Wednesday, 20 October 2004

Wednesday, 20 October 2004

Wednesday, 20 October 2004

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Speaker’s Rulings

Urgent Debates—Lodging of Applications

Mr SPEAKER: Last Thursday, after I had ruled on an application for an urgent debate, Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith raised a point of order about Speaker’s ruling 153/2. He pointed out that an application for a debate does not have to be lodged on the first sitting of the House after the event occurs in order to be considered. I thank the member for his point and acknowledge that he is correct. In this regard, applications for urgent debates differ from raising matters of privilege. A much stricter rule of raising a matter of privilege at the earliest opportunity obtains—see Standing Order 387. While not raising a matter at the first opportunity will considerably weaken the case for the Speaker to accept an urgent debate application, I will bear in mind the member’s comments that such an application should not automatically be rejected.

Points of Order

Urgent Debate, 19 October—Allegations by Acting Prime Minister

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It refers to Standing Orders 160 to 163, which set up a procedure by which a person outside the House who is attacked or adversely affected by statements made in the House can write to the Speaker and get a response put into the record of this Parliament. They are designed to provide for some response by private citizens after they are attacked in this House. I should make plain that what I am about to raise has nothing whatsoever to do with the breach of privilege matter I have raised against the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, which was with you, Mr Speaker, by 2 o’clock; it is entirely a separate matter. It is this. Yesterday in the House, in the urgent debate, the Acting Prime Minister, who is, indeed, the Minister of Revenue, had this to say about my friend, David Henderson. He called him one of the biggest and nastiest tax evaders in this country, and went on to say that he ran the sex industry in Christchurch, and therefore had avoided paying tax on that. Well, here is the problem: Mr Henderson is none of those things, and Dr Michael Cullen knows it—and we know that he knows it.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Ha!

RODNEY HIDE: Well, he can laugh. We know that Dr Michael Cullen knows it, because back in 1999 he likewise attacked Mr David Henderson for being a criminal, a multi-bankrupt, and a tax evader. The Minister shakes his head. He should be very careful. We know that he did that. Mr Henderson wrote to the then Speaker, the Hon Doug Kidd, on 27 August 1999. The Hon Doug Kidd took that procedure through to Dr Michael Cullen, who did not bother to provide any response or any authentication of what he had been saying. Indeed, the Hon Doug Kidd allowed Mr Henderson’s response denying it to be put into the parliamentary record. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that Mr David Henderson has had nothing to do with the sex industry, at all. I can also tell you that he has been audited only once in 15 years, and the upshot of that was that the Inland Revenue Department owed him $60,000. I also want to say this—

Mr SPEAKER: Would the member indicate what the point of order is.

RODNEY HIDE: The point of order is this: how is it possible for a Minister, who is, indeed, the Acting Prime Minister, to so flout Standing Orders 160 to 163, when it has been put about by the citizen concerned that what the member is saying is untrue? The member opposite, the Acting Prime Minister, provided no authentication back in 1999, and he cannot do so now.

I make one further point. Michael Cullen is the Minister of Revenue. If he starts going around attacking people just because they happen to be the friends of an MP—trying, in some sort of bizarre way, to protect John Tamihere—then stands up in this House as the Minister of Revenue and says that a person is the biggest and nastiest tax evader in the country, what chance has a private citizen got of having a fair hearing from the tax department? I can tell Dr Michael Cullen that that department does not have anything on David Henderson.

Mr SPEAKER: There is no real point of order raised, at all. That is just a political point being made by the member. The fact that a person has tabled a response does not mean that members have to accept the response and agree to it. It is up to members whether they, in turn, comment on the response. When a response is accepted for tabling, no judgment is made on the truth of the response—see Standing Order 161(3). We have the right of free speech in this Chamber while proceedings are in operation.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I want a point of order this time, please. The last was not a point of order.

RODNEY HIDE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that Standing Orders 160 to 163, which were formerly Nos 161 to 164, set out to provide a procedure parallel to what happens when a member is attacked in such a way. A member has an opportunity to stand up and make a personal explanation, and that member’s word is to be accepted when that personal explanation is made. Are you saying, Mr Speaker, that when a private citizen is attacked likewise, and goes to the trouble of responding—the member making the claim, who happens to be the Minister of Revenue and the Acting Prime Minister, has no facts to back it up—that private person’s word is not accepted, and, instead, we have to allow Dr Michael Cullen to attack someone simply because that person is an MP’s friend?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Mr Speaker, if you look at Standing Order 160, which concerns something we recently allowed to happen in this Parliament, and if you have regard to the previous speaker’s comments, you will see that there is no requirement for a member of Parliament to accept a response to the House in the way that that member says. I will give my reason for saying that, and the reason why it is wise not to accept it. You will recall that Fay Richwhite had a long explanation submitted to this Parliament—with the support of many of my colleagues, I might add—and it was not worth the paper it was written on, as was proven by the wine-box inquiry.

Mr SPEAKER: All I can say is that in this House there is the right of free speech during proceedings. It is one of the things that I, as a newly elected Speaker, go to the Governor-General to ask for. Members have that right. A member’s word must be accepted, but not a response from outside the House.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: We have not yet had one today.

RODNEY HIDE: Through you, Mr Speaker, I invite the Acting Prime Minister to say outside the House what he said here. I know that he will not.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now trifling with the Chair. If he raises another frivolous point of order, he will be leaving the Chamber.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Secondary School Teachers—Recruitment

1. HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to recruit secondary teachers in subject shortage areas?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): A new $18.8 million teaching scholarship scheme will pay for people who are training to be secondary teachers and studying towards degree programmes in the areas of te reo Māori, maths, physics, chemistry, and technology—all areas where there are shortages of qualified teachers. These scholarships will be worth more than $20,000 to some students, and will meet the study fees for a 3-year degree and a year of teacher education. In return, recipients will be bonded and expected to teach for the same number of years for which they receive the scholarship.

Helen Duncan: What other initiatives has the Government put in place to help recruit secondary teachers during this period of worldwide shortage?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Other initiatives include secondary subject training allowances, worth up to $10,000 and available to graduates and near-graduates who will be teachers in biology, chemistry, computing, English, maths, physics, te reo Māori, and technology, and there are national and international relocation grants, student loan support for teachers in certain subjects, and funding for retraining.

Hon Bill English: Why has the Minister excluded several thousand students who are training to teach at privately owned institutions from his scholarship scheme?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is my understanding that there are only two areas where people are training. One is at the Christchurch graduate college and the other is at Bethlehem, and both are eligible for this scheme.

Bernie Ogilvy: If scholarship recipients do not fulfil the bonding requirements and are required to repay the loan in a similar manner to student loans, will they also be charged comparable interest on the outstanding amount; if not, are they not effectively getting an interest-free student loan?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The answers are yes and, therefore, irrelevant.

Member for Tamaki Makaurau—Ministerial Future

2. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: What did the Acting Prime Minister mean by reported comments that Mr Tamihere’s ministerial future would be a “political decision”, and does that mean the Prime Minister may make a decision prior to receiving a report from Douglas White QC?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): The report the member relies upon misquotes me. However, questions around Mr Tamihere’s future will, in the end, be political decisions, following the report of Douglas White QC.

Dr Don Brash: Why can the Prime Minister decide that Lianne Dalziel should pack her bags within 48 hours of misleading the public, yet she cannot decide that Mr Tamihere should resign for misleading the public over a vastly more important matter—one involving monetary benefit to him—and can the Prime Minister explain why her Government persists with two different standards for Ministers?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I reject the insinuation that was made in the latter comment; it is not worthy of the member to keep repeating that statement. In relation to my colleague Lianne Dalziel, the issue revolved around one word and a comma, I think it is fair to summarise. The issues around Mr Tamihere are very complex, and I note, indeed, that members opposite are retreating from most of the accusations around illegal or improper behaviour.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why were Ruth Dyson and Marian Hobbs restored to their full ministerial positions, yet after a full inquiry, which found no blame whatsoever, Dover Samuels was not; and how does the Acting Prime Minister square that with his comments?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Mr Samuels has been restored to ministerial status, and is a full and active part of the Government, and I work very well with him.

Rodney Hide: Will the Prime Minister rule out sacking John Tamihere before Douglas White QC concludes his inquiry?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Like the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders, the Government believes that the evidence should be properly considered. [Interruption] The member will find out tonight that he is in a very small minority on that issue. The overwhelming majority of New Zealanders believe that Mr Tamihere’s case should be heard carefully and considered carefully before a decision is arrived at. That is the purpose of the inquiry by Mr Douglas White QC.

Dr Don Brash: Can the Prime Minister confirm that under her administration it is not wrongdoing that determines a Minister’s future but, rather, the level of political embarrassment to the Prime Minister; and does her lack of action in this case mean that she is simply waiting for her focus group reports and media clippings before deciding what is right and what is wrong?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, but I invite the member to look immediately to his right, at a person who committed assault, and, next door, at somebody who was found guilty of contempt.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to the comment from the Acting Prime Minister, which you seemed to think was perfectly acceptable in Parliament—despite personal explanations having been made, and despite it being against your own ruling—let me make it very clear to the House that I was never paid for my actions.

Mr SPEAKER: That is irrelevant and is not—[Interruption] My patience has gone. That is not a point of order. The member is skating on very thin ice with regard to his staying in this House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On what date did the Prime Minister learn of John Tamihere’s golden handshake, if it was not in Parliament on 27 July 1999, or soon thereafter?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a primary question, question No. 10, which asks when the Prime Minister first learnt about the golden handshake. I am quite happy to answer the question, as long as it is appropriate for me to do so at this point, thereby pre-empting the question that is set down on the Order Paper for later.

Mr SPEAKER: Mr Peters is asking the question.

Hon Bill English: Just answer it.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am happy to answer it, but I was giving Mr Hide the chance to ask it first, as he wrote it. As far as I am aware, the first time the Prime Minister heard of this payment was when allegations were reported last week.

Rodney Hide: There you go, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: The question has not started. Please ask the question.

Rodney Hide: So that is the rule now?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and it always has been.

Rodney Hide: In light of the Acting Prime Minister’s commitment to hearing the evidence, will he now rule out sacking John Tamihere before the Douglas White QC report is finished?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member has evidence, and wishes to support a further allegation with evidence that might bear upon the question he has just asked, I invite him to bring it forward. But so far the evidence produced by that member has not exactly been very solid.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order, Mr Brownlee?

Gerry Brownlee: Yes, it is.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Gerry Brownlee: The point of order is about the quality of the answer and whether the Minister addressed the question that was asked of him. He was asked whether he would rule out Mr Tamihere being removed from his ministerial post prior to the completion of the report from Douglas White QC, and he answered in a completely spurious way by talking about his view that there was not enough evidence to sack Mr Tamihere.

Mr SPEAKER: I would like the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to answer.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen nothing so far to suggest that anything should be done other than follow a proper process—which I know the member does not like—of allegations first, then evidence, then response to the evidence, then consideration of the evidence, then a conclusion, and then a determination of consequential action.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the answer to my last question the following: that despite the allegation being made on 27 July 1999, and the fact that John Tamihere was a candidate, the Prime Minister at no time made any inquiry—then or later—as to whether the allegation was true; or is it that John Tamihere gave her an assurance that it was not true, and last week she found out that that assurance was false?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the member is getting a little confused about the chronology—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I’m not.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, he is. The original offer came from the trust in May 1999, and was declined by Mr Tamihere at that point. The renewed offer occurred much later than that. There was nothing in July 1999, at all.

Rodney Hide: Has the Prime Minister seen Mr John Tamihere’s speech of 24 March 2004 where he said: “… we need to make sure that we adhere to the highest standards. We must lift our own standards, conduct and ethics to ensure that we are beyond reproach.”, and does he think it acceptable that Mr John Tamihere should be on full ministerial pay and perks with no ministerial responsibilities, and hiding out in Henderson, rather than his coming down to Parliament?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said before, it is perfectly appropriate for the evidence to be considered properly before a conclusion is arrived at. It is more appropriate that Mr Tamihere is in Henderson than it is for that member to keep covering up for Mr Henderson.

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question—[Interruption] I will not be shouted at by Mr Brownlee. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the last part of that remark should be withdrawn.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I withdraw. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to make it clear that Mr Henderson is involved in the sex industry in Christchurch, and had a long record of dispute with the Inland Revenue Department, before I became Minister, over matters of taxation payments.

Mr SPEAKER: As with other comments made this afternoon, that was not a point of order.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hesitate to say so, but my question asked whether the Prime Minister had seen that speech. That was not addressed. I also asked the Acting Prime Minister about that member being on full ministerial pay with perks, with no ministerial responsibilities, and hiding out in Henderson. Neither of those two questions was responded to.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the second part. He did not address the first part. He is not obliged to address every part.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Prime Minister why she, through her Acting Prime Minister, is disputing the chronology of events, when the fact is that at the Taipā meeting in April the $50,000 offer was made, which John Tamihere rejected, and that a later, late May 1999, offer included the $280,000 offer, which John Tamihere accepted; why is he disputing that fact when it is part of the minutes of that organisation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister John Tamihere did not accept the offer that was made in May 1999, although, of course, that was the original date that the offer was made. It was renewed much later, and then accepted.

Gerry Brownlee: If the Acting Prime Minister is going to stick with the view that Mr Tamihere did not take the payment in 1999, but, rather, accepted it at a much later date, does he still stick by his statement yesterday that the income would be taxed in the year in which it was derived, and does that not mean that Mr Tamihere is up for the 39c rate rather than the 33c rate?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, because the date of derivation of income is the date at which the offer was made. The member could be receiving income today that derived from the 1999-2000 tax year. I suggest he get a tax adviser on these matters.

Regional Development—Assistance

3. Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) to the Minister for Industry and Regional Development: What recent announcements has he made that indicate further Government assistance to aid regional economic development?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Industry and Regional Development): Last Thursday I launched a major regional development initiative for the Eastern Bay of Plenty, the National Centre of Maintenance Engineering Excellence. It is supported by $2 million from the Regional Partnerships Programme. That initiative will lift skill levels and address the major shortage of maintenance staff both in the region and nationally, and is an essential element in removing barriers to economic development. The latest growth figures for June 2004—the annual average figures—for the Bay of Plenty, an area known well to some members on the Opposition side of the House, show 5.3 percent GDP growth, compared with the June 1999 figure of 0.5 percent under the previous National-led Government. That is a tenfold increase in growth performance.

Hon Matt Robson: What are the benefits for the regions from such regional development programmes?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: For the Eastern Bay of Plenty engineering training initiative, the economic impact on GDP in the region is estimated at $14 million per year. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research estimates that over 12 years, the value of the project to the New Zealand economy will be $1.3 billion.

Moana Mackey: How many major regional development programmes are currently under way?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: So far there have been 14 major regional initiatives launched in New Zealand, with a further 13 in the immediate pipeline. Three regions are well on the way to having, or have had, their second major regional initiative approved. The end result, of course, is that we have a national growth rate of 4.3 percent. Compared with the same time under the National-led Government, when the rate was 1.5 percent, that is a 187 percent increase in the performance of New Zealand.

Member for Tamaki Makaurau—Integrity

4. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: What did he have in mind when he stated that: “There’s always those possibilities” in response to an interviewer’s question asking whether it was possible that the Hon John Tamihere had done some things “that are not so honest”?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): I meant that allegations made against my colleague need investigation to see whether there is truth in them.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister seen the statement of Mr Eynon Delamere that the payment made to John Tamihere was not a golden handshake but “for some things we wanted him to achieve in Parliament”, thereby suggesting that as Associate Minister of Māori Affairs, he had a private arrangement with the Waipareira Trust to procure a more generous treaty fisheries settlement for that organisation in return for a payment of a cash bonus; if so, would the Minister accept that arrangement as being totally proper?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I did see the press release and I did see the retraction.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to look at the last part of that question. What is it to do with the Minister of Māori Affairs’ responsibility whether a payment made to another Minister, supposedly for a certain purpose and later corrected in a press statement, was proper? Yes, one can ask for the Minister’s opinion, but it must be related to his responsibility.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did answer the question yesterday and that is why I have allowed it today. The Hon Parekura Horomia can comment.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I did see the press release, and I also read his retraction.

Rodney Hide: Does the Minister stand by his answer yesterday that it is not acceptable for a Government-funded Māori trust, like the Waipareira Trust, to finance a Labour Party political campaign; and does he think it acceptable for one of his Ministers or colleagues to accept money from a Māori trust for a Labour Party political campaign?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Yes and no.

Gerry Brownlee: To the Minister’s knowledge, did his Associate Minister have direct influence on the increase from $10 million to $25 million for the development pūtea from the 2004 Māori fisheries settlement, of which the Waipareira Trust will receive up to $5 million, and was that what the trust “wanted him to achieve in Parliament” and why it paid him at least $195,000?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That member was not the Minister responsible for the fishing deal, and I do not understand the latter part of his question.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave of the House to explain to the Minister what the question was about.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member can just repeat the last part of his question.

Gerry Brownlee: Did Mr Tamihere directly influence the increase from $10 million to $25 million for the development pūtea from the 2004 Māori fisheries legislation, of which the Waipareira Trust will receive up to $5 million, and could that be why the trust paid him $195,000 to come to Parliament?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was the Minister on the select committee the day the former lawyer for the Waipareira Trust alleged that there were 32 forged cheques involved in respect of that trust, and is that what he means by “There’s always those possibilities”; if not, what was he referring to?

Mr SPEAKER: All I can say is that the member can be asked questions about his responsibility as a Minister. Whether he was on a select committee is not really pertinent to this particular point. If the Minister wants to comment, he can.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He has said: “There’s always those possibilities”. That is why this question is correctly in this House, because we want to know what he meant by that, having regard to the primary question he was asked by the media. I am saying that here is an example where he was there as Minister, and is that one of the possibilities he was referring to?

Mr SPEAKER: If he was there as Minister he certainly can answer that question.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I was not on the select committee. For the member’s benefit this question was preceded by my saying that John means well and he has done a whole lot of honest things. The full question—[Interruption]—from the interviewer, and this is for that member too, was: “But if he’s done a whole lot of honest things, is it possible that he has done some that are not so honest?”. My full response was this: “There’s always those possibilities, Linda, but you know, certainly to be fair to myself and other colleagues in here, it’s really important that we go through due process and that is beginning today.”

Rodney Hide: Given that the Minister is defending his colleague John Tamihere by saying: “I think that he has done many honest things,” is the Minister aware of some dishonest things that John Tamihere has done—in particular, pleading guilty to two counts of forgery and uttering, to obtain $160,000 out of Housing New Zealand?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: No, I am unashamed in supporting my colleague John Tamihere, just like that member supported Donna Awatere when she was in—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I do not know what the member is on his feet for. I presume he wants a supplementary question. He may have one if he calls properly.

Rodney Hide: I was actually doing a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member did not. The member made irrelevant comments that had nothing to do with it. This had better be a point of order. This is the member’s opportunity to make one.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question on the point of order was this: was the answer no, because he did not think that he was doing anything dishonest?

Mr SPEAKER: No. The Minister addressed the question.

Gerry Brownlee: If the Minister is going to stick to the position that Mr Tamihere was not involved in increasing the pūtea from $10 million to $25 million, how does he explain a memo from his Associate Minister to the Minister of Fisheries stating that giving effect to a bigger settlement for urban Māori, which includes the Waipareira Trust, was the purpose of his election; and does he now think that an increased amount from the larger pūtea, some $5 million, was why the Waipareira Trust paid Mr Tamihere $195,000?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That supplementary question does not flow from the previous answer the Minister gave. The Minister gave an answer to the first part of the previous question that the Associate Minister was not responsible for the fisheries matter. He answered a blanket “No” to the second half when he was asked to answer the second half of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I would like the member just to restate the question so I can hear it.

Gerry Brownlee: Just so we are very clear—

Mr SPEAKER: No. I want to hear the question.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I am on a point of order at the moment.

Gerry Brownlee: May I speak to it?

Mr SPEAKER: The member may speak to it.

Gerry Brownlee: Dr Cullen said that the Minister answered the second part of my question. The reality is that when you suggested that I could make an explanation to Mr Horomia I simply reread the question, and he did say that Mr Tamihere was not involved in the increase from $10 million to $25 million. The Hansard record will show that very clearly. This second question follows on from that.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: What the member forgot to tell you, Mr Speaker, is what you said to him previously, which was that the Minister should answer the second half of the question, and that is what the Minister proceeded to do.

Mr SPEAKER: He did.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The second half of the question asked whether Mr Tamihere had been involved in increasing the pūtea from the Māori fisheries settlement from $10 million to $25 million, and the Minister said “No.” Surely I am entitled to ask a question when I know that that is not the case.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He has not answered my question.

Mr SPEAKER: The supplementary question that the member originally asked was in order and the Minister may answer it. If the member can repeat it, I ask him to do so.

Gerry Brownlee: If the Minister is going to stick by his view that Mr Tamihere did not influence the increase from $10 million to $25 million in the pūtea as part of a Māori fisheries settlement, of which the Waipareira Trust will receive up to $5 million, how does he explain a memo from his Associate Minister to the Minister of Fisheries, stating that increasing that amount was the purpose for which he was elected to Parliament, and is that, in his opinion, perhaps the reason why the Waipareira Trust paid him $195,000 to come here?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: In reply to the first part of the member’s question, Mr Tamihere did not have that influence directly. In relation to the second part, it is well known that John Tamihere has a long history of pushing urban issues and speaking up for them—the same as a whole lot of other members in this House. He is a good member representing his constituents’ needs.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which other Māori MP in the Government coalition has had nearly as much effect in attempting to introduce what some call “post-box tribalism”—that is, an urban authority, regardless of where one was originally born or one’s family—which is surely underscored by the letter that the deputy leader of the National Party recited; so how can the Minister reconcile what he has just said with the facts?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I recall a time back when Mr Tamihere was challenging traditional leadership. He has moved through and he is consistent with that. I am quite comfortable in reconciling what I said to that member opposite.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek the leave of the House to table the memo from the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs, John Tamihere, to the Minister of Fisheries, the Hon Pete Hodgson, in which he states that he was elected to Parliament to effectively increase the amount of payment to urban Māori.

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

School Leavers—Age Exemptions

5. BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) to the Minister of Education: How does he explain the 37 percent increase in the number of students who have been granted exemptions to leave school before they reach the statutory leaving age, from 2,802 in 1999 to 3,842 last year?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): The numbers have risen in a consistent manner since the increase in the school leaving age in 1993.

Bernie Ogilvy: Does the Minister of Education continue to believe that “Many of the students being granted exemptions are truants.” and that by agreeing to exemptions the Government is basically relieving itself of any responsibility for those young people, as he stated in a press release in 1997 when the number of exemptions was 2,024?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, I am concerned that young people are leaving school early. I think the matter is slightly more complicated now, with—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s got worse. You’ve been caught out.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is slightly more complicated now because of the lower unemployment rates and the fact that so many of those people are moving into apprenticeships and jobs. I know that Nick Smith hates young people to get jobs, because he tried to stop them. I am concerned about this matter, and that is why the Government has introduced a student engagement initiative worth $8.6 million over 4 years. It is designed to see which of those young people can stay for longer at school.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I had hoped you might move to indicate to the Minister that that particular address to the question was inappropriate. I know that you do tolerate a degree of latitude when it comes to answers—and, for that matter, questions—but to make a statement as he did about the Hon Nick Smith, who has considerable commitment to young people in this country, I think is totally unacceptable.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, if the member had not interjected by making that comment I most certainly would have interrupted. But he made a comment. An interjection can be replied to.

Hon Bill English: Why does the Minister just not admit that he has changed his mind about the statements he made in Opposition, and why does he not also admit that his 42 different initiatives for young people at risk all appear to have failed as the rate of truancy grows, the rate of suspensions grows, and the rate of exemptions grows?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: If the member was right, I might agree with him. He is wrong.

Metiria Turei: How many students have applied for exemptions because their school unlawfully asked them to leave, such as the exceptional student in Whangarei whose haircut offended the principal, and when will the Minister finally put in place a transparent, accessible legal process for families to contest those unlawful decisions by schools?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There are some unfortunate cases where schools react inappropriately to students. As a result of that this Government put considerable extra funding into the Office of the Commissioner for Children so that it could advocate for those young people. We do have clear, transparent processes—they are called courts.

Bernie Ogilvy: Is the Minister confident that the exemptions process is robust, when although students who leave school must have a course or job lined up, a secondary principal from his own electorate claims that the students often quit soon afterwards, leading them into crime and drugs, with little or no follow-up from the Ministry of Education; if so, why?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: If the school, the employer, or the course provider has information that that is happening, it has an obligation to inform the ministry. I read Rob Mill’s comments in the paper this morning, and I will be checking to see which cases he has taken up with the Ministry of Education.

Bernie Ogilvy: Does the Minister then stand by the claim by the Ministry of Education’s support manager, Murray Williams, that 99 percent of students granted early leave exemptions were successful and went on to good careers; if so, whom should we believe: the school principal or the Minister’s officials, who have been accused by the former of not keeping in touch with the students?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I repeat my comments that if people—schools, employers, or training providers—have specific examples of cases where kids are not attending as per the requirements, then they should report them to the ministry. I will check to see whether that is happening. Having said that, I think that the reported comments of 99 percent being successful may be a little optimistic.

