Tuesday, 12 April 2005

Tuesday, 12 April 2005

Tuesday, 12 April 2005

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Points of Order

Parliament Buildings—Media Access

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Unfortunately I am continuing a point of order that has been brought to your attention on a couple of other occasions recently. On my way to the House today, trying to get through the media scrum on the bridge between the Beehive and this building, while walking dead in the middle of that bridge I was physically jostled by a camera operator to quite an extent. I know that the media want to get their shots, but I, as a member of this Parliament, want to get to the House. I ask you again to look into the situation, because I believe that it has got to the stage where someone will eventually end up in quite a tangle, and maybe on the floor.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. The Hon Richard Prebble has raised a similar point. I am in the process of looking into that, and I will report back.

Rodney Hide: Point of order—

Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled on the point of order. Is this a new point of order?

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may help on that matter if you were to tell Labour Party Ministers and MPs that when there are pressing issues of the day they should front up to the media. The difficulty is that the media cannot get to interview them at any other time.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. I remind members that those who make points of order that are not points of order come close to being disruptive in the House.

RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In order to be helpful to other members may I suggest, through you, that there are about three other ways we can use to get to this Chamber, using the ground floor—

Madam SPEAKER: That is also not a point of order.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister—“Banishment” Comment

1. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement “Banishment under this Government is not necessarily a permanent thing.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Prime Minister accept that today John Tamihere stared her down and she blinked first?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Obviously not. Leadership is about judgment, and I have exercised mine in the interests of the Labour Party.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that the Prime Minister did not really act with a severe censure motion until the publication of the second series of allegations by the editor of Investigate magazine, should we reach the conclusion that the first series of allegations was indubitably true and accurate; and, that being the case, why did she not show some leadership today instead of taking the easy way out, as Mr Tamihere said she always does?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Labour Party caucus acted to the member’s face at the first opportunity when he appeared.

Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister not accept that she has been humiliated by John Tamihere, and could she please tell the public of New Zealand: what exactly does one have to do to get turfed out of the Labour Party?

Madam SPEAKER: That question has no ministerial responsibility.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Prime Minister accept that her Government’s so-called “new standards of behaviour and performance” have been completely abandoned in light of her tacit acceptance of Mr Tamihere’s behaviour?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member clearly has not read the motion of censure from the Labour Party caucus.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact that Mr Tamihere defied her direction to take leave and not to attend caucus, as the media universally printed, and is that not another example of extraordinarily weak leadership?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No such instruction was given by me.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is she concerned that her visit to Auschwitz later this month, to pay New Zealand’s respects to those who died there, will be compromised by her failure to act decisively with regard to Mr Tamihere, and is she concerned that her failure to act decisively risks being seen as tacit endorsement of his comment that he is “sick and tired of hearing how many Jews got gassed.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I issued an unequivocal condemnation of those comments.

John Carter: How does she reconcile her statement of censure of John Tamihere with his statement on Television One news today that he does not resile from or apologise for anything he said?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: He most certainly did.

Judith Collins: Is she confident that John Tamihere can change his appalling attitude towards New Zealand women, given his description of them as “front bums”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That was one of a number of statements for which he has been severely censured by the New Zealand Labour Party.

Gerry Brownlee: Why should New Zealanders have any confidence in her as Prime Minister, given that she has made it clear that she and her Government are prepared to tolerate offensive and objectionable comments from one of her high-profile MPs because it is politically expedient to do so?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Taking to people with a piece of four-by-two is not the only form of leadership available.

Gerry Brownlee: If, as she claims, Mr Tamihere has apologised and does resile from the comments he made, why was he not prepared to say so on the One News interview played at 12 o’clock today?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Mr Tamihere humbled himself in front of the Labour Party caucus today. The Labour Party takes the view that people who have been under considerable stress need to be treated humanely.

Foreign Investment—Approvals

2. CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any further information about foreign investment in New Zealand, following the Prime Minister’s answer to question for oral answer No. 5 on 30 March 2005?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes. The Overseas Investment Commission advises me that the figures tabled by Mr Peters to dispute the fact that net land sales peaked in 1997 when he was Treasurer and have declined steadily under this Government were out of date and therefore wrong.

Clayton Cosgrove: Has the Minister received any further advice in relation to information given to the House that day, on declining rates under the overseas investment screening regime?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: During the period from 10 December 1996 to 14 August 1998, 416 applications were approved involving 204,200 hectares of freehold land. There were 12 refusals involving 565 hectares of land. Since 10 December 1999 there have been 38 refusals on land and six refusals on fisheries.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How will foreign investor confidence be affected by having as chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee a person who ran a campaign of nasty, naughty, crank calls against Helen Clark and her husband, and why would John Tamihere say those things about his closest friend in Labour if they were not true?

Madam SPEAKER: The member’s question, as I read it, is phrased in such a way that the Minister is not responsible for the answer. The Minister is not responsible for John Tamihere.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The main question was about foreign investment. My question was how foreign investor confidence will be affected by having as chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee a person who ran a campaign of nasty, naughty, crank calls against Helen Clark and her husband.

Madam SPEAKER: It is a long bow.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I would have thought that particular member should be careful that he does not shoot himself in the foot with that long bow.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Minister of Finance saying that I used false figures, when the figures I tabled from Hansard are those tabled by the Prime Minister; and why is he leaving out of this equation the Kāingaroa Forest sale, which was agreed to by the National Government in October 1996 before I even got to be Treasurer and which appears in the 1997 figures, and why is he allowing the Overseas Investment Commission to lie to him, to the Prime Minister, and to the House?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On the first point, the member tabled an additional table to the one tabled by the Prime Minister, which had a graph. Those figures were out of date, as the commission has since advised me. It is equally true that one of the largest sales approved under this Government involved forest land. It is nearly always the case that the big sales are forest land.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I would not ordinarily raise this point, but it is pretty relevant for this series of questions. I therefore seek leave to table the Hansard that sets out what was tabled and in which there is the quote: “This is the chart now properly interpreted.”—an allegation I made at the very time that Helen Clark made the statement in this House.

Document not tabled.

Rod Donald: Will the Government support my petition, which was tabled today and has been signed by 7,984 New Zealanders, calling for land sales to foreign investors to be stopped and for tighter restrictions on the sales of businesses to foreign corporations; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. It would be impossible and absolutely stupid for New Zealand to stop all land sales to foreigners. That would include, for example, matters involving urban subdivisions, it would involve some petrol stations, and goodness knows what else would be involved in such a move. The Government supports tightening up restrictions on land sales that involve sensitive land.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Where on those figures for 1996 appears the Kāingaroa Forest sale—the very figure that puts into question those calculations in the Prime Minister’s answer, and the accuracy thereof; and why is the Overseas Investment Commission being allowed to lie to Parliament when, if we look at the charts, the figure simply does not appear in 1996?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The figures relate to approvals given between the period from December 1996 to August 1998, when the member was Treasurer. That may be why, on the New Zealand First parliamentary website, that period does not appear under the member’s own section.

Gordon Copeland: Can the Minister advise the House, in relation to the reference to business investment contained in Rod Donald’s question, that, indeed, the Government welcomes business investment in this country as being one means by which we can significantly grow our economy and lead to its success?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is clear that overseas business investment can contribute to economic growth in a number of ways—by producing new businesses, by creating additional market opportunities, by technology transfer, and in a number of other ways. If we are not prepared to see that kind of investment, then we will have to lift our savings rates in New Zealand very, very substantially indeed if we are to provide sufficient capital for investment in our own economy.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact that in October 1996, a full month before the election, the transaction of a sale between a foreign interest and a New Zealand - owned operation in respect of 170,000 hectares—which is the net figure the Prime Minister sought to use—in fact was settled up and completed, duly subject to Overseas Investment Commission approval, the interim approval having already been given; is that not, therefore, a figure to be set against the National Party’s record and not mine?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, because it was subject to Overseas Investment Commission approval, and the member was the Minister responsible for that approval. I repeat, however, that the point he made in his original claims was incorrect. He did not have a higher rate of declines in applications than has been the case under this Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why, when the Minister had the benefit of New Zealand First legislation on the question of a change regime for the Overseas Investment Commission, did he take all the way to January 2002 to send it down to the Governor-General for assent; why did he do that?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Some consideration was given around that issue, but, in fact, whereas under the previous Government it was not brought into operation—including the period when the member was Treasurer—it was brought into operation under this Government.

New Zealand Superannuation—Rates

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: What reports, if any, has he received regarding the level of superannuation payments, and does he agree with them?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): At present New Zealand superannuation payments are $393.56 per week for a married couple who both qualify, $236.14 for a single person, and $255.81 for a single person living alone. I agree with those reports.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case, why did the Minister put out a statement yesterday on the question of the affordability of New Zealand First’s proposal knowing full well that the equation was calculated on a 68 percent figure, not 72.5, and get Treasury again to start lying to the public of this country?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Treasury had already costed for me the proposal that the member actually outlined to the Grey Power annual general meeting—of an aim of arriving at 72.5 percent. But even the more modest attempt to move to 68 percent would have costs of many hundreds of millions of dollars per year, including, of course, the increased contributions that would be required to be made to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. I think it is absolutely disastrous that in this area the consensus around the level of payment of New Zealand superannuation is now being broken, and that we are re-entering some kind of bidding war that New Zealand cannot afford in the long term.

Hon Peter Dunne: Has the Minister seen any reports suggesting that superannuitants are currently being underpaid by as much as $30 per week; if so, can he comment on the veracity of those reports?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Those reports I have seen, and they are completely untrue. The method of fixing New Zealand superannuation in terms of a wage band was first introduced in 1990 and was reintroduced in a number of different forms in the 1990s, although the base was lowered in the National Government’s last year in office. The percentage set has always been set as at 1 April, based on the previous annual numbers. That has been the case since 1976, when it was set on an 80 percent gross-gross basis, as opposed to, now, the 65 to 72.5 percent set on a net-net basis.

Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: Has the Minister received any other reports from Treasury on the cost of increasing the level of New Zealand superannuation to 72.5 percent of the net average wage?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes. The cost of increasing New Zealand superannuation to 72.5 percent is estimated to be $630 million in the first year, rising to $1.68 million a year after 10 years, taking account of financing costs. That does not include the cost of additional payments into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, which adds something over another 10 percent to the $2.1 billion at present going in.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister of Finance prepared to admit that New Zealand First proposals talk about a 68 percent regime as at April next year, and then for a long-range incremental rise to 72.5 percent; and was not 72.5 percent the figure that he and his colleagues signed up to in September of 1993 under the superannuation accord, which we in New Zealand First did not sign up to? Why was it good enough then, but not now?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. What was signed up to in September 1993—as a number of members on both sides of the House will remember—was a wage band of 65 to 72.5 percent. Of course, as long as real wages are increasing, then the tendency will be to drift to the bottom of that wage band. When real wages decline over an extended period, then the movement will be towards the top of the wage band, which is why next year we anticipate that New Zealand superannuation will increase by the movement in wages, which is higher than the movement in the consumer price index.

Hon Peter Dunne: Notwithstanding the Minister’s answer to my earlier supplementary question, will he not concede that the way in which the formula is applied at the moment means that by the end of each financial year, superannuitants are approximately $10 per week worse off simply because of the way in which movements have occurred during the year, and is he prepared to consider ways in which that loss of income might be alleviated?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The formula in this sense has actually remained basically unchanged since 1976 when it was first introduced—that is, the wage reference is based at 1 April. Clearly, changes may occur over the subsequent year. These changes are very small now compared with the situation in the late 1970s and early to mid-1980s, with inflation rates in excess of 10 percent and, even over a 6-month period, therefore movements of more than 5 percent in real terms could occur in a downwards direction. These days, of course, the movement annually is more like in the range of 2 to 2.5 percent.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister of Finance whether he can confirm—yes or no—that he could survive on $255 a week, as many of our senior citizens are forced to do; if so, can he explain to the thousands of senior citizens living on that amount just how they should pay for the exorbitant power, petrol, and rate prices, which have risen astronomically under this Labour Government and are rising much faster that any consumer price index adjustment this Government has increased superannuation by? How would he do it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I find it difficult to imagine living on my own without my wife, but I can certainly confirm that my 90-year-old mother has been surviving on the single rate of New Zealand superannuation very adequately since my father died in September 1987.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It will occur to you that we are not aware of the circumstances of the Minister’s mother, but we would like to be appraised of his circumstances—as to whether he could live on $255 per week. That was the question, and that was the one I want an answer to.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am happy to confirm that I am sure my 90-year-old mother would be ashamed of me if I said I could not manage on the income that she has been managing on adequately for many, many years.

Prime Minister—“Popular and Competent” Comment

4. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that “I sometimes wonder whether I’m a victim of my own success as a popular and competent Prime Minister.”; if so, why?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): No. I no longer have time to wonder. Nor is it something that the member personally will ever have to contemplate.

Rodney Hide: Has she seen the reports that, in allowing John Tamihere to trample all over her, she has gone from being “popular and competent” to being “spineless and impotent”; and what is her response to her appearing to prove exactly what John Tamihere claimed—that she emotionally folds when there is conflict?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The only such reports I have seen come from the National Party and ACT, and I am treating them with the usual derision they deserve.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the decision to give John Tamihere 2 weeks’ paid holiday and a slap over the wrist with a wet bus ticket demonstrate that today the Prime Minister is simply a victim of Mr Tamihere’s success?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I advised the member earlier, there are other forms of leadership apart from taking bits of four-by-two to people.

Gerrard Eckhoff: Does she stand by her statement: “I have a lot of faith in John. I went out on a limb to get him into Parliament.”; and just how far out on this limb is she prepared to go to keep John Tamihere in Parliament, this being election year?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, I stand by that statement, and, as I have advised the media today, John is seen by me and his colleagues as being someone who has an enormous amount of potential but who is also known to stumble very badly.

Rodney Hide: Has she seen any media comments, or heard any public statements, by John Tamihere that he retracts all that he said in the Investigate magazine; if so, are there any bits that he has not retracted?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I can advise that the member told the Labour Party caucus today that there were no excuses he could offer for what he had said. He humbled himself to our caucus, and on that basis we have decided to give him space to reflect.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister earlier said that John Tamihere had retracted the statements. My advice is that he has not. He certainly has not retracted them publicly. My direct question was whether in fact she had heard or seen any media reports that John Tamihere had retracted his statements. That is very much different from an apology.

Madam SPEAKER: The Prime Minister addressed the question.

Crime—Voyeuristic Filming

5. LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister of Justice: What new criminal offences will be created to deal with the problem of voyeuristic filming?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): The Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill, introduced today, makes it a criminal offence to make, publish, or possess voyeuristic material of intimate situations, such as those in changing sheds or toilets, where people would reasonably expect to be private, and to do so without their knowledge or consent. That is intended to protect people’s privacy in an age when technology such as cellphone cameras and the Internet make it all too easy to record and widely distribute voyeuristic images.

Lianne Dalziel: How will this legislation help to protect people against the growing trend and increased ability by voyeurs to invade people’s privacy in that way?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Criminalising such behaviour enables the police to use their powers, including those of search and seizure, to take action against voyeurs and seek convictions against them. The penalties, including imprisonment and reparations, are designed to have a deterrent effect as well as to provide compensation to the victims for the harm done to them.

Te Wānanga o Aotearoa—Ministerial Briefings

6. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: Can he confirm that between March 2002 and December 2004 Ministers received 37 briefings from the Ministry of Education regarding Te Wānanga o Aotearoa; if not, why not?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): No. If one counts written briefings specifically and solely relating to the wānanga, the figure may be accurate, but if one counts mentions of the wānanga in other reports, oral briefings, and other communications, then it is certainly a lot more.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell the House why he is now spending $6,000 per working-day on a new team of consultants, plus $2,600 per day on an individual daily rate, when he has already paid a Mr Graeme McNally $2,100 per day, as development adviser to the wānanga, since June 2002?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: On the question of the rate, the rates were set as a result of the competitive tender process for people who are capable of doing the work. My understanding is that the rate is very much the same rate that the individual was paid by Murray McCully to work in the housing area during the time of the previous Government. We have taken a number of steps over the past few years to address concerns, but it is fair to say that Ministers had not considered the impact of a group of individuals treating the wānanga as though it were a personal family business, run for personal gain, until about August last year, when these matters, to do with a close friend of Mr English, were referred to the Auditor-General.

Hon Ken Shirley: Does the Minister deny that the many reports he received last year included concerns over the integrity of enrolments at Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, and what steps is he taking to investigate this issue in view of the fact that enrolments are specifically excluded from the Auditor-General’s terms of reference?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is one of the things the Tertiary Education Commission is doing.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister spoke very quietly. I did not hear his response. Could I ask him to repeat his answer, please.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is one of the things the Tertiary Education Commission is doing.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister tell the House whether, in fact, he is satisfied that the wānanga meets the academic performance standards expected of tertiary education institutions?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell the House whether he has seen a report from one official of the Ministry of Education that states: “I am tired of going to large meetings which are drawn out and everyone agrees, but no action comes of it at all.”, in respect of the wānanga, and can he confirm that the real reason for 5 years of his sitting on his hands over the wānanga is further official advice: “The wānanga has relationships with quite a number of iwi around the country. Cutting back the enrolments could affect relations with iwi, both for the wānanga and the Crown.”—is that the real reason he did nothing until election year?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have seen the first report. In my view it is inaccurate. I have seen the second report, and it will be proven to be inaccurate.

Hon Ken Shirley: What advice does he give to the scores of concerned people who receive certificates from Te Wānanga o Aotearoa in the mail, and invitations to graduation ceremonies for courses that they never attended or, in some instances, never even realised they were enrolled in; and will he be seeking to recover the taxpayers’ money?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I would invite people to refer those certificates and those letters to the Tertiary Education Commission. Quite a large amount of recovery is going on.

Hon Bill English: I seek leave to table an internal memo from a Ministry of Education official that states he is tired of going to long meetings where everyone agrees and no action is taken.

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

Hon Bill English: I seek leave to table a report from a Ministry of Education official that refers to relationships between iwi and the Crown, and how cutting back on enrolments would affect those relationships.

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

Point of Order—Bridge Collapse: Butcher Report

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZ First—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table a document, and I need to explain what I am requesting by this. I have spoken to the Clerk of the House. Disclosure of this document will be limited to MPs, and MPs alone; otherwise, it would offend a court ruling—

Hon Ken Shirley: Why are you tabling it?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I thought the 119 other members of this Parliament might be interested in a grave injustice. That is why I am tabling it. I can see why it would not concern that member. I seek leave—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please sit down. There was an interjection while the member was speaking on his point of order. Members know that there are to be no interjections when there is a point of order. Would the member who interjected please leave the Chamber.

Hon Ken Shirley: Before leaving I seek the leave of the House to table documents showing fraudulent enrolments at Te Wānanga o Aotearoa.

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

Madam SPEAKER: The member can now leave.

Hon Ken Shirley withdrew from the Chamber.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Before I was so rudely interrupted I was pointing out that I had spoken to the Clerk, who had advised me that this document would have limited distribution to members of Parliament only. I therefore seek to table the Te Rata station suspension bridge report of G W Butcher.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document under those conditions. Any objection? Yes, there is objection. The document will not be tabled.

Early Childhood Education—Information Communications Technology

7. HELEN DUNCAN (Labour), on behalf of LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere), to the Minister of Education: What steps is he taking to improve the use of information communications technology in early childhood education?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): This morning I launched Foundations for Discovery, a new framework to promote the use of information and communications technology in early childhood education. The Government is investing $16 million over 4 years in that resource, which will help the sector to improve its use of information and communications technology through initiatives such as regional professional development, research projects, and the creation of information and communications technology - based resources. Those resources include computers, phones, and digital cameras.

Helen Duncan: What are the benefits of promoting the increased use of information and communications technology in early childhood education?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Research shows that children’s learning can be enhanced by the effective use of information and communications technology. Children can use it to observe, explain, record, and review their world in different ways. It can be used to assist with the development of early literacy and maths and in the development of communications skills. Information and communications technology can also be a better way to involve parents and communities in children’s education.

