAN (Labour): I rise to speak in support of this bill. It is an excellent bill, and I commend it to the House.

MIKE WARD (Green): On listening to the submitters on this bill and to members in the House, one would get the feeling that flying is an exceedingly hazardous business!

The mutual recognition clause rang some warning bells in my head. I was thinking to myself that if we sign it, can we rely on the Australians to sign it, too? It comes into effect when the Australians have signed appropriate legislation to echo our own.

We discussed at some length whether civil aviation should be liable for delays. Other passenger services do not have to be, but it was thought that air passengers run the risk of having their flights cancelled, and of being put on a later flight, because there are not enough passengers. It seemed not at all unreasonable that if an airline chose to do that, it should meet the expense of accommodating the people so delayed.

The dangerous substances issue was dealt with at some length, and other speakers have spoken about it. We saw a video that showed that certain substances that on their own might be harmless could indeed be dangerous when combined with others. Although some of us would not know that we were taking those substances on board, there are some people who would deliberately smuggle them on board. Tradesmen, for example, who know that it would be too much fuss to get them on the plane in the official way might try to get them on board in their luggage. It is important that if people do that, they are subject to the penalties that go with it.

As for unruly passengers, I myself, having travelled back and forth, have not seen too many, but I believe they do exist. I imagine that unruly behaviour is more likely to happen on international flights. All that is served these days on the other flights is water, and it is pretty hard to get carried away on water, even if it is in a plastic container.

The Greens support the bill. It is one of those pieces of legislation that virtually everybody supports. All the submitters supported it, all the parties supported it, and we are supporting it.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 5.47 p.m.