Bernie Ogilvy: How many exemptions does the Minister believe are granted to students who are found by schools to be increasingly difficult to control, and given recent publicity criticising schools for excluding students with such behavioural problems, what is he doing to ensure that parents take more responsibility for their child’s behaviour, rather than playing the victim and blaming the school?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think at some stage we are going to have to face facts. A number of years ago there was a decision taken to raise the school leaving age from 15 to 16. Some 15-year-olds are better off in a job and in getting training with that job, as in an apprenticeship. I think, for those kids, the exemption should be used.

Cellphones—Cost Comparisons, Australia

6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Communications: What explanation can he give for the Commerce Commission reporting that cellphone users in New Zealand are paying twice what is charged in Australia?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Communications), on behalf of the Minister of Communications: The Commerce Commission has not said that cellphone users pay twice what is charged in Australia, but it has said that there are some pricing issues that need to be addressed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Referring the Minister to the Commerce Commission report, is it not a fact that the reason the Minister has done nothing to prevent Telecom’s dominance and monopoly of telecommunications in New Zealand, enabling it to make huge profits at the expense of New Zealanders, is that Telecom has made generous donations to the Labour Party—and what does one call that?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I would observe that the company the member has mentioned does not hold a dominant position in the mobile services market, which was the subject of his initial question.

Russell Fairbrother: What process will be followed, now that the Commerce Commission has issued its draft report?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The commission’s draft recommendation is that the wholesale price of mobile termination be regulated, that the initial pricing principle be benchmarking, and that the final pricing principle be efficient cost-based. The commission is now following a public consultation process, following which it plans to make a final report on the matter to the Minister of Communications in the new year. The Minister can then accept the report, reject the report, or send it back for further work.

Methamphetamine—Laboratories

7. MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) to the Minister for Crown Research Institutes: What progress has been made in reducing the backlog in the scientific investigation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Crown Research Institutes): Excellent progress. The backlog has been effectively halved since January, down from around 180 cases, to around 90 today.

Mark Peck: What factors have influenced the reduction in times in getting things done through the methamphetamine laboratories?

Hon PETE HODGSON: All sorts of factors. New scientists have been hired, there is new equipment and increased funding, and there are new internal working practices with the police and the courts, which is why, if current trends continue, we expect to be down to a normal caseload by July next year.

Nandor Tanczos: Does the Minister agree with the decision by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research to give priority to urine-testing workers for weekend drug use, such as its recent attempts to sell urine testing to the hospitality industry, and how does that impact on its ability to do real work, such as investigating methamphetamine laboratories?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I regret I do not have an answer for the member’s question, but would be happy to supply him with one if he would like to put it down as a written question.

Police—Taxis

8. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) to the Minister of Police: Do the police despatch taxis in response to 111 calls; if so, in what circumstances?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): I am advised that when a 111 call is received, a decision is made as to whether it requires a police response. If a police response is not required, police will often work with the caller to provide appropriate assistance.

Hon Tony Ryall: What reports has the Minister asked for on the recent Pīhā 111 matter, and in the meantime what action has he taken, or does he intend to take, in light of the public concerns on this matter and the police inquiry?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The Commissioner of Police advised me that the initial response was inappropriate. The police should have sent a patrol. Judgment exercised by some staff is to be the subject of disciplinary action. Later today a news conference will take place, outlining the details of a police response and disciplinary issues.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why did the police decide to send a taxi instead of a patrol car in the Pīhā 111 matter?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I am informed that there were patrol cars there, and that it is not a resource issue. In the news conference later this afternoon those matters will be canvassed, but I am not getting involved in police disciplinary matters.

Ron Mark: Is it Government policy to have traffic units deployed on revenue-gathering duties and ignoring police dispatchers’ request for units to respond to priority one calls whilst their overstretched general-duties and I cars bust their gut to respond not only to those calls but to traffic accidents that the traffic patrol units refuse to attend? If it is not Government policy, what will he, the Minister, do to redress this ridiculous situation?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: In the Pīhā case, there were vehicles and patrols available to attend it, and that member ought to come up with specifics rather than generalisations that are not correct.

Hon Tony Ryall: Do women in distress need to be screaming before police will come to protect them rather than send a taxi?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The police actually act on information they have. They make judgment calls. This time they made a very poor judgment call.

Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board—Resource Management(Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Act

9. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Is she satisfied that in appointing the Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board she has achieved a balance of knowledge, skills, and experience across all matters required in section 8(2) of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Act 2004?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): Yes.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why do none of the five board members claim in their CVs any specialist knowledge, skills, or experience in the ecology of braided rivers, as required in section 8(2)(b), yet they do have backgrounds in hydo generation and irrigation; and how does this lack of balance conform with the Act?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I am satisfied that each of the members has the relevant knowledge, skills, and experience that make the board, as a whole, well-equipped to undertake the tasks it has been appointed to do. The board has on it members who have helped develop guidelines for assessing what river flows are required to sustain ecological values and how to monitor rivers for effects of ecological values.

Larry Baldock: Has the Minister seen any reports on how the Waitaki community and interest groups have received the announcement of the Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board; if so, what did they have to say?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Yes, I have seen reports in the newspapers, from Fish and Game, which was generally respectful of the balance on the board in the North Otago community; also, I think, from the chair or a senior person in the Aoraki Water Trust, who also thought that it was a good, balanced board.

David Parker: If the Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board requires more information about river ecology, is there provision for it to seek that information?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Yes, there is. The board can ask for specialist information and advice regarding any other matter that comes before it. I also have the ability to supply information to the board that might assist it.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why do none of the members claim in their CVs any local knowledge of the Waitaki catchment, as required in section 8(2)(c), and how, under the Resource Management Act, can she replace local councils with a Government-appointed board without the local knowledge that her Act requires?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I have just had an email from a project manager of the Ministry for the Environment that talks about the board’s initial meeting on 30 September, and board members had a familiarisation tour this week on 18 and 19 October. I can report that the board has demonstrated that it has a good understanding among its members of the matters that will come before it, and a capability and appetite to deal with them. That includes a sound understanding of the catchment and its issues. It names three people: Nick Brown, Claire Mulcock, and Edward Ellison, in particular, who demonstrated their knowledge of the area.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: In replying to my written question on the matter, why was the Minister unable to give me any specific knowledge, or expertise, or skills relating to the Waitaki catchment or river ecology, other than the generalist knowledge one has from sitting on decision-making boards?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I gave the straight biographical information that had been handed to me. If the member likes, I have some further information. Sheila Watson developed the methodology for the Ministry for the Environment’s flow guidelines for in-stream values, which provide a way of establishing objectively the flows needed to sustain ecological and recreational values.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister may give only one more example.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Claire Mulcock, who was a member of the Rangitata Water Conservation Order tribunal, was a team member developing an ecology-based tool, a stream-health monitoring kit, for rural communities.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board a precedent for the non-local decision-making processes proposed in the next Resource Management Act amendment bill; if so, how is that override of both the environment and the local community consistent with the purpose of the Resource Management Act?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: No, it is not a precedent.

Member for Tamaki Makaurau—Waipareira Trust

10. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: When did she first learn that the Hon John Tamihere had received a “golden handshake” from the Waipareira Trust, and when would she have expected him to have informed her of the $195,000 payment?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): As far as I am aware, the first the Prime Minister heard of this payment was when allegations were reported last week. It is for Ministers to determine what information they pass on about matters outside their direct portfolio responsibilities.

Rodney Hide: In light of the Minister’s responsibility to decide what to inform the Prime Minister about, in terms of the register of Ministers’ interests and assets, which all Cabinet Ministers fill out, listing directorships, payments, gifts, and assets, does Mr Tamihere’s statement in this year’s register—a nil return—mean that he had no outside income, assets, or gifts, or that he failed to provide a return?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have no information to hand on that, but for the relevant period in relation to the vehicle, that would certainly be a matter to be looked at, in terms of the inquiry. I am sure that if that matter wants to extend further, that can be done.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did John Tamihere give the Prime Minister an assurance after 27 July 1999 that he had not taken and would not take a golden handshake; and, bearing in mind her campaign theme of 1999 about golden handshakes, how does she feel about all of that now?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The campaign around golden handshakes concerned the vast amounts of money paid to people whom other people wanted to get rid of because they were not doing their jobs properly. Nobody has yet demonstrated in any shape or form that any of the payments to Mr Tamihere fell into that category.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just so that the Minister is focused on what the question really was, I will repeat what I asked him: did John Tamihere give the Prime Minister an assurance after 27 July 1999 that he had not taken and would not take a golden handshake—yes or no?

Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is my point of order; he never answered the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I thought he addressed the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No. I asked him: did the Prime Minister receive an assurance from John Tamihere that he had not, and would not, take a golden handshake, after the first time that it was raised in Parliament, in 1999?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I questioned the definition of a golden handshake. That is addressing the question.

Gerry Brownlee: If, as the Acting Prime Minister suggests, John Tamihere was not paid a golden handshake to get rid of him, does he now believe that Mr Eynon Delamare was right when he said that the Waipareira Trust paid him $195,000-plus to come to Parliament to do some things for it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Certainly, I do not agree with Mr Delamare’s statement, because he retracted it himself on 18 October.

Rodney Hide: Did the Prime Minister and her Deputy Prime Minister not find it odd that in terms of the Cabinet Manuel requirement that all Ministers fill out a declaration of interests, outside payments, and gifts, Mr John Tamihere filed a nil return—put in nothing—when, in fact, the year before, he had filled out a return declaring some assets; were they not concerned that those assets had just seemed to evaporate while he was working away as a Minister?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The fact that people’s asset position changes is neither here nor there. If the member cares to look at the Minister of Finance’s returns for 2 years in that period, he will find that for 1 year there was a declaration of an investment in a BNZ managed fund. The Minister of Finance was subsequently advised that it was not necessary to declare that asset.

Rodney Hide: I seek leave to table the declaration of Ministers’ interests and assets for 15 September 2002, which includes declaration of a directorship and two ownership interests—

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

Rodney Hide: I seek leave to table the declaration of Ministers’ interests and assets, which covers gifts and suchlike, for the period ended 31 December 2003, for which Mr John Tamihere put in a nil return.

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

Health Services—Rural Areas

11. DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) to the Associate Minister of Health: What steps is he taking to support the health of rural New Zealanders?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health): Last week I announced a $10.9 million annual funding boost to help rural areas retain general practitioners, nurses, and other health professionals. This workforce retention funding and reasonable roster of funding will provide extra payments to support primary health care workers stay in rural areas and help those practising in isolated communities to have reasonable on-call rosters.

Darren Hughes: Can the Minister tell the House what other initiatives are continuing in support of rural health outcomes around the country?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Certainly. Last week I announced the second round of Primary Health Care Nurse Practitioner (Rural) Scholarships. The scholarships are worth approximately $40,000 each, so that nurses can take a year off to complete the required study. The mobile surgical bus is exceeding all targets. We have more students from rural areas going into medicine, thanks to the cap being raised at Auckland University and Otago University.

Sue Kedgley: Does he agree that the health of rural as well as urban New Zealanders will be adversely affected if junior doctors continue to be expected to work 72-hour weeks, including night shifts of 10 hours for up to 7 consecutive nights, and will he, therefore, be supporting junior doctors in their efforts to ensure that they have safe working conditions?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I saw that article this morning, and would like to quote from the New Zealand Herald and say that every time the doctors’ industrial document is up for renegotiation, we hear of these impossible hours that they are expected to work. We accept that it is a big ask of young doctors. However, it is part and parcel of the training that they go through to become qualified health professionals and do a very good job for New Zealanders.

Judy Turner: Which rural areas have been identified as having problems as part of the primary health organisation – induced, nationwide crisis in after-hours services, and can he explain what funding solutions, if any, are being proposed by his Government to ensure that rural general practitioners will continue to provide after-hours care?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware of some excessive charges for after-hours services in Queenstown, for example, where some general practitioners have been asking for over $200. That is unacceptable, and the district health board and the ministry are working with the primary health organisations to make sure that we do not have excessive charging for after-hours services by primary health organisation - contracted general practitioners.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table Damien O’Connor’s press release on rural health last week, so that Darren Hughes—who is not here any more—can read it.

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

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the traditional concerns of the National Party for rural issues, I seek leave for there to be one extra supplementary question on this question, on the basis that it is allocated to Dr Paul Hutchison, who knows about these matters.

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that that is against the Standing Orders.

Local Government—Election Results

12. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Local Government: Why did he say on National Radio this morning with respect to the local body election shambles that “I’m huffing and puffing because that’s all I can do really”? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: So far all the huffing and puffing has been done by others.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government): Because that is the case. Local electoral officers are responsible for the conduct of local authority elections. I have no statutory power to take over their role, nor do I have any power to intervene in the contracts that exist between electoral officers and their service providers. I may add that efforts by that member to score cheap political points will not fix the software problem.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why on National Radio this morning, when he was “huffing and puffing”, did he not know that the counting of Dunedin City votes had not even started or who was paying for the Audit Office’s role in the counting, when his department chairs the single transferable vote (STV) steering committee; and does that lack of knowledge, days after this mess emerged, not show complete incompetence on his part?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: As usual, that member has misquoted my words. I made it clear this morning on National Radio that the counting of Porirua and Wellington votes was the priority because that was going to serve as the basis for seeing whether the system worked.

Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Minister clarify whether there are any contingency plans if the current software problems cannot be resolved?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Yes. My officials are working on such plans with electoral officers, including the possible use of another service provider who has successfully completed STV elections this year.

Jim Peters: When the Minister led this House through the Local Electoral Amendment Act 2002 did he have any understanding of the “New Zealand method” of counting single transferable votes; if so, is it acceptable that the Government-directed STV health board elections have almost completely disenfranchised rural New Zealanders and that more than 100,000 voters have had their democratic votes binned and disallowed, and when will the Minister wake up and do something about it?

Mr SPEAKER: That was three supplementary questions. The Minister can address two of them.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Yes and no.

Rod Donald: Does the Minister now consider that the procedures used by his Department of Internal Affairs staff to verify and authorise the systems used by contractors to process STV votes were sufficiently stringent; if so, why?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: My staff are not authorised to make those decisions. Those decisions were made by the chief electoral officers of the councils concerned.

Larry Baldock: Does the Minister accept that the problems that have badly affected the recent local body elections have the potential to do much more harm than the short-term damage of delayed results and mass confusion, and that they could further deter voter participation in the future and increase voter apathy in local government elections; if so, what steps does he plan to take to improve voter participation in the future?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I would certainly agree with that member that this process has not raised public confidence in local body election processes. But I am pleased to report that today the Justice and Electoral Committee announced the terms of reference for its very wide-ranging inquiry into the local body election.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Minister, in response to an earlier question, suggest that I was incorrect in saying that counting had not yet started on Dunedin City STV votes, when that is exactly what the officials said yesterday to the Otago Daily Times?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I can only be responsible for the answers that I give in this House, and I will stand by that.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: When the Minister was talking on National Radio this morning about himself “huffing and puffing” did he have in mind the story of the three little pigs; if so, does he see himself as the big bad wolf who messed up the law and will end up in a heap of hot water?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I would rather be seen as the person who at least helped to fix it up for next time.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why does the Minister not simply ask Datamail and Electionz.com for a clear timetable of when the votes will be counted, and hold them to account for that?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I have asked that question approximately every 3 hours for the last 11 days.

Retirements

Office of the Clerk—Mr Robert O'Hagan

H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East): I move, That this House note the retirement this week of Robert O’Hagan after 38 years of Government service, including his work since 1976 in this building for the Legislative Department, the Parliamentary Service, and the Office of the Clerk, where his duties have included getting yellows and greens to members, and assisting with indexing and written questions.

Mr SPEAKER: I would also like to add my personal congratulations to Mr O’Hagan.

Motion agreed to.

General Debate

General Debate

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Yesterday the Local Government and Environment Committee reported on its inquiry into the so-called “corngate” incident. Although our language was polite, it was, in fact, a damning report on the actions—or, rather, the inactions—of Government officials responsible for our biosecurity. In 2000 we had a 4-year-old law that prohibited the import of GE seed, but that had absolutely no monitoring or enforcement, no testing at the border, and no declarations required—“Do not look, do not see, do not know.”

The first people to suspect that that might be the case and to try to remedy it was the Green Party. In October 2000 I asked two written questions of the Minister that provided the information that no testing was done, and that the Government thought we could just leave it to importers and the market. We also raised the subject the same week in our evidence to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Shortly afterwards we learnt that the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry discussed seeking funding for doing something about that—in a very non-urgent way—but by the time they had that discussion, the “corngate” seed was already in the country. It is not the first time the Green Party has led the way and been shown to be right. We have been saying for years that GE crops and animals would damage our markets and destroy a major economic advantage, but the Government placed its hopes on the knowledge economy in agricultural biotech, and let us look at where that is now.

The agricultural biotech industry has lost $40 billion on the US stock market, mainly because consumers have not “got over it”, as the US predicted, and accepted GE foods. Some medical biotech is doing quite well. Those companies are using smart technology, whereby no plant or animal needs to be released into the environment—New Zealand’s own BLIS Technologies, for example. But, worldwide, the GE food industry is in disarray. Monsanto has withdrawn all its applications to market its GE wheat, because no one wants it. Bayer and Syngenta have withdrawn from the UK. Monsanto has given up its plans to grow GE canola in Australia. PPL Therapeutics, which in New Zealand had a flock of 4,000 sheep expressing human proteins in their milk, has gone bust, and all the sheep have been destroyed. The European Union has lifted its moratorium under dire threats from the US, but no one wants to grow anything there, because the supermarkets will not stock it and consumers will not buy it. Company after company is falling over. The New Zealand Life Sciences Network no longer has funds to employ a public relations person, because it does not get enough subscriptions.

It was the Green Party campaign in 1998 and 1999 and the 92,000 signatures on my petition that led to a public demand for a moratorium, while a royal commission debated the issues. The first application for the release of a GE crop, canola, was imminent in 1999, but was withdrawn at the last minute. Since then, information about the risks of GE, and market resistance to it, have accumulated. Every week there is a new story about unpredicted pollen spread, contamination of crops, and worrying health effects on test animals.

A year ago next week the 4-year moratorium on the release of GE organisms was lifted, but there has been no release. There has been no application for release. There has been no suggestion anyone can find that there are any proposals in the pipeline. Biosecurity protocols and border testing are in place, and inadvertent contamination is under better control. I sincerely hope the Government will act on the committee’s unanimous recommendation and make Government access to all laboratory data and records a condition of approval for importing seeds, so that Parliament can never again be stymied in its quest for the truth by a transnational company that just thumbs its nose at the New Zealand Parliament.

Clearly, the Government could easily have agreed to our request at the last election and extended the moratorium for another 3 years, and then had our support for this term. But that is now history, and we need to look at the future. New Zealand is still, essentially, GE free, but protecting this global market advantage is no longer under the Government’s control. Anyone who wants to damage our economic advantage can apply for approval to release a GE crop and may get Environmental Risk Management Authority approval.

When Parliament resumes, we have another chance to say clearly that this is not a country that wants to grow GE in the outdoors. Ian Ewen-Street’s member’s bill to reinstate the moratorium just to 2008 will be debated in the House in 3 weeks. I hope members will listen and take that chance.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): The report on “corngate” had a number of points that were agreed by all members of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and they should be put on record. Firstly, no evidence at all was found of a cover-up. That was a politically motivated jack-up a couple of weeks before an election. Secondly, it was not proven in that report that there was GM contamination, and, thirdly, it was agreed that the original tests were invalid and should have been disregarded. That is all that needs to be said about that particular issue. I want to encourage the House, instead of the Opposition today doing their normal whingeing and whining about how bad things are, to acknowledge the fact that this country is heading in the right direction—that this country is moving ahead.

Last Friday, a poll in the National Business Review showed, by the biggest margin in recent years—by more than 2:1; 64 percent to 29 percent—that New Zealanders believe this country is on the right track. Practically two-thirds of New Zealanders believe this Government is taking the country in the right direction. The next day we had a Herald-DigiPoll. What did that show? It showed that Aucklanders, by 13 percentage points, put Labour ahead of the discredited and failing National Opposition. That was 13 percentage points in a region that covers nearly one-third of our country.

Those polls together show that across the wider community, New Zealanders believe this country is competently led by a party that is capable, consistent, energetic, creative, fair, and inclusive. On every one of those adjectives, we can contrast the performance of this party with that failed bunch of people opposite us who are sitting on the National Party benches. Why would New Zealanders not feel confident about this country? Unemployment is at a 17-year low—the best result in the OECD but for Korea—and is falling. The rate of unemployment has halved for our young people.

Never have our young people had the opportunities to participate in our society in the way they have today. Never have they had the investment made in education, in training, in apprenticeships. There is a chance for our families to improve their living standards in order to look for a better future, and they know that they are backed by this party, which is in touch with ordinary New Zealanders and has given a decent boost, for the first time in years, to working people struggling to get ahead—people on modest incomes, who will be the major beneficiaries of those Budget moves. The growth in this country is 4.4 percent. This country leads the developed world in terms of the growth it has achieved.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Rubbish!

Hon PHIL GOFF: The member can say “Rubbish!” all he likes, it is a statistical fact that New Zealand is outperforming the United States, the whole of Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia, and any other country in the developed world that that member wants to talk about. We are investing the proceeds of that growth into a better health system than we have ever had, and we are investing it in providing superannuation for the future—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Humbug!

Hon PHIL GOFF: —something that member failed to do when he had the chance—and bringing our debt down. We have halved the net debt of this country, from 20 percent of GDP to 10 percent. There is only one thing falling faster than our debt, and that is our crime rate, which is down 13.8 percent—the best record by police ever in terms of resolving our crime rate. More crime is being resolved, we have tougher legislation and better resourcing for policing, and more criminals are being put away than at any time during this country’s history.

Members should look at what is happening to business and agriculture. They are booming. Last month, this country topped a World Bank survey of 145 different countries as the best country in the world in which to run a business, ahead of the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, and all the other countries. Meanwhile, there those members go, continuing to whine and grizzle. No wonder! Look at the National Party members! They had their heads in their hands after Don Brash spoke yesterday. Look at what he got from the weekend: “Brash blunder over help for Act”, “Brash in troubled waters”—that man is failing and that party has failed.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): That was the angry young man of the Labour Party, the Minister of Justice—the man who presides over a justice system that has led this country to the point whereby if one rings 111, one gets a taxi.

I want to respond to the challenge he laid out before us. The National Party thinks this is a great country and has confidence in the business sector. It does believe that New Zealanders are innovative, creative, and capable of growing the economy. The National Party knows that what New Zealanders prize above all else is a Government free from corruption. That is what is right at the heart of the issues surrounding John Tamihere.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows he cannot accuse a member of corruption. The member will withdraw and apologise. [Interruption] I remind the whip that I am on my feet ruling on a point of order. When I am ruling on a point of order there will be silence. The member will withdraw and apologise.

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

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on this point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You have made a mistake, Madam Speaker, and I want to point out why. The member said that the National Party knows that what the country wants best is a country free of corruption. Which part of that did he personalise, or, for that matter, collectivise in respect of the Labour Party?

Hon Trevor Mallard: Madam Speaker, as I am sure you heard—and maybe the member was momentarily distracted—the member then went on in the next sentence to associate John Tamihere with those comments.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is absolutely correct. The member—[Interruption] Please be silent while I am ruling. The member will withdraw and apologise.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I withdraw and apologise. It does not matter what the nice conventions of Parliament might be, New Zealanders are asking themselves what the issue is about John Tamihere. What are the questions raised about a payment made to him, and the claim by the chairman of Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust that it was made to him in the expectation that he would “do things for them”? I know I cannot say the word that should describe that sort of activity, but New Zealanders will draw their own conclusions.

I want to know when John Tamihere will stand up in the House and defend himself. When will John Tamihere come to this House, the highest court in the land, lay out the evidence that blows these charges out of the water, and get on with life? I make the prediction that he will never do that, because he cannot. This is a man who has gone around the countryside talking to young people in particular, and proclaiming the need for him and his colleagues to show leadership, aspiration, and a direction towards the future. At the same time as he has been trying to act in that magnanimous way, we know that he has been creeping around the back doors of his previous employer and trying to drag out a huge payment in order to do great things in Parliament for the Waipareira Trust.

The Waipareira Trust sold assets to pay out John Tamihere. This is an organisation set up to help some of the most depressed people in this country, and it had to hock its assets to give its former chief executive a big payment so that he could come to Parliament and do more things for it. If the unusable word that Mr Mallard has taken such exception to cannot be applied to Mr Tamihere in the House, let me assure members that it will be applied by many others outside the House.

As long as Helen Clark supports John Tamihere, the allegations swirling around him will be laid at her feet as well. This is a Prime Minister who will arrive back in the country later this week, fresh from the “Lady Di” experience on the seat in front of the Taj Mahal. She will try to say that she is still the leader of a Government that is full of integrity, that sets the highest standards, and that demands absolute purity from all its Ministers. As long as Helen Clark takes that line she will be damaging herself, her Government, and this country as well.