Labour Party Candidate—Justice of the Peace

8. LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) to the Associate Minister of Justice: Does he intend to carry out an investigation into whether it is appropriate for Mr Steven Ching to continue serving as a justice of the peace; if not, why not?

Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice): I am aware of the public comments made about Mr Ching, and I have since received a letter from that member on the issue. All matters will be considered and any decision to investigate will be, in the first instance, notified to Mr Ching. That is the only appropriate course of action.

Lindsay Tisch: Is the Minister aware of the reported statement of Allan Spence of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices Associations that: “Mr Ching’s application should not have got through the vetting process.”, and can he explain what is being done to fix that mistake, in light of the new information about Mr Ching’s advertising?

Hon RICK BARKER: I am aware of the comment. I am not at this stage convinced that it is a mistake, as claimed by the member, because there has been no investigation.

Deborah Coddington: Does the Minister believe that Steven Ching’s behaviour—pleading guilty to obstructing a fisheries officer in an illegal squid-catch operation—is of a standard that the Minister would expect for someone to remain a justice of the peace; if so, how much lower would standards have to go before he thought it was not acceptable behaviour?

Hon RICK BARKER: As the matter is under consideration, I am not prepared to make any comments.

Lindsay Tisch: Why was Steven Ching allowed to become a justice of the peace after admitting a charge of obstructing justice, and allowed to remain one after illegally advertising his services and failing to account for a $7,000 taxpayer grant, and is the reason the Government is stalling on tightening up the Justices of the Peace Act that the Labour Party’s great “Asian hope” candidate would be the first in line to be disciplined?

Hon RICK BARKER: Many of those assertions made by that member are not proven to be true, necessarily. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Please allow the member to complete his answer in silence.

Hon RICK BARKER: Allegations have been made, and I think it is entirely appropriate for any citizen of this country to be entitled to due process. I assure the House that, as we go through this matter, Mr Ching will be treated without fear or favour, just as we should treat any other citizen. I am not prepared to see a person subjected to trial by this House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it true that Mr Steven Ching is on the Labour Party list—a list that he is obviously eminently qualified to be on, but not the JP list—and is it a fact, as my Chinese informants tell me, that he has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Labour Party, and that that is why the Minister is not prepared to answer today?

Hon RICK BARKER: I have no responsibility for the Labour Party list, but I have already assured the House that the matter will be investigated thoroughly. Mr Steven Ching, like every other citizen in this country, deserves to be treated without fear or favour and to be subject to due process.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister a very simple question: was this Mr Steven Ching the same Steven Ching who is on the Labour Party list? Surely he can answer that, or does that incriminate him as well?

Madam SPEAKER: There were many points raised in the question, but the Minister did address it. That was probably because there were so many aspects to the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is true and I do not wish to dispute your ruling, other than to ask whether or not he is on the list.

Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled on that point of order. The Minister did address the question.

Lindsay Tisch: I seek leave of the House to table two advertisements from the Mandarin Times promoting and advertising Mr Ching as a JP, and the English translations of them.

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

Environment—Decision Making

9. DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) to the Minister for the Environment: What recent progress has been made to improve environmental decision-making?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): A series of training workshops have attracted over 500 people involved in resource management decision-making from almost every council in New Zealand. The workshops provide the skills practitioners need to run fair and effective resource consent and planning hearings.

David Parker: What has the response been to these workshops?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: There has been overwhelmingly positive feedback. One attendee said: “This is possibly the best training work course I have attended in 40 years in business.” These workshops form the basis for the Government’s proposals to require mandatory certification and training of Resource Management Act decision makers.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister stand by her Government’s statements about the most significant change proposed in the Resource Management Act reform bill, being the removal of de novo hearings at the appeal stage, and its claims that it will reduce costs and delays, when legal experts, environmental organisations, business groups, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and even the Principal Environment Court Judge all say that the Government is wrong and that this change will significantly increase costs and delays; and will she now drop these foolish changes to that Act?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member made a reference to something that was said in a private session by a judge to the select committee. I see that the chair is nodding.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member be seated so I can clarify. A point of order was raised that a matter had been raised that was before the select committee, and the bill has yet to be reported to the House. As the member knows, that is not acceptable. Does he wish to talk to that point of order?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: My statement in the question was that the Principal Environment Court Judge had said that the Government’s claims that its bill would reduce costs and delays was wrong. There was no reference at all to a meeting of the select committee. I am surprised that the Minister, who is not a member of the select committee, is aware of the statement made by the Principal Environment Court Judge at that time. The reason for that is very simple. The Minister and the Associate Minister both had a briefing from the judge, which was not held in privilege in any way, and at that meeting they were advised that their amendments are a nonsense and will not work.

Madam SPEAKER: I want to clarify with the Hon Dr Nick Smith whether he was referring to proceedings in the select committee.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No.

Madam SPEAKER: The member was not referring to those proceedings in the select committee. Would the Minister therefore answer the question.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: The answer to the question is that those are issues that I understand have been raised in submission. I am sure the committee will have some comments on them.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: As the training of councillors on hearings panels has been so successful—and was supported, may I say, by all the submitters, whose submissions are on the public record—will the Minister now consider delaying the massive changes to council procedures envisaged in the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill so that people will have a chance to put their training to good use?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: No, there will be no consideration to delay.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have quite a serious situation here. The Minister for the Environment, as is clear by her disclosure in the House in first raising this point, knows what occurred during a private briefing of the Local Government and Environment Committee. Now, that can have occurred only as a consequence of a Labour colleague informing her of something that occurred in private, and the very crime she accuses me of she has committed herself by being aware of that fact.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I want to make two points on what the member has just said. Firstly, of course, he has just contradicted what he had assured the House—that there was no private briefing on the matter he referred to in his question.

Hon Bill English: That is not what he said.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It is exactly what he said. Secondly, the rules of this House have for a long time been quite clear that members of Parliament are allowed to brief other members about what goes on in a select committee. Otherwise, no member of this House would ever report back to his or her caucus before a select committee had deliberated.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: The select committee did issue a brief press statement saying that it had heard from the Principal Environment Court Judge in private and that his evidence would be referred to publicly at the time of the committee’s report back to the House.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Is this a different point of order?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, it is an important point with respect to the very issue that has been raised by the Leader of the House.

Madam SPEAKER: It would appear that a public statement was made about the attendance. As we know, any member of this House can attend a select committee hearing. I am not, therefore, sure that any breach of any order has occurred in the interchange that has taken place. I have ruled on this matter. I do not wish to have it relitigated.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Leader of the House has raised a point that I think needs clarification. I have always understood that information about a private briefing of a select committee cannot be distributed to other members of the House who are not on that committee. I think it would be helpful if the Speaker were to give a considered ruling, because I know that on other occasions when such private briefings have been held, the practice has not been what Dr Cullen has pointed out. I simply seek a considered ruling from you on that point so that members can be clear when there is a private briefing.

Madam SPEAKER: It is not a breach of privilege for one MP to communicate proceedings of a select committee with another member.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister for the Environment believe that the draconian ministerial powers in the proposed amendments to the Resource Management Act, whereby she could declare any controversial activity to be a permitted use in all districts and therefore require no Resource Management Act consent at all, will improve environmental decision-making; if so, why?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Again, I understand that these are issues that have been raised in submissions. I am sure that the committee will have some comments on them, and I look forward to its report.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have ruled on the matter that was being discussed, but I suggest that the ruling, while correct, is partial. You referred to the fact that it is within the Standing Orders for one member to brief another member about the proceedings of a private hearing. You also referred to the fact that the co-leader of the Greens and chairperson of the committee said that a public statement had been made that a hearing had occurred. But, of course, neither of those matters deal with the substance of the issue, which is that the material that was the substance of the briefing was brought into the public arena by the Minister for the Environment. That is a breach of order. She is not allowed to get up in this House and refer directly to material that was the substance of a private meeting. We are allowed to know that a select committee held a private hearing. We are allowed to be told by other MPs that there was a private hearing and about what was discussed, but we are not allowed to raise the matter in the House ahead of the select committee report back. That is a breach of order.

Madam SPEAKER: If the member believes that a breach of privilege has been committed, then I suggest he follow the correct procedure, which is to write to the Speaker.

Hon Bill English: On the point of order—

Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled on that. If the member believes, as was the substance of his point, that there has been a breach by the Minister, then I ask him to follow the correct procedure. He should write to the Speaker, and then the matter can be dealt with in the appropriate way.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a new point of order. We now have confusion about how these matters will be handled, because in the previous point of order you made a ruling on the matter without referring to people taking a privilege claim. You came to your own decision that whatever had happened was not out of order. As soon as I raised another point, which is just another aspect of the same debate—but one you had not dealt with—you then decided that you would not rule, and that the issue had to be taken to the Privileges Committee. I am now asking you why you have treated the serious matter of order in the first point of order differently from the way you have treated it in the second. Either this matter should go to the Privileges Committee from the start, or you are capable of ruling on both points of order that have been raised—not just on one of them.

Madam SPEAKER: If members feel there has been a breach of privilege, then I suggest they follow the procedure and write to the Speaker.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek that you give clarification to a ruling you made today, because Speakers’ rulings, of course, can become precedents for the House. It was established in previous exchanges that evidence heard in private at select committees could be communicated to any members of Parliament, but that ruling does not appear to be consistent with the Standing Orders. Now, by searching through Speakers’ Rulings and finding that there has in fact been a Speaker’s ruling that deviates from the Standing Order, you may be able to advise Parliament, but if I quote you Standing Order 218(3) you will see that it is quite clear that: “Evidence heard or received in private is confidential to the committee”—not to members of Parliament—“until it reports to the House.” I would hate for a Speaker’s ruling, perhaps given reasonably in haste, to be contradictory to the Standing Orders, unless previous Speakers’ rulings have already done so.

Madam SPEAKER: I refer the member to Standing Order 239(2) for the ruling I made. This is not a breach; it is just disclosure to another. I repeat that if members are concerned there has been a breach, I ask them please to follow the correct procedure. I will take no further comment on this ruling.

Police—Resources, Counties-Manukau

10. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) to the Minister of Police: How many staff will, or are, being brought in to help clear the backlog of cases at Counties-Manukau Police District, and for how long?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade), on behalf of the Minister of Police: I am advised that eight investigators have been allocated to the Counties-Manukau Police District to assist with the backlog of cases. Four began work yesterday, and another four start next Monday, 18 April. It is expected that those staff members will initially work in the district for up to 6 weeks, and will significantly reduce the backlog.

Hon Tony Ryall: How on earth will eight officers clear a backlog of 1,100 cases in around about 6 weeks, and why does the Minister not reveal in the House today how many extra staff the Counties-Manukau police actually said they needed to do the job?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am sure the member will be delighted to know that the backlog he has mentioned had already been reduced by 200 cases before the additional staff were assigned. It is the decision of the commissioner as to how many staff may be needed, and for how long. He has made his judgment. Unlike members on the other side who attack our top civil servants, I am prepared to take his judgment.

Martin Gallagher: Further to the Minister’s previous answer, is it unusual for police resources to be moved around in order to meet changing operational needs?

Hon PHIL GOFF: No. The commissioner has the ability to allocate his resources to meet operational demands, and he regularly does that, either across districts or across tasks. Within the Greater Auckland region there is also a board of management, comprising the district commanders, that regularly cooperates in sharing resources in order to meet the operational requirements of the region as a whole. That is just straight common sense.

Ron Mark: Is the Minister not aware that the Counties-Manukau Police District has consistently been reported as having the highest turnover of staff, that the average length of service of its uniformed staff gives it less experience than other districts, and that when measured against the national average for officer to citizen ratio as at 17 July 2004 it was short of the national average by 183 officers; and how can the Minister believe that by the Counties-Manukau Police District being given 12 officers over a 2-week period it will seriously get on top of crime there?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I will answer some of those questions. I cannot give a breakdown district by district, but I can tell the member that the turnover of police staffing is much less than it was when that member was part of a National-led Government. Secondly, staffing in the Auckland region is very good at the moment, and the Commissioner of Police believes that by the end of the financial year the region will be staffed at levels above the numbers set out for the region. Thirdly, let me say this: instead of bashing the Counties-Manukau police force, the member should understand that the Counties-Manukau police force saw crime rates there come down by an astounding 11.3 percent over the last year, and consistently improved its resolution of crime rate from 33 percent to 37 percent over the last 2 years—a better track record than when that member was associated with the National Government.

Dr Muriel Newman: With regard to the issue of police resourcing, why is it that under the Minister’s watch the Northern Communications Centre is so short-staffed that last week one inspector in charge of life-threatening situations in the North Island was forced to breach safe workplace practice by having only a 6-hour break between shifts?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am afraid that I cannot confirm what the member has said. Too often in this House we have the experience of members—and Mr Mark is one of them—standing up and making such claims, and our finding consistently that there is no reality associated with the claims made. However, if the member wants me to check it out, she should please provide me with the information and I will do so.

Hon Tony Ryall: What is the Minister of Police’s explanation for the provision of only eight extra investigators instead of three times that number as recommended by the Counties-Manukau police?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The decision about how many people should be allocated to help clear the backlog was made by the commissioner in consultation with the district commanders involved. The judgment was made that those eight additional investigators will significantly reduce the backlog. The facts are that already that backlog is down by more than 200 on the figures the member just quoted. That was a good record, even before the additional staff were assigned.

Martin Gallagher: For the historical record, what additional resources have been invested in the police since the year 1999?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The annual police budget since 1999 has risen by $160 million. I compare that figure with the $50 million that the Martin report was going to reduce police numbers by, at the time that Tony Ryall was Minister of Justice. Police numbers have increased by over 1,000, to 9,815. We have the highest ever budget and the highest ever number of police officers serving in this country. The Minister of Police can be proud of that record compared with Tony Ryall’s deplorable record when he was Minister of Justice—[Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr Mark interjected across the floor of the House that that was a lie. That is outside the Standing Orders and his statement is not correct.

Madam SPEAKER: Could the member withdraw and apologise.

Ron Mark: Perhaps the Minister could tell us by exactly how many the number of police have been increased. He said over 1,000. The House requires some justification of that.

Madam SPEAKER: Did the member shout across the House: “It’s a lie.”?

Ron Mark: Yes, I did, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Then will the member please withdraw and apologise.

Ron Mark: I withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. About three times in the sequence of answers that Mr Goff gave he criticised members of the Opposition for actions dating back even as far as the administration of 6 years ago. Frankly, he was highly provocative. Then he said something that was demonstrably not true. That is my colleague’s point. With respect, the Minister should get up now and tell us what the truth is, or apologise himself for misleading this House.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Question No. 11 to Minister

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I note that the Minister whom my question is directed at is not present in the House. This is the third occasion on which I have asked questions about the Aotea Marine Reserve with the Minister absent. In the interests of the public not getting the impression that the Minister is avoiding answering my question, I seek leave for this question to be held over to when the Minister is present.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.

Marine Reserves—Public Consultation

11. LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) to the Minister of Conservation: Is he satisfied that the Department of Conservation engages in adequate public consultation when considering new marine reserve proposals; if so, why?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts), on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: Yes, because independent audits of the last two formal marine reserve applications received by the Minister have confirmed that thorough consultation was undertaken. The significant number of submissions received on marine reserve applications also suggest that the department is doing a good job in ensuring that the community is aware of the proposals and their implications.

Larry Baldock: What is the current status of the promised independent review, which is being carried out by Mr Simon Berry, of the Department of Conservation’s consultation processes with regard to the Aotea Marine Reserve, and when will the Minister publish findings of that inquiry?

Hon RICK BARKER: The review is almost complete. I do not have a precise date with me, but I would certainly like to forward that to the member after I take some advice on it.

Dave Hereora: What improvements have been sought by marine interest groups to the way that marine reserve proposals have been identified and advanced?

Hon RICK BARKER: All the sectors say that they want a strategic approach to the establishment of marine reserves and other marine protected areas. Recreational fishers, commercial fishers, conservation groups, and iwi all want a structured regional approach and to be involved in the early stages of planning. The Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation have just finished consultation on a marine protected area policy and an implementation plan that will do exactly that.

Larry Baldock: How does the Minister reconcile the statement by Mr Warwick Murray, the Department of Conservation’s communications relationship manager, in a letter to Scott McIndoe concerning Mr Berry’s findings: “Mr Berry’s report states that the Director-General of Conservation has substantially complied with the procedural requirements of the Act and fairly and appropriately carried out his responsibilities.”, with the statements made by Mr Merv McGee, chairperson of the Ngāti Rehua trust board, who told me today that the whole process of consultation was a farce and that the Department of Conservation had no regard for tangata whenua rights; and who did Mr Berry consult when he was carrying out that independent review?

Hon RICK BARKER: I cannot confirm the comments made to that member today, but I can confirm that the Department of Conservation takes tangata whenua rights seriously and does seriously consult tangata whenua.

Larry Baldock: Can the Minister confirm, after his visit to Great Barrier Island last Friday, that residents and Ngāti Rehua, hapū of Ngāti Wai, remain opposed to the Aotea Marine Reserve, and that they still consider they will suffer undue adverse effects, and that just one of those objections, according to the Minister’s reply to my questions in the House several weeks ago, is sufficient for the marine reserve proposal to stop in its tracks; and, therefore, when will the Minister call a halt to that proposal and abandon it?

Hon RICK BARKER: That marine reserve application is going through a process, and yes, it is correct that if it can be demonstrated that there is undue effect on any one of a number of categories, then the proposal will not proceed. This process is still under way, and we should await the outcome.

Larry Baldock: What consultation has the Minister’s department engaged in with the Catlins community regarding the proposed marine reserve at Nugget Point, and will he consider the local community’s proposal for a marine management model similar to theFiordland Marine Guardians model as an alternative to a full marine reserve; if not, why not, or will they experience the same appalling treatment from his department as the residents of Great Barrier Island have experienced?

Hon RICK BARKER: The department and the Minister will take seriously all submissions from the Nugget Point people.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. How is it possible for the Minister to stand up to answer a question as the Minister, and to say that he cannot speak for the Minister of Conservation? That is his job; that is why he is here answering the questions. What sort of answer was that?

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question.

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

Madam SPEAKER: I say to Mr Hide that I have ruled on that. I listened carefully to the question and to the answer.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to give some thought and advice to this House about what the breadth of a Minister’s responsibility is when he or she is standing in for another Minister, because we see Ministers sort of ducking away. Can they just say that they do not know anything about that and that they cannot speak on behalf of a Minister, because if that is the case, question time will become an even bigger farce.

Madam SPEAKER: I considered the Minister’s answer, as I considered the question. The Minister addressed the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may have considered the Minister to have addressed the question, but he surely cannot begin his answer with “I cannot speak for another Minister …”.

Hon Rick Barker: I never said that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh yes, the Minister did. With respect, the Minister is required to do just that—that is why he is standing in. All we are asking him to do is to tell a tosser to go home and leave our reserves alone.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister confirm that if Labour and the Greens are working together after the election, the new Marine Reserves Bill will be passed with appropriate amendments based on the submissions we have heard, ending 3 years of stalling on this issue and enabling marine reserves to proceed with better provisions for consultation than exist under the present outdated Act?

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider how that question could possibly be in order. I know that if a National or an ACT member had asked it, it certainly would not have been.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: The question asks the Minister whether it is the Government’s policy intention to proceed with the bill after the election if it has sufficient support. It seems to me that that is within the Minister’s power to answer.

Madam SPEAKER: Members are perfectly entitled to ask hypothetical questions, and have done on previous occasions.

Hon RICK BARKER: It is the Government’s intention to pursue passing that bill through Parliament and, of course, as always we welcome the support of the Greens for our legislation.

Larry Baldock: Does the Minister consider that the previous question asked by Jeanette Fitzsimons is one of the best reasons New Zealanders should vote for United Future, so that there will not be that outcome she predicted?

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister has no responsibility for that.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I like your direction about ruling out, I think it was Mr Baldock’s question, because you ruled in that hypothetical questions could be asked. The idea of people voting for United Future—I mean, how hypothetical does that get for that poodle party?

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Question No. 1 to Minister

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I just want, if I can, to table a document that has come into my possession this afternoon. It is dated with today’s date. It has a time on it of 12.45. It is a statement from the Prime Minister in which she describes John Tamihere as wonderful colleague who puts in 150 percent.

Madam SPEAKER: I ask the member whether he has sought leave to table that document.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, I have.

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

Question No. 10 to Minister

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): I seek leave to table a document showing that on 25 February 2005 there were 9,847 police staff, compared with 8,767 when Labour came into Government—thus verifying the statement I made to the House.

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

RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before I can consider giving leave—

Madam SPEAKER: I am on a point of order; would you please be seated until I have completed this point of order. The point of order is that leave be sought to table that document. [Interruption] Is a point of clarification sought on the document?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Yes. My colleague seeks to know whether the figures the Minister is using are for sworn officers—yes or no.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): The verification is of my answer. The figures are of total police staff. I could give the member other figures showing that sworn staff are up by 500.

Madam SPEAKER: With that clarification, leave is sought to table the document. Is there any objection?

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, but I want to complete this point of order. The clarification has been given. Is there any objection to tabling that document? Yes, there is. The document will not be tabled.

RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I stood to get a point of clarification, which would enable me to make a decision as to whether I would object to the leave that was being sought. You promptly sat me down. Then, within split seconds, my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, took a point of order on precisely the same point, and you heard him. What is it? Do we have a discriminatory policy running in the House?

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated. When the Rt Hon Winston Peters rose, you sat down. He said he was talking to the same point of order. You received the point of clarification; therefore, you had an opportunity to decide whether to object.

Ron Mark: No, I did not.

Madam SPEAKER: You did.

Zimbabwe—Cricket Tour

12. ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: When she said yesterday “personally I wouldn’t be seen dead there”, was she hoping that individual New Zealand cricket players would follow her lead and withdraw from the proposed Black Caps tour of Zimbabwe; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister was expressing her personal view. The decision as to whether the New Zealand cricket team tours Zimbabwe is one for the players and New Zealand Cricket to make.

Rod Donald: Is the Prime Minister concerned that a tour by an official New Zealand cricket team to Zimbabwe could be seen as giving tacit approval to Robert Mugabe’s pariah State and therefore could undermine the Government’s condemnation of the rigged election recently held in Zimbabwe; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, because both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade have made clear on many occasions New Zealand’s abhorrence of the Mugabe regime.

Rod Donald: Will the Government consider advising New Zealand Cricket that if it withdraws from the Zimbabwe tour on moral or political grounds, the Government would underwrite any fine imposed by the International Cricket Council; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. That would create an unfortunate precedent for the future in many similar kinds of cases, I would have thought.

Rod Donald: Does the Prime Minister consider that there is value in New Zealand pursuing sporting boycotts against Zimbabwe, given their effectiveness in helping to overturn South Africa’s apartheid regime in the 1980s; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes. Certainly, sporting boycotts have worked in the past, but no New Zealand Government has ever attempted to prevent a New Zealand team going overseas, as opposed to preventing a team coming to New Zealand.

Rod Donald: Will the Prime Minister encourage the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Phil Goff, to follow the example of the British Government and meet with New Zealand’s representative on the International Cricket Council with a view to requesting an international sporting boycott of Zimbabwe; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is a matter for Mr Goff. I think it is fair to say that the current policy of the International Cricket Council makes these decisions very difficult for sporting teams, and the policy could well be revisited, but that, again, is a matter for cricketers and cricketing organisations throughout the world.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table two documents. One is a press statement that sets out that Sir Robert Muldoon was right and the Labour Party was diametrically wrong on the question of Robert Mugabe.

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

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek clarification. Before I grant leave, can the honourable Winston Peters assure us that he will in fact table the document?

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Would the member please sit down

Document not tabled.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The second document is a statement from the Labour Party bitterly criticising the then National Government for not stopping the Cavalier’s tour of South Africa.

Document not tabled.

Points of Order

Replies to Written Questions—Timeliness

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your assistance in relation to Standing Order 366(4). Ninety overdue answers to written questions are due in from the Associate Minister of Social Development and Employment, the Hon Rick Barker. Fifty-odd of those questions relate to fraud within the department and benefit fraud, and we have had no reply to 90 of them.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please write to me about that matter, so I can deal with it.

Bills

Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 7 April.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): The Green Party continues to oppose this bill, the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill, because of what it does, both in theory and practice, to single parents on the domestic purposes benefit. The practical side of it is that the Government, supported, not surprisingly, by the National Party and by some other parties, is going to increase by $6 a week the penalty against those sole parents who fail or refuse to identify in law the other parent of their child. Although, indeed, as a number of members have pointed out repeatedly in the debate, this is a token amount, it is also $6 a week being taken from some of the poorest families in New Zealand. I find it incomprehensible that the Hon Steve Maharey finds it so important to increase penalties like this, when his own ministry has done research showing the real extent of child poverty in this country, and that single-parent families are clearly those most affected; and also that his own ministry, in a background paper given to the Social Services Committee, actually said at one point that “harsher policy measures would not be effective for the majority of this group”. The Minister does appear to be ignoring the advice and the research carried out by his own staff on this matter. As a result, on the practical side of it, we see a further $6 a week being removed from some family budgets. On the theoretical side, we have a Government that is so keen to undercut Dr Don Brash and Dr Muriel Newman on welfare policies that it feels somehow obliged to make some show at least of increasing penalties against people on the domestic purposes benefit.

I really do not understand why Labour has to feel it is in a race with the right to capture the exact same pool of voters who demonise beneficiaries. Labour has done a lot of good things in the area of social welfare, although nowhere near enough, mind you. For example, increasing the personal support offered to domestic purposes benefit recipients, ending forced work for the dole for unemployed and other beneficiaries, and moving to improve the culture of Work and Income have all been positive steps forward. Why Mr Maharey has to take two steps forward and one step back is most puzzling. Surely his party and its union and community sector supporters should have the confidence to keep working proactively for positive changes in the welfare area, instead of every so often coming up with a little doozy like this, or the no-go zones of Jobs Jolt, the abolition of the special benefit as part of the Working for Families package, and so on.

It has been more than two decades now since the era of Rogernomics began, with the onset of mass structural unemployment deliberately created by a former Labour Government, then later entrenched by things like National’s benefit cuts, market rents for State houses, and the Employment Contracts Act. Labour has seen clearly enough that the Employment Contracts Act had to be thrown out and income-related rents reintroduced for State housing. However, for some reason, when it comes to the benefit system and beneficiaries, it cannot quite bring itself to go that extra step towards a clean break with the beneficiary-bashing of the past.

Beneficiary numbers are coming down. Good work is being done on improving the availability of childcare and out-of-school care to make it easier for parents to go out to work. It was great to see Labour supporting my colleague Sue Kedgley’s Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill in the House last week, as it should if it is serious about helping mothers and fathers cope with the real-life demands of balancing work and bringing up babies and young children at the same time. Why then, in terms of the benefit system, does Labour have to go ahead with clause 7 of this bill in its current form? Nearly all the submitters to the select committee asked for the penalty clause to be taken out. The Green Party certainly wants it taken out. It is a mere $6 a week but it is $6 that families on the domestic purposes benefit can ill do without, on top of the $22 or more that they are already losing as a penalty. The mere fact that it is such a token amount almost adds insult to injury, making it even clearer that what this is really about is moral judgements, not economics.

It seems to me that what the Government is actually saying in this bill is that a mother is committing a moral crime if she cannot, or will not, name the father of her child. From the department’s own research, as offered to the select committee, it appears that the three most common reasons for this happening are: first, actions taken by the other parent—for example, in denying paternity or disappearing when advised of the pregnancy; second, the mother not knowing who the father was—for example, because of casual relationships, multiple relationships, and/or the effects of drugs and alcohol; and, third, a parent who might be trying to avoid the other parent having contact with or rights over that child.

In all those circumstances, it is clear that the citizens of regular society can find many opportunities to make moral judgments about these mothers. But is that what a Government—any Government—should be doing? Penalising women who are going to live with the results of, for example, a drunken one-night stand for the rest of their lives and their children’s lives comes out of the same psychology as those who would still like to see young sole parents pressured into giving up their babies for adoption, or the domestic purposes benefit done away with altogether because, so to speak, it only encourages them.

In reality, our country needs children, and it needs parents who are willing to bring up their children with love and care, no matter what the circumstances of their conception. I have argued this before, and people do not like it, but it does seem to me that the logical extension of the arguments behind this bill that some people make about penalising sole parents in these kinds of circumstances are basically that in the end they are saying it would be better for women to have abortions than to give birth to children conceived as a result of these kinds of circumstances, because of their supposed immoral provenance.

I reject all this. Every child born in this country should be a wanted child, and every child conceived should have the best possible chance in life. Mothers in difficult circumstances who make the big decision to go ahead with a pregnancy rather than have a termination should be supported and nurtured, not condemned. A truly compassionate Government would remove all penalties for not naming the father and do everything it could to support the parent and the child or children involved, not the opposite. Children conceived and born in these kinds of situations need more help and support from all of those around them and from the State, not less.

The Green Party believes that these are big social problems, and we are not trying to run away from them. What we are saying is that the solutions are different. They would be better dealt with through things like reforming the Child Support Act, more in-depth education at an earlier age for schoolchildren about the realities of becoming a parent, better support to the groups that work with mothers and fathers in these kinds of situations, and things like the reintroduction of a universal child benefit, once the old family benefit, that would assist all families, but particularly those living in comparative poverty, rather than selectively penalising some of them, as this bill does.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui): I am pleased to speak to this bill. It ensures fairness and security, and it makes quite significant amendments to the social security system. One of the advantages that will come to people from this bill is the extended eligibility for the accommodation supplement. We will be ensuring that benefit applicants who work for part of the year are not financially disadvantaged, as seasonal workers often are—that is another advantage for communities—and we are changing the regime to encourage sole parents to establish paternity for their children or apply for child support.

This Government has historically supported, and will always support, one-parent families when they cannot support themselves financially, but we do expect the other parent to contribute to the costs of the child. I might be old-fashioned, but I always thought that that was what being a parent was all about.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): National supports this bill, because even though it falls short of comprehensively addressing serious issues in regard to social welfare, there are at least some positives, which is a bit of a surprise. The tremendous amount of work and cooperation undertaken by the Social Services Committee has been acknowledged. It is good that there is some provision for eligibility for the accommodation supplement for residents of retirement villages who have a licence to occupy, and that the bill ensures that they are treated consistently in terms of access to financial assistance. One can only assume that the estimated number of retirement village residents expected to quality, as identified by the Minister as being 200 to 300 persons, is reasonably accurate.

It is good that benefit stand-down rules are now vastly improved, to improve incentives for people on benefits to undertake seasonal and other short-term employment. I am sure that that is one element of the bill that will be wholeheartedly welcomed not just by persons on a benefit wanting to undertake part-time work, wanting to continue to have some form of independence without being penalised, and wanting to work part-time without costing them more and discouraging real effort to find work. I am sure that employers will welcome an opportunity to employ local people who may be on a benefit and who are discouraged from seeking employment.

This bill goes some way to address the fact that it actually costs more to work part-time and that therefore it is not worthwhile to seek work. Hopefully, that issue will be addressed effectively through the bill, and National welcomes that move. As many will no doubt be aware, part-time workers are hard to come by, and it is to be hoped that there will be a marked improvement in this situation for the many orchards and pack-houses, particularly in my Coromandel electorate but also throughout the rest of New Zealand. Staff are becoming increasingly more and more difficult to get, particularly on a part-time basis.

I come now to the next provision in the bill, as stated by the Hon Steve Maharey. He said that the bill also puts into effect changes to the regime that encourages sole parents to establish paternity for their children and apply for child support. Quite clearly, Mr Maharey listened to and read the excellent work done by the National Party. But why is it that from 1 April 2006 any parent who does not name the other parent, be it a mother or father, will lose $6 a week from their benefit—the Greens are actually horrified about that—but that the family support package, which also kicks in on that day, gives that parent $25 extra a week for the first child and $15 extra a week for the second child? We see for that first child a net gain of $19.

One has to wonder why the Greens are opposing that provision when it puts more in the pocket of the person who is on the benefit. Where is there any incentive to name the other parent, when instead of being $6 worse off, one is, in fact, $19 better off for the first child, and a full $15 better off for every subsequent child? In actual fact, one could say that there was an incentive for increasing that dependency instead of a deterrent for single-parent dependency.

This Government has, once again, failed in its responsibility to provide sound policy and to exhibit some sense of fiscal capability. But, then, we are continually made aware of the lack of fiscal understanding and capability of this Government. The provisions in this bill in relation to the naming of a parent have the real possibility of seeing the number of unnamed parents actually increase. Perhaps Dr Michael Cullen might like to pay a bit more attention to the legislation being promulgated by his party. One has only to look at the exemptions to see the distinct possibility. First, if a parent claims that the other parent is violent, naming does not have to take place. There is actually an incentive for the parent to be a little violent and therefore not be required to be named. The second exemption is more significant—

Jill Pettis: Explain that again. We missed something.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Well, I suggest that member reads the bill, as well. If a parent claims that there is no hope of the other parent ever paying for his or her children, then, once again, he or she can be exempt from liability. Cry poor and one is off the hook. Third, claim the other parent is dead, and they are off the hook. It is patently ridiculous. How could there possibly be any exemption for having to name a dead person? After all, one should be required to name to clarify that the person is, in fact, dead. How bizarre can one get? That is a fine example of the lack of the practical understanding in the application of the law. [Interruption] I would strongly recommend that those members go back and look at the bill and refer to the Hansard.

I wholeheartedly support my most excellent colleague Judith Collins when she says that it is a child’s right to know who his or her parents are, and that when we take away that right, we take it not from the father but from the child. My most excellent colleague Judith Collins has now also clarified that of the 40,000 women who refuse to name the fathers of their children—and we must remember that there are a number of men who have refused to name the mothers of their children—there are now more than 11,000 liable parents said to be living in Australia. What is the Government doing to recoup some of that loss of support for those children? It is worth reminding the New Zealand public that under the current Government the number of unnamed parents has increased by some 20-odd thousand, with some three women a day refusing to name the fathers of their children.

I do not see that there is any way in which this bill actually curbs or controls that in any way. There will be valid reason for not naming in some cases, but for others who have multiple partners and do not know who the fathers are, some mandatory DNA tests would be a proactive and cost-effective measure to identify parents who are liable for child support. Innocent men accused of being fathers, when they know they are not, should also be accorded access to free DNA testing to ensure that they are not unjustly named.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I rise in support of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill. I wonder whether we have just heard another policy announcement from Sandra Goudie, future front-bencher for the National Party, that it will now remove the exemptions for domestic violence, for mothers on the domestic purposes benefit who do not want to name the father of their child. I do not think there is a member in this House, outside the National Party, who would think that there are women who will deliberately continue to have children, then claim violence, and have the father want to claim violence so that his name is not on the birth certificate.

The other thing that was raised in the Committee stage was the issue of whether, if a mother had said that the father had died, the Ministry of Social Development could check that that was the case. We were told in no uncertain terms that it was not an issue.

One of the most important things this Government has done, under the Hon Steve Maharey in this portfolio, is to move to individual case management for the domestic purposes benefit. That has been a crucial change, because a blanket rule cannot address every single situation. One of the things the Ministry of Social Development has done is to let mothers know that they are being penalised for not naming the father of their child. That is very important, because a lot of mothers did not realise that in the first place. I support the bill and I commend it to the House.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First supports this bill. That is not to say that we do not have some reservations. We have some strong reservations concerning clause 7, headed “Rates of benefits for sole parents may be reduced”. We do not accept, as the honourable member who has just resumed her seat does, that claiming violence should be the total excuse to allow fathers to be exempt. Let me make this quite clear: young children need their fathers. The taxpayer is entitled to know who the fathers are, or who the father is, in a particular instance. We do not swallow, hook, line, and sinker, the line the member has just espoused. Some women cannot name the father, because frankly, they have had too many liaisons. They simply do not know who hit the jackpot. Other women do not name the father because they get a pay-off from the father. They lose $6 in one hand, and, as Sandra Goudie illustrated quite well, they get another $20-something, so there is a net gain of $19. But equally so, and I am aware of this occurring, some fathers will say: “Don’t name me and I will give you something extra.”, and that occurs in this country.

Darren Hughes: Three percent.

PETER BROWN: Members are saying 3 percent, and the Minister says I’m dreaming.

Hon Annette King: You’re dreaming that anyone would have a baby for $20 a week.

PETER BROWN: I am not dreaming that a woman would have a baby for 20 bucks a week. I am saying that the Minister should listen a little bit to what other people are saying in this House. There are people who will have a cash advantage because the father will say: “Look, don’t name me and I will give you some extra.”

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Name them.

PETER BROWN: I could name one lady who came to me. I can see that the Government, particularly the Minister of Finance, thinks that this is a frivolous idea. By the look on his face, he thinks that fathers should be exempt. He thinks it is a bit of a joke that the good old taxpayer will pick up the responsibility.

Darren Hughes: Name one.

PETER BROWN: Let me say to members, and to the member interjecting, who is probably too young to be a father yet, that if we took some DNA swabs we could find out who the father is, was, has been, or whatever. We should be using modern technology to save the taxpayer some financial burden.

As I said at the beginning, New Zealand First is strongly in favour of all children knowing who their father is—good, bad, or indifferent. Sooner or later, when youngsters grow up they want to know where they have come from. We believe that there is an opportunity here to deliver that message home—that a particular child’s father is so and so. If he is an awful sod, so be it, but the child is entitled to know. Equally so, the taxpayer is entitled to know and to hold the father to account for some of the responsibilities of the upbringing of that youngster.

We take it seriously. The Government may take it as a joke, but we take it seriously. People in this country are ripping off the taxpayer, left, right, and centre, and this bill provides another loophole. Having said that, New Zealand First will support this bill. It is a move in the right direction, but it is not the complete answer. It is disappointing to us that the Government cannot see the complete answer. It is staring it in the face. The answer is to use modern technology to determine who the fathers are. New Zealand First will support the bill.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): I rise in support of the third reading of this bill. In addition to the changes around child support, there are two other important areas in which the bill makes changes. Firstly, it extends eligibility for the accommodation supplement to residents of retirement villages, where increasing numbers of our people are living. Secondly, the bill makes important changes for seasonal workers, allowing them to nominate either a 52 week or a 26-week earning period. I think that that will assist a lot of people, as well. For those two reasons alone, I support the third reading of the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 101

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 18

ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Bill read a third time.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the first readings of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill, the Rail Network Bill, and the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3), and the passing through their remaining stages of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill, the Gambling Amendment Bill, the Fiordland Marine Management Bill, the Railways Bill, the Architects Bill, the Charities Bill, the Public Records Bill, the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill, the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill, the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3), and the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill, and any bills into which those bills may be divided. This motion is moved to allow for additional sitting hours this week to consider legislation the Government would like to see passed before the adjournment.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 58

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): I move, That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Health Committee for consideration, that the committee present its final report on or before 28 May 2005, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

Xenotransplantation is the implantation of living biological material from animals into humans. The Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill extends the period of the current controls on xenotransplantation until 31 December 2006, with the ability for this state to be extended by Order in Council if necessary. The current controls were introduced in response to concerns about the potential of threats of xenotransplants transmitting new infections to recipients and to the wider community; the adequacy of regulatory review processes; and the cultural, social, and ethical issues associated with xenotransplantation. The current controls allow xenotransplantation trials to be considered and approved by the Minister of Health but require strict criteria to be met before an approval is given. No applications have been made to the Minister of Health under the current provisions.