Members opposite make a big noise and say that this is wrong. They stand up and say it is OK for Mr Tamihere to go out to the public and say: “I will not take a gratuitous payment.”, then spend 3 years making sure that he gets it, spend 2 years sitting on top of it without having paid the tax on it, and file several ministerial accountability forms without making that disclosure. Helen Clark said: “It’s all OK.” Well, people will make up their own minds about that. The moral mandate for the Labour Party to say that they are there for the poor, for the oppressed, and for those who are suffering hard times in New Zealand, has gone. As long as John Tamihere remains in the Labour Party ranks, Labour members’ ability to speak on behalf of the downtrodden in this country has gone, because everyone will know, and everyone will ask the question: “How much has he been paid to do this?”.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I am going to disagree with my colleague the senior Government whip and say that yesterday the Opposition was looking for leadership in the debate. Today we have the sort of speech that the Opposition should have had yesterday. Is it not sad that the failed woodwork teacher from Fendalton gives a better speech than the current Leader of the Opposition? He gave a better speech, not a great speech, not a wonderful speech, but a significantly better speech than that from Don Brash.

I have not been around here as long as Richard Prebble, but I do not think I have ever seen such a high proportion of members of the National Party sitting in the House with their heads in their hands, as I saw yesterday, while Don Brash was speaking. I have never seen so many unhappy people. They had what was effectively a free hit. The right honourable gentleman from Tauranga got some hits in—he got some punches in. Again, he was not absolutely brilliant, but I am sure with a bit more experience he will do better. What was clear was that Don just did not have it yesterday, and even he knew it. I had never seen someone slink out of the Chamber in such an embarrassed manner. He almost crawled, to avoid looking into the eyes of any of his colleagues as he left. We could tell he was heading for the lobby to get his hanky out to cry like the poor little kid who could not do the assignment when he was at school.

We all know now—I think most people know; and other people will find out tonight—that the National Party is not quite on to the thing that they thought they were on to. National members are not quite on to what they thought they were on to, and they are in even bigger trouble than they thought they were a few days ago. Why? It is because they do not have a leader. Generally I do not quote the New Zealand Herald, because it does not always get it right, but I think Emmerson got it right on 15 October in his cartoon: “The Don Brash record to date”—

John Key: No one is listening.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I agree with John Key when he said that no one is listening to Don Brash. He goes to knock on the door in the evening and the lights go out and the shutters are closed. The people inside do not want to know about Don Brash. Why?

Darren Hughes: Which house?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is one of John Key’s several mansions actually, when Don comes calling. The Emmerson cartoon stated: “The Don Brash record to date … click! fear, doom, gloom, click! fear, doom, gloom, click!”. That sums up Don. The only answer that is left is—[Interruption] The member is right—the answer to the question is not hard, because he is the answer. John Key is the answer. We have seen the preparation occurring, and we have seen the way that the media is being escorted around the country in order to see where that member grew up. We can see where he lives now, we can see the contrast, and we can see the soft spreads that he is paying for around the country in order to build his own profile.

We have seen it before. I remember when Glenda Hughes did a lot of work for Bill and Mary English. They had a lot of soft publicity around the time, but it did not work. The member should tell John Key that it does not work. But it did not stop the member from becoming the leader. When we look along the front bench there is no one there who can do the job, other than Winston Peters.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): All I can say to that member today is that I would much rather have Don Brash’s reputation for integrity than John Tamihere’s reputation. Is it not telling when Labour’s hard man tactical operator has nothing to say on the issue of the day, which is John Tamihere. I was expecting at least a stout defence, and probably new evidence that would help buttress John Tamihere’s case, but he barely rated a mention in Trevor Mallard’s speech, and I will tell the members why. It is because the Government does not know what to do about this problem. “Mother Hen” Helen Clark has flown the coop and she has left Dr Cullen running around like a headless chook—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise. The member knows that he must refer to members by their correct names.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are very concerned that the Minister of Education, the Hon Trevor Mallard, appears to be instructing the Chair. We would like an assurance, and I think we are entitled to that, that the Chair is not taking instruction from Government Ministers.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is certainly not correct. It is my responsibility when I hear a member being referred to in that way—and this often happens in the House; it happened yesterday, and it will continue to happen—to call the member to order.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder why you did not use the same hearing to pull up Mr Mallard for his referring to a member in an inappropriate way throughout his speech. He used a Christian name only. You certainly heard that, but you chose to take no action at all. You appeared to be taking no action on this speech, when a Christian name was used, until Mr Mallard interjected. All that we ask for is fairness.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I am advised by my whips that when I was referring to the Leader of the Opposition I called him Don. I apologise. I of course was referring to Dr Brash.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Often members will refer to members by their Christian names—that is not uncommon—but what I was correcting the member for was the use of a derogatory term when referring to the member. I tell Mr Sowry that that will always be corrected.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may help to clarify matters if you simply require members of the Government to stand and take a point of order, as set down in the Standing Orders, just like Opposition MPs must do, rather than just taking instructions that are interjected on you beside you.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member is totally incorrect. As I have ruled previously, it is my responsibility to do that if I hear it.

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

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will warn the member once that that was not a point of order. As I have said, raising trifling points of order is, of itself, disorderly.

Rodney Hide: It was a point order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are actually dealing with a serious point about taking direction. I am not accusing you of that, what I am saying is that it would be helpful if you instructed Mr Mallard on the proper way to raise a point of order. This is a point of order because it is in the Standing Orders. You should simply require Trevor Mallard to stand and call “Point of order” rather than have him interject on you and give the appearance, which I do not accept, that you are taking instructions.

Jill Pettis: That’s not a point of order.

Rodney Hide: Here we go. That is the point. If we call out on a point of order we get thrown out. The chief whip can say what she likes and you do nothing, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is the point.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has not raised a point of order.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is the chief Government whip going to be dealt with for interjecting on Mr Hide?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hide was going on with a point of order that was not a point of order and I had already—

Rodney Hide: So what!

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I had already ruled on the point of order.

Rodney Hide: So what!

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hide will stand, withdraw, and apologise for those—

Rodney Hide: Why do I have to?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: —remarks to the Chair.

Rodney Hide: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. How come I have to withdraw and apologise when I interject, but the junior whip—what is that woman now—

Simon Power: She’s senior whip.

Rodney Hide: —the senior whip can stand there yelling out on a point of order and it is OK because you deem it not to be a point of order. There is no ability for the chief whip to call out on a point of order and for the Speaker to defend her. She has to withdraw and apologise, just like you required of me.

Darren Hughes: First, the reason that the member was asked to withdraw and apologise was that he was interjecting on you as the presiding officer in the Chamber. The second thing is that the Opposition’s insistence on observing the Standing Orders this afternoon might be better helped if Mr Hide spoke from a chair allocated to his party, as opposed to speaking from the National Party front bench, which is against the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member should read the Standing Orders. A member can take a point of order from anywhere in the Chamber. He should read the Standing Orders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When a point of order is taken it must be heard in silence. Whether it is valid is to be determined later by the Speaker or yourself as the Deputy Speaker. But whatever is happening, it is required that the point of order be heard in silence and anyone who shouts out, intervenes, or interjects is outside the Standing Orders and should be asked to withdraw and apologise. That is the point that is being made on this side of the House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think the member is relatively correct in what he says. Notwithstanding the fact that all members in this House with some experience had come to the conclusion that Mr Hide was not raising a point of order—

Rodney Hide: This isn’t a point of order, either.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will give one further warning about interrupting while a member has the floor correctly on points of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In agreeing substantially with the comments made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, it is my view that we would have a degree of disorder in the House if members continually anticipated your rulings on points raised that it is clear to members are not points of order, but on which you have not yet ruled. I think it would be useful for order in the House if the practice were to cease.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters is correct. I ask the senior Government whip whether she interjected during the point of order.

Jill Pettis: Yes, I did, and I withdraw and apologise.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Helen Clark has flown the coop and left Dr Cullen flailing around like a headless chook. He cannot decide what to do about the Tamihere allegations. First he tried throwing mud, but that has looked weak and indecisive. Then he has tried to occasionally defend the allegations by demonstrating a pretty intimate knowledge of them for someone who is not the QC doing the inquiry. Then he has toyed with the idea of just saying: “Let’s refer everything to the inquiry and when the evidence comes out that is when we will decide.” Then he said: “It’s a political decision. It’s not a matter for the QC and the inquiry at all. It will be a political decision.” He cannot decide. The great management machine in the Beehive has rattled itself to bits, and the reason is that what happens to John Tamihere is critical to the cohesion of this Government.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Wait until 6 o’clock.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That member seems to think that this is a matter of popularity; that somehow if John Tamihere is popular he is therefore exempt from scrutiny. The problem is that that is what John Tamihere believed—that because he was popular he did not have to fill out his electoral return properly in the same way that we have to; that because he is popular he does not have to declare gifts that may have been made to him as a Minister; and that because he is popular it does not matter if he defies the Government’s promise that it will get rid of golden handshakes and takes one.

Let me sum up this issue very clearly for the Government. This is a man who made himself popular by going around New Zealand telling everybody that too many Māori had their fingers in the till. It turned out that he had his fingers in the till. That is the nub of it. There is really nothing more complicated than that. How many tills and how many fingers is yet to be decided, but absolutely no one has denied that he took a very large payment. All they have argued about is whether the tax was paid. That is a matter for the Inland Revenue Department. The fact is that he kept saying that too many traditional Māori have their fingers in the till, when at the same time he had his fingers in the till.

The fact that Trevor Mallard could not even mention it tells us how deeply in trouble not just John Tamihere is, but the Government is. The Government has the Māori Party knocking at the door very hard. It has seabed and foreshore legislation that it has said it will resolve by Christmas, but it does not have a dog’s show. Now it has just lost the one person whom it believed could have sold that legislation to Māori and Pākehā, regardless of what it actually said. That is why today the Government is trying to decide whether to hang on to him or hang him. It is trying to decide, as we speak: “Do we hang on to John Tamihere or do we hang him?”. That is where the inquiry will turn out to be a mistake, because Helen Clark—the wonderful, decisive Prime Minister with standards that I would be absolutely ashamed of, whatever the nation thinks of them—will now twist in the wind for 6 weeks. Why can she not decide now? Why can John Tamihere not just give her the information—the electoral return, the bank statement—and she can just decide? But she will not.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): The Hon Bill English, who has just resumed his seat, got the complete wrong end of the stick, like the rest of his party. They believe that we should be convicting people before they have a trial. However, it must be said that the Hon Bill English certainly leaves his leader, Dr Don Brash, in the dark when it comes to speeches in this House.

I think that the Hon Bill English must be secretly smiling over some of the headlines we have seen lately. The New Zealand Herald stated: “Brash blunder over help for ACT”. The Sunday Star-Times stated: “Do nothing National delays peak”. Other headlines state: “Brash in troubled waters”, “Bumbling Brash loses plot”, and “Home or away, Brash is losing”. I think that, in secret, Bill English is planning his return. He has had time to regroup and he is coming back.

The National Party is used to being overshadowed. It is certainly not the first time that it has been overshadowed. It has been overshadowed by New Zealand First for a long time, since it decided to adopt all New Zealand First’s policies and take them as its own. But the reality is that New Zealand First deals with law and order and treaty issues much better than the National Party ever has or ever will. Why? It is because the National Party has no credibility on those issues. The Hon Phil Goff had to fix and toughen up “Tough on Sentencing” Tony Ryall’s sentencing and parole laws. Why? Under Tony Ryall’s sentencing law there was automatic release—[Interruption] Members opposite do not like it, because they know that if they ever get back into Government they will not do anything else. It would be just like the last time when they promised they would get tough on crime. Did they do it? No. It is typical of the National Party members. They promise, promise, get into Government, and do nothing.

Under Tony Ryall’s sentencing laws, release was automatic at two-thirds of a sentence. Under the laws of this Labour Government, put in place by the Hon Phil Goff, a criminal can be kept in jail until the last day of his or her sentence. Under Tony Ryall’s law, preventive detention was available only on a person’s second offence. A criminal got the first one free under National, and they defended that. Under this Government, preventive detention is available for the worst criminals on the first crime.

On treaty issues the National Party made such a hash of the Lake Taupō deal that all the local tourism operators there now do not know whether they are coming or going because they do not know who owns the airspace above the lake. Yet those National members have the gall to stand in this House and criticise the work that this Government is doing on the Rotorua lakes deal with Te Arawa. They have the absolute gall to stand up and criticise what this Government is doing in ensuring that the water column and the airspace remain in the hands of the Government.

But that is the key point about the National Party. There is no consistency because there can be no consistency where there are no principles. We in the Labour Government have always said that the National Party has no principles, because the only thing it cares about is power and getting it. That is the only thing National members have ever cared about, and it is the only thing they will continue to care about. National members snuggle up to the ACT party, which, I have been informed today, in a public session of a select committee confirmed that it has no problem with foreign ownership of the foreshore and the seabed—no problem at all. Well, that is probably something that New Zealanders need to know.

Darren Hughes: The 1 percent party!

MOANA MACKEY: The 1 percent party, but New Zealanders need to know that ACT, National, and Dr Brash are completely politically in sync. They agree with each other. This explains why all the political casualties from Dr Don Brash are from his own party. Lynda Scott and Roger Sowry are heading for the hills. And then there is poor Dr Paul Hutchison. It says something about a party when it chooses a lawyer rather than a doctor as its health spokesperson. Clem Simich was shafted by his own party, and now Mr Peachey, who has been selected as the Tamaki candidate, has to read headlines in the paper where Dr Brash states: “At this point, if ACT was sitting on 4.9 percent, who knows, we might do a deal.” He says that they might do a deal in Tamaki or in Epsom. That leads me to Richard Worth. He is in the same boat as Mr Peachey and Clem Simich—at the whim of a deal done by his own leader to sacrifice him for the ACT party.

Of course, the biggest casualty was the Hon Bill English. He was rolled as leader after months of denying that that would happen. Dr Brash thought he was ineffective and that he was not doing the job properly. He said: “I confess to being guilty of being critical of my predecessor, because although I was No. 3 in his caucus, I didn’t have much substantive contact with Bill, and I was critical of that.” Well, now he knows the harsh reality. Now he knows that it is not all peaches and cream being leader of a major party.

RON MARK (NZ First): Well at last, a little touch of sanity. I have to tell this House that rather than worrying about National, Labour needs to begin worrying seriously about New Zealand First. Because, as that member just said, New Zealand First is the law and order party. On that note I have some comments from New Zealand First for the Prime Minister. Every cloud has a silver lining, and the possibility that she may have to sack John Tamihere actually does give her an advantage. That advantage is that John Tamihere, having said that he would quit if George Hawkins was fired, will be gone. That will leave the Prime Minister free to do the one job she knows she has to do—sack the Minister of Police, George Hawkins.

Why does she need to do that? Well, I will tell the House why she needs to do that. This man, Mr Hawkins, came to this House after 9 years of bashing his gums on this side of the House, telling the country what he was going to do. He was going to wipe out gangs. What do we see now? The gangs currently, under his stewardship, run a $400 million - plus methamphetamine operation. Have they been wiped out? Not on your nelly! They are thriving. This man said that crime levels were too high and they were going to get them down. Well, the Minister brags and boasts about his doctored statistics—and we all know what statistics are. “Lies, damned lies and statistics” is the quote that is often given. The best quote came from the New Zealand Herald, on 30 August: “To read statistics that say crime has dropped is a crock of garbage. People can’t be bothered to report thefts and burglaries—I know I don’t any more, because nothing happens.”

That is the testimony to this Minister’s stewardship as Minister of Police. He said he would make the streets safer. Well, we all know they are not safer, because when one rings 111, one does not get a boy in blue, one gets a Blue Star taxi. That is this Minister’s solution to the public calling for help. Do not worry about the police. He has suddenly trebled the size of the police force by bringing the whole taxi industry into the blue uniforms, and for that the public gives him no credit and no thanks.

I turn to satisfaction with crime-related responses. Well, the verdicts are out, and currently responses to 111 calls have dropped. They are down at 67 percent. That Minister said today that I told an untruth. I recounted a situation of traffic patrols that are not responding. They are sitting silent on their radios, and not responding to dispatchers who want to send them on calls. The Minister says that that is not happening. Well, I tell this Minister that if he would care to talk to a policeman, care to talk to a dispatcher, and care to talk to a call-taker he would find that what I said is the exact truth. Worst of all, there is writing to that effect. There are reports to that effect, which have gone to the Minister’s headquarters—they have gone to the Commissioner of Police. The Minister quite clearly, because he keeps a hands-off approach to everything, does not know what is going on. That is why the Minister should be sacked.

Let us look at something else. Helen Clark told the House that we would see a new age of accountability. How interesting is that? At a time of “inquiryitis” I would say, when this Government is announcing inquiries left, right, and centre, we have yet to hear the “hands-off Minister”, George Hawkins, announce an inquiry into the Shaw-Edwards-McNee case. The Minister said that a violent crime occurred. I tell the Minister that the file says there was no real violent and horrendous crime. What it does say is that Mr Shaw lied. It also says that 15 police officers were involved for hours and months and months, investigating things that Mr Shaw lied about. He never ever said that he knew his assailant. He never ever said anything about having had his assailant in his house before. This Minister now knows all this. He knows that Mr Shaw should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, and he sits there and does nothing.

I find it absolutely incredible, at a time when the Commissioner of Police has had a $70,000 pay rise, and at a time when the Minister has had his job reinstated because John Tamihere was going to resign if he got fired, that he sits there, hands-off, letting the police go rampant. Who pays? It is the general duties officers, and the bobbies in the incident cars, and the public who pay. They have had a gutsful of this Minister. I tell Helen Clark that they want him gone.

DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago): The speaker before last, Bill English, pointed to the integrity of Dr Don Brash. It is interesting that the last leader of the National Party set up the former leader in that way. Let us recall that just a matter of 2 years’ ago Dr Don Brash was taking a salary from the Government of close to half a million dollars per annum whilst he was planning to move across to the National Party as soon as he secured a promise of a good place on the list. The cost to taxpayers of that duplicitous period in his career was—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw that remark, and apologise.

DAVID PARKER: I withdraw and apologise. The cost to taxpayers—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This member is making an allegation against Dr Brash that is completely unreasonable. I would ask how many schoolteachers, for example, there are in the Labour Party who collected salaries up to the time when they were required to file writs prior to the last election, or any other election for that matter. How many others were senior civil servants? If the member wants a witch-hunt, then we are quite happy to go down that line. The reality is that Parliament at the moment is considering the issues that surround John Tamihere. It is not Parliament that has stood him down; it is the Government. The issues that surround him do not involve taxpayers’ money; they involve trust funds held for some of the poorest New Zealanders being paid out to Mr Tamihere, supposedly so that he can come to Parliament and do greater things for them.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is covering debating material. There have been a lot of attacks on members this afternoon, but I remind members they cannot impute dishonesty or corruption.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a matter I would like you to rule on. You ruled, quite properly in my opinion, that Mr Parker should withdraw and apologise. Following that, there was a speech that did not appear to be related to any Standing Order. I am not sure whether it was a point of order. Can we have a ruling from you as to whether that irrelevant contribution, which was not on a point of order, counts as a National Party speech?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I reminded the member that what he was saying was a debating issue. However, he did raise the matter of attacks on members—that was covered. I had ruled on what the member said, so there was actually no point of order.

DAVID PARKER: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I have an assurance that this last 2-minute interruption will not come off my time?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

DAVID PARKER: The cost to the taxpayer was $30,000 to $40,000 per month. I move to Mr Brownlee.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You cannot expect the House to accept that, your having ruled that it is inappropriate for a speaker to speak in derogatory terms about a member or an action of a member, that speaker then simply stands up and resumes his speech.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not what I ruled, at all.

Hon Trevor Mallard: My understanding is that your ruling was to do with the word “duplicitous”, which is clearly something that has been ruled out in the past. The fact that a current member of Parliament drew a salary in the manner referred to is a matter of record, just like it is a matter of record, if people want to dig into it, that some members of the Labour Party lost 3 months’ pay when they became members of Parliament.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter is a debating matter.

DAVID PARKER: On the subject of debate on the relative integrity of front-benchers, that member was involved in an assault incident, and the person who sits next to him was convicted of contempt of court. The point I would like to make is that we should view the seriousness or otherwise of these incidents, based on the evidence.

A recent occurrence that has been reported back to this Parliament by a select committee indicates why we should wait for the evidence. It relates to the GE corn inquiry. The allegations were based on the book Seeds of Distrust: The Story of a GE Cover-up. The back pages accuse the Prime Minister and Ministers of the Government of having orchestrated a cover-up. The report has now come back. The unanimous conclusions of the committee include, and I quote from the report: “We have seen no evidence that Ministers took the scientific decision about whether or not the crop was contaminated with genetically modified seed.” Another unanimous conclusion states: “We have found no evidence in the papers, nor in the testimony given by officials and Ministers, that the officials were acting under ministerial instruction when they took the decisions they did.” The underlying assertion of ministerial interference was not made out. It is important to wait for the evidence, because when the evidence is properly and justly considered, sometimes the allegations are not made out.

In terms of the GE corn inquiry, one of the other assertions was that it was known by the Government, and that it was proven, that the crop was genetically modified. Another unanimous conclusion is that, even with the benefit of hindsight, it is not proven that it was a GE crop. What is the very narrow criticism, compared with the original criticism? Well, notwithstanding that the original Crop and Food Research tests that caused the scare were invalid—and there is unanimity that those tests were invalid and should have been disregarded—notwithstanding that 10 other tests were clear and showed negative test results, and notwithstanding that, by then, over 30,000 seeds had been tested and cleared, compared with the 3,200 that are required to be tested now, an accusation has been made that a tolerance level was applied by the officials at the time, and that they did so in breach of the law.

Well, that is one view of the evidence that has been promoted by National and Green members, but it is notable that the independent expert that the committee employed thought otherwise. Dr Nick Smith asked Dr Taylor, a scientist with international expertise in biosecurity matters, an independent expert, whether he believed that a tolerance level had been applied: “Dr Taylor replied that his opinion of the evidence was that Richard Ivess took the decision and that he tolerated the risk inherent in the sampling regime, but did not make his decision based on tolerating a level of detected GM contamination.” What was the National Party and Green response to that? They tried to suppress it from the record. The minutes of the committee meeting show exactly that. They were not content to disagree with that finding, which would have been their right; they sought to suppress it from the record. That was quite inappropriate. The minutes of the meeting show that course.

The chair of the meeting then asked Dr Taylor—and I quote from the minutes—whether the record of what Dr Taylor had said was fair, and whether he wished to add any words to the motion. Dr Taylor said that the content of it was reasonable as it stood. It was then put forward for inclusion in the minutes, and what did the National and Green members do? They voted against it because it did not suit their prejudice.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I want to thank the member who has just resumed his seat—David Parker, the member for Otago—for his valedictory contribution to the House today. I wish the member well in his next career move. While he wasted 5 minutes of the House’s time today, Jacqui Deans was out there, door-knocking in Oamaru. She will take that seat.

Today I want to talk about the comment made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, in 1999: “This Labour Government will set new standards, both in terms of behaviour and performance.” The public of New Zealand are appalled by the new standards that Helen Clark and her administration are setting for this country. We have the largest executive we have ever seen in the New Zealand Parliament; just about anybody who is anybody within the Labour Party caucus is now a member of the executive. What we have seen is a progression of Ministers disgracing themselves and disgracing the New Zealand Parliament. [Interruption]

I am certainly going to talk about John Tamihere, but I want to remind the public of some earlier contributions, from the likes of the Hon Marian Hobbs. She came into Parliament, became a Minister, then found herself embroiled in a dispute. She claimed the expenses associated with her living outside Wellington, but happened to live in another area for the purposes of voting. She was fired, but only temporarily. We then had the case of the Hon Dover Samuels. He was accused of having sexual relations with under-age New Zealanders. Helen Clark did not even wait for the investigation before firing him. Interestingly, the police investigated those allegations, and they found no substance to them. Next was the Hon Ruth Dyson, who, working late at night on all her papers, happened to have three glasses of white wine, then drove home and, on blowing in the bag, was found to have twice the legal limit. She was temporarily put to one side.

But compared with them the Hon John Tamihere takes the cake. John Tamihere, when he campaigned in 1999, said he would not take a golden handshake. Now there is no dispute that he did exactly the opposite. Michael Cullen came to the House and announced the terms of reference for an investigation, but there is no need for an investigation. The facts are clear. Mr Tamihere has no credibility. He said he would not accept a golden handshake, but he did. He is sitting in Henderson—he is not prepared to come back here and answer questions—collecting a full ministerial salary without having any ministerial responsibilities. That is the new standard of performance and behaviour that has been set by Helen Clark and her Government.

Although the media devote quite a lot of time to the issue of whether Mr Tamihere paid tax on the golden handshake, that is not the primary issue. The primary issue is far simpler than that. This man said during an election campaign, when golden handshakes were an issue, that he would not accept a golden handshake. That member then did so. There can be no doubt about his receiving the golden handshake; he has made no attempt to deny it. Yet Helen Clark is not prepared to act. She acted quickly on poor Dover Samuels, when he was wrongly accused, but she will not act when John Tamihere is correctly accused of accepting a golden handshake, and he admits that he did so. That is the issue that Helen Clark should be held to account for, and she will be. New Zealanders will vote in the next 12 months, and I rest my case: they will be absolutely appalled at the new standards that have been set by this Labour Government.