Without this bill, the existing additional controls on xenotransplantation will end on 30 June 2005 with the expiry of Part 7A of the Medicines Act. After this state the scientific and ethical oversight will return to the controls utilised for clinical trials of medicines contained in section 30 of the Medicines Act. Section 30 controls were previously identified as being inadequate, and, despite further information on xenotransplantation being published, I am advised there is still a need for additional oversight of this controversial emerging technology.

Existing controls cannot be extended further under existing legislation, hence the need for this bill. Ongoing controls are needed on xenotransplantation because it is still only an experimental technique. It is unclear whether this technique would be successful within humans. There is also a risk of transmitting viruses from animals to humans. There are only a small number of animal or human studies of possible efficacy, and it is far from clear whether a transplanted animal organ would function properly in a human.

Evidence indicates that xenotransplantation may be associated with an increased risk of transmission of a wide range of viral, bacterial, and other infections known to occur in the sourced animals. There is a theoretical risk that xenotransplantation could increase the risk of new infections jumping the species barrier from animals to humans. In view of concerns about the safety and efficacy of xenotransplantation, similar jurisdictions—including Australia, Canada, and the UK—have stringent controls on xenotransplantation. To my knowledge there are currently no clinical trials under way in those countries. In December 2004 the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council announced a 5-year moratorium on clinical trials of xenotransplantation. New Zealand would be going out on a limb if we allowed these controls to lapse. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this very important bill, the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill.

Opposition Members: This is the next Minister of Health!

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Those members are absolutely right. This bill is a serious indictment on this Labour Government’s integrity and its attitude towards science. In essence, this bill is the continuation of a blunt instrument that the Labour Government put on science in order to stop xenotransplantation in New Zealand back in 2001—now the Government wants to continue it until 2006.

This bill is a serious indictment on Labour. The Prime Minister, her health Minister, and her science Minister all say they are committed to science and are committed to economic growth. We have a classic situation in which they have said: “Let’s focus on biotechnology as one of the main strands of economic growth in New Zealand.”, yet they have created in this country some of the most difficult hurdles to the carrying out of biotechnology in the Western World.

We know that the Government’s own biotechnology task force has said exactly that—that the regulatory regime in New Zealand is very difficult and that it is forcing top New Zealand scientists to do their work overseas or to leave. I shall give two examples. The first is the Huntington’s chorea trial that was, basically, founded at the Auckland School of Medicine. The reason it did not continue in New Zealand was that it cost too much and would take too long. Consequently, it has gone to Adelaide. That is a tragedy for New Zealand science, a tragedy for New Zealand biotechnology.

It is hugely important to have a complement of scientists in New Zealand who are capable in the new genetics. If we do not, we will not even recognise the problems until they have got here, and an example of that scenario was the varroa bee mite. We had only one bee scientist at the time, and the disease was endemic in New Zealand before it was recognised. It is vital that we have a complement of scientists who are competent and capable in the various biotechnology techniques involved with genetics, in order to be able to pick up on things at the time and also to be able to use the huge power of the new genetics and genomics to the betterment of New Zealand.

There is no doubt that in areas such as agriculture and horticulture it is vital, but also it is vital in the area of medicine. Yet we have seen this Government putting on a blanket stop, using the crudest and only method it knows—that is, a moratorium. In the order of six cases of xenotransplantation have been carried out in New Zealand, until the abrupt stop was put to it by Labour and the Greens. I note that there was an application going through the process—a fairly stiff regulatory process that we had in New Zealand at the time—but it was turned down by an amendment of this Labour Government. As it turned out, Mai Chen, a very well-known lawyer, and a submitter to the select committee at the time, believed that the Supplementary Order Paper brought in by this Government was literally a constitutional outrage. The firm Diatranz did not even have the opportunity to have its application heard.

It is extraordinary that only last week it was revealed in the newspapers that one of the individuals who had a transplant of pig islet cells intra-abdominally by way of laparoscope had, of his own volition, a further laparoscopy in February this year. It was fascinating to hear that the islet cells were still producing insulin. He was thrilled by it. The scientific community was thrilled by it, but it has been deeply disturbed by the fact that right around the world other such cases have been replicated and are showing huge promise. The major problem this Government was worried about was the pig endogenous retrovirus, which is inherent in the line of cells that was being used. We heard last week in Parliament, through the Royal Society lectures on science, that there is now a pig islet cell strain that is free of the retrovirus, giving huge hope for this area. We also heard from Dr Bruce Scoggins, the chief executive officer of the Health Research Council of New Zealand. He now says that there is undoubtedly a place for xenotransplantation in New Zealand. There is no reason why we should not at least have the opportunity for people to apply for xenotransplantation experiments in New Zealand, where we do have a very rigorous regulatory regime, so that at least we can get in place the decision as to whether the risk management is appropriate. But this Government has said that it is not interested in science; it will just put down a blank, blunt instrument. I can see members of the Government over there shaking their heads.

This is the Government that says it is interested in economic growth, in biotechnology, and in moving New Zealand along—and what does it do? It puts in place massive hurdles that have prohibited progress in one of the most potentially important areas for New Zealand, and the recent Huntington’s chorea trail is not the only example of that. There was—I think it was in 2001—the AgResearch application for transgenic cows. That in itself cost AgResearch something like $600,000 and took 2 years before it was finally able to get on with it. Again, the Government has unnecessarily placed a huge inherent hurdle on New Zealand science, almost certainly because it has listened to the Greens, taken notice, and taken an absolutely Luddite approach to an area that is so important for New Zealand.

There is no doubt that the technology here is innovative, clever, and can be used for a whole variety of reasons. There is no doubt that New Zealand should be at the forefront of this sort of innovative, clever biotechnology. The very wrong thing to do is to put in a moratorium. One would hope that any Government that professes to be interested in the knowledge economy would at least put in place a regime whereby any applicant can go through a rigorous risk management process and then have the experts decide—not politicians such as this Labour Government has produced—whether this very important technology can occur in New Zealand.

What happened to Diatranz? It had to go offshore—it literally went to Australia. I accept the fact that the Australians have also had a somewhat Luddite approach to their regulatory regime in this particular instance. But in a vast variety of other areas, their regime around biotechnology and genomic research is much more enlightened than what we have seen under this Labour Government. That is why many of our scientists are going over there. That is why the Huntington’s chorea trial has gone to Adelaide, and that is why I am saying that this particular moratorium is totally unnecessary and an indictment on the Labour Government.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I am pleased to speak on this bill. I am appalled, actually, at the rather arrogant attitude of the Opposition spokesman on health. The moratorium in this bill is very clear. If the member had listened to the Minister, he would know that the provisions that allow for the extension of the moratorium for 1 year are for two reasons—and the member needs to listen to this. The provisions here for xenotransplantation will be covered under the Human Tissue Bill, which is yet to be referred to the Health Committee. Also, we want to conclude the consultation from the Bioethics Council. It is for those two reasons alone that we seek an extension to the current moratorium.

I support this bill and I know that the member for the Opposition realises that it was incredibly important that we set up the Bioethics Council. It would be disgusting to pre-empt any decision just because they are scientists and just because this technology is sorely needed, and not go through the consultation under the Bioethics Council. We are a Government that is prepared to wait. The scientific research is going on overseas, and for that reason I support this bill.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. We have had a very interesting debate from all parties. As far New Zealand First is concerned, we will support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill going to the Health Committee. Quite obviously, a high-powered debate is being undertaken at technological levels. We recognise that biotechnology is one of the most important economic aspects for New Zealand’s future, and we must be involved in the biotechnology economy.

This is a relatively short bill and the matter can be considered by the select committee relatively quickly. We look forward to all those interested parties making submissions to the select committee, and New Zealand First will take note of what they have to say. So in the meantime, we support the bill going to the select committee.

KATHERINE RICH (National): The National Party, as my colleague said, will not support the bill because we do not see the need for a moratorium. We believe that we already know a lot about the science, and that this is a very blunt attempt to hold back the sea. The Government can pretend all it likes to be King Canute, but science will continue to progress and to provide solutions for many New Zealand families that are waiting for xenotransplantation technologies to be developed and to be available here.

We have seen Willie Terpstra and her family go offshore to get the treatment she could not get here. Many New Zealanders watched that story and saw how much that technology made a difference to that New Zealander’s life. Who are we to stand in the way of that? Four members of my family have been on renal dialysis. Three of them have had transplants, and one is currently waiting for a transplant. I can tell members on the Government side of the House that if the technology existed to transplant a pig kidney, a baboon kidney, or any kind of kidney that would keep my family member alive and off renal dialysis, then that would be fine by me.

We need to remember the human face of this argument. Labour can pontificate about the cultural issues and sensitivities, yet people are waiting for life-changing treatments. We need to trust the scientists, who are very careful, sensible, and ethical in the work that they have done and are doing. We know that the moratorium will not stop the work being done. It will just send our scientists offshore so that the work can be done there. Is it any wonder that we are seeing a brain drain of scientists right now? There are simply too many hurdles and barriers in their way when it comes to New Zealand science to do leading-edge work. There is no logic behind this decision. There is no reasoning or detailed scientific analysis for the extension of this moratorium. In fact, there is no indication that it will work at all, except to shut down an area of work and opportunity in New Zealand, when a lot of New Zealand families are waiting for the technologies that can arise as a result of this kind of work.

It was interesting to hear the member opposite talk about arrogance. I think it is arrogance to stand in the way of some life-saving technologies that can make a difference to some New Zealanders’ lives. Unless one is in that situation and really knows what it is like to face those sorts of family difficulties, one does not know what one is talking about when pontificating about cultural sensitivities.

I have had a look at some of the work put out by the Bioethics Council, and I have to say that it is an absolute load of tripe. Constituents of mine have been involved in the consultation process in Dunedin, and have been subjected to handholding exercises where people ask questions about what happens if someone takes on a pig kidney and suddenly starts to behave like a pig. That is absolute rubbish. There is no scientific base to that sort of discussion. There is no knowledge or detailed understanding of this extremely high-tech scientific area.

So I think that holding back the tide here does not do the best for New Zealanders. It does not do the best for the many Kiwi families who are waiting for all sorts of solutions to very many debilitating diseases and health conditions that keep people from living full and active lives. It is very easy, I think, for the Government to bring up some basically extremely spurious reasons why this moratorium should be continued, but there is no logic to it. There is no reason or scientific base. I do not think the Government has listened to a lot of the groups—the patients and the families—who are waiting for some of these lifesaving techniques and technologies.

I worry that so many of our best scientists are going offshore. There are a lot of areas where one cannot do leading-edge research now, because of the regulations and hurdles that have been put in place. The scientists in those areas have brains that are easily exportable. They can go offshore and get better salaries and greater continuity in their incomes and careers, rather than stay here and see artificial barriers put in place that disallow them from doing good scientific work. I do not think there are any mad scientists in New Zealand. There is a group of scientists who want to do some studies in an area that I think will make a huge difference to the lives of a lot of New Zealanders.

Hon Maurice Williamson: A lot of them are under stress, though.

KATHERINE RICH: My colleague says that some are under stress. That is no surprise. I think some members opposite wish that John Tamihere would be xenotransplanted into another party. But as he says that he will die a Labour man, despite apparently humbling himself before the caucus today—although he does not retract any of his comments—it seems that that will not be the case either, so they should think about putting a moratorium on John Tamihere. That might do them a better service than trying to put up artificial barriers that will just cause loss of life and remove opportunities for New Zealanders to have access to some of these technologies that will make a difference to their lives.

Darren Hughes: Is this the same woman who got sacked?

KATHERINE RICH: Until Darren Hughes faces a parent on dialysis or a family member who is looking for a transplant of some kind, he should keep his mouth shut because he has no idea what it is like. He can pontificate about the cultural sensitivities of xenotransplantation, but just wait until he sees a dialysis patient in his constituency office, who says: “Your rules are standing between me having a life and not being able to continue.” Then, I think, he might change his tune—once he understands the human face of these decisions.

The Government is trying to hold back the tide of science. It is quite Luddite to pretend that science will stop its work in this area. It is only New Zealand that will stop work in this area, while the rest of the world will continue to provide opportunities for science. Science will march on and provide some life-giving solutions to a lot of people who are waiting for these opportunities—who are waiting for the second chance at life that might come from a pig kidney, a pig liver, or some other transplanted organ.

So it is all very well for members opposite to be theoretical about this moratorium and pretend that it will not have an impact. We know that it will. Many, many New Zealanders will be worse off because the Labour Government thinks it can hold back the scientific tide and deny a lot of New Zealanders many lifesaving solutions that will make a difference to their lives and allow them to continue—if, of course, we have any scientists to continue this work once this moratorium is over. As we know, not many scientists who go to the United States or to the UK make the transition back into New Zealand. A few have, but not many come back once they get used to research grants, good salaries, better conditions, continuity in their work, and better opportunities. We are worse off because we lose those brains—those people who could do a huge amount of work within our Crown research institutes here in New Zealand.

Finally, I tell Government members to remember the human face of this problem, to remember that they will have constituents coming into their offices saying: “Why are you against something that could have made a difference to my life?”, and to remember that this moratorium is nothing short of Luddite.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I rise to support the first reading of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. What an extraordinary speech we just heard from Katherine Rich! Speaking as someone who actually graduated from university with an honours degree in science, I can say that all my friends who left this country to do science overseas did so under a National Government, after Labour had left office. The most important thing to them was that they had low employment conditions or wages that were not worth staying for, and the institutes that they worked for were severely underfunded. So it is a bit rich to hear the National Party complaining about the brain drain.

We are talking about an area of science that we as a Government are still not convinced should go ahead. We are talking about experimentation on human beings. I find it interesting that Dr Paul Hutchison is very quick to attack the Government about the efficacy of testing pharmaceuticals but is saying that we should be injecting animal cells into humans right now without ensuring that, firstly, the technology will work, and, secondly, it will not cause the transmission of infections or viruses that at their very worst could cause a pandemic. If a pandemic had occurred that might have been caused by a retrovirus, Katherine Rich in her former life in this Parliament would have been the first to attack this Government and ask how many more invalids beneficiaries there would be as a result of this Government allowing the use of techniques that were not tested and that we were not sure of.

We need to be secure about this technology, because it will not help the New Zealand scientific community if something goes wrong and we do not take all the necessary precautions. Biotechnology, of which this area is a very small part, is also a very small part of science. I am sure that many scientists who are out there working very hard get sick of the focus on this area. Science in this country needs to have an international standard that is recognised overseas. Sure, our scientists will go overseas—and a lot of them will come back, because that is the nature of the international science community. It does this country and the biotechnology industry absolutely no favours to push ahead using technology that has not yet been proven safe and that we as a Government are not yet prepared to go ahead with and see used on humans. As the Minister of Health says, we do not do it with pharmaceuticals, and we certainly should not be doing it with xenotransplantation.

HEATHER ROY (ACT): ACT New Zealand will oppose the first reading of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. I would like to support the comments made by the two National Party speakers. The previous speech by the Labour member was extraordinary. Supposedly based on science, she said that this Government is not prepared to risk the citizens of this country. Let us get real about this. The reason this bill has come before us now, under urgency, is that the Government is kicking for touch. An election is coming up, and the Government wants to play it safe. If we just read the explanatory note of the bill, we see that the Government is very clear about what it wants to do. The explanatory note states: “It is proposed, in the long term, that xenotransplantation be covered by new human tissue legislation and therapeutic products legislation.” To allow time for that legislation to be drawn up, the Government wants to extend the moratorium. Let us get real here: this bill does not address the real issue. Extending the moratorium just kicks for touch and avoids a confrontational issue—something people feel very strongly about, on both sides of the fence. It is just about political expediency: about not offending anybody in election year, and about putting off dealing with the real problem until a much later date.

The National Party members both spoke with a great deal of authority—particularly Dr Hutchison—and with a great deal of passion, about the problems experienced by many people.

Hon Annette King: I would be quite happy to go back to being a dental nurse.

HEATHER ROY: The Minister of Health, Annette King, who is sitting over here, has interrupted and interjected all the way through this debate, but we know the value she puts on lives. It was not acceptable for a single person to die while on the waiting lists when she was the Opposition spokesperson on health, but now, suddenly, it is perfectly acceptable to have several die. No longer do we have to worry about whether people on waiting lists may die—no. But we are certainly not prepared to help to save the lives of people who have no other option but to consider xenotransplantation in order to cure their ailments.

In this country we have rigorous regulatory regimes. We should be encouraging—[Interruption] There is nothing wrong with physiotherapy as a profession, and I would suggest that a qualification in physiotherapy may actually be a superior qualification to that of a dental nurse—but let us not go there. I have actually come to the House to debate xenotransplantation, because I think that the issue is very important. The Minister of Health may want to laugh it off and think she is doing a good job by extending a moratorium. In fact, she is not. The extension is about political expediency, as I said. She just does not want to offend anybody in election year. She is worried about the people in Rongotai, who may or may not vote for her. As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, we have rigorous regulatory regimes in this country to deal with research, and we should have some faith and put some trust in the Bioethics Council and in the people who are responsible for making the decisions about those matters. Those people are experts, unlike the Minister of Health and unlike myself. I am unwilling to stand up here and say that we should not do this research because it is the wrong thing to do. I think we should put some trust and some faith in the scientists of this country—the very well-qualified scientists like Moana Mackey, who has decided for whatever reason to change careers. We should put some faith in the people who are experts, and let them do the deciding, not the 120 members of Parliament, who have absolutely no knowledge—except for Moana Mackey, of course—about xenotransplantation.

We may be worried about retroviruses, and the member from Labour quite rightly raised that matter. But I ask whether we worry about tourists coming into this country and bringing retroviruses with them. Are we worried about the pandemics that may arise? Are we so worried about tourists bringing retroviruses in that we screen tourists? No, we do not. Are we so worried about immigrants coming into this country, spreading retroviruses, and perhaps, as Moana Mackey said, causing a pandemic that we bother to screen them at the border? No, we do not. So why are we so worried—

Peter Brown: We would.

HEATHER ROY: New Zealand First is worried. I am pleased to hear its members are worried about something. No, we do not worry about tourists or about immigrants, so why are we worried when we have to jump through hoops in order to do research in this country about xenotransplantation and the spread of retroviruses? We should undertake absolutely rigorous, watertight risk analysis before we proceed with that research, and we should put some trust and some faith in the experts.

Many members will remember the fiasco about the environment surrounding the issue of transgenic cows. It took 2 years of jumping through hoops, getting approval, and doing the right things—and it was $500,000 later—before anything could happen. That sent a very pertinent signal to the scientific world with regard to genomic research in New Zealand. It was a very powerful signal that said: “Don’t bother coming to do any research here. You guys, you scientists whom we have trained, we will train you for export just as we are doing with our doctors, our nurses, and our health professionals. We are training you here in this country, and giving you a very good training, and we want you to go overseas”—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will please not refer to the Speaker.

HEATHER ROY: We want scientists to go overseas and do their work there, because we do not want to do any of that very nasty biotechnology work here in New Zealand. So that is exactly what has happened, of course. Our scientists, our best and our brightest, our very well-qualified scientists, particularly in biotechnology, have headed off overseas. And who can blame them? There is nothing for them here in New Zealand. So New Zealand scientists, who are known for their innovation and expertise, will no longer be doing anything here in New Zealand; they are being sent offshore to do their research there. That is a huge loss, not only to the scientific community here in New Zealand but to New Zealanders, and to those patients who made informed decisions about whether they should have some research done on themselves. I have met one of the people who had some xenotransplantation research done, and she is living a very productive, happy, and healthy life as a result of xenotransplantation. But that will no longer be the situation. Nobody else will have the opportunity to have that done here, because our scientists have been sent off. The moratorium is to be extended, and that is another lost opportunity for the people of New Zealand, for the scientists of New Zealand, and for the scientific reputation of New Zealand, which in the past has been a very good one.

ACT opposes this bill. We think we should deal with the real issue. Let us not pretend that the legislation is not ready to be drawn up. Let us not deny that the moratorium is being extended only because there is an election coming, and the Minister of Health is worried about her votes. Let us not pretend that we are not ready to address the real issues. People in New Zealand are ready to address them, and it is only the arrogance of their Government that suggests otherwise. Let us not kick for touch; let us have the real debate and the real discussion. Let us see that legislation—

Hon Parekura Horomia: Ha, ha!