JUDY TURNER (United Future): While the rest of the nation gets on with its daily living, Parliament gets into election mode with members making a meal of each other. I want to move right away from the issue members have been debating and talk about the fact that we are still actually being paid to make a difference in this country. I also want to talk about an issue that is of concern to me—that is, how do we best find a way to regulate the developing range of party drugs that at this stage fall outside our existing classification parameters?

Herbal highs are now the new fashion in mind-altering substances. They are advertised, marketed, and sold on the Internet, as well as over the counter in ordinary retail shops. They are marketed as being healthy, natural, and less harmful than the classified drugs they claim to be substitutes for. The benefits that customers seek are extended wakefulness, additional energy, enhanced and exaggerated feelings of euphoria, pleasure, and sociability. Advertisements refer to the products as “social weaponry”. The accompanying instructions, however, read more like the label on an over-the-counter pharmaceutical than on a health supplement. For instance, users are cautioned not to exceed the recommended dose. They are not recommended for anyone suffering from a medical condition or mental illness. They are unsuitable for people under the age of 18. People taking them are told to avoid alcohol. And the products are not recommended for pregnant mothers.

These instructions exist for good reasons, because the negative side effects range from mild aching and palpitations through to strokes, seizures, renal failure, and even death. In March of this year, five young people were admitted to Dunedin Hospital with anxiety symptoms after taking party pills—[Interruption]

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Interjecting across the cross benches is, as the member knows, very disruptive.

Rodney Hide: I was just trying to liven it up.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is warned. He himself has complained many times about it. He will give others the same courtesy.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think he has been on the pills

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will stand and withdraw that remark.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw.

JUDY TURNER: I was trying to talk about young people being admitted to hospital, having taken herbal highs, particularly when they have mixed those with alcohol, against the advice on the labels.

Despite the intentions of many of those who market herbal highs, young people under 18, and even children, have easy access to these products, which are available at corner dairies and petrol stations. Retailers who claim they are trying to be responsible are not legally required to make any effort in that regard. The loudest voices on this matter to date have been the police, health professionals, and, of course, those who market and use the products. Users’ stories range from those who felt very little effect, to those who claim that their experience was more potent than the experiences they had using illegal substances. Many claim to have been awake and uncomfortably strung out for much longer than the social occasion they were trying to enjoy. Doctors are concerned, and while most agree that alcohol is taking the greatest toll in New Zealand, these herbal highs need to be viewed with real concern.

Police in New Zealand, however, seem much clearer on what they believe should be happening with regard to these substances. They want them controlled. Historically in New Zealand, we have been slow to take the advice of our front-line police. It took 7 long years for Parliament to respond to police recommendations to reclassify methamphetamine from a class B to a class A drug, and during that time the situation deteriorated to a crisis point. I believe it is time we streamlined the process so that subordinate legislation on these matters can be actioned in a timely way to respond to police concerns. It is such a waste of police resources to have them in catch-up mode on matters that were foreseen and could have been prevented.

Let us be very clear why young people are purchasing these products. It is for the same unhealthy reasons that folk use any mind-altering substance. It is the very reason why the Life Education Trust is very wary of any soft message that communicates that life can be enhanced by drugs. The law on these matters is much more than a constraint. It is a very clear message about what is healthy and what is unacceptable and risky behaviour. We have to ask ourselves whether we are happy to turn a blind eye to risk behaviour that is predicated on the idea that enjoying socialising starts with a substance to help us overcome social inhibitions.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): Let us cover some facts here. I will quote from a speech by the Hon John Tamihere, given in March 2004—when he was talking to the media and when he was turning up to Parliament. Here is what he had to say: “… we need to make sure that we adhere to the highest standards. We must lift our own standards, conduct and ethics to ensure that we are beyond reproach.” That is what John Tamihere said. Members will like this—John Tamihere wrote it: “We must be role models for our young people to look to.” And members will love this—this is the instruction to the Opposition: “And if we see others who fall short of those standards, we must do something about it.” That is what ACT is doing. We are just trying to hold this Government to the standards it has set. That is all we are doing. I just wish that Helen Clark would hold her Ministers to the standards she has set.

Let us understand what has happened here. We know that it is OK to be a forger. We have worked that out. One can forge documents to obtain $160,000 from the Government—and one can still be an MP. If one pleads guilty in court, one can still turn up and be an MP and a Minister, because John Tamihere did that. One can actually plead guilty to two counts of uttering. That is OK. One can do that, turn up, and be an MP—there were two cases. Then one can turn up at Parliament, campaign on this issue, and say: “Oh, no. I’m not going to take a golden handshake. No, no! John Tamihere said he would win the votes and turned up here, after running around the back of the Waipareira Trust, knocking on doors, and asking where his money was. But the Waipareira Trust said that it had no money. Why? Because John Tamihere spent it all. The Government is pouring $8 million into the trust, but it has no money—so it had to sell $115,000-worth of assets, to provide a Labour Minister’s golden handshake totalling $195,000.

Here is what else we know about the standards of Helen Clark: one does not have to pay tax. That is right. One does not have to pay tax: one can be a lawyer, a Minister, a chief executive officer, and all one has to say is: “Oh, I thought it was a net amount.”, and that is OK. I see Clayton Cosgrove over there, and the House will enjoy this because I know that all members like Clayton Cosgrove. I came through Christchurch airport and I saw Clayton Cosgrove there. He came up to me as only he can do—like a pocket rocket: bounce, bounce, bounce. He said: “I have been talking to JT. I have been talking to JT. He says: ‘Keep it coming, keep it coming.’ He has not had this much publicity for a long time.” So I thought that I had to take Clayton Cosgrove at his word; he is an honourable member. Bother me! I went home, turned on the TV, and there was John Tamihere, the big Māori warrior from west Auckland, blubbing on Television One—

Gerry Brownlee: Because he got caught.

RODNEY HIDE:—because he was caught. I thought: oh well, they must have caught him at an emotional moment. He will be there in Parliament on Tuesday, will he not? The Māori warrior, the man who has done nothing wrong—has anyone seen John Tamihere? No, the big Māori warrior did not turn up.

Here is something else we know. We know that John Tamihere cannot spell very well. We have picked that up from documents he has written, and we saw some documentation with invoices for Māori trusts that do not exist. They spell liaison with only one “i”.

Gerry Brownlee: So do I.

RODNEY HIDE: I would not own up to that. They spell accommodation with only one “m”, and mechanisms as “mechahisms”. Well, why has Helen Clark not asked John Tamihere how to spell liaison, accommodation, or mechanisms? Where did those invoices come from?

Here is another thing. Labour is the party that stands up for new standards: everyone has to be open and transparent. When we look at the Register of Ministers’ Interests and Assets, we see that it has remunerated directorships, ownerships of real property, and the holding of mortgages—but John Tamihere has a nil return. Oh, it is a pocket-rocket return.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I say to that member: better a pocket rocket than a big lump of lard! Somebody accused me of being a bulldog. Well, I say: better a bulldog than the sausage dog or lapdog, as that member is. I say that if we are going to characterise Mr Tamihere, if we are going to assassinate his character—not after the evidence is examined but before—and if we are going to pre-empt an inquiry, then I believe that it is only fair to examine the integrity and credibility of the mud-slinger.

John Key: Where are the others in Labour?

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

CLAYTON COSGROVE: It is OK, Mr Speaker. I do not mind his interjections; I love them, because it shows what a plonker he is. As Mr John Armstrong—a pretty eminent journalist, I must say—said in the New Zealand Herald this morning—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you are from times slightly before ours, but I want to bring some decorum into the House. Calling Mr John Key a plonker, I think, is probably not appropriate.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: I withdraw and apologise. It is not actually a matter of what John Armstrong said in the paper this morning—“saying that anything naughty Mr Tamihere was found to have done would somehow be mitigated by the naughty things Opposition MPs are supposed to have done.”—although I know the point he is trying to make; but it is only fair, in order to examine the veracity or lack of veracity of the evidence put forward, to also examine the character or lack of character of the mud-slinger to ascertain the quality of the mud.

I say to Mr Hide that getting him to reveal his history is about as tough as asking Dracula to give blood—it just ain’t gonna happen! I have raised questions, as Dr Cullen has—and we have an admission in the media from Mr Hide—about his business payments from his surrogate father, Mr Gibbs. It is not an offence, or against the Standing Orders, as we have said, for a member of this Parliament, on exit from a job, to say: “Hey, 120 or 150 grand just ain’t enough. I can’t buy too many pies with that.” It is not an offence for a member of the public to say: “Look, we want you to go to Parliament because we think you’re a good joker. We’ll give you 50 grand a year extra.” It would be an offence, of course, only if the member took the money, and then—[Interruption]

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am rather enjoying this, but I do not think that it is acceptable for the Hon Trevor Mallard to call out that a member is on the take. I think he should be asked to withdraw and apologise, and I am surprised that you did not act, Mr Speaker, given that you must have heard it.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me put it this way: I choose sometimes not to hear interjections, because then they do not get put into Hansard. But now that attention has been drawn to it, the member will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw and apologise.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: It would be an offence only if the money were tagged to an action. Mr Hide has been asked on many occasions whether he is receiving extra payments, but he will not disclose that. That is the character of the man. If we look at the character of Mr Hide, we see that he will not disclose, to this day—I ask him to spell “Fiji”—why he has not come clean and assisted the authorities in terms of who paid air fares and accommodation and who arranged invitations to a dodgy investment conference run by an American felon. That is not an accusation to say that Mr Hide is corrupt. It may be an accusation to say that he was duped. That is OK; we all get duped—he does, more than most. But to this day there have been no answers from Mr Hide on the subject of Fiji, or on pecuniary interests. There are no answers as to why he voted for the Government Administration Committee’s 1998 recommendation for MPs to declare their pecuniary interests—and then voted against it.

We have a wonderful quote—one that again goes to the character of the person. In the North and South issue of May 2002, Mr Hide talked about the kind of friends he has. I know that Mr Henderson’s name has already been used. Mr Hide, in illustrating the kinds of friends he likes to be with, says: “I liked the guys,”—this is interesting—“all of them drunks, crooks, thieves, wife-beaters and fighters, but I enjoyed them immensely.” So I have a question for Mr Hide. I would be grateful to know which of the preceding five categories his close friend Mr David Henderson fits into. I would be grateful if he would elucidate and tell us. Then he went on to say—and this goes to the character of the person throwing the mud—again, talking about the friends, those wife-beaters, crooks, thieves, fighters, and drunks: “If this is the way the game goes then I’ll play it …”.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to signal to that member that I am sure if he sought leave for another 5 minutes to defend John Tamihere, members opposite would agree.

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member knows that that is not a point of order.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I seek leave to table a document of May 2002 where Mr Hide characterises his friends as drunks, crooks, thieves, wife-beaters, and fighters.

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not interrupt Mr Cosgrove when he was speaking, because he had already been interrupted once before, but I do not think that Mr Mallard can get away with saying that “He is being paid from outside to be in here.”, which is a very serious allegation to make. Mr Mallard made that comment. I say it should stop because I am beginning to understand the flavour of these debates every day in respect of Mr Tamihere, and it is basically this: “You guys have been as bad as us.”, and vice versa. We want to make sure that New Zealand First is not part of that little language. Therefore, I want to say that the member should withdraw and apologise, just in case one of us is implicated.

Mr SPEAKER: What were the words the member said?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He said, about Mr Hide, that: “He is being paid from outside to be in here.”

Mr SPEAKER: I will think about that particular sentence, because I want to know in what way it is out of order to make that particular comment. It might be perfectly legitimate.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If I could just outline it, it is the suggestion that someone is mildly or grossly under the influence of someone from outside the House—like the sort of Tory questions about money in the UK.

Mr SPEAKER: I want to ask one question: was the member making that sort of accusation of Mr Hide?

Hon Trevor Mallard: It depends on what you meant by “that sort”.

Mr SPEAKER: I meant the accusation that he was under the influence of people, and that he was paid to come here and make certain statements in Parliament.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Do you mean that he was being paid by people to be a member of Parliament; not to make particular statements?

Mr SPEAKER: Well, that is not out of order.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask you to take into account, when you do give this the more timely consideration you are planning, that that is an honourable tradition. Indeed, from my days in the Labour Party I recall a number of early Labour heroes who were in fact supported by their unions to be here. If the Speaker is to rule on that, it would be helpful to look at older history from an earlier period.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am interested in finding out whether there was any statement made that was out of order. There is no doubt in my mind that if a member is paid money in order to influence him or her in the decision making, that is totally out of order. That is where the matter rests at this stage.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I wish to make a personal explanation. I want to assure the Speaker and the House that I am not being paid to be a member of Parliament, as Trevor Mallard asserts and Clayton Cosgrove implies.

Mr SPEAKER: In the words of the member, as he has stated them, his word must be accepted.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I seek leave to table the rather flattering article calling me the “Leader of the Opposition”, which Clayton Cosgrove was referring to, about the time when I was working with working-class people.

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

CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I rise at the invitation of the member, and I seek leave for a further 5 minutes.

Mr SPEAKER: The member seeks leave for a further 5 minutes’ debate. Is there any objection?

Rodney Hide: Is he going to defend John Tamihere for 5 minutes—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The member has asked for leave to give an extra 5-minute speech. He is entitled to do that. Is there any objection?

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I object, but I do invite Mr Clayton Cosgrove to take up the challenge. If he is giving his undertaking to members that he is prepared to give us a 5-minute defence of Mr Tamihere, because he knows the charges against him, then at that point I think that everybody in the House—especially as Mr Tamihere cannot be here—would be quite happy to hear that 5-minute defence.

Mr SPEAKER: Of course that is in the hands of the member. The member did not ask for that. The member asked for leave to make a 5-minute speech. If that was what he was wanting to do, I took the leave, and leave was objected to.

Opposition Member: Put it again.

Mr SPEAKER: All right. Leave is requested by the member, and I take him at his word—no one else’s. Leave is taken by Mr Cosgrove to have another 5-minute speech. That is what his request is. Is there any objection?

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do object to that. I think that you should listen carefully, because you have to listen to the will of the House. The will of the House is that if Mr Clayton Cosgrove wants to get up and give a 5-minute defence of Mr Tamihere, when members all know that Mr Tamihere cannot be here, then there is no member who will object. I thought that I heard Mr Clayton Cosgrove then give members his word that that is what he wants to do. On that point, I will not object.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I do not know the Standing Order, Mr Speaker, so I will ask your advice. When has it become an order in this House that if a member seeks leave to make a speech, another member of the Opposition or anybody else can prescribe what that member should speak about? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Somebody is about to go outside for the rest of the afternoon for making a totally objectionable remark. I think that everybody knows perfectly well what is going on here. Mr Prebble was perfectly within his rights to object. Mr Clayton Cosgrove, however, is the only person who can seek leave to speak, and in the terms that he himself prescribes.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: I so seek leave.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When he says: “I so seek leave.”, I have no idea what he means, because it could be ruled that he is asking for 5 minutes to speak about anything, which I would say is trifling with the House. But if Mr Clayton Cosgrove gets up—and I will try to help him—and says that he seeks 5 minutes’ time in this House so that he can defend Mr John Tamihere from the charges he has had, and if Mr Cosgrove gives members the undertaking that that is what he wants to do, then members will of course accept that.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I think the important point here is that if Mr Cosgrove decides to do that and to defend Mr Tamihere, the House will have to be liberal, because I am sure that Mr Cosgrove will defend Mr Tamihere with a series of parallels of behaviour that we know about and that are sneakily denied, but whose facts will become clear.

Mr SPEAKER: This is, of course, where we get into difficulty, because Mr Cosgrove alone can seek leave, and he has to give the terms under which he wants to give the speech. [Interruption] I tell members that he alone can seek leave in the terms that he wants to seek leave for, and if he wants to do that now, he can. But he makes that condition and the House can then judge.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I seek leave in respect of what Mr Prebble has prescribed.

Hon Richard Prebble: No, no.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: I seek leave for 5 minutes for matters related to John Tamihere and his defence. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member has sought leave in terms relating to John Tamihere. Is there any objection? There is none.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I will always defend any member of this House, or any member of the New Zealand public, until evidence has been examined. I will not make a judgment. In this country, there is a right to—[Interruption] Those members do not want to hear it. There is a principle in this democracy that the facts of a case are examined either in a court or an inquiry before a judgment is made. I come back to this: in a court the cross-examination is also about the character of the people making the accusations.

I come back to that, and I come back to the mudslinger, Mr Hide, who to this day, after authorities approached him and advised him that a conference he attended—where pyramid schemes fleeced hundreds of millions of dollars out of New Zealanders, and where by his own admission he says he was duped—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have to say that my colleagues and I in New Zealand First are absolutely enraptured by this speech. We are learning things every moment, but we would like to hear the speech in a rather less noisy environment. So if my colleagues behind me from the National Party could just desist a little bit, we would hear far more.

Mr SPEAKER: There will be a vigorous debate and there will be the odd interjection allowed but that was too much interjection.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Clayton Cosgrove is a relatively new member, but when one gets leave—[Interruption]

Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Richard Prebble: The House has set aside its time to give Mr Clayton Cosgrove permission to do what he said he wanted—to defend Mr Tamihere. In fact, he appears to be using the time to make an attack upon another member of Parliament—who is now not able to defend himself, at all. I say to you, Mr Speaker, that you should caution Mr Clayton Cosgrove and tell him that getting leave is a serious matter, and that if he is not able to defend Mr Tamihere, then perhaps he should just sit down. The charges are quite clear and those are the matters he ought to address.

Mr SPEAKER: Mr Prebble has made a point, part of which I agree with. The member did ask for leave to speak in relation to the defence of Mr Tamihere. I know that that will involve other comments that can be made, and I do not want to be too harsh in that area, but his speech must basically be about defending Mr Tamihere.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the key point here is that the defence of a member must involve an examination of the effective prosecution of that member in this House. We have had Mr Hide make a series of very, very serious allegations, and it is my view that Mr Cosgrove must have the opportunity to analyse those and the basis on which they were made.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any other assistance on this matter. I made my ruling, and that is how my ruling will stand. I do not think the member has added to it.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think what Mr Mallard said was perfectly reasonable. Of course there has to be some discussion with regard to the prosecution, and that will take up some of the time. He has about 3 minutes and 50 seconds left. Clearly that will not be enough. I would like to signal that certainly the National Opposition is willing to extend further time to Mr Cosgrove, so that once he has got rid of his arguments against the prosecution he can come to the defence of John Tamihere, because not only are we waiting to hear it but so is most of the nation.

Mr SPEAKER: All I can say is that Mr Cosgrove has asked for leave, which the House granted him, and he has 3 minutes and 51 seconds to go.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Seriously, I actually thank the Minister for his contribution there. I signal that New Zealand First believes that Mr Cosgrove would probably need some 30 minutes to do justice to such a defence and counter-attack on the prosecution’s assertions. I signal through you to Mr Cosgrove that, should he like to seek leave, there would be no objection to a half-hour speech on this issue.

Mr SPEAKER: That is up to Mr Cosgrove; it is not up to anybody else.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: Such cooperation in the House I have not seen for a long time! There is a need, when the mud-slinger throws mud, to ascertain the quality of that mud. Part of that process is to ascertain and characterise the integrity and credibility of the mud-slinger. We know that Mr Hide attended an investment conference and he claimed that he got duped. We know that hundreds of New Zealanders lost millions of dollars.

We also know that he was approached by authorities and to this day he will not answer the simple question: why did he not go to the authorities? So if he will not come clean, then we have to question the evidence that is provided.

We have to question why Mr Hide said publicly that he would only cooperate in a limited way with the Douglas White inquiry. He drip-fed a little morsel here, a little tantalising titbit there, and he relied for his evidence on a dodgy audit report that he flicked around the gallery to a few of his mates. That report stated in its covering letter that it was not an audit review report at all.

It is very interesting that Mr Tamihere is one of the people who called for an audit and a review, and formed an audit committee. None of the complainants were asked what the problems were by the auditors. None of the elders, the trustees, or others who had raised financial concerns were ever asked. The auditors went on to interview the “gang of three”, who were under investigation. We now know of another of Mr Hide’s sources: Mr Bruce Bryant, who is a close family member and who has a relationship with a very prominent member in our community—but we will leave that subject there. I say to Mr Hide that he should tell us about Port Douglas, but I leave that subject there.

I say to Mr Hide that all the evidence he relies on and that he has drip-fed to the public is slowly being unpicked. He relied on a dodgy report that he said was an audit and review report. That has been disproved. So in defence of Mr Tamihere, I say that people should look at the evidence and its quality. I do not know the last time Mr Prebble made an argument in a court, but even he, I think—and he is a learned lawyer and I do respect his talents—would say that the first thing one does is look at the evidence.

I ask the question: why did the trust break the constitution by appointing a member of the audit committee to a job in the Waipareira Trust? Who appointed him? One of the members of the “gang of three” appointed an audit committee member—who was a trustee—to a job in the trust, which is directly in contravention of the constitution. If that is not influencing an audit committee, I do not know what is. So I say that people should look at the evidence, and judge when the evidence is judged.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a fascinating speech from—

Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

GERRY BROWNLEE: I am going to seek leave, but of course I need to tell the House what it is about.

Mr SPEAKER: The member must seek leave on his own behalf.

GERRY BROWNLEE: On my own behalf—absolutely.

Mr SPEAKER: Please do so now.

GERRY BROWNLEE: As I say, that was a fascinating—

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member will actually seek leave. He does not have to go into the reasons. I want to know what the leave is for first.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I seek the leave of the House to ask Mr Cosgrove some questions about his speech.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for Mr Brownlee to ask questions. Is there any objection? There is.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to give a 5-minute speech on Mr Tamihere, in which I intend after 10 seconds to yield to Clayton Cosgrove.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to give a 5-minute speech. Is there any objection? There is.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central): I move, That the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This is a private bill, promoted by the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Ltd for Parliament’s consideration. The bill substitutes the name of the Guardian Trust’s parent company from the Royal and SunAlliance Insurance Group to Promina Group Ltd in order to enable the company to transact business with its parent company.

Guardian Trust has been operating as a trustee in New Zealand since 1883 when the Guardian, Trust and Executors Company Act was passed. In 1982 it merged with the trust department of the New Zealand Insurance Company Ltd, necessitating the passing of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Act in that year. The trust has 14 branches throughout New Zealand and acts on trusts and estates for many thousands of New Zealanders. The Guardian Trust is a trustee company authorised under the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Act 1982 to carry on business as an executor, a trustee, a trustee company, and in other fiduciary capacities. This Act currently allows the trust to transact business with its parent company, which is named, and any subsidiary or company associated with its parent company. It also allows it to attain the financial benefit from such transactions, which would otherwise be precluded under trust law. The ability to transact business in these circumstances is necessary, given the size of the corporate group with which Guardian Trust is associated and the opportunities that may be lost if the ability to transact business with such companies was not available. Similar concessions exist for all other trustee companies.

The Act currently defines the parent company to mean the Royal and SunAlliance Insurance Group. In a corporate reorganisation that occurred in 2003, the New Zealand and Australian businesses of the Royal and SunAlliance Group were consolidated into one holding company—Promina Group Ltd. As part of that reorganisation, Guardian Trust was sold to Promina Group Ltd. Accordingly, the objectives of this bill are to enable the company to transact business with its current parent group company, Promina Group Ltd, and with Promina Group Ltd’s subsidiary and associated companies, whether or not they are incorporated in New Zealand; to validate any business transacted with various parent companies, subsidiaries, or associated companies of its various parent companies, whether or not they are incorporated in New Zealand, on or after the commencement of the principle Act until the commencement of the bill as an Act; and to ensure that the principle Act accurately reflects the current ownership structure of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Ltd.

I recognise that a number of select committees—and, indeed, this House—have wrestled with the issue of whether generic legislation would better protect people who have dealings with the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company. Each select committee has recommended that generic legislation be introduced to deal with the need for the various trust companies to bring legislation of this sort before the House. I hope the select committee will be able to deal with this particular issue in relation to the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company, and I hope we will see legislation in some short time, so that it will not be necessary for legislation of this type to take up the time of the House and committees. However, in the meantime it is, so, in accordance with the Standing Orders, the notice of intention to promote this private bill has been distributed to those persons who have a direct interest in the subject matter of the bill. It has been publicly advertised, and I commend it to the House. At the appropriate time I will move that this bill be referred to the Commerce Committee.

RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom): It is probably fair to say that two of the great commercial names in New Zealand would have to be the New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd and the South British Guardian Trust Co. Ltd. Those companies, of course, no longer exist. In the course of history they have been subsumed into the name New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Ltd. We are here confronting a bill that National supports. It is a private bill that, for some of the reasons the Minister, Judith Tizard, indicated, is a somewhat unusual type of bill in a setting where this Parliament deals with four types of bills: Government bills, members’ bills, local bills, and, much less frequently, private bills. Private bills are promoted by a person or a body of persons for the particular interest or benefit of that person or body of persons. The Minister was right to say that this type of legislation, for the reasons she gave, should not be encouraged. Here, however, we have that class of case where clearly it is appropriate to make an exception.

The purpose of this New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill is to amend the principal Act of 1982—although the history of the two entities goes way back beyond that—really to do two things. The first purpose is to enable the company to transact business with its present parent company and that parent’s subsidiaries and related companies, and the second purpose is to validate retrospectively those transactions that have already taken place in relation both to the present and past parent companies, their subsidiaries, and related companies. So I join with the Minister in hoping that this legislation will be passed with alacrity, because it is clearly an unsatisfactory circumstance that transactions are occurring that may not be properly sanctioned.

It was in 1982 that the New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd, which was founded in Auckland in 1859, and the South British Guardian Trust Co. Ltd merged to form the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Ltd. That entity became a wholly owned subsidiary of the New Zealand South British Group Ltd. There were a number of reasons why the principal Act was necessary, and it is relevant to talk about those issues, because this bill is an amendment to the principal Act. What was the principal Act about? I guess we could summarise four primary reasons for the legislation. First of all, it was to amalgamate the trust and agency businesses of the merged companies and the transfer of those businesses to the new company; secondly, the vesting in the company of all those appointments, rights, and duties that the merged company was to assume as an executor, a trustee, and a fiduciary; thirdly, the empowering of the company to act as an executor of wills and administrator of the estates of dead people; and finally, to include the company as a trustee company under the Trustee Companies Act of 1967.

What happened in the course of history—and this is a matter of record—is that the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Ltd fell under the spell of one of the great underwriters of the world, the Royal and SunAlliance Insurance Group plc of England. Then there has been the further change that has seen the Promina Group take a hold of the New Zealand Guardian Trust and become its current parent. The Promina Group is a big enterprise on any view of it. It is listed on the New Zealand and Australian stock exchanges and employs over 6,700 people. It has about 210 offices in Australia and New Zealand, and I understand that its combined gross written premium in its trans-Tasman business operations was A$1.458 million for the 6 months to 30 June 2004. So, we are dealing with one of New Zealand’s largest insurance and financial services organisations. Its brands, as I am sure members will know, include companies like Vero, Asteron, Guardian Trust, Tyndall Investment Management, Vero Marine Insurance, Vero Liability Insurance, AA Insurance, and certain other companies.

I note out of interest that in the current stock exchange listing for Promina Group, there is an indication of the strength of the company, with the last sale of its shares being at 481c. The company has a price/earnings ratio of 8.48 percent. So perhaps it is a good investment. I confirm that the position of National is to support this legislation, and I join with the Minister in seeking that the legislation be quickly enacted to make the changes the bill contemplates.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First, I say that we will support this bill going to the Commerce Committee. I think the time has come, though, when we should reconsider having bills of this kind coming before Parliament, and we should reconsider whether the main Act should continue.

The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Act was passed in 1982, and I happened to be in Parliament at the time. I seem to recall there was a great deal of lobbying to ascertain whether we should have this kind of legislation that is specific to one company. I think there was some trepidation in allowing a precedent of this kind to come into existence. Here we are, 22 years later, and not only is the Act still here, but it has been amended once in 1989, and we are looking forward to amending it again today.

I think the Government of the day should reconsider this type of legislation and have a standard legislation that would apply to everybody. If we read the Act and the 1989 amendment, we see that section 21(1) of the Act is almost unintelligible. It is a typical trust company clause. It is a sentence of 20 lines. I do not think any member of Parliament understood what was in section 21(1), either in the original Act or in the 1989 amendment. It is not surprising, therefore, that the company itself possibly does not fully understand it, yet in the bill before us today clause 4 amends that rather unintelligible section. The main purpose of the legislation is to amend section 21, by adding paragraphs (a) to (e) to a section that has one sentence of 20 lines. I really think the time has come for the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company and whoever it owns it today to reconsider the situation.

In 1982 we were very proud to be doing something for a New Zealand - owned company, in general terms. The history has been set out. The Trust Department of the New Zealand Insurance Company merged with the South British Guardian Trust Company. Those companies are great old names. They had buildings in Queen Street, and everyone in New Zealand identified with them. We are now doing something for Promina Group. The National Party member Mr Worth has fully set out everything about Promina Group that we really need to know, but he has explained that it is effectively an overseas company. So here we are, in the New Zealand Parliament, trying to facilitate something for an overseas organisation that has swallowed up a New Zealand company. I really do not think that is the role of Parliament. The sooner the Government looks at standard legislation for all companies in that situation, the better.

It is only because it is the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company and because we have a considerable debt to such an old company in New Zealand that we support this bill going to the select committee. But, really, the time has come to reconsider this type of legislation.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I rise for the ACT party to address the bill just introduced by Judith Tizard. This bill is designed to allow the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company, a trustee corporation, to breach trust law and do things that trustee companies are not allowed to do; that is, to have transactions with its parent company where there may be a conflict of interest. It is not unprecedented. This arrangement has been permitted for trustee companies for some time, on a case by case basis, as members who spoke earlier have mentioned. Parliament, in effect, has approved new parents and said that they can have dealings with them.

But the introduction of this bill as if it were just another standard copycat bill is evidence of the commercial naivety of the Labour Party and of the utter unsuitability of Dr Cullen, and the Labour Ministers involved in the commerce area, to their jobs. This bill should not be proceeding in a form anything like this. It is a completely different matter to allow related-party or cosy transactions within a group where the entire group is in New Zealand than it is to allow those transactions to occur with something as vital to so many people as a trustee company when the parent is offshore.

We can draw parallels and lessons from Dr Cullen’s approach in allowing the control of the New Zealand banking industry to disappear offshore, and allowing New Zealand’s ability to recover from a banking crisis to be determined by Australian banks and Australian regulators who do not need to give a stuff about New Zealand depositors.

I urge the Commerce Committee, to which this bill will go, if it gets there, to have a look at some recent speeches: two speeches by the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Alan Bollard, one in Chicago and one earlier in Australia, in August; a brief speech by Dr Michael Cullen to a tax and regulatory seminar on 14 October; and a speech by Mr John Key, the National Party finance spokesman, to a conference of independent financial advisers.

I mention those members because they show a complete want of appreciation and ignorance—which was not shown by the Governor of the Reserve Bank—of the significance of cross-border group transactions. What Dr Bollard has pointed out, and what ACT has been concerned about from the very moment I came to the House, is that the Australian Government is ruthless when the interests of its citizens conflict with those of New Zealanders. Australian banking legislation, for example, states that foreign creditors of an Australian bank will not be paid until every Australian depositor has been satisfied. I understand that there are similar provisions in some of the other law affecting Australian financial institutions. Insurance companies and trustee companies are in the same category as banks, in terms of people’s legitimate expectations that the Government will not simply sacrifice their interests to foreigners.

Dr Bollard very properly drew the attention of his audiences to the fact that when risk limits and capital adequacy are established overseas, when governance is driven from overseas, when the management of the company that might have the money is out of the jurisdiction, and when there may be an outright conflict of regulatory interests between the Australian regulator that wants to have happy and satisfied Australian creditors and the New Zealanders who are saying that their money went across to Australia, the regulators and this Parliament should be deeply concerned.

Dr Bollard has pointed out the practical problems. The Minister’s naive bill states that without any sort of restriction, transactions can be entered into. If those transactions included, for example, transferring the accounting functions, treasury management functions, the risk management functions, and mid-level and technical management, and contracting those back from Australia, and if there is a collapse in that group, the New Zealand beneficiaries who depend on the integrity and capacity of the company could be left swinging and waiting for a very long time. There would be no capacity in New Zealand even to know what was happening.

If the bills stopped being paid to the New Zealand provider of information technology, for example—if the organisation even had information technology capacity in New Zealand—because the group had gone into receivership in Australia, who would be able even to keep the records for the beneficiaries in New Zealand? This useless and utterly naive Government inherited a well-running economy from the National Party and an earlier breed of the Labour Party.

Taking the example from Dr Cullen and his approach to banking regulation—which is, essentially, “Oh, let’s leave it to the Aussies, it’s all too complicated for us, we don’t need to know about it—this bill comes in and states that the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company can do what it likes with its parent and we do not have to care about it.

Well, I hope the select committee gets some expert advice on the issue. I believe that because this is part of the financial sector, committee members should go to the Reserve Bank and ask it what kinds of safeguards they should write into the bill to make sure that when Promina Group goes down, if that happens, people do not suffer the fate of the creditors of, for example, the most recent major Australian insurance company collapse. It was only the toughness of the New Zealand legislation around the Accident Compensation Corporation denationalisation that meant the New Zealand claimants did not swing, after the Australians. It was the toughness of the US authorities, which promptly seized $500 million of assets of the Australian group, that meant the Americans got paid. We need a regime that makes sure New Zealanders are looked after, before a bill like this goes through to look after the now Australian-based shareholders in a company that is as important to many New Zealanders as the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company.

These trustee companies are not invulnerable. They are very dependent on the quality of local management. They are very dependent on the systems that are available. If the management and functionality is outsourced to Australia, it would not matter how well intentioned the New Zealand authorities were in trying to impose a moratorium, or in freezing things, or in fixing things—as the Government had to do for the Perpetual Trustee Company in Dunedin, 30 or 40 years ago. The Government had to step in there, impose a moratorium, put in administrators to run the company, and ensure the company was run until it could trade out. In those days, of course, one could go to look up paper records, and as long as they had not been thrown away, burnt, or dealt with fraudulently, one could trace back and find out what had happened.

In a company like the trustee company today, if an Australian receiver decided he did not need to bother to pay the information technology fees for a New Zealand business that he had already decided was worthless, we might find that the beneficiaries were quite helpless. The Government would have to step in and pay for what should be a cost met by the Australian owners, who would presumably have sucked the benefit out of the company. It is not hard to loot a group whose governance is not subject to local jurisdiction. It could be done even if local directors did not know it was happening. If treasury management was centralised in Melbourne or Sydney, it could simply be that short-term loans were made in perfectly good faith to the Aussie company when it was in strife, which the local directors did not know about. Lo and behold, when the balloon goes up they cannot repay those loans. A company that looked as if it had a perfectly sound balance sheet is suddenly shown to have undue exposure to its parent.

This bill needs a great deal of work. I disagree with the National Party speakers—this is not a simple matter. This is a matter that is a precedent for a lot of transactions between our financial sector and other foreigners, and it is not an anti-Australian move. We need to know that the capacity has been properly protected before allowing a trustee company open slather with its parent.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): Let me say at the beginning that United Future will vote in favour of this bill being submitted to the Commerce Committee for due consideration. As I will say in the course of my remarks, it is very important, I believe, that the select committee does give the bill, as drafted, very detailed consideration before bringing it back to the House for its second reading. On the face of it, as Richard Worth and others have said, this seems to be quite a simple matter: the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. has changed its parent from the Royal and SunAlliance Insurance Group to the Promina Group Ltd, an Australian company, whereby there is a switching of the parent from a British-based company to an Australian company. That seems to be a fairly straightforward matter. But, in addition to the matters that have been drawn to the attention of the House by Stephen Franks, the member who has just concluded his speech, I would like to say, too, there are some other matters that I think the select committee should have regard to in relation to this bill.

The first question is why we have an Act of Parliament to enable this particular company, the Guardian Trust Co., to operate these transactions with its parent company and other entities within the group. Since we have a Companies Act, surely it is unusual for a company to exist in New Zealand under its own special Act of Parliament. Now, such things have happened in the mists of time—some companies have special Acts going right back to the 19th century, and it actually becomes almost like a branding and marketing exercise for a company to be able to say that it was established under an Act of Parliament—in this case a 1982 Act of Parliament.

So the first point we would like to make is to ask the select committee to re-examine whether a continuing need exists for this company to have its own Act. Should that position be able to be changed so that it just becomes a company like any other, under the Companies Act? Why does it have to continue to have its own Act?

The second point I raise relates somewhat to the first. As this bill is necessary because the parent company has changed, does it mean that a new Act is required every time the parent company changes? Indeed, there have been quite a number of changes in the parent company of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. over the years. It seems to me to be a somewhat flawed process. Linked to that point, I ask whether it would be simpler to use some sort of delegated power—and there are instruments in a number of Acts to do that—so that the executive or, for example, the Government Administration Committee or the Regulations Review Committee, one of those bodies, without having to come back to the House, could simply change or swap the parent company’s name, when and if that happens. I think that needs to be looked at.

The other concern I have about the way this bill is drafted is that it changes the interpretation so that, for the first time, a subsidiary includes an overseas company. I want to ask why that is being done. What is the commercial and economic rationale for that, and, furthermore, is it something that should be done? I say that because it is quite clear, of course, that the Royal and SunAlliance Insurance Group was an overseas parent and, as Richard Worth pointed out, had a multiplicity of subsidiary companies right around the globe. It is a multinational company. So why are overseas subsidiaries being introduced into the bill for the first time? I think the select committee should have a serious look at that and just conclude that there is a valid reason, because the explanatory note of the bill does not really explain it. It just states that we are doing this, but it does not tell us why. I ask what the implications are, and whether it is a good thing. With those remarks, I once again signal that we will vote for this bill on its first reading.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central): I want to thank members of the House for the comments that they have offered on this private bill. As the MP for Auckland Central I have been asked a number of times to introduce private bills and I see it as a duty of members of Parliament on occasions to do that. I think that the issues that Mr Franks has raised are good ones that should be thoroughly considered by the Commerce Committee, and I am sure that thorough consideration will be given to this legislation. It is slightly different in nature to earlier private bills relating to the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. in that it is now owned by a parent company that is registered in New South Wales, Australia. I urge the select committee to take any advice it needs to in order to examine the bill and to cross-examine the promoters of the bill. I look forward to this legislation being received back.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 111

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Noes 8

ACT New Zealand 8.

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

Ayes 101

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2.

Noes 15

New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2; Māori Party 1.

Amendment to the amendment agreed to.

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

Bills

Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 6 October.

Part 4 Enforcement and miscellaneous provisions (continued)

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You might recall that the last time this bill was before the Committee I raised a concern that New Zealand First has—that by voting split votes we were not able to identify who was for and who was against. I subsequently raised it as a point of order in the House, and the Speaker referred me back to the Committee to raise it, which I am doing now. I believe that in the interests of true democracy the public are entitled to know from each party who voted for, who voted against, and who abstained.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have a ruling to give.

SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National): I would like to speak to the point of order, if I may. In respect of the original motion that was put by Lindsay Tisch at the commencement of this bill, and the motion that was put to seek leave from the House that Standing Order 144(1)(b) be suspended—that being the Standing Order that requires a vote for either the Ayes, Noes, or abstentions to be cast—at that point New Zealand First, along with any other party or any other individual in the Chamber, had the opportunity to object to that Standing Order being set aside in order that the split voting of more than two parties—I think it was three parties—could occur during the course of this bill. I suggest, through you Madam Chairperson if I may, that if Mr Brown and New Zealand First wish to see an amendment to that Standing Order and to have the issues relating to individual members’ votes known, he and his party should make a submission to the Standing Orders Committee. I say to Mr Brown that should he wish to identify which members voted for which part, I can speak on behalf of the National Party and say that he is very welcome to ring each individual member.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member for his contribution. I say to Mr Brown that there is no contention on this. The point is that leave has been given for split party votes on this bill. There is no argument.

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): Let me just clarify one or two things. I say to the honourable member, through you Madam Chairperson, that I do not think that anybody in New Zealand First believed that access would be denied to finding out who voted which way.

Simon Power: Read the Standing Orders.

PETER BROWN: The member says I should read the Standing Orders. If upon request I went through the Committee and asked who was voting this way and who was voting that way, I believe we are entitled to know. I have had telephone calls from the public urging me to pursue this matter. I have looked up Standing Order 6, “Amendment or revocation of Standing Orders”, which states: “A Standing Order may be amended or revoked only by motion with notice.” I have a notice of motion here, if necessary. On behalf of New Zealand First I am not prepared to let any other bill receive a split vote unless we get an assurance that we will get the names of the people. I suggest that this issue should be addressed.

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I think, with respect to the member, that the Standing Orders are clear. The practice has been clear since the Standing Orders were changed. I think the suggestion made by Mr Power is a very good one. I say to any member or party that has a concern about a particular Standing Order that we have a committee at which such matters can be raised. I urge the member to give a considered submission to that committee because it is an environment in which it will be looked at carefully and all the permutations and implications could be examined by a group of senior members who have spent years looking at those things. It is how the Standing Orders are improved. I suggest to the member when he makes such a rash statement that it may be that his party may want to use the split-vote capability. I suggest for his consideration that any day when a party gives a party vote that is less than its full entitlement he does not know which members have voted for or against a matter. It is simply in the nature of the way in which we vote in this Chamber, and I give that as an example of how there are wider considerations here. I urge the member to use the Standing Orders Committee as the appropriate vehicle to address his concern.

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): I just to want to make our position clear. We have used a split vote and we will probably use it again, but we have never used it on the basis that we will not divulge who voted for and who voted against.

Simon Power: Nobody is saying we won’t. Give us a ring and we’ll tell you.

PETER BROWN: I say to Mr Power that I am not prepared to do that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Brown was speaking. He had the floor on a point of order. I just want to clarify the matter. It is actually very simple. The point is that the House can give leave as it so wishes, and that is exactly what it has done. Mr Power is right, as Mr Burton has reinforced, that the member has the right to take the matter to the Standing Orders Committee, and I certainly suggest that he could do that. However, I assure the member that everything has been done correctly. There is no intention on anybody’s part to stop a member from doing anything, but the House has taken the action that it did, and it had every right to do that. If the member wants to know how individual members have voted he will have to contact them individually. It is not a matter for the Chairperson to look behind the numbers in any party vote. If a member calls a party vote the Chairperson, or the Speaker for that matter, has no right to know who did not or did vote.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National): National concurs with your ruling, Madam Chairperson, as we did the last time this subject came up. The member said he was unaware that names would not be divulged, but it is very clear—

Peter Brown: That’s not the point.

LINDSAY TISCH: No, it is very clear that the House gave leave, which I sought. Every party agreed to it, otherwise it would not have happened and we would have gone back to a party vote system. I recall that Mr Brown actually sought the leave of the House to have a party vote when he was not happy with the result the last time this subject came up. The member sought leave, and it was denied because we were already proceeding by way of a split vote. We have agreed that on this bill there can be split votes, and that is the way it has to remain. Simon Power and Minister Burton have identified the process that can be gone through and we concur with that. Unfortunately in the member’s case the House has given leave and that is the process we need to follow through to its conclusion.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on this matter. It is a very simple ruling. There is nothing more to be said or added to the ruling.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is it a new point of order, because I have ruled?

STEPHEN FRANKS: It is a new point of order, Madam Chairperson. The point is that it has been indicated that this is a matter that Mr Brown should take up with the Standing Orders Committee. That is the right advice and I do not dispute the ruling. What I would ask is whether the Chair or the Speaker, in these circumstances, where this has been the subject of debate in the Chamber, would provide an opinion to that committee. I believe that people listening to the debate may be concerned that this device could be a cover to enable members of Parliament to say one thing to one group and another thing to another group without being outed. That is not good for the reputation of the House. I ask you to form a view or to have an input, given that it has arisen when you have been the Chairperson. It is a concern to me that people listening will be concerned that we are trying to cover up votes. The ACT party is quite prepared to make it plain what its split vote consists of.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member makes a fair point.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson—one brief point, if I may. I think it is very important, especially after that last comment, to stress that this procedure has not been used in any way to provide secrecy or to cover up the voting. It seems to be a most efficient way of allowing people to differentiate rather than having to ring the bells and take up hours and hours of members’ time. As I invited Mr Brown last time, I am sure if he were to write to the whips, they would be more than happy to raise that with their caucuses, and let him know absolutely who voted which way. I do not think there is an issue there for each individual whip to call. But I would just like to repeat the invitation I made to him 2 weeks ago.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is related, and I am not disputing your ruling at all.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): We are dealing with Mr Franks’ point of order.

SIMON POWER: I wish to speak to that. We are now in a slightly difficult position, actually. Because if Mr Franks’ view, and Mr Brown’s view, is that members are trying to cover up the way they are voting, by the use of the mechanism provided in the Standing Orders for a split vote, that is quite a serious accusation, which reflects on all 120 members of Parliament. I made the offer right at the start of these points of orders in relation to Mr Brown’s matter, to cooperate with him in any way, as Minister Benson-Pope said would be appropriate. But I think we need to think very carefully about where we leave this ruling. Because, yes, there are points to be made about the public’s view on how this voting system works, and it is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and the right forum to deal with it is the Standing Orders Committee. But to let that accusation lie on the table in the Committee is something that I do believe you will have to deal with.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Well, I am not too sure whether Mr Franks really made an accusation. He made it more as an observation that, in listening to the debate, there might be an impression given. I do think that if we took the original suggestion, which I certainly can pass on to the Speaker, that the matter be raised with the Standing Orders Committee, as was first suggested, that would deal with Mr Franks’ point of order.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I was hoping that this might be seen by the Chair as a matter that affects Parliament generally, and not seen just as a hobby horse of Mr Brown. I do not think that this is a party matter—this is a matter where we all have an interest in not looking as if we are colluding in trying to hide our views on these matters where there is strong emotions.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes, but the proper course is for the Standing Orders Committee to look at it, and that certainly can be done, as was suggested originally. Did Mr Brown want to add something more?

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): Yes, I do want to add something, because it was in an earlier discussion with Mr Franks where I alerted him to the fact that I had had a phone call that made me pursue this matter with some vigour, because a member of the public did not know who was voting which way on this bill, and there was an inconsistency in the way parties were voting, and that person was entitled to know. Suggestions were made to me, and I cannot prove it, that MPs were saying one thing here, and another thing there. That is why I raised the issue in the first place.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I just want to make it clear, Mr Brown, that if anyone is making an allegation of improper motives, that is dealt with as a matter of privilege. It is not a matter on which the Chair can rule.

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I regret taking another call, but I think the matter cannot be left with uncertainty. I think it is incumbent on all of us not to add to the confusion of members of the public who are listening. I am sure that is what is being done. I tell Mr Brown that we need to be very careful about that. The voting system is as it has been for a considerable period of time, and I repeat, every time a party vote is less than its full entitlement the question as to who is voting which way could arise in the mind of anyone listening if he or she thought about it.

Now I do not know about the member, but I am regularly asked my views on things by people, and I give them my views. If they ask me how I voted, I tell them how I voted. In the end, that is our individual and collective accountability. But I think it is important that we do not leave, and add to, the confusion that people may be feeling. If there is a question—and there is, because it has been raised here—I urge the member, because he has taken it seriously, to put it down on paper and make a submission to the Standing Orders Committee. Clearly the Chair has indicated she will raise it with the Speaker as well, and I think that is fair and proper. I think we should all give careful consideration to the matter, but not add fuel to the fire of confusion by perhaps getting into any more speculation on what people may or may not be thinking.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I think the matter has been fairly dealt with, and certainly we need to move on. A ruling has been given.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): I will continue on from the excellent speech made my colleague Dr Lynda Scott, who was talking on Part 4, “Enforcement and miscellaneous provisions”. There was some concern as to the transitional provisions and powers that the Director-General of Health might have in relation to the advisory committee, pending its establishment. I think one of the concerns was that here was an individual who was not elected and could take on powers that were inappropriate.

It is important to point out again the fact that human assisted reproductive technology in New Zealand has been operating very successfully, and without any major problems, for over 20 years without specific legislation. One of the great strengths has been the fact that all the fertility clinics are required to be members of the Australasian reproductive technology group, which, in itself, is a policeman of standards and requires extraordinarily high levels of accountability. Over the years that body has closed down clinics and has required individuals to stop practising. For instance, one individual in Western Australia was known to over-stimulate the ovaries of women, which consequently managed to produce many eggs. That practice subjected women to having multiple births, which would obviously endanger both them and the resulting babies, and it was firmly, from within the group, put on its head.

I know that the clinic I worked in had some small statistical analysis accounting that we had failed to do. It was a very minor thing, but we were threatened with closure. We were given a period of 6 months in which to right this, which we did for a whole variety of reasons, including the professional reputation that was so important. I want to assure the Committee that there is this 9-month interim period where the Director-General of Health is deemed as the advisory committee, which should not cause any problems. In fact, I think it is extremely unlikely that that would be the case.

It is also important to realise that in clause 65, “Powers of authorised persons”, there are some very clear powers in terms of enforcement whereby the authorised person can enter the place, inspect the place, make copies, and also search and seize. It is very important to have the right balance in relation to these powers, because clearly if authorised persons have the possibility of searching and seizing in vitro gametes, embryos, or in vitro foetuses, it is hugely important that they have very judicious reasons for doing so. However, what we do not want in this country is the possibility of a mad scientist in some corner of Kaitāia, or deepest, darkest Dargaville, carrying out illegal operations, and clearly clause 65 will ensure that that does not happen.

Clause 66, of course, goes on to refer to the entry of dwelling houses, where the same powers of searching and seizing can take place if they are justified. In the miscellaneous provisions we turn to clause 72 and the regulations and regulating powers that the Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to Part 4, “Enforcement and miscellaneous provisions”, of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this part.

One of the strengths of Part 4 is that enforcement is very clearly specified. There is no misunderstanding about what can or cannot happen. Clause 65 specifies the powers of the authorised persons. Clause 66 outlines what has to happen when a dwelling place is entered. Clause 68 lists the notice requirements when a place is entered. Clause 69 specifies what has to happen with the disposal of property seized. So the part very clearly outlines what enforcement there will be. There is no misunderstanding about what can or cannot happen.