HEATHER ROY: I do not think that this is a joking matter, as the Government does. Let us discuss the real issues for once, instead of just kicking for touch yet again. I do not want to see our scientists go offshore; I want to see them come back to New Zealand. But what is here for them to come back to? Very little! We have systems in place to deal with these things, and we should deal with the risk analysis. People are quite right to be concerned about retroviruses. But we have the expertise here to address that issue, and the research should be allowed to happen. ACT New Zealand says we should address the real issues and deal with them here and now, not put them off yet again. How many more times does that have to happen? Let us treat our scientists, our well-trained scientists, with the respect they deserve. Let us deal with this issue right now and not put it off. ACT will oppose this bill for that very reason.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party rises to support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill, which is essentially just a date-change. It is an extension of the moratorium so that legislation can be more thoughtfully developed in order, ultimately, for xenotransplantation to be covered by new human tissue legislation and therapeutic products legislation. Possibly, there is no more important legislation this Parliament will consider than that covering xenotransplantation. It is crucial that we get that legislation right and do not rush into it, and the Green Party is absolutely delighted that the Government is spending more time on it and is extending the moratorium, so that we can give more thought to the legislation in the hope that we will get it right.

Despite what has been said, xenotransplantation is an issue with profound ethical and safety considerations. It involves crossing the species barrier between humans and animals that has existed for millennia. In that sense it involves tampering with the very basis of life, and, whatever our opponents say, it does raise the possibly of disease transfer between species, of crossover diseases from, for example, pigs to humans, and of new infectious and possibly deadly viruses. There is no point in just dismissing those possibilities, because there is experimental evidence to show that in some cases pig retroviruses have survived for long periods inside humans. We have all heard of the great panic about the possibility of bird flu emerging in South-east Asia. Why, with that possibility looming, would we rush to transfer something from animals into humans, when that could raise the possibility of outbreaks such as mad cow disease and bird flu, and of untreatable diseases? That is the reality. Some members of the Opposition will try to dismiss that, but it is the truth and we need to acknowledge the truth. We cannot rush into legislation in this area. We need to take the time to get it right.

There are many unknowns in the field of xenotransplantation, and nobody really knows what the implications of it are.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Why would bird flu be transferred through pigs?

SUE KEDGLEY: Maurice Williamson is interjecting, but he does not know what the implications of xenotransplantation are, and nor does anyone in this House. So it is essential that all the issues are thoroughly investigated, and that there is wide-ranging consultation and debate, before any approvals are given for clinical trials. Let us not repeat the mistakes made with regard to genetic engineering by trying to introduce a new, highly risky, and controversial technology when there has not been a proper public debate on it or even a proper regulatory regime put in place. I believe that consultation is taking place on the issue. That is good. Let us not rush in where angels would fear to tread—let us tread very warily on this very important issue.

Diabetes is the issue that most people raise when they talk about xenotransplantation. Of course, it is a very difficult ethical and scientific decision to weigh up the possible benefits of xenotransplantation to individual diabetes sufferers against the possible risk it poses to the whole population. But the truth is that everyone likes a quick fix—a technological solution. Putting pigs’ organs into humans sounds like a great quick-fix solution to, for example, diabetes—that is the issue that has been most frequently mentioned in this context. But instead of looking at doing something as radical and with such political risks as xenotransplantation, why do we not look in the first instance at the causes of diabetes and at some simple steps that we as a population could take, which are right under our noses, to try to prevent diabetes or reduce the epidemic of diabetes? Yes, there is an epidemic, and a huge increase in type 2 diabetes—about 127,000 New Zealanders now suffer from diabetes—but why do we not look at the causes of that, rather than try to think of quick-fix solutions?

We know, for example, that a high-sugar diet is one of the causes of diabetes. A high-fat diet is another. We know that, but what are we doing about it? We are doing very little. We allow children in taxpayer-funded schools to have access to vending machines. Cash-strapped schools use vending machines to sell high-sugar drinks in order to try to eke out a little bit of extra money. I am told that a big school can get about $12,000 a year if it has a vending machine. So we allow the sale of high-sugar, high-fat food, which we know contributes to diabetes, in our schools simply in order to help cash-strapped schools to earn a little money. We know that fast-food companies like McDonald’s sell high-sugar drinks and are synonymous with chips and burgers, which are high-fat foods. So what are we doing to try to discourage our children from eating the sorts of foods that contribute to diabetes? We are participating in the marketing campaign of McDonald’s by putting its symbols on mobile dental clinics. We are getting fast-food companies to pay for essential public health services like mobile dental clinics. How crazy is that? On the one hand we want to rush around and engage in xenotransplantation—putting, say, pigs’ organs into humans—but on the other hand we are not prepared to do something as simple as take steps to reduce the amount of high-fat, high-sugar food that our children are eating, which we know contributes to diabetes.

Indeed, this Government—

Dail Jones: This isn’t very relevant.

SUE KEDGLEY: It is extremely relevant, because one of the main things that has been mentioned about xenotransplantation is that it may offer a cure for diabetics. So it is entirely relevant that we should consider what we can do to try to reduce the incidence of diabetes, rather than simply look at a high-tech solution at the end of the line. Frankly, it is shocking that the Government allows a fast-food company to use its marketing symbols on mobile dental vans, and allows such companies, which sell the food that we know contributes to diabetes, to fund core health services. If they did not sell the food that contributed to diabetes, then it might be an interesting proposition. But that is the reality. Coca-Cola, burgers, and chips are the staple sorts of foods sold by those companies, although some improvements are being made. Therefore, we need to look much more widely at the whole issue of how we tackle diabetes.

In the meantime, we are pleased to support this bill. The Government is saying that we should get the legislation on xenotransplantation right and not rush into doing something about which there is such huge scientific uncertainty. If we did put pig organs into humans in order to try to solve the problem of diabetes, and if we got it wrong and it resulted in a retrovirus—such as the equivalent of a new form of bird flu or of bovine spongiform encephalopathy—it would be a disaster for humanity. It would open Pandora’s box. There is no more important legislation that we should spend time on getting right than the legislation on xenotransplantation. We strongly support this bill.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): I am pleased to rise to debate the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. But before I get on to the substance of the bill, I will refer to a few things that have struck me as being rather odd about the previous speaker.

Hon Maurice Williamson: A few things?

MARC ALEXANDER: A lot of things, actually! The contribution of fast foods to diabetes leaves out the most important ingredient of all. It is not in the bun, it is not in the meat, and it is not in the lettuce. Guess what? It is personal responsibility. Nobody shoves that stuff down people’s throats; they choose it for themselves. If they cannot decide what their diet should be, they should not look to capitalist organisations, which are there simply to provide a service. The fact is that if those organisations can turn a profit—

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take personal offence at being described as “odd”. I would like the member to apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Will the member desist from using terms like that. The member has taken offence.

MARC ALEXANDER: I shall desist from calling her odd. Capitalist organisations like McDonald’s should be congratulated on opening institutions like Ronald McDonald House. If those institutions were not available, who would then provide those services? The fact that McDonald’s can get leverage from their products to fund those institutions is not a bad thing—they fulfil a service. I, for one, am very grateful, as are many parents who have used Ronald McDonald House, for the money the company forwards to help parents and children in times of absolute need. It is outrageous that members of this House would shoot themselves in the foot and shoot the good Samaritan ethic in the foot, by suggesting that it is a bad thing altogether. That is absolutely nuts. I suggest, and I might be in trouble for saying so, that a bit of inter-species transplantation might be exactly the ticket for, not only that member, but the whole Green Party. While this amendment is a short one—

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I know what the member is going to say—it relates to Standing Order 116, “Personal reflections”. The member will withdraw.

MARC ALEXANDER: I withdraw. Although the amendment is a short one, at its heart is a significant and complex question of whether living cells, tissues, or organs from animals and other organisms should be used to treat humans—an issue that United Future believes needs to be publicly debated, and the wide-ranging implications for society of such procedures needs to be thoroughly understood. This bill does not stop science—it gives us a pause. It gives us an opportunity to rethink things, and it allows the public to come in on the debate. No group in society, scientists included, should be favoured by having its views aired and pushed forward, over and above those of everybody else. We have to work together on an approach that benefits all of us. Having this bill to extend the moratorium date does just that. It does not stop science—it proceeds nevertheless. All we are doing, basically, is giving ourselves a bit of time to look at what the legislation is all about.

United Future awaits the results of the Bioethics Council’s consultation on xenotransplantation. That is a work in progress. We need to give that time to come through—it will not be far away—and then we can debate sensibly the issues from both the scientific and public interest points of view. United Future wholeheartedly supports the process, of course. We need to hear from New Zealanders regarding their views on decisions that will shape the boundaries between what is scientifically possible and what is beneficial for the social and ethical future of the country. It needs to be put in perspective. Giving the OK to one group of people and shutting everybody else out of the debate does not do that.

In order to allow this debate to run its full course, and also to have time to fully consider appropriate legislation, United Future supports the extension of the current controls placed on xenotransplantation procedures provided for by this bill, until 31 December next year. It is clear that science needs to have some sense of direction. It cannot work with a stop-start sort of approach. I understand that, and this bill does do a little bit of that, unfortunately. But it is nevertheless an opportunity to look at the further reaches of what kind of scientific achievement we will end up with in New Zealand.

We need to have the debate, but we need to do it sensibly. We need a conclusion to this process, because we cannot continually hold off science just for the next year, the year after that, or the year after that. People need to know what amount of time they have to start applying to science vis-à-vis money and investment into the procedures they are trying to look into. We believe, though, that it is essential to have the momentum to ensure that this matter is fully debated, so that interested groups on both sides of the issue can have certainty in the near future.

United Future will support this bill only at the first reading and going to the select committee. Thereafter it will depend very much on what the public debate is all about and on how that progresses, seeing the balance needed between the scientific interest and the public good.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier): I support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill being referred to the Health Committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 83

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

Noes 36

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Māori Party 1.

Bill read a first time.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): I move, That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be referred to the Health Committee for consideration, that the committee present its final report on or before 28 May 2005, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

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

Ayes 70

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 49

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Māori Party 1.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Rail Network Bill

First Reading

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety), on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Rail Network Bill be now read a first time. It is the Minister’s intention to move at the appropriate time that the Rail Network Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration, that the committee report by 23 June 2005, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting, despite Standing Orders 191, 193(a), and 194(1)(b) and (c).

Rail plays a significant role in this Government’s vision of an affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system. In order to achieve that vision and secure a vital part of New Zealand’s land transport infrastructure, the Government repurchased the national rail network in June 2004. On 30 August 2004 the rail network assets and responsibility for operating the national rail network passed to the New Zealand Railways Corporation, which is now trading as ONTRACK. That occurred because of the spectacular failure of National’s privatisation of rail. I reassure the House that rail is now safe in the hands of this good Government. That has created a need for new legislation to provide for the rolling governance of ONTRACK and to assist it to operate the rail network more effectively.

Although ONTRACK has been able to operate under its existing legislation with an amended statement of intent, many of the provisions it is operating under are outdated or redundant. The bill repeals the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act and the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act, and provides for ONTRACK’s new role as rail network owner and controller. It also provides ONTRACK with modernised governance arrangements, while carrying over some of the existing provisions. In particular, the provisions relating to the holding and disposal of rail network land are retained.

Under the bill the New Zealand Railways Corporation will continue in existence with the same legal name. However, it will continue to trade under its trading name of ONTRACK. The bill also provides for ONTRACK’s new objective and functions, and for some principles concerning how it must perform its functions. It aligns the objective and functions of ONTRACK with the New Zealand Transport Strategy without compromising its commercial focus.

The bill changes ONTRACK from a State-owned enterprise to a Crown entity—in particular, a Crown agent—under the Crown Entities Act. The Government considers that that is the most appropriate structure to take ONTRACK forward, considering its new role, objective, and core functions. While ONTRACK will have a strong commercial focus, return on investment will not be its sole focus. As a Crown entity ONTRACK will be required to give effect to Government policy, in particular, the New Zealand Transport Strategy and the forthcoming national rail strategy. ONTRACK’s objective also reflects the expectation that it will take a commercial approach. I note that the commercial access agreements provide the framework for commitments that ONTRACK has entered into with rail operators for ensuring that the network is operated, maintained, and renewed in a safe, responsive, efficient, and effective manner. In order to contribute to the Government’s aim of a more integrated and consistent approach to land transport funding and management, the bill will also require ONTRACK to prepare a 10-year capital development programme.

The bill carries over and consolidates all the provisions from the existing legislation relating to the ability to deal with land held for rail purposes, with the intention of preserving the current position. These provisions give ONTRACK the power to deal with the Crown-owned rail network land that was previously known as land held for railway purposes, including the power—subject, of course, to the consent of the Minister responsible—to dispose of surplus land. In particular, the 1990 Act contains specific provisions that differ from the section 40 Public Works Act provisions for offer back to former owners, which enable railways land to be retained for future rail use. The bill provides for a governing board of between five and eight members to continue to provide it with additional expertise and oversight. The Government has recently strengthened ONTRACK’s board, making a number of new appointments including the appointment of a new chair, Mr Cameron Moore and a new chief executive, Mr David George.

Rail will play a major role in achieving the Government’s vision of an integrated, affordable, safe, and sustainable transport system for New Zealand. For years there has been low and declining investment in the rail network, which has led to problems with deferred maintenance and associated safety concerns, and declining service capability. The rail network has been run down and underutilised. Establishing ONTRACK as an integral part of New Zealand’s land transport infrastructure provides the structure to meet the demanding challenges in its new role of maintaining, developing, and operating New Zealand’s rail infrastructure in a commercial rail environment. It has been established to promote the best outcomes in terms of return on investment, congestion reduction, improvements for business, commuters, local communities, and the environment. ONTRACK requires modern legislation to adapt to its new role and allow it to continue fulfilling this vision. The bill provides the institutional arrangements for ONTRACK that will allow it to do that. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I say from the outset that the National Party will certainly be supporting this bill to select committee. We understand the need for legislation that tidies up the legalities around what is referred to in the bill as “the entity”—that is, a corporation by the name of the New Zealand Railways Corporation, which has the responsibility for owning and operating the rail. But the National Party also has some quite serious concerns about the detail of this bill, and we will be asking some questions at the select committee and seeing whether we can get either some additional clauses put into this bill or some clauses changed.

The Government is very, very quick to roll out its transport mantra just about everywhere that it can. It wants it to be “an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system”. I do not think that there is anything wrong with those four things, but they go nowhere near enough to put realistic limits on the bill. For example, what we are creating here, and what members need to understand we are creating here, is actually a monopoly: a business that can provide access to the rail track—but it is the only one. For many years I have asked why there is only one monopolies commission, actually, and I have never had a sensible answer to that question. But when it comes to rail—and Harry Duynhoven may laugh—I understand why there may be only the one operator of the rail track and a whole lot of rolling stock operators gaining access to it. I can live with that.

However, just like the fact that I can live with there being only one Auckland airport and a whole lot of aircraft operators in the name of airlines using it, there have to be some rules about what these entities can charge. I mean, who is to stop the entity from seeking monopoly rents from the users of the rail track? There is nothing in this legislation that states: “Now, you are the only owner of the railway line. Charge what you will.”, because if Toll Holdings does not like it, it would be a matter of bad luck unless there were some quite severe limitations about the use of monopoly rents and the ability to rack-rent.

I also notice that there is some stuff in this bill about the returning of land to the original owner under the Public Works Act of 1981, and I think that is a perfectly sensible thing. But it also gives some exemptions and I wondered why that was, and then the penny dropped for me as to why. I guessed that if the New Zealand Railways Corporation owned a very thin sliver of land that was only the width of a railway track between two quite large blocks of privately held land, it would be a bit of a nonsense to go back to the original owner and say: “You can own this nice little wee thin strip of land, but you cannot get access to it. It lies between two private sections of land.” I notice that there are some provisions in the bill for not having to offer the land back to the original owners where the entity is getting rid of a very small piece. I think it states that it is something to do with its size, shape, and structure, and the entity may not have to force the land back.

So overall, yes, there is a need to have a proper legislative framework for the New Zealand Railways Corporation to act under. Secondly, I am staggered that the Government is so reluctant to ever put the words “economic efficiency” into anything. It was the same with some of the road legislation, when we were talking about the Land Transport Management Act. The Government fought tooth and nail against having the words “economic efficiency” in the legislation, and I cannot understand for the life of me why. Other than the Greens, who do not believe in economic efficiency, I do not know of anybody in this House who would not want New Zealand Railways to run on an economically efficient basis. I will certainly be moving some amendments either at the select committee stage or when the bill comes back into the Committee of the whole House so that we do not only seek, as the bill states, that the objective of the entity is to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to “the aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system”.

Well, those are lovely words. Those are like mother’s milk, apple pie, and so on. But those words do not actually talk about how this entity would operate in the commercial world, and this is a commercial entity—a business that will charge people to use it. There are no powers fettering its monopoly position as far as I can see. We have in the airports legislation some restrictions about how those airports can either use or misuse their monopoly powers. I would like to put in some words about economic efficiency and to also have some limitations on the abuse of a monopoly power.

Having said all that, though, the bill is necessary and the National Party will not do anything to hinder its passage to a select committee that will hear the necessary submissions and make what we hope will be some constructive suggestions for improving the bill.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport): I rise to support the bill; to thank the National Party for its support of this bill, and to say I look forward to its contribution when this bill reaches a select committee; to thank my colleague the Minister for Transport Safety for his erudite opening remarks; and to say that this bill marks the end of an era that began when the then National Government sought to privatise the railways, which was arguably the worst act of privatisation in New Zealand’s privatisation era. I have a great deal of pleasure in seeing the rail track—indeed, a monopoly provision—not only returned to State control but also, under this legislation, having statutory identity.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): I want to take a call pending the return to the House of my colleague Peter Brown from the Business Committee. Perhaps he will be given the opportunity to say a few words shortly, because, from the sound of things, I am sure there would be no objection to New Zealand First having two calls on this bill. [Interruption] I can tell the member that without rails, they would not run. As we know, this Rail Network Bill provides for the long-term structure and role of the New Zealand Railways Corporation, which has responsibility for owning and operating the national rail network following its purchase by the Crown. As the previous speaker indicated, the preceding National Government has a lot to answer for. Now I can resume my seat, because the person who knows everything about this bill has come into the House, and will be only too pleased to take the next call.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): There was a time not long ago, possibly 10 years ago, when we heard that the railways were to be ultra-modern, that they were to go into private hands, and that they were to be a world example. I think they were set up for sale by the Labour Government, of course. I think Richard Prebble as Minister of Transport had set them all up some years before, and when National came to power in the 1990s—[Interruption] The member says we would not have a railway. Let me just say that the year after Richard Prebble set it up, the railways made a profit for the first time ever. Up until that time the taxpayer carried the whole thing, paid for the redundancies and what have you.

Then the Government—and I am sure the member will correct me if I am wrong—employed a couple of consultants from Fay Richwhite, to arrange the sale. A few weeks before the sale, they sort of jumped ship and became part of the purchasing team. As a result, I think that organisation made a lot of money out of New Zealand Rail.

Dail Jones: $300 million.

PETER BROWN: It made $300 million. What did the country get? It got a rather run-down railway track and railway service, to be honest. And only a year or so ago this Government was forced to purchase the network back—a network that was in a dilapidated state in many, many areas.

In Tauranga I was invited out by some concerned residents who asked me to look at a railway track and see what was holding it in the ground. I went there and I found that it was literally easier to pick the bolts out than to pull pins out of a pincushion—and it was not just one bolt; there were quite a few.

Hon Maurice Williamson: So what did the member do about it?

PETER BROWN: The member rang the honourable Minister Harry Duynhoven, who I know likes to get his hands dirty and is not afraid to get some action around the place. After that meeting with the residents and seeing the state of the track, I had gone home thinking that I now had to do something about the situation, because if anything were to go off the rails that night it would be on my conscience. That railway track runs along an embankment between rows of housing, so if something went over it would go right into a house—and God knows what would have happened.

Hon Maurice Williamson: What did Harry do?

PETER BROWN: Harry Duynhoven got straight on to the case. He went up in my esteem enormously. There was no mucking around. He got straight on to it. I understand that he had quite some debate to get action. But, fair go, he did get some work done on that railway track in rapid order.

Having said all of that, I have to say that our railway tracks need a fair amount of money put into them, and I hope the Government is aware of that. I think it is programming $200 million, but that is not enough. I do not believe it will be enough. I think it is programming $200 million over 5 years, and I do not believe that will be enough.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: We’ve already put $80 million into it.

PETER BROWN: I say to the honourable Minister that I think he has to have a good deal more money than he has probably budgeted for. This country needs an efficient railway service, because it is long, skinny country separated by Cook Strait, and the railway could play a very important part in our economic well-being. I am not only talking about it carrying passengers. It is obviously important in areas like Wellington and Auckland that it does carry passengers, but it is also an ideal system for carrying long-haul freight. To my mind and to the minds of my colleagues, it is essential that we get the railway system built up to the appropriate standard in short order.

New Zealand First has always believed that this country would be better served if the tracks were owned by the taxpayer and we allowed operators to operate on the tracks—exactly as the roading system works. We have advocated that for many a year, and we are very, very pleased that the Government has picked up that idea.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Probably Duynhoven’s policy.

PETER BROWN: I have given the Minister enough credit for one day. I think I am going to claim a little bit for my colleagues here. New Zealand First has advocated that the tracks should be owned by the taxpayer and that the operators who use the tracks should pay rail-user charges, in exactly the same way as trucking companies pay for using the roads. I do not think I need to express any more concerns about that, except—[Interruption] The Minister Pete Hodgson, who is on his feet, is a little bit premature.

I want to know why this bill is being sent to the Government Administration Committee. We have in the Hon Mark Gosche a very competent chairman of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. He is well-served by the members on that committee, and they are very keen about transport matters. The Minister, in sending this bill to the Government Administration Committee, is doing a disservice to the transport-minded people who work so diligently on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

Dail Jones: They want it back by June.

PETER BROWN: Then the Minister had better send it to the professionals, to the guys who really have their finger on the button, and not to the Government Administration Committee. With due respect to the members on that committee, when it comes to trains I do not think they would know the front end of a train from the back of a bus.

Jill Pettis: That’s a patronising comment!

PETER BROWN: I think I have my answer, and I will quit while I am ahead. But I ask the Minister to rethink which committee he sends the bill to and send it to the correct one.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT): I am curious too as to why this bill is going to the Government Administration Committee. I presume it is because it is legislation that deals with the administration of the rail network. I actually agree with Peter Brown, who has just spoken, that we have a very good Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and an excellent chairman and that we do have the time to get through legislation like this. Although ACT is supporting the bill going to the Government Administration Committee, I am disappointed that it will not be to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, because one of the reasons for that support was that I was very interested to see the submissions on it.

There has been a lot of talk about the long-term structure and role of the New Zealand Railways Corporation in terms of owning the national rail network. There was a lot of lobbying in 2002-03 by what became known as the “big four”. I think it was Solid Energy—and I can see the Minister racking his brain, as I am. Four big companies wanted the Government to buy back the rail network so they could have the exclusive use of it. Of course, that would never have worked, because rail is not like a road, where there are passing lanes, etc. We opposed this buy-back of the rail network. One of the biggest mistakes that Richard Prebble ever made was not selling the railways. He is always accused of selling the railways. In fact, he never did sell the railways. One of the greatest myths in modern politics is that Richard Prebble sold the railways. Had he sold the railways, had he privatised them, we would have had a successful privatisation, like Telecom—and I do not see this Government moving back to buying back Telecom and turning it into New Zealand Post.

Peter Brown mentioned the fact that the railways used to lose a lot of money. In the year 1979-80, the railways lost $90 million of taxpayers’ money. It was an appalling situation. We saw this move by the Government to buy back the network as a retrograde step.

There has also been talk about buying back this network as a sweetheart deal with Toll Holdings. That is why I would be interested to see the submissions to the select committee—the submissions that will inevitably come in from New Zealand transport operators who will have a lot to say about this legislation, which has appeared to favour an Australian mega transport company that is trying to swallow up New Zealand transport companies. Peter Brown advocated that his party has always foreseen a situation where the taxpayer owned the rail network and the companies, such as the trucking companies, used it—as a parallel with the roading network. Does he not see what a disaster we already have with the roading network? Yes, the trucking companies do pay massive road-user charges to use the roads, but what do they get back in return? They get nothing like what they pay. They get nothing in terms of goods and services commensurate with what they pay for.

If it is estimated that $200 million a year is what is needed to be spent on the rail network, we will never achieve that. We cannot even achieve it with the roads, let alone with a rail network. What people always forget when they criticise the run-down state of rail in New Zealand is that the geography of New Zealand is such that it makes it very, very expensive to maintain a rail network. People always talk about Britain and America, but we have a totally different situation here. Whenever there is talk about a line closing down—an example was the Napier to Gisborne line—all these sentiments come out. People have this emotional attachment to the rail networks—“Save Rail”. How many of those people actually use the rail? They want it for a once-in-a-lifetime scenic trip that they may take, but it is a cost to the taxpayer. If we go back to the time when we spent $90 million a year on our rail network, the cost to the taxpayer was just exorbitant.

The other issue that comes up is rail safety, and how the Government should have ownership because private ownership never takes care of safety. In 2003 I went to a really interesting conference in Britain. It was a conference on how the media report disasters. There has been a lot of reporting in Britain about how privatisation of rail networks in Britain led to a decrease in safety standards and bigger disasters. This conference actually showed that when one compared like with like—if one compared all the equivalents and eliminated things—and compared roading with rail, road travel was far more unsafe than rail. It is just that when there is a rail disaster it is a big one, and it is a shocking one. The media report it and blow it up. Everyone is really interested in it and says how ghastly it is and we have all these tales. Every day that number of people, and more, can be killed on the roads in Britain, and no one takes any notice. So it is all about perceptions. There is no evidence to show that private ownership of any rail network automatically leads to a decline in safety standards.

The Government was not forced to purchase back the rail network. Yes, I agree that the privatisation of the rail network was badly handled. But that does not mean to say that it should be one or the other. It could have been fixed up, or improved, instead of going back to a situation where the taxpayer now owns and carries the risk of running, maintaining, and pouring more and more dollars into the national rail network. As I said, we are supporting this bill to select committee. I am disappointed it is not going to our select committee—the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—but we will support it and see what happens when it comes back to the House.

MIKE WARD (Green): I am pleased to stand and speak in support of the Rail Network Bill. The legislation is necessitated by the buy back of the rail-track. I might add that the Greens have advocated the buy back of the rail-track for many years, and we are pleased to see the Government adopt the strategy and actually buy it back—and, I might add, get a bargain—and put ourselves in a position to establish a comprehensive transport strategy that includes rail. We are pleased to see measures long advocated by us actually happen. But the rail network development plan that this bill requires has important implications for the energy and conservation future of this country, and it also has important implications for the travel future of this country.

It is now 12 years since our rail system was disastrously privatised and allowed to run down. The $200 million and 10-year capital improvement programme that this legislation facilitates will provide New Zealand with an essential component of a sustainable transport system. The bill is good news for motorists, who have seen their safety undermined by the proliferation of road freight. In view of the fact that road freight operators meet only 56 percent of their roading costs, and rail pays 82 percent, this bill, and the $200 million commitment, is an overdue redressing of an out-of-kilter transport system.

The bill is good news for rail commuters in Wellington and Auckland as well. As our summers get longer and hotter, the new owners of the rail-track have a responsibility to see that the track stands up to the pressure without inconveniencing passengers as rails buckle, as they have in the past. With peak oil charges and a pressing need to deal with climate change, New Zealand needs the fuel efficiency that rail offers for the movement of freight and people. There is no doubt that oil will become more expensive. There is no doubt that climate change is looming. Rail is an important component in providing both sustainable and affordable transport and reducing carbon emissions, thereby helping us to comply with our Kyoto Protocol commitments.

The bill gives effect to New Zealand’s transport strategy to expand the role of rail. There is much that needs to be done to restore rail, and the communities and the workforces along the rail-track are likely to get a lift as a consequence of this bill. It is critical that rail is integrated with the other transport modes so that commuters and freight operators can mix and match their transport options. One of the things that was discovered in surveys of local communities was that they wanted to be able to put their bikes on the trains so that they could do part of their journey by cycle and part of their journey on the train. It makes good sense. It is simple for cyclists to carry their bikes on the trains, and that will improve patronage. It is also important that parking adjacent to railway stations, urban railway stations in particular, is provided, so again, users can mix and match their transport options. Peter Brown asked what New Zealand got. He suggested a rather dilapidated rail-track. I would suggest New Zealand has an opportunity to have a comprehensive transport strategy.

I hope new rail-track will be laid. I live in Nelson. The Environment Court recently turned down a request by the city of Nelson to build a 2½ kilometre road—a third highway into the city—that would cost $20 million - odd. I asked Tranz Rail some time back what it would cost to build a rail network, and it said something like $1 million a kilometre. I cannot remember who it was—maybe it was Deborah Coddington—who said that rail is great for long-haul freight. I would suggest that it has a role for short-haul freight as well. Nelson’s main road—a lovely scenic road—runs around the waterfront, and it gets clogged with very large lorries. Traffic on the road is actually overcapacity most of the day. Certainly if it is not overcapacity, it does not take much for it to grind to a halt. A rail network into the city is something that should certainly be investigated. In the past I have asked for something to be done. So far people have said: “Oh, we don’t build rail any more.” Well, I would suggest that with peak oil prices, along with climate change, it is one of those things that needs to be investigated. It would certainly make our port road a whole lot more enjoyable as a scenic road, and a whole lot safer for motorists.

Deborah Coddington mentioned the inefficiencies of rail. Well, could I say that the efficiencies will improve as freight volumes and passenger volumes increase. She spoke also about an emotional attachment. Well, it is an emotional attachment that would be good to see renewed and revived, because, in fact, rail plays a really important role, I believe, in the slowing-down movement that is advocated all over the world these days. As I see the mist roll in over Wellington harbour yet again today, it may well be that rail will become more reliable in the future, and it may be even faster than using aeroplanes.

It is interesting to see the successive rail works marketed. It is not enough simply to put in the infrastructure; we do need to market it. We have a very attractive product, but there needs to be somebody out there, saying to folk: “Go and catch the train. Go and see our country. Go and enjoy it.” Of course, visitors to New Zealand like the Tranz Scenic train journey that goes from Canterbury to the West Coast and return. It is a lovely trip, and, of course, we have scenery like that all over the country. Having rail in place so that scenery can be explored and enjoyed by more New Zealanders, and also overseas visitors, makes eminently good sense. The Greens are supporting this bill. It is another piece of legislation that is the result, I like to think, of the close relationship between the Government and ourselves on transport, and it promises a much more enlightened transport future for New Zealanders.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie): I am pleased to support the first reading of the Rail Network Bill. This is yet another piece of legislation that this Government has put into place that adds to its record of revitalising the transport infrastructure in New Zealand. I remind members in the House that this Government is about to spend $18.7 billion on transport over the next 10 years, to fix up the terrible mistakes of the past—as Peter Brown indicated in his speech—that saw our rail system almost at the point of extinction. We have picked it back up and bought it back for $1. We are putting in $200 million to fix up the rail system, which was badly neglected by the private sector.

It was extraordinary to hear Maurice Williamson say the National Party wants to remove a monopoly from the situation. Is National proposing to build another railway line next to the current one, so that there is choice? Anything is possible with the National Party, and, of course, that is the kind of nonsense we would expect from it. The competition is transport on the roads and transport on the sea. Rail has to be a vital part of transport competition. That is why the Government has stepped back in—to make sure that we have a rail system. We know that in some circumstances the roading system would cost a lot more to fix up than the rail system. The options have to be left open.

It is also extraordinary to have the ACT party saying it is opposed to international investment, in the form of Toll NZ, coming in to help fix up the rail system. Toll NZ will be scratching its head, wondering whether the ACT party is the party that is supposed to be for private enterprise. One of its members criticised Richard Prebble; well, I criticise him for everything he has done in his time in Parliament, but I would not be so ungracious as Deborah Coddington, one of his mates, has been in doing so.

Anyway, this is a good bill. It is very necessary. The Government Administration Committee is a wonderful committee that has always considered this type of legislation. I am sure that all those members who want to be part of the consideration will be able to get on that committee if they wish.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of the Rail Network Bill. We welcome this bill into the House. It will make very positive progress in the re-establishment of our rail network throughout this nation.

The bill sets out to update the legislation under which the rail network operating authority, ONTRACK, operates. It repeals the outmoded New Zealand Railways Corporation Act of 1981 and the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act of 1990. It also provides ONTRACK with the necessary modernised governance arrangements, and allows for carry-over provisions relating to the holding and disposal of rail network land with the intention of preserving the current position.

I am particularly interested in the provisions that allow ONTRACK to acquire new land for expansion of the rail network, because I believe it is important that, as we develop new motorways in this nation—which United Future is very keen to see happen—some forward-thinking people anticipate the possibility that there may be, at some stage in the future, an interest in expanding our rail network alongside those motorways. I am pleased that the bill will make provision for that.

This bill can be seen as a significant step towards restoring and properly developing rail as a key part of New Zealand’s freight and passenger transport networks. The fact that this bill will also require ONTRACK to prepare a 10-year capital development programme is testimony to the fact that the current thinking is in line with the long-term strategy thinking, which is encouraging. We must plan better for not only our rail network but our road network in this country, and have goals that will provide the infrastructure we need for an effective economy in this country. The rail network is far too important for any Government to sit idly by and watch it deteriorate, as others have done, and I must congratulate this Government on taking the bull by the horns—so to speak—stepping in and reclaiming the rail network in this country, and being prepared to invest in it. It is never ever a good idea to watch infrastructure sit and rust away and investments made in the past be wasted.

For us the preferred option is not just pouring money into infrastructure but offering—and this is met in this bill—a sensible balance between extracting a return from an investment and still ensuring its sustainability. That is sound logic, and United Future always errs on the side of logic, as members of the House have come to know over the past few years. Calling for greater investment in infrastructure is a hallmark of United Future’s policy planks that we have been pursuing during this term of Parliament. This bill represents such a position with regard to our nation’s rail network. It offers prudent and necessary measures, and as such we will be pleased to support its passage at the first reading.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): We had a very lucid address from our member the Hon Maurice Williamson, who made a very good speech. He indicated some changes he would like to see happen at the select committee. We are pleased to support this bill. We subscribe to his view that we should support this bill through to a select committee. We will be doing that. The bill will go to the Government Administration Committee, of which I am a member, so I look forward to receiving it there. However, one thing we will vote against is the resolution by the Minister that would have that committee meeting at any time. We certainly will not be supporting that, although we support the bill.

Bill read a first time.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Transport), on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Rail Network Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration, that the committee report by 23 June 2005, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting, despite Standing Orders 191, 193(a), and 194(1)(b) and (c).

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

Ayes 71

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

Noes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Arms Amendment Bill (No 3)

First Reading

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs), on behalf of the Minister of Police: I move, That the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee. This bill amends the Arms Act, which has not been significantly amended since 1992. The bill is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It replaces the previous Arms Amendment Bill (No 2), which was introduced in July 1999, and reported back from the select committee in February 2001 without a recommendation as to whether the bill should proceed. After careful consideration of advice from the New Zealand Police, the Government has decided that unlike the previous bill, this bill will not include provision for the establishment of a comprehensive firearms registration regime—that is, a requirement for firearms owners to apply to the police for the registration of all firearms in their possession.

There is insignificant evidence to conclude that the benefits of such a registration regime would be justified through benefits to crime prevention and detection. It is not realistic to expect that it would be possible to register all, or nearly all, of the firearms in New Zealand, including those in the possession of the criminal community. Without being able to guarantee that, the effectiveness of the registration system is seriously compromised.

It is already the case that at the time of relicensing with police, firearms licence applicants voluntarily allow the recording of details of firearms they possess. This acts as a property-recording device, and provides a cross-reference when checking the security arrangements required for firearms. The Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) addresses the minimum legislative requirements for New Zealand compliance with the Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition—the firearms protocol—which supplements the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

The passage of this bill, along with minor amendments to regulations, will enable New Zealand to become party to that firearms protocol. Cabinet has authorised New Zealand to deposit an instrument of accession to the protocol, subject to the completion of the parliamentary treaty examination process and the passage of implementing legislation.

The Law and Order Committee has reported back on the protocol. Although it did not reach agreement on whether New Zealand should become a party to the protocol, the Government is proceeding with the Bill, since the House will be in a better position to judge the matter, now that the legislative consequences are being set out in this bill.

Accession to the protocol is consistent with New Zealand’s involvement in multilateral initiatives against transnational organised crime, and its commitment to collective efforts to prevent the illicit trafficking of firearms and combating terrorism.

In addition to enabling New Zealand to meet international standards set out in the protocol, the bill will include a number of amendments to enhance the effectiveness of the Arms Act and to assist the police with their enforcement role in respect of this legislation. Part one of the bill amends definitions in the current Act, and extends the range of activities for which a dealer’s licence will be required—for example, the hiring out of firearms, or the manufacture of ammunition in the course of business. The bill amends provisions relating to the importation of firearms, parts of firearms, restricted weapons, starting pistols, and ammunition.

The current seizure provisions for illegally imported firearms are extended to include ammunition. In the main, these provisions relate to the minimum requirements of the firearms protocol. This part also provides that firearms licences will not be issued unless the police are satisfied that the applicant has, or has access to, secure facilities for the storage of firearms. This will also apply to when firearms owners are seeking the renewal of their licences.

There is a provision for the police to temporarily suspend a person’s firearms licence when they are considering the revocation of the licence. This is where there are grounds for deciding that a person is no longer a fit and proper person to be in possession of a firearm, where the person has not had his or her firearm securely stored, or the person has had his or her licence seized by police following a search of that person or that person’s property in relation to criminal activity or suspected criminal activity. This suspension is to prevent the person from acquiring new firearms during the time it takes to process the revocation.

Part 2 of the bill comprises amendments relating to criminal activity. It creates a new offence of manufacturing, by way of business, firearms, air guns, restricted weapons or their parts, or ammunition, without a dealer’s licence; a new offence of contravening the legal requirements for importing or exporting firearms, restricted weapons, starting pistols, or ammunition; and a new offence of altering, falsifying, obliterating, or removing an identifying mark on a firearm without lawful and sufficient purpose.

Offences will be punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment or by a fine of up to $10,000, or both. This will enable the Proceeds of Crime Act and the money-laundering offences in the Crimes Act to apply to these offences.

There are some new offences relating to the possession for illegal purposes of body armour designed for protection against firearm projectiles. There are increases to some of the maximum penalties under the Arms Act, and a new order of the court is established, applicable to many of the offences in the Arms Act, which is the suspension of a firearms licence, a dealer’s licence, or an endorsement on a firearms licence.

Suspensions are to be for a period of at least 3 months, as determined by the court. The prospect of losing their licences and firearms for such periods should further discourage firearms licence holders from contravening the Arms Act.

There is clarification of the current provisions in the Arms Act that relate to searches of property or people, and the seizure of firearms, air guns, imitation firearms, restricted weapons, ammunition, and body armour where the police have reason to suspect that an offence has been or is about to be committed. There is a provision for the seizure of a person’s firearms licence, pending suspension prior to revocation.

There are consequential amendments to the Extradition Act and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act so that these Acts apply to the new offences of unlawful manufacturing, unlawful trafficking, and unlawful modification of firearms markings. A number of technical inconsistencies in the current Arms Act are also remedied.

The Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) strikes a balance between strengthening New Zealand’s ability to prevent arms being used in transnational crime, and minimising the cost of complying with the firearms protocol. It is not a vehicle to introduce a comprehensive domestic firearms registration system; rather, it will help ensure that New Zealand has effective control systems and record-keeping for the export, import, and manufacture of firearms. I expect that many people will make submissions to the committee, and this will enable the matters addressed in the bill to be thoroughly canvassed. I commend the bill to the House.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I am pleased to see my colleagues Ron Mark and Ken Shirley in the House to debate the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3), because those gentlemen were members of the Law and Order Committee along with myself during the last Parliament.

Hon Ken Shirley: A very good committee.

SIMON POWER: It was a good committee, I say to Mr Shirley. It was well chaired by Janet Mackey. It was that committee that had to deal with the submissions on the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2), and its report back to Parliament. From memory, there were some 6,000 submissions. I think that is correct, and I am sure a member to speak after me will correct me if I am wrong. This was the first select committee I had sat on during my time as a member of Parliament. Janet Mackey, Ken Shirley, and Ron Mark sat on that committee. Brian Neeson and Tony Steel might have been there as well. Judith Tizard—

Georgina Beyer: I was on it.

SIMON POWER: Georgina Beyer was on that committee. That is right. The interesting thing is how the select committee process works. As the Minister rightly pointed out, this bill was originally sent to the select committee by the previous National Government, and it was well intentioned. But when members of the committee sat down to go through the bill, and listened to the submissions that were brought before the committee, it became apparent not only to myself and other National members on that committee, and not only to Mr Shirley and Mr Mark, but, more particularly and more interestingly, to the Government members on that committee that the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) would not work, in a million years.

Even the police advisers to the select committee, towards the end were saying that it did not look that tidy. The reason was simple. If there were a registration system for every single firearm in New Zealand we would essentially be saying to the criminal element of New Zealand: “Look, would you mind coming in and registering your firearm?”. That was never going to happen, and that was essentially the fall-down position of this bill. The more we heard about how guns come into the hands of people who use them for ill means, the more we realised that, actually, a registration system for the firearm itself would penalise only those well-intentioned, law-abiding citizens who would bring their firearms forward to be registered. The last thing somebody who is going to rob a bank will do, is to say: “Before I rob that bank, I must dash in and get this firearm registered.”

That was never going to happen. So we travelled the country, Janet Mackey, Ken Shirley, Ron Mark, and myself. Stephen Franks was there a bit, and that other guy from the Alliance who was here for one term—Kevin Campbell. Kevin Campbell travelled with us from time to time, as well.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: He was a good bloke.

SIMON POWER: He was a good bloke; he gave a good valedictory. It became clear that the legislation was never going to work. So we said to Janet Mackey, who did a fine job of chairing that select committee, that she had to go back to her caucus and tell George Hawkins that it was not a runner. I do not know whether she did, but what happened was that the bill was reported back with the committee being unable to reach a recommendation. It was reported back, actually, on 22 February 2001 and there it sat on the Order Paper until now. That was over 3 years ago. From time to time the shadow Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee, and I have queried this. After the business statement on Thursday, Mr Brownlee would often ask how we were getting on with the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2). It was pretty obvious that Mr Hawkins’ office struggled with this—amongst other things—and in the end the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) was born of that frustration and the legacy of the Law and Order Committee in the Parliament before this.

This bill is significant not for what it does, but what it does not do. Even Judith Tizard pointed out it was pointless trying to get people to register firearms who were not that way disposed. So we find ourselves now with a bill that does not register firearms, actually. What it does is try to drive our domestic legislative agenda to a point where it coincides with more UN protocols. Regardless of one’s view of the UN—and we could stand here all night talking about the UN—the fact is this legislation is designed to do two things. The first is to drive our domestic legislation closer to that protocol. I believe the Minister herself said during her contribution that she could not guarantee it would meet the protocol at that point if the bill was passed by this Parliament, but it would get legs to get partly there. So there is a protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts, and components that supplements the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. It creates offences around the illicit manufacture of firearms and their parts, and their trafficking. That seems fair enough. It is difficult to argue with that.

The National Party will not be opposing the passage of this legislation to the select committee; what it will be doing is saying that at this point we will support the bill to a select committee, but we will listen with interest to submissions. One thing is for sure—as Ken Shirley and Ron Mark know—this bill will attract large numbers of submissions. There is nothing surer than that. The gun lobby, as well as those around various other organisations, will definitely want to make submissions on the bill. At that point the other amendments will, no doubt, be addressed by those submitters—issues around body armour, search powers, seizure of licences, temporary suspension of licences, and, importantly, as pointed out by Judith Tizard, one positive and significant step in this bill relates to the storage and security of firearms and their components. That makes sense. It is a positive thing that the bill does, as opposed to it being more interesting for what it does not do, following on from the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2).

The other thing worth looking at is the air guns clauses. Those weapons, if one likes, are becoming more and more powerful. Some of them that have muzzle energy of a certain magnitude will be brought under the registration scheme, and that is a good thing. So we wait with interest to see whether the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) draws as much attention as the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2), which as I said earlier, from recollection, had about 6,500 submissions. We sat through adjournments and goodness knows what else. It was very interesting. I learnt more about firearms in that 6 months than I ever had before.

The National Party will support the bill to select committee and we will listen with interest to what submitters say. The mistake of the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) was that it was conceived, tabled, and sent to a select committee on the basis of the Thorp report without having had the benefit of submissions. This is one case where, even under an MMP environment, the select committee process between Government and Opposition members came to a sensible and rational conclusion, and we hope that the passage of the No. 3 bill allows us to have those same sorts of considerations.

Debate interrupted.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Following discussions at the Business Committee this afternoon and unanimous agreement, and on the understanding that all business in the urgency motion down to the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill will be completed by 6 p.m. on Friday, I seek leave for there to be questions for oral answer on Wednesday and Thursday of this sitting.

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

Bills

Arms Amendment Bill (No 3)

First Reading

Debate resumed.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): As the chair of the Law and Order Committee, which I understand from the Minister’s speech will have the task of considering this bill, I would like to take a relatively brief call. I also acknowledge the previous speaker, Simon Power, and his compliments to the former chairperson of the committee, Janet Mackey, and his description of her as a very, very good chair. I certainly would not disagree with that at all. I also compliment the previous members of the Law and Order Committee and the work they did on the No. 2 bill, and in particular the work of the chair of the committee at the time, Janet Mackey.

For the benefit of the House and the wider public, I will restate the fundamental tenets of this bill as I understand it in terms of my reading. This bill amends the Arms Act and it replaces the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) that was introduced in July 1999. Unlike that bill, this bill will not include provision for the establishment of comprehensive firearms registration. However, the passage of this bill will enable New Zealand to become party to the firearms protocol. It is important to restate that that protocol is against the illicit manufacturing of, and trafficking in, firearms—their parts and components and ammunition—supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime. I have no problem with international agencies—including the United Nations, obviously, in the very critical work it has to do in our fight against highly organised transnational crime. I would say that anything that improves international cooperation and reinforces some of those protocols must by its nature be a very, very good thing. Obviously we are well aware that this is a very, very serious issue internationally.

The Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) also includes a number of amendments to enhance the effectiveness of the Arms Act, as I understand it from my first reading, and to assist the police in their enforcement role in respect of this legislation. For example, there will be new offences relating to the possession for illegal purposes of body armour designed for protection against firearm projectiles—as, again, was outlined in the Minister’s speech—and increases to some of the maximum penalties for offences under the Arms Act, as was also outlined very clearly in the Minister’s speech.

It seems to me, upon reading this bill, that it strikes a balance between strengthening New Zealand’s ability to prevent arms from being used in transnational crime and minimising the costs of complying with the firearms protocol. It is not, as has previously been stated, a vehicle to introduce a comprehensive domestic firearms registration system; rather, it will help to ensure that New Zealand has effective control systems and record-keeping on the export, import, and manufacture of firearms.

I am very sure that all members of the Law and Order Committee will undertake their very important task of considering this bill, and the submissions on it, with absolute goodwill and integrity. I am hopeful that the process will not be used for some sort of political grandstanding exercise. I am sure it will not be. There are some very important fundamental issues in this bill. I note from the explanatory note of the bill that a number of Government agencies were consulted. I also note that we are advised: “Police also sought the views of some representatives of firearms owner groups, in particular, the New Zealand Council of Licensed Firearms Owners, the New Zealand Pistol Association, the Sports Trade Industry, and the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council.” All those organisations do very, very positive work on issues of firearms safety. I absolutely agree with the previous speaker in anticipating that there will be quite a significant number of submissions on this bill, and I will look forward, as a member of the committee, to the very considered submissions from those organisations and, of course, from the professionals in the New Zealand Police as well.

I will not take any further time, because I am well aware that a number of speakers want to follow me with their input on this bill. As chair of the Law and Order Committee I think I can say that we look forward to our task. We will certainly be doing our very best to give the various submissions that we will receive on this bill very, very close and careful consideration. In the end, again, I guess from what I can see, this bill will attempt to strike the right balance. Obviously we will recognise New Zealand’s obligations in terms of international protocols, and do what we can to ensure the ongoing international fight against transnational organised crime when it comes to the illicit trade in, and supply of, firearms. We look forward to working on this bill, and the submissions that will come to us in the course of our hearings on it.

RON MARK (NZ First): In the 6 minutes prior to the dinner break, let me say that I really do hate to shatter the illusion of cooperation and understanding that seemed to flow from the National and Labour Party speakers who preceded me. But let us not forget that the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2), which this bill replaces, was introduced by a National Government. It was a National bill to bring about gun registration and to require aspects of the Thorp report—erroneous, misguided, and flawed as they were—to be brought into legislation. The fact that the National Government, led by Jenny Shipley, sought to impose such laws upon the farming, rural, and hunting communities of New Zealand was absolutely astounding, but it happened to go hand in hand with a number of other liberal things that that National Government did, was party to, supported, and progressed, such as the lowering of the drinking age.

National has gone through a transformation since then in the Law and Order Committee, which was ably led by Janet Mackey. The one regret New Zealand First has is that after Janet Mackey’s sterling work, the great chairmanship she brought to that committee, and her presentation of a report that made it very clear to this Government that it was misguided in pursuing the agenda of registration and buy-back of military style semi-automatics and the like, the report embarrassed the Minister of Police and frightened him into not presenting it to the House and not allowing a debate on it—because, in the cosy little arrangement that exists within the old club, National and Labour, neither of them wanted to be embarrassed by the findings of that report. The tragedy is that Janet Mackey was never rewarded with an Associate Minister job or even made a senior private secretary to some insignificant Minister, let alone given a ministerial job.

There she sits, due to leave this House after many years of loyally serving the Labour Party, having not been given a ministerial portfolio. We ask ourselves why that is so. The only conclusion we can come to is that she was fair, firm, competent, and productive, and that she did a good job, and that that is not the sort of leadership the Labour Party wants anywhere near its Government benches, let alone in its ministerial portfolios. It would rather have someone like John Tamihere there. That is a sad indictment. Janet Mackey deserves some credit for doing a very difficult job. She produced a result that was very much disliked by many of her caucus colleagues, but it was a fair and accurate report, and that is why the Minister never allowed it to be debated in this House.

Let us get to the nuts and bolts. This bill is rubbish. New Zealand First will not be supporting it, because it seeks to enshrine in New Zealand legislation some toadyish behaviour by this Government to cede this country’s sovereignty and the Government’s responsibility to a bunch of knee-jerk United Nations representatives in some insignificant committee that purportedly wants to deal with illicit trading in small arms, ammunition, and spare parts. We have done a review of this—the Law and Order Committee reviewed this treaty. It concluded that it could not report back to the House one way or the other on whether the treaty was a good idea. So here we have a situation whereby the Law and Order Committee analysed the Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, and could not agree that it added one jot to the betterment of New Zealand law. All it did was to sign us up with a bunch of toady Third World countries of dubious reputation, such as Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, and a few others that are themselves steeped in such activities.

What we found in talking to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials and the police is that New Zealand does not have a problem in manufacturing firearms. Our manufacturing capability is minuscule. We do not have a problem in illicit trading. Indeed, all the officials could point to as justification for this bill was the illicit trading in Government-owned firearms in the Solomons. Excuse me? The only activity they could identify as being in any way reflected in this bill was not happening in New Zealand; it was happening in the Solomons. And it was not a trade in illicit firearms; those firearms were purchased and owned by the legitimate Government, which failed to secure them. It had corrupt police, and it could not control them—and now we have this bill! This is rubbish. The fact is, New Zealand First would support changes to the law that deal with the nonsense—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

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

Debate interrupted.

Personal Explanations

Question No. 9 to Minister

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): This afternoon on a point of order I told the House that the Local Government and Environment Committee had issued a press release stating simply that we had met in private with Judge Bollard, the Principal Environment Court Judge, in relation to the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill. The select committee decided to issue such a release on Friday at its meeting in Auckland last week. Because it was a straight statement of fact, I did not expect that it would be run past me before release, and I expected that it would have been issued yesterday. I was wrong. The clerk’s intention was always to put it in the weekly omnibus release that goes out on a Friday. Our resolution was not in time to make the 11 o’clock deadline last Friday, so it was to be issued next Friday. I apologise if I have misled the House about that. The release has not been issued. The committee decided that it would be issued, but it has not yet been published.

Bills

Arms Amendment Bill (No 3)

First Reading

Debate resumed.

RON MARK (NZ First): As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the dinner break, this legislation is absolutely pointless. It is needless. It will take up select committee time, which is unnecessary. It will take the time of the House, which is unnecessary, to make law changes that are unnecessary, which will bring upon and inflict upon people who legitimately go about their business of selling firearms, unnecessary compliance costs in terms of keeping registers. Of all things, it seeks to try to account for every last bullet or round imported into New Zealand—members should think about it—that is, every last .177 slug from an air rifle, and every last .22 round from a 22-calibre rifle.

What is the point? The point is that this politically correct Government wants to sign up to a United Nations convention that has 23-odd signatories from Third World punter countries that are the least likely to apply firearms legislation effectively, that are most likely to employ mercenaries, and that are most likely to trade illicitly in arms—to sign up a country, New Zealand, about which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade came to the select committee and said no problems existed. The real problem that this bill should be focusing on is what is currently happening with our ineffectual laws in the hands of some of our ineffectual judges. If this bill went some way to templating law to require judges to lock people up for a 5 years’ minimum sentence for commissioning a crime with a firearm, then it would be a good thing. That is New Zealand First’s policy.

So why add more laws when this country is not enforcing the firearms laws that exist? I will give some examples. A person who pointed a firearm at another person and threatened to shoot during a gang confrontation, got—what? The person got neither a $4,000 or $5,000 fine, nor 4 years’ imprisonment—which is actually what is available—but 6 months’ jail.

Pita Paraone: What?

RON MARK: Six months’ jail! Do members want another example? Here is another one: a person was arrested after a firearm was allegedly pointed at a police officer on the outskirts of Hamilton during a pursuit. What did the person get? Well, as for some others of those people, it was such a thing as community service. Other cases concerned aggravated robbery with a firearm, committing a crime with a firearm, and unlawfully possessing a firearm. One person who recklessly discharged a firearm to steal $120-worth of cash and $200-worth of cigarettes, was ordered to do a family group conference.

What is the point of passing laws if this Government does not enforce the ones that exist? We do not need new laws that tie us into funny little United Nations committees’ agreements. After all, it was this Government, on the foreshore and seabed legislation, that told a poky little committee at the United Nations to butt out of New Zealand’s business. Well, this Government should do the same on this matter. We do not need to be signing up to an illicit protocol on trafficking in small arms and their bits and pieces with a bunch of Third World punters in order to placate them and make ourselves feel good; we can tell them to buzz off, just as the Deputy Prime Minister did to that little United Nations committee that dared to criticise our sovereign right to make the decisions on the foreshore and seabed legislation that we did.

New Zealand First opposes this legislation because we say that it is unnecessary. We can see that it will impose unnecessary compliance costs on firearms dealers and on legitimate firearms owners, but in relation to the laws we really need to tighten up on, the things we really need to tighten up on firmly are the judges who do not apply the law as it stands, but who dish out the penalties they currently dish out to people who are stealing firearms, illegally owning them, and using them to commit crimes. That is what we should be focusing on—nothing else. There should be a 5-year minimum jail sentence for anyone commissioning a crime with a firearm, and then we would see an even further reduction in the very low rate of offending with firearms that we have in our country of New Zealand.

The firearms owners of New Zealand should be applauded; they are good, law-abiding citizens. What they do not need is more useless legislation that simply adds compliance requirements on to them. We should let them get on and enjoy their sport, so let us let this legislation fall off the table—as the last bill did.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): The ACT party strongly opposes this legislation. It is unnecessary, as the New Zealand First Party member has just pointed out. Indeed, it reminds me of the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) and the disgraceful fiasco this House experienced with regard to it. That bill was brought to Parliament over 3 years ago now. I was on the Law and Order Committee, as was Ron Mark and Simon Power. It was a disgraceful piece of legislation, and there were 6,000 submissions on it. It was quite clear that it was unworkable, and that it was foolish. Even the police in the end—Mr Green, I think, was the name of their representative—advised the committee that yes, that legislation would not work, and there was no way the police could run the system that was proposed. So that bill was put on the back burner. But it was clear that this Government still wanted to put some runs on the board, because it pledged to implement the Thorp report. Now, if ever there was a foolish report, it was the Thorp report. But this Government actually campaigned on the basis that it would implement that report, so I think that in part this bill is all about trying to assuage those who still want the Government to be seen to be tough.

I remember the Minister of Police being led by the nose on the previous bill. That was clear when it went on to the back burner, because the select committee did not do a report on it, in order to save the Government from its own embarrassment. The Government’s own members on the select committee, then chaired by Janet Mackey, conceded in the end that the legislation was a nonsense and an absolutely farcical situation, so the select committee did not do a report on the bill and the Government just left the matter on the back burner. The Government was waiting for another sort of Aramoana situation, or another Port Arthur or Dunblane situation, where it could rush in with the support of public sentiment and legislate again against firearms.

In this country we actually have quite good firearms laws, if only we did not fiddle with them and, as the previous spokesperson said, as long as we actually enforced the existing laws rather than rushing to legislate for more controls. Here in this bill we have a classic response of the Labour Government, in trying to curry favour with yet another United Nations committee. As if trying to wear the thickest hair shirt in the world on Kyoto is not enough, the Government is rushing out here to sign up to the firearms protocol. We will probably find that the committee is chaired by a Nigerian—and there are incredible human rights issues in Nigeria—or by someone from the Ivory Coast or Liberia, perhaps—

Ron Mark: Mugabe.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Or by Mugabe. Yet New Zealand is rushing out to wear a thick hair shirt and say that yes, we will comply with the letter of the protocol of the UN committee.

I think we have had enough of that nonsense in this country. It is time the Government woke up to the feelings and sentiments of the voting public, who have also had enough of the politically correct claptrap that keeps coming into Parliament. There are many law-abiding citizens who own guns in this country and who are very responsible people. The point has been made about the folly of the earlier legislation, which tried to move to the registration of firearms and firearm owners. Will gang members rush in to see that their firearms are registered before they hold up a bank? Will they rush in to make sure that they are registered before they do that? I do not think so. But somehow the Labour Government thinks we need more firearms legislation. There are many more pressing issues facing the country, as we all know, than the bill that is before the House tonight.

My colleague Stephen Franks, who is out on the campaign trail, would have dearly loved to take part in this debate. He has already tabled Supplementary Order Paper 345 in his name, and I draw that to the attention of members because he is using that opportunity to introduce some things that would be worthwhile to include if we are hell-bent on amending our firearms laws. In particular, I refer to the fact that back in 1983 a right was taken away from New Zealanders by a law change regarding the legality of the use of force in self-defence—that is, when victims reasonably feared that they were at risk of harm from an unprovoked offender or that a crime would continue if self-defence was not used. In 1983 we stripped the legal use of force in self-defence away from people when protecting themselves, their families, and their property.