It is very pleasing to see that the fines for operating outside the law are quite considerable. Clause 72(1)(b) specifies that the fines must not exceed $20,000. We know that the fertility clinics are operating professionally already, and that this would be a considerable fine for them. A wide range of enforcement instruments are available within this bill, so people who have concerns need not have them. As Dr Paul Hutchison pointed out, we need to be aware that the fertility clinics all belong to one professional group, the Australasian reproductive technology group, and have done for the last 20 years. As he pointed out last week, those clinics are audited very regularly to ensure that they are following the very strict standards and quality requirements that are set down, and that are necessary to follow in order to be a member of this group. We must say that in the past operators have worked very ethically in this particular area.

We were quite reassured to see that the Minister has included on Supplementary Order Paper 267 a new clause 69A, concerning the detection of import and export offences to any gamete, embryo, etc. It is an additional safeguard for those concerned about this area. The procedure that has to be followed has been listed. We must admit that the existing situation has worked very well for the last 20 to 25 years without legislation of this nature. However, it is pleasing to see that legislation has come up in this area, which is one that is advancing quite rapidly. New Zealand First will be supporting this part.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The previous speaker said that New Zealanders should have no concerns. She was very, very appraising of the existing situation. She said that no one should have any concerns, and mentioned the stipulations in this bill about search and seizure powers for illegal activities, the fines, and so forth. Although the Green Party is very happy with the powers that exist in Part 4—we are happy they are there, that such powers do exist—we have very real concerns about how one would know when a fertility clinic was committing an illegal act. The reason for our concerns is that the body that sets the rules about what is legal and what is illegal is a ministerial advisory committee, and it issues guidelines. Essentially, it is the guidelines that will decide which activities fertility clinics undertake are legal and which are illegal.

As I have previously pointed out in the debate, when we look at the fine print of these guidelines we find they are extremely vague—so vague that I believe that in many circumstances it would be very difficult for the police, or whoever would be using these search and seizure powers, to work out what is legal for fertility clinics to undertake and what is illegal. It is all well and good to have all these search and seizure powers and to have fines—everything sounds very reassuring, as the previous speaker said—but in truth, when we look at the earlier provisions and at how the decision will be made as to what activities are legal and what are illegal, then I am afraid to say that this is where the bill falls down utterly. We do not even have regulations. Therefore, the people who do the search and seizure will be acting on policy that is not even in regulation. How can we enforce, through search and seizure powers, something that is not even stipulated in regulation? It is simply a very vaguely worded guideline. It states that if possible we should do this and wherever possible we should do that, but there is no clear and prescriptive wording. How can we then expect officials, when they enter a fertility clinic to use their search and seizure powers, to be able to decide what is legal and what is illegal?

I am afraid to say that this whole part, while it appears to be reassuring to the member for New Zealand First, is not reassuring to us. We cannot see how, in the absence of any regulations in this area, there is clear guidance for people to go in and use these powers. Admittedly, schedule 1 lists some activities that are prohibited, so presumably for people trying to create an animal-human hybrid embryo or a cloned embryo, or trying to develop a genetically modified gamete or embryo, then those activities are clearly stipulated as illegal under the Act, as are the things they would be able to do. But anything that is not in the prohibited section in schedule 1 basically will not even be spelt out in regulation and, in our view, will therefore be very, very difficult to enforce.

I think it is very, very sad that this bill is so weak. Although it is great that we do have the search and seizure powers that will act as a deterrent, presumably on fertility clinics, I am afraid they are weak deterrents, because the legislation is so loose, so flexible, so weak, and so lacking in regulation.

JUDY TURNER (United Future): I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to Part 4, including schedule 2, of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. I want, just very briefly, to carry on from my Green colleague and say that although United Future applauds the fact that schedule 2 has a very sensible search warrant process by which any activity that has not been approved can be investigated, I think we have to understand that it is the implementation of guidelines that will be policed.

I have here the draft consultation document on the guidelines for the preimplantation genetic diagnosis procedure, which has already been circulated for consultation. These are the kinds of guidelines that the search warrant will be used to enforce. When we flick through the document—and I will not bore the Committee with some of the contents—we can see that at this stage it is certainly a document for discussion. This is what has been recommended. I can find nothing in here that provides for something to be enforced. It is really a list of information, facts, concerns, and comments on societal trends and attitudes towards certain procedures. Nowhere does it state in black and white what somebody can or cannot do. In fact, some of the recommendations put the responsibility to develop appropriate procedures on to the fertility clinics themselves. We could hardly go in and arrest people in a fertility clinic for procedures that they themselves are responsible for developing.

This strikes at the heart of my concerns. When one thinks about what guidelines mean, one assumes that a sense of direction is suggested or implied. When we read this very first set, which has a direct implication on the legislation, the warning bells go off, because there is no clear direction. It contains a series of facts and pieces of information that I recommend the member from New Zealand First has a good look at, because that is what the search warrant will be used for to try to enforce. There is nothing to enforce, because the content is so general. Our concern has always been that we should be able to understand very clearly what is and what is not allowed. The original schedule 2 in the bill—which has now been superseded—was very much more prescriptive and clear about what needed to be enforced and what was acceptable and unacceptable.

I also have here—almost in response to the original schedule 2—some of the issues that do not even get a mention in this bill. These, I guess, will now be subject to the ministerial advisory committee, which will make a series of recommendations and develop a set of guidelines to give—once the Minister has given them the tick—to the ethics committees. A huge number of procedures and possibilities are not even mentioned or outlined in this bill, and the decisions on them will be handed over to a whole raft of people. Somehow, under this new schedule 2, we will be able to enforce them through search warrants. I am hugely concerned. I am kind of glad in some ways, although I question why we already have guidelines when this bill has not even been passed into law yet. How are we already so far down the track on this procedure? It is full steam ahead, and there are media releases stating that the Minister has pretty well made up her mind about which way she will vote on this matter, despite the fact that the consultation date has not even closed yet.

So already some huge concerns are developing before the royal assent has even been given. United Future is concerned—certainly I am very, very concerned—about the search warrant and enforcement provisions in the bill. Although they look good, my big question is: what are they enforcing? They are enforcing some very vague guidelines that are left hugely open to interpretation. I do not know how anybody will be held accountable under this legislation.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I rise for the ACT party on this part of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. As I have indicated previously, I believe that this legislation is a classic example of slogan law: it responds to itches without identifying a mischief. The ACT party’s position on this will be a split vote, because although some members believe that the issues warrant some of the attention the bill gives them, most of us believe that this is smokescreen-type legislation.

This is legislation that tries to appear caring about children and that focuses on an almost non-existent problem. It focuses on children who will be born to parents who could hardly care more about the welfare of their children. It focuses on areas of research that are cutting edge—areas whereby, if New Zealand does not participate, others will. So if the people who are promoting this legislation are worried about the overall morality of this kind of research, then probably all they are doing in this legislation is pushing quite a bit of it offshore—for example, by putting a blanket 10-year ban on the life of a suspended embryo, or putting a blanket 14-day limit on the periods that an embryo can be kept in development in vitro.

This enforcement provision says that if people suspect that that is going on somewhere, then they can come without warrant, with as many people as they think are needed, to bust the joint. They can come into a building and seize equipment. Indeed, they can seize the embryos that may well belong to other people—people who have sacrificed enormously to get to a position of perhaps being able to have a child. They can interrupt what is going on, take records, copy, mark, and close down an operation. They can do that on pain of a $20,000 fine. They can do all this in a society that allows kids to be born who are not even wanted, that allows kids to be conceived by mothers who are in a state of total inebriation or drug intoxication, that allows kids to spend their first vital 12 or 14 weeks—whatever period is crucial to a particular development—in a state where they are permanently damaged, and that allows thousands of kids every year to be born without any way of knowing who their father is. This part provides that, without a warrant, people can enter premises where they think that that kind of thing might be happening, where someone is breaching this law, or even where someone is researching without complying with the conditions of the ethics committee. This bill says that those risks, none of which have matured—Dr Hutchison told us in his speech how well-managed and how ethical the people in this industry already are; I think he said that in all the years this industry has operated, he has not been aware of any non-compliance, or words to that effect—

Dr Paul Hutchison: No.

STEPHEN FRANKS: I am sorry, have I said too much?

Dr Paul Hutchison: I said there had not been any major problems.

STEPHEN FRANKS: I am sorry, I am not trying to put words into the member’s mouth. But with this bill Parliament is searching for a non-mischief and is giving draconian powers to officials to exercise, when all the conduct we are talking about is probably well-intentioned. Parliament has enough deliberate evil to worry about—enough offences, enough recklessness, and enough people who are breeding and producing children who will never be loved, and who will have all kinds of problems in their lives because no one cares about them. And here is Parliament patting itself on the back—and I am sure that the member in the chair, Dianne Yates, who is sponsoring this bill, is sincere—without reflecting on just what the bill says about our priorities, about the medical profession, about researchers, and about New Zealanders’ efforts generally.

I think this is a disgrace, and Part 4, which gives the enforcement powers, simply underpins it. It imposes $20,000 fines for offences that can be created by a committee. The committee creates the offence when it imposes the conditions. We do not have any idea what kind of conditions it may impose. For all we know, it may suddenly impose a condition that Māori embryos can be under the control only of Māori people. I believe that would be racism. It could be that someone who objected to that kind of racism would then be busted by the officials and have to pay a $20,000 fine.

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

JUDY TURNER (United Future): I want to take another call on this part, because other parliamentary colleagues have talked about several things that I want to talk about. Before the dinner break Mr Franks talked about what he saw as a complete nonsense for those of us who have some serious concerns about the bill. He talked about a society where large numbers of children are born in unplanned and unfortunate circumstances—children who arrive unwanted and who live unwanted, maybe even for large parts of their childhood—which is somehow a lot more scary than this very planned approach to parenthood.

I remind the Committee, because this applies to Part 4 where we talk about the implementation and policing of those provisions, that part of this technology allows for the fact that children may be brought into being for purposes other than those we would normally think of bringing children into the world for. We imagine that most people want to bring children into the world to love and nurture, but there are a whole lot of other reasons, which now become possibilities, for why one would want to have a child.

Firstly, there is the huge possibility that a child may be designed to provide body parts for a sickly sibling. That is a rather interesting motive. As this technology is advanced under these very flimsy guidelines, another concern I have is that we start to bring into being children who have been so tampered with—I guess advocates would say in a positive way—that those children are now born with a whole new set of expectations upon them that most of us never considered when we had our children. We had our children, we accepted them as they came, and loved them regardless of any warts and glimps that might have been part of who they were.

The new potential that this technology brings along is that we can now have a far greater say, and a huge investment—and I am talking in monetary terms—in the outcomes of the children who are born. Because of the investment we have made, these children now arrive with a huge set of expectations upon them to perform and to succeed in ways that, previously, loving parents did not have the ability to have expectations about. We need to be very clear that this legislation has the potential, at one end of the spectrum, to change the face of parenting completely.

I can remember reading stories of early days in England where people were not allowed to marry, or were discouraged from marrying, below their class. When a gene-rich generation of babies is developed who have had a huge amount of money invested in them by their parents, maybe a new class of people will be developed with a similar set of biases, concerns, and pressures upon them that we thought we had moved away from. That is why I am so concerned about the very loose nature of the guidelines that this legislation puts up.

When one looks at the British system that the original bill of Dianne Yates was based upon, which is a strongly regulatory and licensing regime, we see that it has never stopped the British medical profession from developing that technology, and from moving forward and making genuine advances in that area. Nothing has been held back by that system. The fear that by going into a more tightly regulated system we would somehow be holding back medical advances and increasing levels of suffering, is just a complete nonsense. In other jurisdictions that is certainly not the case when Parliament has chosen to keep a very close eye on the development of this technology, and to make informed choices.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): I wish to take a short call on Part 4, “Enforcement and miscellaneous provisions”. The reason for this call is that over the dinner break I had been considering the speech made by Stephen Franks and his great concerns about the powers of search and seizure without the authorisation of a District Court judge or court registrar. As the bill stands, it allows an authorised person to carry out those powers in clause 65, which include entering a place, inspecting, taking or making copies, and search and seizure, including search and seizure of any equipment, but also of an in vitro gamete, an in vitro embryo, or documents or records.

The major concern is the inappropriate seizure of in vitro gametes, embryos, or in vitro foetuses by the so-called authorised person, without having gone to the length of getting authority through a District Court judge or court registrar. Clearly, on the practicality of this situation in New Zealand, it is unlikely to occur. However, they are quite draconian measures if one considers the importance of in vitro gametes, embryos, or foetuses, and the likelihood that in their removal from a laboratory, or in transportation, those elements could be destroyed, or certainly ruined for the purposes for which their biological parents expected them to be used.

I am aware of the fact that in some of the clinics around Australasia there has been fierce competition and there have been situations whereby, for one reason or another, they have brought law suits against each other. One could be concerned if for some commercial reason the so-called authorised person was indeed given false information leading to seizure of gametes, embryos, or foetuses. I thought that there may just be some use in putting in a new clause 65(1)(j) that would state: “In order for authorised persons to exercise their powers of seizure they must first obtain the authority of a District Court judge or Court Registrar.” Really, that is just to ensure that appropriate process has been gone through, and that every effort is made to ensure that delicate gametes, embryos, or foetuses would not be inappropriately transported, particularly without the knowledge of the people who had the greatest interest. I would like the Committee to consider that amendment. It is a small amendment, but I think that in very exceptional circumstances such a situation could cause extraordinary damage.

I would be very pleased if Dianne Yates were prepared to take a call to give us her opinion as to where, and how far, those powers of search and seizure could be abused. I believe that my amendment does give belt and braces to ensure that in the very rare likelihood that that happened, there would at least be a court registrar or District Court judge ensuring that the proper process had taken place.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): First of all, I think that the matter just brought up by Mr Hutchison was discussed by the Health Committee. But I would also like to talk about the amendment in the name of Bill English to clause 75, “Director-General of Health to be advisory committee pending its establishment”. Subclause (1) states: “Until the expiry of 9 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent, the Director-General of Health is deemed to be the advisory committee for the purposes of this Act.” Mr English’s amendment proposes that we change the expression “9 months” in clause 75(1) to the expression “5 years”, which I think is a very strange amendment. I cannot see why we would delay the appointment of an advisory committee for 5 years, when we already have clause 79, “Provisions to be treated as guidelines in interim period”, and when a considerable lead-in is already provided for in the bill. So I really do not see any point to that amendment in the name of Bill English, nor do I understand why we would want to continue with one person, rather than with an advisory committee, for a longer period of time than the transition period. I do not see much logic behind that amendment put forward by Bill English.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to the amendment to clause 64 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in his name be agreed to.

to omit subclause (2)(c)(i), and substitute the following subparagraphs:

(i) involves a contravention of any of sections 8 to 13:

(ia) involves a contravention of section 25A:.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 64 as amended be agreed to.

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

Ayes 97

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 2; Progressive 2.

Noes 19

New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Māori Party 1.

Amendment as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 65 be agreed to:

to add the following new paragraph to clause 65(1):

(j) in order to exercise the powers of seizure, the authorised person must first obtain the authority of a District Court Judge or Court Registrar.

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

Ayes 41

New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Noes 75

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 4; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to insert new clause 69A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 103

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 6; Progressive 2.

Noes 13

New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 2; Māori Party 1.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 70 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 102

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 5; Progressive 2.

Noes 14

New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 3; Māori Party 1.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to subparagraph (iv) of clause 72(1)(a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 103

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 6; Progressive 2.

Noes 13

New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 2; Māori Party 1.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to add new subparagraph (v) to clause 72(1)(a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 97

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2, Progressive 2.

Noes 19

New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Māori Party 1.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 269 in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 72(2) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 14

Green Party 9; United Future 5.

Noes 102

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 3; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 269 in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 72 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 14

Green Party 9; United Future 5.

Noes 102

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 3; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Bill English to clause 75(1) be agreed to:

to omit the expression “9 months” and substitute the expression “5 years”.

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

Ayes 4

New Zealand National 4.

Noes 112

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to insert new clause 80A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 103

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 6; Progressive 2.

Noes 13

New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 2; Māori Party 1.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 99

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Progressive 2.

Noes 17

New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 6; Māori Party 1.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

put the question that schedule 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 103

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 6; Progressive 2.

Noes 13

New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 2; Māori Party 1.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)

Schedule 2

put the question that schedule 2 be agreed to.

A party vote8 was called for on the question, That schedule 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 103

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 6; Progressive 2.

Noes 13

New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 2; Māori Party 1.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)

Clauses 1 and 2

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part. There will be one debate and two votes.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the title and commencement of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill, which I believe has the very same name as the bill introduced by Dianne Yates back in 1996. In my view it is quite appropriate that that name remain. Dianne Yates has certainly shown extraordinary perseverance over the years. Although in 1998 the Government of the time had a bill called the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill, it seems to me only fitting that the title of this bill, which has been ushered through for 8 long years and has finally come to fruition, should give the sense of what the bill is about—and, fairly and squarely, it is about human assisted reproductive technology.

I think it is worthwhile mentioning—while strictly speaking to the title, of course—that it was in 1979 that Steptoe and Edwards presided over the first test-tube baby, which really heralded this new age of reproductive technology. It was a particularly fascinating procedure for a variety of reasons. Firstly, here was a provincial gynaecologist teaming up with a scientist from Cambridge. The provincial gynaecologist had wonderful technical knowledge and a view of the concept of retrieving eggs and sperm, but did not have the expertise to know how they could be fertilised, incubated, then put back into the uterus successfully. It was the scientist Robert Edwards, who had gained tremendous experience of tissue culture over many years, and had experience in animals as well, who knew how that might take place. It was a momentous occasion when it did take place, because it opened up a totally new world of assisted reproductive technology. Prior to that, literally millions of couples right around the world had no hope that they might be able to have their own biological babies.

I remember, 3 years later, going to a conference in Melbourne—the Asian and Oceanic Congress of Obstetrics and Gynaecology—where, much to my amazement, 99 percent of the deliberations were on that exciting new reproductive technology. There was one paper given by the Indians that was on human sterilisation. I marvelled at the thought that the Indian subcontinent, which had doubled its population—reaching towards a billion—from 1947 to that time in 1979, had enormous problems of population control, and needed to have good contraceptive techniques, and, on the other hand, the Asian and Oceanic group of reproductive experts were totally absorbed with that amazing new technology, which, at the time, had given rise to fewer than something like 15 or 20 births.

Since then, that technology has adapted through the years into many different forms and shapes, so that now we have to think of the mind-boggling possibilities that could occur in the next 20 years or so. For that reason, the title is absolutely appropriate, because all of them involve assisted reproductive technology. What is extraordinary is that we have seen the debate in the United States about stem cell research and the possibilities there, but when we take the next step to the genetic manipulations that could take place, clearly, there will arise a great, new brave world.

JUDY TURNER (United Future): I will take a brief call on clauses 1 and 2. Although I understand how tidy and convenient the title of this bill is—it rolls off the tongue; it is the “HART” bill—in many ways I think the original bill proposed by Dianne Yates would have fitted this description. I do not believe that the bill before us now is described adequately by this title. This bill is now about the handling of all reproductive material outside the body, and covers way more than just the assistance given to people who require assistance with reproduction. It also covers the use of gametes and embryos for research purposes, and I certainly do not think that “human assisted reproductive technology” in any way alludes to the fact that a huge amount of research is now covered by this bill—procedures that will not necessarily impinge on a woman giving birth to a child, but will certainly take us down some very interesting paths.

I think a better title—if we were prepared to move away from our clever HART acronym—would be the “Human Assisted Reproductive and Research Technology Bill”. I guess we could say “HARRT” and put a bit of a roll on the “r”, which would please our southerners! I think the title should be changed to reflect what will be at least 50 percent of the work covered by this bill, which is the work of medical research. Certainly, the title gives no indication that that aspect of the work is covered.

The other matter I want to mention is the commencement date. It is rather interesting that a few provisions of the bill come into force on the date of the royal assent, and that for some others, there is a 9-month phase-in period. I understand that it is quite common in law to have a phase-in period for provisions of an Act. It is rather interesting to refer back to Part 4, where we find clause 75: “Director-General of Health to be advisory committee pending its establishment”. It kind of makes sense when one realises that those guidelines I was talking about earlier this evening—the consultation document for the pre-implementation genetic diagnosis procedures—obviously will not go to the committee. They will probably be processed by the Director-General of Health very quickly—in the next few months.

I think we must understand that a lot will happen in that 9-month phase-in commencement period. It will not be an inactive time. There are technologies waiting in the wings to be processed, and despite the fact that there is a 9-month delay, things will be under way very quickly. I continue to have some concerns. It is interesting, and it is a bit of a challenge to the Greens—it is never too late to change one’s mind. I was talking this evening to a gentleman from the UK. I was explaining the legislation we are working on tonight in the Chamber. His comment to me was: “Oh, I bet the Greens are opposing that.” The Greens have taken a very active stand internationally on this area. He was quite shocked to hear that the Green Party in New Zealand is supporting this bill right the way through. He said that was quite out of step with what has happened with that party internationally. Green members present may want to relay that to their colleagues so that they can reconsider the position they are taking on this bill in the third reading.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to clauses 1 and 2, “Title”, and “Commencement”. The title of this bill is exactly as it should be. It is clear, short, specific, and concise. There can be no misunderstanding as to what the bill is about. Any title should convey the essence and the substance of the legislation, and this title really does. The bill meets those criteria.

When we look at the title of the Government bill, introduced back in 1996—the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill—I say that those specifications would be hard to meet. Really, the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill was about technology way back in 1998, so the word “technology” did need to be included, and even now it more completely covers what actually occurs in this area. I would say, too, that that technology has provided many couples with the children that they had previously been unable to have and have desperately wanted.

This bill has been a very long time in getting to this point, and we are pleased to see that it is making progress through the House today. We need to remember that fertility clinics are professional bodies. Tonight, with some of the arguments and debate that we have heard, I was beginning to wonder. But we need to realise that fertility clinics are professional bodies, that they do have strict standards, and that they do have quality requirements. After all, the bottom line is that they are dealing with humans. Humans are unique. We are special. We need to have the very best legislation that we can in this area, and this legislation is a good start.

I know that fertility clinics have worked in their field for over 20 years, and we read in newspapers about only the very major occurrences. Nothing has happened with fertility clinics that really casts doubt on those bodies. When I look at the commencement date I can understand why there is a 9-month phase-in to set up this particular legislation. When all is said and done, we need to have a ministerial advisory committee and an ethics committee set up, and in this legislation it is very clearly outlined and set out as to what the requirements of those committees will be. Clauses 1 and 2 firmly cover what the bill is about. New Zealand First supports them.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): First of all, for the benefit of the United Future member and anyone who may have listened to her speech, I reiterate that the Green Party has huge concerns with this bill. We are supporting it only because it prohibits the worst excesses of artificial reproduction—namely, genetic engineering, cloning of human beings, and sex selection for social reasons—and because the weak regime it sets in place is better than the totally unregulated, free-market approach that we have at present. That is the only reason we are voting in favour of the bill.

Basically, proponents of human assisted reproductive technology, such as Dr Paul Hutchinson, paint a rosy picture of a future where these technologies can be used to overcome the limitations of the human body and, in particular, to overcome the limitations of infertility. But the very same technologies that can be used, for example, to cure a child of cystic fibrosis or to avoid such a child being born, can equally be used to threaten human dignity and human rights, to eliminate imperfections, to create perfect persons and a perfect race—in other words, to be used for eugenic purposes. The Green Party believes that we must draw a line to protect future generations from growing up as laboratory experiments.

There are huge controversial issues in the area of assisted human reproduction, such as: where does one draw the line between what is an acceptable and what is an unacceptable use of pre-birth selection; who decides what genetic defects are to be allowed to be eliminated from the human population through embryo selection and pre-implantation, genetic diagnosis, etc; and where does it stop, given the pressures from consumers? How does our society decide what characteristics are permissible in offspring, and where does one draw a line, for example, between cystic fibrosis, Down’s syndrome, spina bifida, and coronary heart disease?

Regrettably, those profound issues will not be decided by Parliament, because in this legislation we have delegated all those profound decisions to an unelected and unaccountable committee. It is ironic that in the next bill, Parliament will decide on whether we can dock dogs’ tails, but in this bill, we are abdicating our right to decide on profound issues such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.

Instead, guidelines were issued a couple of weeks ago on the issues I raised. Basically, those guidelines state that it is not the responsibility of Parliament to decide where we draw the line between cystic fibrosis, Down’s syndrome, coronary heart disease, or whatever. No, no, that is left to the responsibility of the fertility clinics, which the member from New Zealand First has so much confidence in. It is left for them to decide whether a disorder is likely to be serious in the offspring of a particular couple and, therefore, whether pre-implantation genetic diagnosis could be used. The clinics themselves will be making those very profound decisions. So it is quite extraordinary, and I do not think people realise it. The population will wake up and realise, down the track, what we are doing in passing this legislation and delegating those profound decisions to an unelected and unaccountable committee, and simply issuing guidelines rather than having any regulations in the whole area.

People will wake up in the future. There will probably be a couple of scandals in a few years’ time, and I can predict that there will be amendments to this legislation to strengthen it and, at least, embody regulations, and to return it to the form that Dianne Yates’ member’s bill began with, with strict licensing and regulations. But it has been completely gutted and watered down. Now we have something that I believe we will live to regret, and everyone here needs to realise that members, in progressing this bill tonight, are abdicating their responsibility for those issues.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): I want to address the title of the bill. It was originally based, as has been said, on the United Kingdom’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990. I want to explain that I deliberately chose the term “Human Assisted Reproductive Technology” for the title of the bill. The bill that followed it in 1998 in the name of Doug Graham, the then Minister of Justice, was the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill. I deliberately put the word “human” before the word “assisted” even though it should be “Assisted Human Reproductive Technology”, strictly speaking. I thought it made it easier to say—it is easier to say “HART”, because we know that a huge title like that is very difficult to talk about—but I also thought that it is important that the word “human” comes first. We are talking about human beings, what it means to be human, and what it will mean to be human in the future, when we are talking about anything to do with gene technology, reproductive technology, and human beings. That is why I deliberately put the word “human” first.

I also mention that in the bill as introduced, there were more restrictions around both research and consent. As Sue Kedgley mentioned, the original British bill had greater controls and, in the schedules, greater emphasis both on what happens to embryos in regard to research and on the consent of the people who donate.

HEATHER ROY (ACT): I rise to speak to clauses 1 and 2 of this Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill and to say in respect of the title that I would have been more in favour of retaining the “Assisted Human Reproduction and Technology” title by which it is commonly known in the area of assisted human reproduction. I guess that is a small matter in the final analysis, and I suppose “HART” does roll off the tongue. There is always a danger, I think, of reducing something to its initials though, in that when we talk about the “HART Bill” many people have absolutely no idea what we are talking about. However, if we have to say the name in full, it does give the real meaning to the bill.

ACT New Zealand members, as we have said in the other parts of this bill, will have a split vote. Some of our members think that there is no need for a legislative framework around this. I am one of the two people in the ACT party who is supporting the bill, and I am very pleased, in fact, with the outcome that we have arrived at.

I think that the Green member’s criticism of Dr Paul Hutchison of the National Party for painting a rosy picture was really quite a sad criticism, because there are many infertile couples, both in New Zealand and around the world, whose lives have been greatly enriched by the addition of a child, or children, to their families. Without the assistance of human reproductive technology, they would have had no hope of ever having children. It does sadden me when I hear criticisms like that.

Another point that has been raised is that there should have been very strict legislative regulation around the provisions of the bill. I was delighted to see we had in fact opted for the guidelines. I think in reproductive technology, and in the area of research, it is very important to have a good deal of flexibility in a field that is seeing progress running at a huge pace. There is nothing worse, particularly in the area of reproduction, than something being held up, and perhaps never being able to be retrieved, when quick and wise decisions cannot be made in a timely manner. Several examples were given to us, as we progressed through the bill, where decisions could not have been made in a timely manner if some of these provisions were not put in place.

I think the biggest advantage of this bill is that the very messy procedure of having to progress issues through a large number of ethics committees can now be avoided. There will be the ministerial advisory committee, which set up the guidelines, and one ethics committee, rather than having to go to several committees around the country to have decisions made in different areas. Those decisions can now be made through one ethics committee, and that, too, will assist the timely progress of decisions through the bill.

Coming back to the title just for a moment, I agree with the United Future member that the title refers to only half of the bill. The bill is about reproductive technology, but it is also about research—the research provisions around reproductive technology. The research deserves to be acknowledged, because we would not have reproductive technology if it were not for the fact that a great deal of research preceded it. I would have liked to see some acknowledgment in the title that the bill is about research in many respects, and is heavily dependent on it. Again, I come back to the fact that “HART” might roll neatly off the tongue, but the whole point of having a title is to give a true reflection of what a bill is about. The research component is extraordinarily important.

I want to make a final comment on fertility clinics, which have been criticised heavily in the course of this entire debate. I think the fertility clinics that we have in New Zealand have demonstrated a good deal of integrity. We heard Dr Paul Hutchison, who knows a great deal about this area, say that there have been no major problems in the 20 years that fertility clinics have existed in New Zealand. They have existed with a great deal of integrity and have taken very seriously the professional self-regulation that they have always enjoyed. There is no reason to suggest this integrity will not continue into the future.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): I think the title is somewhat misleading because this bill is largely about the decision-making process and not so much about the technology itself. Despite what the last speaker said, there has been almost no debate on how this bill might impact on research. That is why I think we will find ourselves back here in Parliament, not next year but before too long, dealing with issues that deserve wide public debate.

This bill is really the “Human Assisted Reproductive Process Bill”, and it is a process that seems to regard any issue to do with human-assisted reproduction as somehow the province of the people who carry out the activity, and of a couple of committees who watch over it. I think that that is a bizarre notion, and that is why I have opposed this bill, right through.

I want to take just one issue that comes up, which was barely discussed in the Committee stage, and that is the use in schedule 1, the list of banned processes, of the term “for reproductive purposes,”. Schedule 1(2) states we are not allowed to: “Artificially form, for reproductive purposes, a hybrid embryo.” That means, of course, that we are allowed to do it for any other purpose. Does the public of New Zealand realise that Parliament is about to pass legislation that not just implies but, in terms of the debate, specifically allows the formation of hybrid embryos for any purpose other than reproduction? Scientific interest or research, of course, is the catch-all for doing it. It is the same with cloning. We are not allowed to form artificially, for reproductive purposes, a cloned embryo, but we are allowed to form a cloned embryo for research purposes.

That means we are having no public discussion about an issue that is defined by the mind of the scientist—that is, by his or her intent: was it intended for this, or for something else? That is the test, the only test, and I do not believe that those decisions should be left to a couple of ministerially appointed committees. Of course, over a period of exposure to the high integrity of people who operate in fertility clinics, scientists, ethical journals, and advisers, those committees become entirely used to these ideas, but the general public does not.

I do not believe that the general public supports scientific processes in New Zealand that form cloned embryos for research purposes. I do not believe that the New Zealand public supports the production of hybrid embryos—that is, animal-human hybrids—for research purposes. At the moment maybe that process is not happening, but when the bill is passed, Parliament by implication will have given approval to it. I think that it is a matter that should be debated by the public.

We have heard a couple of speakers talk about the timeliness of decisions on this matter. This Parliament passed the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, which means we have more hurdles for approving a common chemical that has been used for 25 years in New Zealand than we have for hybrid embryo farming. Because of the rules that we have made, it is harder to get approval for widely used, well-known, almost non-toxic chemicals, than it is to farm embryos for cloning research. In that respect I am conservative, but I believe that this legislation is not conservative enough.

The legislation is no longer about just making sure infertile couples can have babies—that is accepted practice. It is about a whole new world around which there is emotion and hysteria. We have only to look at the US presidential debate to see the bizarre claims made, by someone who wants to lead the free world, about how stem cell research will fix everything—when there is not a hope of that actually happening in the next few decades.

So there is no doubt at all that these issues have much wider resonance than a ministerially appointed ethics committee. That is not to question the integrity of those people; it is just that these issues deserve wider public debate.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): I welcome the opportunity to take a call on clauses 1 and 2 of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill, and on behalf of New Zealand First I acknowledge the great amount of work done by Dianne Yates to get the bill to this stage. It is obvious that she has spent a lot of time and done a lot of work on the bill since 1996, and that she has led a very good select committee on it, as well. I congratulate her. I also acknowledge the work of my colleague in New Zealand First, Barbara Stewart, who has spent a lot of time on this bill, as well.

I would like to touch on a couple of points that I consider to be very important. They relate to the title and to timings. One of the main issues I have with the bill that I would like to raise at this point is the information about donors, embryos, etc. The information recorded by the provider does not have to be turned over to anybody for 50 years. The information has to be retained by that provider for 50 years or, if that provider ceases to be a provider and there are no alternatives, it has to be handed over to the registrar.

That information contains some very important facts and aspects about the donor. It includes the donor’s name, gender, address, and place and country of birth. It also records the donor’s height, colour of hair and eyes, ethnicity, whānau and hapū.

It also records medical history, which is where if information is withheld for 50 years it can have devastating effects. There may be a situation where genetic flaws in the embryos or cells provided have not been picked up, because not all defects carry over from one generation to the next. They often skip one, two, or three generations, then reappear. That is where the problem arises.

If there is a donor who in turn becomes a donor, that information is hidden; it will not become available until 50 years is up. If the child of the donor dies at an early age, say after donating cells for another process, then I am not sure whether the genetic information can become available to the next generation formed from the donated cell of the donor. That is something I would like the member to take a call on, because I would like to hear that that information is provided.

For example, it is very serious when something like cystic fibrosis appears within a family. It may not appear for several generations, but then it can reoccur. Depending on the circumstances of donor parents, the supposed information supplied has to provide information about grandparents, but if the circumstances concern the donated cells of a donor, the grandparents are not known at that point because the information is kept hidden for 50 years.

There is no obligation to provide that information for 50 years, therefore it can fall through the cracks and never be known. I would hate that to be the case. I am an avid family historian and that information is of interest to historians and family historians. But, more important, it is vital information when genetic defects start appearing that cannot be traced back to a family line or the original donors.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): Once again, while sticking strictly to the title of this bill—the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill of 1996—I will stray a little, like my other colleagues. I want to follow up on the point that Dianne Yates made about this bill being modelled on the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, or her original bill, and she lamented that there had been departures from that. It is important to point out that just recently Lord Winston has said that that human embryology legislation is in need of quite radical revision.

In my view, one of the strengths of this bill is that it has done a very important balancing act in relation to the extremes of views we have heard. On the one hand, the Greens talked of the dangers of eugenics being a logical conclusion, and, on the other hand, we have heard from Stephen Franks and ACT, who believe that any regulation in this field is absolutely inappropriate. My colleague Bill English talked about schedule 1 and the implication that while there is a list of procedures that are prohibited if they are for reproductive purposes, that automatically implies they would be legal for non-reproductive purposes. That is inappropriate, and in my view it is pretty far-fetched. He referred to procedures such as artificially forming, for non-reproductive purposes, a hybrid embryo. We do have within this legislation both the ministerial advisory committee and the ethics committee, which can go through a considerably arduous process. Nevertheless, if indeed the recommendation is to ban or to have an amendment to the bill, there is no reason whatsoever that action cannot be recommended to the Minister to take up.

It is important to point out that too much regulation or inflexibility could cause huge setbacks for personkind. I think specifically of what occurred with intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the 1990s. It is a technique introduced into New Zealand for which, as has been pointed out many times, specific regulations have not been in existence. It has opened the way in dealing with male infertility in New Zealand by means of a technique, whereby a single sperm is injected into the nucleus of an ovum. The remarkable thing about this technique was that initially the sperm was injected just below the surface of the cytoplasm. The resulting fertility was in the order of 5 or 6 percent. But by serendipity some of the workers in that area started injecting into the nucleus and, remarkably, the fertility rates changed from 5 percent to 70 percent, and over. That opened the way for a huge revolution and hope for many tens of thousands of men and couples right around the world. This was done without any specific regulation, and has proven to be an absolutely safe procedure, though one might think at first glance that putting a needle into a nucleus and injecting a sperm into it could hugely disrupt the genetics of the future being.

The point that I wanted to make was that it is very, very important not to be too rigid and to have the flexibility that I believe the framework of this Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill has, indeed, made possible.

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

Ayes 99

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Progressive 2.

Noes 17

New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 6; Māori Party 1.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 2(1) be agreed to:

to omit the expression “section 64(a) and (b)(i)” and substitute the words “section 64 (other than subsection (2)(c)(ia) to (iv))”; and

to omit the expression “80” and substitute the expression “80A”.

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

Ayes 97

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 2.

Noes 19

New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Māori Party 1.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 99

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Progressive 2.

Noes 17

New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 6; Māori Party 1.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Procedure

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): I seek leave for the House to proceed directly to the third reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.

Bills

Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill

Procedure

JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for parties to cast votes on the Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs’ Tails) Bill for the Ayes and the Noes to record abstentions, notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b).

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has sought leave. Is there any objection?

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is seeking leave. Would members say “Yes” or “No”.

PETER BROWN: I want to make sure we understand that. Is that seeking a split vote?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member Jill Pettis might like to inform the House.

GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just like to point out to you that at the Business Committee on 5 October all the parties present at that meeting agreed that we would take a split vote on this bill, and I think it would be something that would cause disorder in the House, if after the Business Committee had unanimously agreed on that action, someone was then to deny leave.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for that, but that is not a point of order, it is a debatable point. I am going to invite the honourable member Jill Pettis to explain exactly what she wants so that members on the other side of the House are able to judge.

JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour): Mr Copeland from United Future has accurately relayed the decision that was made at the Business Committee on 5 October where unanimous agreement was given that we could record votes of a party vote cast by party whips, and also for abstentions to be recorded. That was the ethos behind the proposal I just put before the House. That proposal was to reiterate the unanimous agreement of the Business Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection?

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There have been a number of developments, as the members well know, since that was put to the Business Committee, and New Zealand First is not prepared to agree to a split vote unless we get agreement that the names will be tabled—who votes for, who votes against, and who abstains.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. There is no need to explain. The member has sought leave.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The mover may not know, but if she is prepared to extend that so that there is a disclosure as to who were the Noes, who were the Ayes, and who were the abstentions, then we will accept it. We will not oppose leave as long as that is a fact. But the member needs to get up and say it out loud so we all know what she means.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member Mr Peters has just asked that the names be divulged. We had a discussion earlier on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill that we have just finished debating, where it was agreed that a party may take to the Standing Orders Committee the situation that we now find ourselves in in this debate, about the disclosure of names. As the Standing Orders stand at the moment, under Standing Order 144(1)(b) there is no obligation on members in the House to disclose the names. However, as the senior Opposition whip said, if any member wanted to ring and find out who voted for whom and in which way, then we would be happy to disclose that. But there is no obligation on us, under that Standing Order, to disclose the names in the House. That was the position we made very clear, and National is comfortable to disclose the names if someone wants to ring.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Members are well versed in the Standing Orders. Standing Order 84(3) states that points of order are to be heard in silence.

LINDSAY TISCH: If it is the intention of Mr Peters to have the votes disclosed in the House, then that is a different matter. I seek clarification from him, as to whether that is what he is asking.

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

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): I think it is quite a good idea to have a discussion on this matter. It raises some quite serious issues. Not all of us are on the Business Committee, but if the Business Committee is aware of the situation, then it is probably a matter that should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee. The point that is being made is quite a good one. It is saying that when we vote by party, then we presume that the whole party supports something. When we split the vote, at that point it does not support it. Surely the public is entitled to know, because the buck stops here, where the votes are. That is on the one hand. In that sense I am sympathetic to the point raised by Mr Brown.

On the other hand, we also have another principle. If agreements are reached by parties in the Business Committee, they ought to be followed. We have just had a split vote. I can speak with some disinterest in this matter because on this bill the ACT party will not split its vote. Everyone will know how every ACT party MP thinks. But it seems to me that there are two ways out of the present dilemma. One of them is for the senior Government whip to put the leave again, in the terms that New Zealand First wants, just to test the will of the House. For all we know it would carry, but it may not. If it does not carry, then my own view is that the Business Committee having reached this view, we ought to follow it through. But having said that, it has always been my view that the public is entitled to know how members of Parliament vote and that this matter should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee.

Of course if we are doing that, we should do something else, which we are all aware of but a lot of the public are not, and that is when a party like ACT gets up and casts six votes it could mean that there are two members away but it might mean that there is a dissent. That almost never happens in the ACT party, but if it did, the public is entitled to know. Of course, when I first came into this House every member, individually, had to vote and had to declare that vote in the lobby. I think it is an unfortunate development that the occurrence of secret non-voting is now possible under the Standing Orders.

My suggestion to the House is that firstly we invite the senior Government whip to put the amended leave. If that is denied, perhaps we could then think about whether we want to put the first leave again, New Zealand First having eloquently made its case, which I personally am sympathetic to.

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): This is a very important point. I think the Hon Richard Prebble has made some very significant points, but I just point out that the Business Committee is not paramount of the House’s business; the House is, itself. If the member is seeking leave we cannot be denied opposing that leave because the Business Committee has agreed to something.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I thank all members for their contributions. The issue does not need to be discussed. Leave can be taken at any time before the end of the debate. A discussion on a point of order is not likely to be productive of a complex issue. The whips should get together on this. As for Mr Prebble, he has raised a much wider issue that needs Standing Orders Committee attention. There is a proposal before the House for leave. If members object, then they should say so, and the House can get on with the debate.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Before you put the leave, are you putting the amended motion whereby we have asked for the senior Government whip to add to it, that there be disclosure in the Hansard as to which person voted which way? Is that the amended motion you are putting?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The leave that is being sought is the original one that the senior Government whip, Jill Pettis, has put to the House. That is what she is seeking leave on. It is up to members. They can either say “Yes” or “No”.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I have asked her whether she is prepared to amend it. She nodded and said she is.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is up to the honourable member, Jill Pettis.

JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour): May I give a point of clarification. In this instance the Government has no opposition to votes being recorded. We know exactly and precisely how we are going to vote. It is up to the House now to decide whether it wants those votes recorded, in the instance of a split vote. That is what we now need to put before the House.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): What the member has said is not really any more informative than when I first asked the question. I want to know whether she is putting the leave that the vote be split and the votes be recorded.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is that what the member is indicating?

JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour): I am very happy to assist the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Please make it nice and clear so we can all understand.

JILL PETTIS: I will put the leave again. I seek leave for a party to cast votes on the Animal Welfare (Restriction of Docking of Dogs’ Tails) Bill for the Ayes and the Noes, and to record abstentions, and for these votes to be recorded, notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b).

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say that apparently that does not add anything, because they would be recorded anyway.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National): I am sympathetic to what Mr Peters is suggesting. National is voting on this as a party, so it is not a problem for us. I just want clarification as to the position when recording votes. Are we talking about recording names? If we are recording names, the seeking of leave should mention that names would have to be recorded if there is to be a split vote. That is not what the senior Government whip said. That is where we need some clarification.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just suggest that this can be a rather complex issue. Why do we not start the debate, and the whips can get together and get this matter sorted out?

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): I am sure I can help you. I think it is quite simple. I seek leave of the House for the voting on this bill to be a split vote, and in the instance of a split vote, the names of the MPs voting for the Ayes and those for the Noes to be recorded.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has sought leave, and the House is the master of its own destiny. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Can I ask that those who vote in the minority or abstain be named, because that will cut down the process.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The Hon Richard Prebble has sought leave, and it is up to members now whether they grant it. Is there any objection?

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): It has been drawn to my attention that there is a possibility that somebody may wish to abstain from voting. I therefore wish to amend the leave I sought so that in the event of a member wishing to abstain, the abstention be recorded and also the name of the member.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

First Reading

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): I move, That the Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill be now read a first time. I wish to commend to the House my member’s bill to ban the docking of dogs’ tails for other than medical reasons. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee. This bill would amend the Animal Welfare Bill. During the consideration of the stages of the Animal Welfare Bill in 1999, the Primary Production Committee considered at length a proposal to prohibit the practice of tail docking. The committee was unable to agree on the inclusion of a clause that would have prohibited the docking of dogs’ tails from 1 January 2003. The committee “also considered an alternative approach that would enable the making of an Order in Council to prohibit a specific surgical procedure at a later date.” The committee did not support that approach, as it believed “Parliament is the appropriate body to decide whether any procedure should be prohibited.”, and this bill brings the matter back to Parliament.

In the ensuing 4 years all Australian state legislatures have moved to restrict the tail docking of dogs, as from 1 April 2004. In New Zealand some breeders continue to perform this procedure on pups of breeds commonly docked, often with unfortunate results. The view of the veterinary profession in New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Australia is that there is no justification to continue the practice and that “there is no clear evidence that any kind of benefit associated with tail docking exists that can outweigh the potential harm that can be caused to the animals involved.”

This bill will not prohibit the tail-docking of dogs. It will restrict the procedure to veterinarians, or veterinary science students under supervision of a veterinarian, where the docking of the tail is necessary for the welfare of the animal because the tail has been damaged by injury or disease. A rural vet has informed me that he has had to do this operation only three times in over 20 years of practice. He is required, however, to remove cats’ tails as a result of injury, virtually on a weekly basis.

I remind the House that dog tail-docking has been banned in Australia and was ratified by all states on 1 April this year, which is partly why I have tabled this bill at this time. My bill is supported by the New Zealand Veterinary Association. and the SPCA, New Zealand, and I thank those organisations as well as a good number of kennel club members, dog breeders, and dog owners who support the bill. I also point out to the House that docking was also banned in Switzerland in 1988, Finland in 1992, Israel in 2000, Germany in 1992, Sweden in 1992, Norway in 1987, and is included in the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals. Ray Greer, president of the New Zealand Kennel Club said on Radio New Zealand recently that dog tails are not docked for cosmetic reasons but to prevent injury. There is a problem with this argument, as according to the SPCA, as I have mentioned, cats receive far more tail injuries than dogs, yet we do not customarily dock their tails when they are kittens to prevent these injuries. Those who object to my bill would never dream of customarily cutting off cats’ tails, I am sure.

In regard to the economics of the bill and professional breeders, I have been assured that dogs traditionally docked are not penalised at international dog shows and that breeders therefore would not suffer economic loss. Dr Hugh Worth, president of the Australian RSPCA, noted in his address to this year’s New Zealand SPCA annual conference that since the banning of tail-docking in Australia there have been no instances of dogs shown with tails being penalised by judges because their breed would traditionally have been docked. He emphasised that the ban had brought no negative impact on the dog show industry in Australia. Without doubt, the same would hold true in New Zealand if tail-docking were to be restricted.

By the way, I asked the Parliament Library to do some research on when and how dog tail-docking started. The House of Commons library in the UK informed us that the docking of dogs’ tails goes back to the 1700s, when working dogs’ tails were docked to avoid tax, and that owners of pet dogs perpetuated the practice, also to avoid this tax. The tax was repealed in 1796, but the practice continues as a fashion. However, as the New Zealand Veterinarian Association and the SPCA say, docking tails is cruel not just because of the operation but because for most dogs the tail is the key organ of communication between dogs and a signal to their human owners.

The SPCA is opposed to the surgical mutilation of companion animals for cosmetic, non-veterinary purposes. The society believes that no animals should be surgically mutilated unless there are good veterinary grounds for doing so. This policy is based on sound science that points to tail-docking as being a significant animal welfare issue.

I remind the House that this bill is about dogs’ tails only, and that we have already banned the clipping of ears. Most New Zealanders love dogs. The Animal Welfare Act banned ear-clipping in 1999, and I ask that the House now include tails in the Act. New Zealand’s reputation as a world leader in animal welfare practice will be threatened should this bill not be supported, particularly given that Australia and the UK, among other countries, have moved to restrict tail docking. As the SPCA says, it is patently absurd in today’s enlightened world to allow dogs’ tails to be cut off, simply to satisfy these outmoded and misguided views.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just advise honourable members that New Zealand First and National have traded places in this debate, as they are able to do, but not times. So the Rt Hon Winston Peters, has 5 minutes.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I thank the National Party for allowing me to take the slot for this call. I say, very briefly, that with all our different and varying ideas in respect of this legislation, New Zealand First’s position is that we would like to see it go to a select committee and to hear the various opinions around this country, expert and otherwise. Having been through that procedure, we will then make up our mind. I just want to put that on the record.

I know that other parties have different views. I know, for example, that United Future is going to vote 4-4—four for the gun lobby and four for the other side of the society.

Gordon Copeland: I don’t think so.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh yes, I think it probably will. I want to say that for our part, unless legislation is heinous, wrong, and evil, then we are happy to see it go to a select committee and to take the views of the experts who make submissions as a guide in our deliberations as a caucus. We will decide then, but right now New Zealand First intends to vote unanimously—we will not split our vote—to send this bill to the select committee.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country): I say to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who has just resumed his seat, that we were happy to yield in order to find out what New Zealand First position’s was and where it might be going. Unlike the member, I have read the explanatory note on the bill, where one can find out that the bill actually went through a full select committee process—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Once, in 1999.

SHANE ARDERN: That is correct. In 1999 it went to the Primary Production Committee, which recommended that the bill not proceed. I cannot see any reason why that position should be revisited. Therefore, the National Party will oppose this bill with 27 votes—there is no ambiguity about that. We will not be supporting this bill.

There are a number of reasons for that, and I will spend a moment or two explaining to the House what they are. For a start, the select committee looked at this legislation thoroughly. In 1999 it had a close look at where it should go, and I have not heard anything yet suggesting that the evidence it produced, the work it did, and the submissions it heard have changed, at all. There is no evidence that anything is different, at all. I agree with one of the submitters of the time—who has since written to me and to others who will be on the select committee that the bill will ultimately end up at—who said that the member promoting this bill is barking up the wrong tree. It is not unusual for Labour Party members to be barking up the wrong tree. One submitter went further and said things that were unparliamentary, but we will not mention those now.

The bottom line here is that a group of people in Wellington are saying to people in society—based on no evidence at all that I can find—that the only people who are in a position to have the intelligence to make the decision to carry out a surgical procedure in a humane way, for reasons that have been established over hundreds of years, are veterinary surgeons or their understudies. I just say to the House that I am sure the Veterinary Association will be supporting this legislation, because it would give it a monopoly on something that it does not otherwise have the opportunity to charge for. Vets out there listening should come to the select committee to present their arguments. I have not seen anything yet to suggest they should have a monopoly on being able to charge every dog owner out there a huge fee for something that has been carried out for many, many years.

All members know that this is a Trojan Horse. I ask the member, Dianne Yates, who I know has a close association with the farming industries—and part of her electorate represents a farming area—and the Minister of Agriculture, who will have some knowledge of this as well, where the evidence is of the wrongdoing. Can they stand in this House and say to the farming industries of New Zealand that this is not a Trojan Horse to bring in some back-door legislation that will put pressure on sheep farmers for docking sheep, dairy farmers for docking cows, and horse breeders for docking horses?

In fact, a part of the bill that was not mentioned in the opening comments—as far as I could tell—relates to banning the docking of horses in certain circumstances. Where is the evidence, and why would the idea be entertained just because the member can read out a list of European countries that have decided this is a wrong idea? The reality is that there is no evidence that this is the wrong idea. There is no guarantee that it will not be introduced carte blanche across the whole sector of the agricultural industry.

I say that based on the wording in the explanatory note that the procedure is to be performed on an animal inter alia.That is an interesting term. I am not sure that a hang of a lot of dog owners out there would understand what that means. Basically, in the language of legislation, to the best that I can ascertain, inter alia means that it is a restricted surgical procedure. I have asked a few people and nobody has been able to answer that question. I have not asked the officials. I am sure that if we asked the officials, or even the member who sponsored the bill, what inter alia actually means, it would be very difficult to ascertain clearly what it means.

Sandra Goudie: It means “among other things”.

SHANE ARDERN: My colleague has The Concise Oxford Dictionary out, which states that the meaning is “among other things”. Does that not reinforce absolutely the argument that I have just put up, which is that it could mean cow tails, lamb tails, or anything? A number of those who submitted put that argument forward and said: “Why restrict this to dog tails? Why not put it across all animals?”. That demonstrates a huge ignorance of standard farming practices in New Zealand, the history of why they have developed, and the reasons for them.

Have members ever seen a lamb or sheep die from flyblow? Have they ever witnessed it? I ask them to tell me what is humane about that, what causes it, and one of the systems that is used to minimise that. I bet there will be no answers; silence from the other side of the House. The Minister of Agriculture may know—then again, he may not. Some of us in the farming sector know only too well the reasons why that takes place, and why, in some circumstances, cows are docked. Does anybody know why that is done? [Interruption]

I hear the member from Dunedin central, or somewhere like that, interjecting over there and saying that it is inhumane and it is dreadful. I shall tell that member what I think is inhumane. The last time I was in the Octagon in Dunedin, I saw a number of people with German shepherds on leashes. People live in urban areas with dogs that should never be in a restricted environment like that. I am not talking about eye dogs. I am not talking about dogs that have a working purpose. I am talking about family pets. That is absolutely inhumane. Those animals should never be restricted in the way they are. There is an argument. There is my philosophical point of view. The member can sit over there and say that no doggies should have their tails docked, and that it is dreadful and should be banned unless a vet says it is necessary because of some kind of animal welfare issue. That is the reason why, right at the beginning, this silly kind of legislation should never be allowed to proceed. I hope the member from Dunedin will take a call to explain how a practice that has gone on for hundreds of years, for very sensible reasons, has suddenly become so outdated that it is no longer necessary or sensible, but that having dogs in urban area—where, of course, they were not, hundreds of years ago—is OK. How is that OK? Can the member explain to me why that is OK?

Members have seen some of the horrendous examples of what happens when we have the wrong breeds of dogs. The Minister of Local Government, Chris Carter, had to pass special legislation to police some of the problems that are caused by having the wrong breed of dog in the wrong environment. We have seen legislation passed as a result of that. I ask members to tell me what is humane about that. We will not hear that member take a call to try to justify this sort of nonsense, and we will not see anybody in the National Party supporting it.

National will oppose this legislation. I will be interested in listening to those who come forward from the SPCA, and other groups such as that, to put forward their arguments. However, their arguments are weak, flawed, and no stronger now than they were in 1999 when they were rejected by the Primary Production Committee—a committee that is generally occupied by people with some knowledge of animals and some common sense. I guess that is the reason why the legislation will not go to the Primary Production Committee this time. If the Government thinks it can hijack the committee process by sending it to another committee, it is wrong. The arguments it has put forward for supporting this legislation will be disproved at that committee, I am sure of that.

Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture): I thought it was appropriate that I take a call as the Minister responsible for the Animal Welfare Act. When that Act was in the course of passage, the issue of docking dogs’ tails was debated before the Primary Production Committee, and in the House at some length. I must say that while the weight of the evidence from the veterinary profession and animal welfare groups was strongly in favour of the prohibition of dog tail-docking for any reason other than therapeutic reasons—that is, for an injured, malformed, or diseased tail, or in the interests of the animals—the scientific evidence in respect of the effect of docking on the animals themselves was equivocal at that time. So the committee, of which I was a member, came to quite a finely balanced decision, which the House supported, to allow the status quo to prevail. The status quo was passionately supported by a number of breed organisations that claimed that tails could get damaged when hunting. There was a need for a “handle”, it was claimed, if a dog gets stuck head first in a rabbit hole and has to be helped to back out by its owner, and we also heard about the vast number of precious antique vases that get smashed to smithereens by Labrador tails sweeping them off coffee tables, and numerous other claims—some of them a bit more far fetched than those. Since then there has been a great deal more scholarship undertaken on this subject.

I have received from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee detailed advice and analysis of ethical and technical factors relating not only to transient pain from the cutting off of the tail—[Interruption] the member should keep his tail out of sight—or the longer-term pain, the phantom pain, that can come from an amputated limb, which is what we are talking about, but also to the consideration of the utility of the tail to a dog. It is used as an instrument of balance and normal communication with other dogs—which the dog could miss out on.

I have also received advice from the Veterinarian Association; a very scholarly review of the issues published in the Australian Veterinary Journal last year.

As well, since this House last considered the issue, many countries, including Australia—a great primary-producing nation, with which we often make common cause in these matters—have prohibited the docking of dogs’ tails.

Altogether, I feel there is now an overwhelming case for this bill to proceed to the select committee process so it can be given close and careful consideration. While those who still cling to the traditions of tail-docking must be heard, and heard carefully, their views and existing rights must be weighed against the social and ethical case espoused by the bill—that the mutilation of dogs, man’s best friend, essentially for cosmetic or fashion reasons, is no longer ethically or morally supportable in a civilised nation. [Interruption] Finally, I set the Opposition member’s mind at rest and point out that this bill is not a stalking horse for the prohibition of the docking of lambs’ tails. There are very sound therapeutic reasons for docking lambs’ tails that certainly do not apply to dogs.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I would like to congratulate Dianne Yates on her second member’s bill tonight. It is a simple but brilliant little bill, which requires that before chopping off a dog’s tail a veterinarian must agree that the procedure is necessary for the welfare of the animal, where the tail has been damaged by injury or disease. The Green Party is absolutely delighted to support this bill going to the select committee.

I am absolutely delighted that we are actually having here tonight a debate about animal welfare. It is the first such debate that has taken place during my 5 years in Parliament. The chopping off of dogs’ tails is certainly not the most pressing or most urgent animal welfare issue in New Zealand. Indeed, it pales in comparison with other cruel acts such as keeping hens in cages for all their lives, or keeping sows in crates or cages. But having said that, I tell members that we are talking about a painful and utterly unnecessary procedure, and it is often or usually done without anaesthetic, which can cause dogs to suffer needlessly and for no good reason, and according to the majority of veterinarians, it causes significant or severe pain to dogs. So why would we cause significant pain to dogs, and chop off the tails of an estimated three thousand dogs in New Zealand? It is certainly not done for animal welfare reasons. It is certainly not done in the interests of the animals. It is done—let us be quite honest about it—for cosmetic purposes, because of some ancient tradition, and basically for the interests of humans.

If this procedure causes dogs to suffer needlessly for no good reason and, secondly, prevents, as it obviously does, dogs from displaying natural forms of behaviour, then it is a breach, pure and simple, of the Animal Welfare Act. National members voted for that Act—I understand that all members of this House voted for that Act. So if members voted for it, it flows from that that they will need to support this bill, because the docking of dogs’ tails is a breach of that Act passed by this Parliament.

The Animal Welfare Act imposes a duty of care on animal owners. It states quite explicitly that all of us have a responsibility to ensure that animals live in ways that do not cause them to suffer and that allow them to display natural forms of behaviour. The practice of docking dogs’ tails is a breach of that Act, so I cannot understand why National members could be up in arms. It is an Act they supported. The Green Party considers that we should not be chopping off the tails of any animals, or performing surgical operations on animals, unless there is an animal welfare issue at stake, such as fly strike. If there is an animal welfare issue at stake, then there would be no breaching of the Animal Welfare Act. But if there is not an animal welfare issue at stake—if the practice is for cosmetic purposes—then that is a breach, clear and simple, of the Act.

There are wider issues here, as well. There has been an attitude for many, many years that we humans are entitled to do whatever we like to animals. We can cut off their tails, manipulate them, put them in cages, clone them, genetically engineer them, patent them—do whatever we like, no matter now cruel, providing it makes them more efficient producers of meat, eggs, and milk for human consumption. This bill challenges that view, just to a small extent. It challenges the view that we are entitled to do whatever we wish to animals, no matter how cruel. It is a small step towards regarding animals as living, sentient beings, having intrinsic value in their own right and not simply existing as the property of humans, for us to do with whatever we wish. It is a small step also to accepting that animals have a right to natural forms of behaviour, and it is, of course, supported for those reasons by the SPCA, veterinarians, and so forth. The Greens are totally supportive of this bill.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT): I have to ask first up: why on earth are we spending vast sums of taxpayers’ money—I do not know what this bill will cost, but the potential if it goes through is for untold sums of money—on the docking of dogs’ tails? It is the single biggest issue that that member, Dianne Yates, can come up with. What I find even more perverse is that this bill about docking dogs’ tails will go to the Government Administration Committee. It is a bit like sending the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill to the Primary Production Committee. I mean, it just does not make any sense—it is just perverse. I understand that Dianne Yates chairs the Government Administration Committee. Is that not a surprise?

Jill Pettis: The money could be spent on farming kiwis!

GERRARD ECKHOFF: Let me give members my credentials on this bill. I have been a farmer for a long, long time, and I have owned more dogs than Jill Pettis has had hot meals. My wife and I have three cats, and two Jack Russells—one with a docked tail and one without. So how is that? My son and daughter-in-law-elect have one of each. This bill is based on emotion—and that is all. It is not based on reality. My understanding—

Jill Pettis: Yes, from a man who wants to farm kiwis.

GERRARD ECKHOFF: Perhaps if that member could just button the jawbone for a moment or two, she might realise that there are fewer dogs being docked. I understand there are three and a half thousand, or fewer, dogs being docked each year. In round figures there are 60 million lambs being docked each year. If that figure is halved, we go to 30 million lambs being castrated.

Now, that is an expression that brings a tear to my eye, I tell Mr Shane Ardern. We of the male species understand the significance of that. Let me just tell that member of some of the practices in my part of the world years ago, where out came the knife from the top of the purse, in went the teeth, and out the side of the mouth went the mountain oysters. If one was hungry, they possibly did not even go out the side of the mouth. Practices change, and I say in all seriousness that if breed society members, who are responsible people—the ordinary mum and dad New Zealanders who own dogs—decide to exercise choice and have that fundamental freedom to decide these things, what would be wrong if they made that judgment call instead of this Parliament wasting vast sums of money on a bill of this nature?

What I find even more perverse is that we are discussing the welfare of dogs. We are talking about only days-old puppies. Their nervous system is just starting to work. But what about the circumcision of baby boys? Why do we not ban the circumcision of children in this country? I could understand that, because the medical profession tells me that there is no good reason for circumcision. The Jewish community might have a slightly different opinion. But why do we focus on animals and ignore what is happening to many young boys in this country? I cannot, for the life of me, understand Dianne Yates’ logic.

Mr Shane Ardern made a very good point when talking about animal welfare and, again, I think this is a serious issue. Anybody who has some understanding of the animal kingdom will recognise that the worst thing a dog owner can do to a pet is overfeed it. How many grossly obese dogs do we see walking around the streets with arthritic legs and in absolute pain? They are then put down by veterinary surgeons. The owners do not understand what they are doing.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): This will be a split vote for United Future members of Parliament. However, I will be supporting Dianne Yates’ bill. We human beings have a special duty to preserve, safeguard, and enhance this beautiful planet for ourselves and for all the creatures with whom we share our world. Amongst these, of course, is man’s best friend—the dog. We sometimes lament, and rightly so, man’s inhumanity to man. Perhaps these days I should say people’s inhumanity to people. But it is also true that we have a duty to be humane in our treatment of our animals, and especially those that we describe as domestic—those animals that literally share our homes and our farms with us.

This means turning away from an attitude that sees in a dog, for example, an opportunity to gain status. We should not make a dog a status symbol at the expense of a dog’s natural design, which includes its personality, nature, and communicative abilities such as tail-wagging to express pleasure and tail-tucking to express embarrassment or fear. Cosmetic procedures may be chosen by those people whose vanity drives them to expensive and painful plastic surgery, but they should not be needlessly imposed on a dog, for the dog itself has no such choice.

However, tail-docking that is in the interests of the dog is a separate case. I ask the select committee that will consider this bill to provide an exemption for hunting dogs when docking is undertaken to avoid the likelihood of tail damage. That action, I am sure, can be justified as being consistent with the best interests of the dog itself, which should in every individual case be the guiding and paramount consideration as to whether a dog may or may not be curtailed. Shane Ardern said that this practice has gone on for hundreds of years. When I heard him say that I thought that he had not read Dianne Yates’ notes, which she very generously circulated with the bill. In fact, the practice developed hundreds of years ago as a tax avoidance exercise. It had very little to do with whether it was desirable that a dog had a tail.

I also thought that Shane Ardern—and Minister Jim Sutton has also mentioned this—gave us a pretty alarmist speech when he said that this legislation could creep on to cover sheep, horses, and cows. Gerry Eckhoff said that—goodness gracious me—it had ramifications for the circumcision of young boys. I say to those members that this bill is not some Trojan Horse; it is simply a bill about dogs. I think that we should stick to the point, do the common-sense thing, and allow this bill to go forward to the select committee.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): I was fascinated by Mr Eckhoff’s contribution. I learnt why ACT is at 2 percent in the polls—his speech reinforced that today. I find it absolutely amazing that members on the opposite side of the House are so dismissive and sneering of the New Zealand Veterinary Association, the SPCA, and other organisations that have considerable involvement in and knowledge of the whole area of animal welfare. I found it absolutely amazing that members opposite are quite happy to ignore the experience of state legislatures across the Tasman. They are hardly radical, politically correct groups of people. One could hardly accuse the New Zealand Veterinary Association of being a radical, politically correct group, as members opposite would perceive it. One could hardly say that of the SPCA, let alone the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

I take this opportunity to support my colleague, Dianne Yates. I believe this bill should go to the Government Administration Committee for a thorough analysis. I note the presence of Barbara Stewart and convey my admiration to her leader, Winston Peters, because at least the New Zealand First caucus is prepared to keep an open mind and let this bill go to the select committee. I find the split voting of some of the other parties somewhat curious. I acknowledge the contribution that the Green Party made.

Frankly, I have said all that I need to say on this excellent bill. It should go to the select committee so that all points of view can be considered. Ultimately we are talking about a realistic, sensitive approach to animal welfare in this country. I acknowledge the great work done by the New Zealand Veterinary Association, the SPCA, and my colleague Dianne Yates, the member for Hamilton East.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I am delighted to oppose this bill, in line with my colleague Shane Ardern. When this bill was first introduced one of the key phrases that accompanied it was “barking mad”. That is one of the many descriptions that followed the announcement of this bill’s reintroduction. I say reintroduction because I was unaware that the legislation had already been to the Primary Production Committee, where it had languished and been dismissed as not being a valid matter to pursue.

I agree with my learned colleague Gerry Eckhoff that it is typical of the Government that there is a distinct lack of problem definition in most of the bills that it introduces to this House. All it takes is for somebody to wander up to a Government MP and say that they do not like something and would like something done about it, and a bill is whipped out. That tends to be the process that we see—never mind the cost to the taxpayer. I can name any number of other areas where money could be better spent. Special education needs a whole heap of input. We need better-paid carers. We need respite care to be available for many, many people. Yet here we are. Members should think about the time and cost that is involved in getting this bill through the House. I think it is an absolute disgrace.

I looked at the bill and asked: what is the problem with tail-docking? I have docked a heck of a lot of lambs in my day and mostly it simply involved putting a ring on a tail. I can think of a few tails in this House that I would like to put a ring around. There is absolutely no definition in the bill, or in the Animal Welfare Act, of the words “docking” or “tail docking”. The Concise Oxford Dictionary states that to “dock” is to “cut short” the tail of an animal. The entry also refers to deductions and, of course, there is the dock in a criminal court—and we can think of a particular person who is somewhat in the dock these days: one John Tamihere. However, there is a shortcoming in that there is no proper definition of “tail-docking”, or even of the word “docking”, in this bill or in the Act. That has not been picked up.

I would like to pick up on something else in this very short bill—it is essentially one page. There is a bit of a conundrum here. Clause 4 relates to the performance of restricted surgical procedures. I will take members through this. Clause 4 amends section 17(2) of the principal Act: “… by adding, after the words ‘interests of the animal’, the words ‘, which, in the case of tail docking, is based on an informed veterinary opinion that the procedure is necessary for the welfare of the animal where the tail has been damaged by injury or disease, …’ ”. That, more or less, states that we need a medical opinion about the animal.

However, the clause states further: ‘… and is not being performed for cosmetic or prophylactic purposes’.” If we look at the dictionary definition of “prophylactic”, we see that the word relates to medicinal purposes—to a course of action that is to do with the health of the animal, or, in the context of this bill, for the animal. We are saying that a vet can dock a tail due to injury or disease, but, sorry, a vet cannot perform the procedure for cosmetic reasons, injury, or disease. That, essentially, is what prophylactic means.

I suggest the Minister has acted with a little haste. It is not a clear definition. The bill is not clear about the definitions of the actions being undertaken through its provisions. We probably should have gone back to the previous work done at the select committee and looked at why this legislation was thrown out in the first place. I cannot blame people for calling it barking mad, because there have been a number of articles put out. There is a New Zealand Council of Docked Breeds. We know about fly strike. We know that it comes about when longhaired animals crap and the faeces stick to their fur, builds up, and sticks the tail to their hindquarters. That is how dogs get a build-up and collection of faeces around the rear end. What happens then? The flies may lay maggots in those quarters, and they start to eat the animal alive. That is why some animals’ tails are docked.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui): I want to speak just briefly to this bill. I think it might be interesting, as we come to the closing stages of the debate this evening, to go over a little bit of historical fact.

Docking of tails on farmers’ or drovers’ dogs used for herding and driving cattle and sheep originated in early Georgian times in England, as it exempted the owner from a tax levied upon working dogs with tails. Many other types or breeds of goods were also similarly docked to avoid that tax. Although the tax was repealed in 1796, the habit of docking has persisted until modern times. Short-tailed dogs around that period were called “curs”, and that gave rise to the term “curtailing”, which means to cut short.

I think it is time we cut short this debate. In conclusion, I just want to add that it will be very useful for this bill to go to a select committee so that people who are genuinely interested in making submissions will have the opportunity to do so.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): I thank the Veterinary Council of New Zealand for its long persistence, since 1999, in bringing forward this legislation. I inform Sandra Goudie that it has been written by a vet who understands the terms involved. I also thank the local veterinarians in Hamilton, Morrinsville, and Matamata who contributed to the debate and to the bill; the SPCA, both in Australia and in New Zealand; those involved, particularly Hugh Worth from Australia who persisted in getting the law passed in Australia; and those kennel club members who have shown their support—and there are many thousands of kennel club members who support the bill.

I also wish to point out, given that I will move to have the bill referred to the Government Administration Committee, that Mr Ardern, Mr Tisch, and I are on that committee, and that we are all from rural or semi-rural areas. I would think that the people on that committee have as much expertise as anybody else in any other committee. Of course, all New Zealanders are experts on dogs, I am sure.

I thank the House for the time. This was legislation that should have been passed with the original bill in 1999, but for one or two people who were concerned about one or two breeders, and who did not look at the interests of dogs as a whole or New Zealanders as a whole.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs’ Tails) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 79

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 3 (Copeland, Smith, Turner); Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Noes 37

New Zealand National 24; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 5 (Adams, Alexander, Baldock, Dunne, Ogilvy).

Bill read a first time.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): I move, That the Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs’ Tails) Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee.

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

Ayes 76

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Noes 40

New Zealand National 24; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT): I move, That the Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This member’s bill restores community sentence discretion and power back to judges for the sentencing of criminal offenders. This is a very important change because the Labour Government’s sentencing laws introduced in 2002 essentially took the power over the judge’s ability to define the sentence of an offender away from the court, and took that power from the judge to officials of the probation service and essentially the Parole Board. The important thing about that is that those people are anonymous officials and they are not publicly accountable, so all the power for what happens in the sentencing of offenders has now gone from the court and a judge, who are accountable to the public, to officials. That is where a prime concern now lies.

The Sentencing Act 2002 was Labour’s response to the 1999 referendum on law and order, where 92 percent of New Zealanders wanted a Government to get tough on violent offenders and to get tough on crime. The sad thing was that the Government’s response was exactly the opposite. The sentencing laws were an outrage to most New Zealanders who understood what was going on, because the laws slashed sentences and perpetrated a legal lie.

Hon Phil Goff: I did no such thing.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN: The Minister of Justice can complain here, but the point is that if somebody is sentenced to 9 years in jail and is released automatically after 3 years, that is a legal lie. Sentences were brought down to offenders serving one-third of their sentence, except for a very small group of offenders who are a danger to society, and short sentences are cut in half. As well as that, the Labour Government has introduced home detention on a grand scale, which many New Zealanders believe is a taxpayer-funded holiday for offenders to stay at home.

The requirements of the Sentencing Act are that sentences are designed to fit offenders’ needs, and the needs of victims are now largely ignored. Sentences must not be disproportionately severe—in other words, rehabilitation, not punishment, should be the prime requirement of sentencing. Sentences are now meant to be made so that they are the least restrictive on the offender. These sentences, according to the Labour Government, have to take into account the family, the background, and the culture of the offender and the community they live in, and evidence can be provided on the previous good character of the offender when the sentencing is being worked out. There is a strong desirability for offenders to be kept in the community as far as is practicable, and imprisonment must not be imposed unless effectively it is a last resort.

The problem with all of those intentions of the Labour Government is that sentencing has effectively been turned into a laughing stock. To the public, many people think that sentences now are a doddle, that they are just a slap over the hand with a wet bus ticket. It is not what the public called for. It is not what the public want. This bill is a common-sense mechanism to turn that situation around.

The bill has one prime purpose—that is, to return the discretion and power over sentences back to judges. If members go out on to the streets and ask members of the community where they think the power over sentencing should lie, they will tell them that it should lie with judges. The judges are the people who hear the case. They know more about the offender than anyone else ever does. It should be up to them to decide the sentence that best suits the offender, that best provides punishment for the particular crime the offender has taken part in, and that also recognises the rights of victims. The rights of victims are extremely important and they have been sidelined by the Labour Government’s sentencing laws.

This bill restores to judges and to the court powers that should rightfully be theirs. In particular, it restores the use of supervision for punishment purposes, as well as supervision being in the interests of the offender. Suddenly punishment is an important role in sentencing. Next, the bill enables the imposition of supervision against the causes of crime. It allows the judge to bring directives about non-association. In other words, an offender may not associate with gang members or with known criminals, and there are penalties for doing so. It also brings in the ability of judges to order random alcohol and drug testing to ensure that in some cases temptation is taken out of the way of the offender. It allows the judge to order that at the end of a prison sentence there can be extended periods of supervision. I know there are many people who look back in our history and remember that hostels were available for prisoners coming out of jail when they had nowhere to go. They were put in supervised accommodation for a period of time until they could get themselves rehabilitated back into society. It allows the judge to be able to order supervision at the end of a prison sentence.

As well as that, this bill restores to judges the ability to make sentences cumulative instead of this modern way of making them all concurrent. Again we have a legal lie. For example, if offenders have committed three different crimes they get 2 years for each. Right now, instead of offenders having to serve 6 years of their sentence, it is all concurrent, so it is simply 2 years. That is wrong. It seems to me that we need to bring back cumulative sentences so that the public has a clear idea of what happens. Sentences are there to act as a real disincentive to people who are thinking about committing a crime, to serve as a way of stopping them from doing so. They think to themselves: “Goodness me, if I get caught it’s not going to be worth my while.”

This bill gives back to judges the powers that allow them to be creative in the way in which they order sentences. For example, if an offender has committed an offence for which the sentence is a fine, the judge should be able to order that that money is paid to a charity. Judges should be able to order a whole range of things that at the moment they are excluded from doing. There are cases in America where, for example, if an offender has stolen mail that person has to stand outside a postshop with a sign saying: “I stole mail. I am an offender.”, and let the victims of the crime have a say.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Before I adjourn the House I wish to correct the vote in the Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs’ Tails) Bill. The Ayes should read 79, and the Noes 37.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.