The ACT party says that we should restore the right to use force in self-defence. It is a fundamental right of citizens to defend themselves. The State says that people are not allowed to do that because it is illegal, and that the State will act on behalf of people—that all they have to do is to ring 111, and the police will be there forthwith. We know that that is a lie. The Government cannot offer the protection to its citizenry that it purports to offer. Therefore, citizens should have the right to defend themselves. We have the incredible situation whereby a Northland farmer could lose his farm because he has to meet the legal costs over charges he faced for defending his property and his family against an intruder who was committing theft on his property. Even though the farmer has been acquitted by a court, the Crown continues to persecute him, and he could lose his farm because he has to pay those legal costs. That is not right, and that is what the amendment in Stephen Franks’ Supplementary Order Paper will address. We will be hearing a lot more about that as we move to the Committee stage of this bill.

In summary, we do not need this law. It should not be a priority. The Government has gone into urgency—the Leader of the House, Dr Cullen, acknowledges that the House has gone into urgency—and has put up bills like this one, which nobody wants. Why is that?

Ron Mark: Kofi Annan wants it.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Kofi Annan wants it, and so does Robert Mugabe. A United Nations committee has written a letter to someone in Government, and George Hawkins, our Minister of Police—who championed the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2)—

Ron Mark: The “Minister of Silly Ideas”.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: He certainly is the “Minister of Silly Ideas”, as Mr Mark points out. George Hawkins, perhaps looking for his swansong, failed with the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2). Even his own colleagues on the select committee would not support it. The chair of the committee at that time, Janet Mackey, who is one of the most sensible members in the Labour caucus, recognised that it was nonsensical and foolish legislation. Mr Hawkins was defeated and humiliated over the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2), so we have had this little token gesture to the Thorp report and to a committee of the United Nations return to Parliament. It beggars belief that Parliament will consume time on the consideration of this foolish bill. The ACT party will not even give it the dignity of voting for it to go to a select committee. Parliament has already considered the arms issue in the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2). There were 6,000 submissions from the New Zealand public, and I would say that 98 percent of them opposed it. Overwhelmingly, submitters said that the existing laws were all right and that all we required was for the courts to enforce the existing laws. We do not need to rush new laws into Parliament that are foolish in concept.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green): I rise to make a brief contribution on behalf of my colleague Keith Locke. The Greens will support this bill.

It replaces the 1999 legislation and amends the Arms Act 1983. Some of the amendments will enable New Zealand to comply with the Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components, and Ammunition. It supplements the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and I think we should be able to support that.

The bill also makes other amendments. It provides for restrictions to be placed on powerful air guns, and for the importation of firearms parts to require police approval. It also gives the police wider powers, including search powers, to deal with the unlawful possession of firearms and the ability to suspend firearms licences. The bill extends the list of agents and employees of the Crown that are exempt from aspects of the legislation by adding “a visiting member of an overseas police or law enforcement agency who is operating under the direction of the Commissioner”—Commissioner of Police—and “an officer or agent of the New Zealand Customs Service.” to the list. There is no provision for the introduction of a universal firearms registry. This is a very poor thing. I think we lost control of arms as soon as we went to registering owners, rather than firearms.

The bill establishes three new offences. First, is the illicit manufacture of firearms and their parts. Second, is the illicit trafficking of firearms, their parts, and ammunition. Third, is the removal or altering of firearms’ markings without lawful excuse. These offences have maximum penalties of 5 years’ imprisonment, or a fine of up to $10,000, or both.

Both the extension of the list of those exempt from the bill and the widening of police search powers should be viewed with some apprehension. The exemption for customs officers is arguably to fill a gap in the current law that leaves them in breach whenever they have possession of any firearms they are confiscating. The extension of search without warrant powers seems superfluous given that police can already enter a property without a warrant in order to make an arrest if they have reason to suspect someone of committing a crime on the premises, or if they have found someone committing an offence and are freshly pursuing that person. They can also enter to prevent an offence if they suspect an offence that is likely to cause immediate and serious injury to any person or property is about to be committed. These powers already allow police to exercise their discretion in order to protect people.

However, overall this is a move to tighten up arms control and to comply with international agreements. Therefore, we believe that it should be endorsed.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): I find myself in a rather precarious position with regard to this bill, because I have deep misgivings about many aspects of it. However, it ought to be debated and for that reason alone we will be supporting it, at least to the select committee if not beyond. Part of the reason we have decided to support it is the fact that one of our partners, Outdoor Recreation New Zealand, actively supports it. It has had a look at the bill and wants the opportunity to have it debated. Outdoor Recreation New Zealand would like to come and make a submission. On those grounds we will be supporting the bill at least as far as that.

The other sense of disquiet that I have is about going along like a puppy-dog with the United Nations, as has been mentioned a few times already, and bowing our head, yet again, to that organisation. It is an organisation with which we have signed up to so many accords and protocols, yet strangely enough we have not signed up to the one that matters the most, at least from our perspective—the Doha declaration, which puts the place of family at the heart of the community. I do not understand why the Government is so keen to sign up to everything else, but not to that. Still, I guess that that is something we need to debate another day. This Bill is intended to comply with the minimum legislative requirements of the Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. It all sounds wonderful. It sounds as though if we sign up to that protocol, international crime will just come to a great standstill, because we will have armed the defenders of freedom against those individuals. I tell members that I just do not believe it. I do not have as much faith as that in the United Nations, and I do not understand why this Government does. Nevertheless, if the purpose of the firearms protocol is to promote, facilitate, and strengthen international cooperation in order to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts, components, and ammunition, I do not understand why we are giving up our own sense of sovereignty—things we can do ourselves for our own nation.

If we are talking about the immediate vicinity of the Pacific Island nations, I strongly suggest that the very people involved in that sort of trade are, in fact, the various Government lackeys attached to those Governments. I am not sure that this bill will do anything other than remove their competition. I am not sure that that is such a clever way to go.

However, there are some good things in this bill. Some of the provisions are sensible. I agree with the search powers—the fact that the bill makes it clear that police search powers under the principal Act in respect of buildings, premises, and vehicles include the detention and search of people found on or in places. In respect of the temporary suspension of licences, the police will be able to temporarily suspend a licence while its revocation is being considered. I also agree that in respect of high-powered air guns, the definition of a firearm should be amended to include any air gun that has a muzzle energy of more than—to get technical—34 joules, etc.

I have had one particular instance that seemingly did not get taken very seriously by police. In front of my home in Christchurch there is a kindergarten. One day I found broken windows on my property. I subsequently had a look and there were about 60 slugs from an air gun, all over the place on my property, the trajectory of which had obviously come over the kindergarten. We called up the police—they were not particularly interested. I guess one just has to call 111 and scream. Eventually, after thumping of the table, I managed to get sufficient police attention, and they came over. They actually ended up finding the kid who had been given the rifle, and he got nothing—a wet bus ticket. His father got a telling-off.

Jill Pettis: For heaven’s sake!

MARC ALEXANDER: The point is that you may be happy—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Not the Speaker, please.

MARC ALEXANDER: I say to the member Jill Pettis that she may be very happy to have air guns fired over a kindergarten, which may very well injure a young child, but I take it rather seriously. So I am at least glad that that will be included. In the section entitled “Additional amendments”, The explanatory note states: “There is also to be a new penalty of a suspension of a licence or endorsement, applicable to many of the offences against the principal Act.” Ron Mark was quite right. We have a lot of laws in this country that are just not asserted. Judges need to apply the maximum penalties but, unfortunately, they do not. It is a tragedy, but I guess that victims still come second in this country. I do not see this legislation doing very much about that, even though it talks tough. We still have to have the right to defend ourselves, and I would like to debate that at the select committee.

We need to expand what we consider to be reasonable force to defend ourselves. I do not want a 75-year-old man or woman to have to scrimmage around the house looking for a lump of wood to fend off an attacker when there is a rifle within easy reach. I do not want to see that when it puts people at risk. [Interruption] There goes that member again—yakkety-yak-yak! If we could harness the hot air coming out of her, we would keep Auckland going for a month or so.

Some people would say that guns do not kill; that only people do. Clearly, guns play their part. For people to go around saying: “Bang, bang!” probably would not do much good. From that perspective, we need legislation to cover all firearms, but I think we already have plenty of laws—we just need to assert them. All the same, as I mentioned, Outdoor Recreation NZ is supportive of this bill—at least of it going to select committee. That is where we will have the debate. The committee will have a much more thorough look at the propositions being put forward in this bill. I suppose the other side of the coin is the question of what regulations will accompany this bill—what regulations will actually give effect to it. That is the crux of a problem that we will, I hope, determine through the select committee process.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control): I rise very briefly to support this Arms Amendment Bill (No 3), in the context of being the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control. In this bill there is some responsibility around the export of small arms. Those members who have served in the Solomons and in Bougainville will be very much aware of the question that has troubled people in the Pacific, including the Pacific Islands Forum, about where they get those arms from.

It just so happens—[Interruption] I wonder whether that member would listen. It just so happens that a representative of the New Zealand Council of Licensed Firearms Owners came to visit me at my electorate office, concerned about the proposed legislation. I raised with him the issue of small arms control, particularly as it related to the Pacific. He then took up the offer from the disarmament mission inside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to go to a meeting of Pacific nations—I think it was in Fiji. As a result of that, he realised that there was a severe and serious problem around the control of small arms in the Pacific, and he has offered the help and expertise of the New Zealand Council of Licensed Firearms Owners to the Pacific nations to help them with that issue.

I am the Minister responsible for disarmament in terms of nuclear weapons. What I know is that in the Pacific, more people die from small arms injuries than do because of nuclear arms and nuclear weapons. [Interruption] This is a really important issue and, unlike that member, the council, when it got to the Pacific, really saw the issue and wanted to engage in work with us. We have not been working away from the firearms people.

Bill read a first time.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): I move, That the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) be referred to the Law and Order Committee.

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

Ayes 97

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

Noes 22

New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill

Instruction to Committee

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): In order to facilitate the debate on this second reading, which will cover matters that at the moment are not part of the bill, I seek leave that it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill that it have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361. We are seeking leave now that the Committee can consider the Supplementary Order Paper, to enable the House to include those amendments in its consideration of the second reading.

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

Second Reading

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Commerce): I move, That the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill be now read a second time. I would like to express my thanks to the Government Administration Committee for its swift consideration of the bill.

At the appropriate time I intend to table a Supplementary Order Paper to clarify the bill’s amendments to the Copyright Act. The Supplementary Order Paper will clarify that if the Crown owns the copyright in a work, and that work is incorporated by reference in another work listed in section 27(1) of the Copyright Act, then the copyright in the first mentioned work is removed. Where, however, the copyright in a work is owned by a person other than the Crown and that work is incorporated as just described, the copyright remains unaffected.

As members will know, the bill amends the Building Act, the Commerce Act, and the Health Act to remove the requirement that where material is incorporated by reference under those Acts, those with delegated or statutory responsibility must make that material, such as building standards in the case of the Building Act, available free of charge on the Internet. “Incorporation by reference” is a term used to describe a mechanism that gives legal effect to provisions contained in a document without repeating those provisions in the text of the legislation that incorporates that document.

The amendments proposed in this bill endeavour to strike a balance between facilitating access to material incorporated by reference and the legitimate commercial interests of the owners of copyright and standards and of other material that may be incorporated by reference. The amendments in the bill will ensure that the Government is not expropriating or infringing the copyright of other parties, both in New Zealand and overseas, that the standards development process in New Zealand is up to date with international best practice, and that the development of joint standards by Australia and New Zealand can continue.

As all parties know, following consultation over the last week it is the Government’s intention to make further amendments to the Building Act, by way of a further Supplementary Order Paper to this bill. Those amendments are technical in nature and relate to omissions, inconsistencies, or clarifications. Substantive amendments are, however, proposed in section 363 to address practical issues that have arisen during the implementation of the Act. At the appropriate time I will move a motion that the Committee of the whole House have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments set out on that Supplementary Order Paper 361.

I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It is no wonder the Minister mumbled into his microphone and held his head in shame in respect of this bill, because it is a diabolical mess. What the Minister did not mention was that for the last 13 days this Government has been breaking the law. This Government wrote a new Building Act, rushed it through under urgency, and now it is breaking the law. Did we hear that from the Minister?

What is even worse is that, according to officials who briefed the Government Administration Committee, the Government was advised in January of this problem—in January! So for 3½ months the Government has done nothing, and in particular, the Minister Chris Carter, who was quite properly described by John Tamihere as a “tosser”, because he was briefed in January that the Government was breaking the law, did nothing. He did absolutely nothing.

Dianne Yates: That’s not true.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Dianne Yates says that that is not true. Well, I ask Dianne: when did we get the bill?

Dianne Yates: You weren’t at the committee.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member knows—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will use the member’s full name, title, or electorate.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Dianne Yates interjects and suggests that I am incorrect. The officials were very explicit at the select committee. Chris Carter was advised in January that the Building Act was a botched mess and that the Government was going to break its own law from 1 April, and we did not see a bill until 30 March. That is the sort of respect this Government gives to the law of the land. On this side of the House—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: You are not the law of the land.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Dr Cullen, who is the Attorney-General—the Minister who is responsible for enforcing the law of the land—says that it does not really matter. If the Government breaks the law, it is OK. That is probably why Helen Clark signs paintings fraudulently. That is probably why she speeds at 150 kilometres an hour while, at the same time, if any ordinary New Zealander goes 10 kilometres over the speed limit, he or she gets pinged.

This bill is about patching up the Government’s breaking of its own law. What has happened here is actually quite straightforward. The Government keeps passing all sorts of control freak legislation, telling New Zealanders to do this and telling New Zealanders to do that, but when it affects the Government, the Government simply ignores it. So what we have here is a bill being passed under urgency to fix problems in another Act that was passed under urgency. One would think the Government would learn. One would think that, somehow, the Government would work it out that if it passes rushed legislation, it will botch it up, and it will end up having to pass amendments.

The building industry is worth $18 billion a year to the New Zealand economy. We are talking about an industry involving 230,000 people.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can the member come back to the content of the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The very content of the bill is that the Government is breaking the law. The Minister and the Department of Building and Housing have both admitted it. They have both admitted that they are in breach of the law. I say that an industry that is worth $18 billion a year to the New Zealand economy—an industry that employs 230,000 people—deserves better than a Government that breaks its own law. Do people know what this Government does? The Government, with this legislation, is going to pass requirements that people cannot do building work even on their own homes. [Interruption] Jill Pettis, the member for Whanganui, probably does not understand that there are Kiwi battlers in Wanganui who get themselves ahead by buying a home, working their little rings out and upgrading their house, selling it, and improving their equity. That is how generations of New Zealanders have been able to get ahead in life. What has Jill Pettis’ Government done? It has abolished it. The Government has banned it.

Dianne Yates: What are you talking about?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member Dianne Yates asks what I am talking about. I am talking about the botched Building Act—which was examined by the select committee that she was the chair of—that prohibits New Zealanders from being able to do building work on their own homes. My challenge to members opposite is for them to give me a single example of where a leaky home problem has been caused by a do-it-yourself builder. [Interruption] Dianne Yates says that I do not have it correct. Well, members should hang on a moment. I now have a Supplementary Order Paper before the House to fix 18 stupid mistakes that her select committee got wrong.

Dianne Yates: No, we didn’t.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Dianne Yates says: “We haven’t got it wrong.” Why is it then, I ask Dianne Yates, that I have not one, not two, but 40 pages of legislation before this very House today to fix the botch-ups that she and her select committee made in this important area of building law? They have made a hash of it. The Government has imposed all sorts of controls on other New Zealanders, and it has not been able to provide sensible building laws that will work for New Zealand.

I see that the Minister for Building Issues is now in the House, and I am pleased. But I must point out that he is the seventh Minister that we have had in this portfolio.

Is it any wonder—

Hon Chris Carter: And the most successful.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Chris Carter says that he is the most successful.

Hon David Carter: What a tosser!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have to agree with David Carter and John Tamihere when they refer to Chris Carter as a tosser, because only a tosser—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Will the member please come back to the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I know it is embarrassing for the Government, because the ink on this bill—

Hon Chris Carter: I haven’t had to seek psychiatric treatment.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Chris Carter, the moment one challenges—

Jill Pettis: Go and have a lie down.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can we just have order.

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The comment made by the member was out of order. He knows that no such reference is to be made to members, and I want him to stand and withdraw the comment he made about my colleague Dr Nick Smith. [Interruption]

Jill Pettis: There is somebody there with an elevated voice. I take exception to what both David Carter and Nick Smith said. However, I thought I would let what they said go, because Nick Smith has only a couple of minutes left to speak anyway. But given that the National Party has taken a point of order, I have responded to it. Its members made an offensive comment, as well, and I suggest that, to keep the slate clean, both Mr David Carter and Mr Chris Carter get up and withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank both honourable members for their contributions. I realise that the debate is rather testy at the present stage and recognise that there is going to be this sort of leeway backwards and forwards. I am prepared to leave it at that.

Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As I am going to be making a contribution shortly, I want to clarify the use of the word “tosser”. I acknowledge that I did make an interjection, referring in it to Mr Chris Carter as a “tosser”. I want to know whether that is an acceptable and legitimate word for the House, or only for Mr Tamihere.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I refer the member to Standing Order 115, and I leave it at that. I know that the member can read it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Chris Carter gets nasty the moment he is in trouble. The ink is not dry on his Building Act, yet here we have 30 pages of amendments. Any Minister worth his or her salt would be hiding his or her head in shame and embarrassment with that sort of botch-up of the law of the land. I am looking forward to Chris Carter apologising, because it was only 2 weeks ago—and I can quote from Hansard—when I raised concerns in respect of the Building Act, that Chris Carter said these words: “There is no problem.” Well, if there is no problem, why is the House under urgency? Why do we have 30 pages of amendments to fix up the Minister’s mess? If Chris Carter is correct in what he told the House just 10 days ago, that there is no problem, then why do we have 30 pages of amendments to fix up his botched law? The truth is that you have completely screwed up, you have not listened to the industry—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Please do not bring the Speaker into the debate.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister responsible for the legislation has made a complete mess. As I said earlier, we have had six Ministers. They are playing a game of musical chairs with a portfolio as important as building and people’s houses. It is a mess. Chris Carter—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member should come back to the bill. The bill itself does not contain these provisions. I refer members to Speakers’ rulings 95/1, which states that a Supplementary Order Paper cannot be debated in detail during a second reading. The time to debate the Supplementary Order Paper will be when the Minister moves an instruction.

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As this matter has now been alluded to, can I clarify the situation. As I understand it, the Minister sought leave to include the Supplementary Order Paper. That leave was declined. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): We have a point of order on the floor of the House. The correct procedure when there is a point of order is that it is heard in silence.

Dail Jones: As I was saying, the Minister sought leave to include this Supplementary Order Paper, and the leave was declined. Therefore, the Supplementary Order Paper cannot be debated at all at this stage, or even at the Committee stage, unless the Government moves a normal debatable motion that the Supplementary Order Paper be included.

I am just making the point that until that procedure is adopted there is a second reason for not debating the Supplementary Order Paper at the report back of the select committee’s report. That is my understanding of the procedure that needs to be followed. A formal motion has to be moved and debated in the normal way by the House before the Supplementary Order Paper can be discussed by the Committee of the whole House. So New Zealand First will be debating the report back of the bill from the select committee, but we will not be referring to the Supplementary Order Paper, because as yet the Government has no right to have it before the House. That is my understanding of the situation. As the matter has been alluded to, maybe it could be clarified. The Supplementary Order Paper is outside the terms of the bill, and, because it is so far outside the terms of the bill, it cannot be accepted by the House, except by leave or by a motion.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The Supplementary Order Paper can be debated to the extent allowed by Speakers’ rulings 95/1, which is that a full debate will follow on the instruction.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: One can see that we have an awful botch-up. What we have with this bill is rushed legislation that was given to the select committee to consider for only 24 hours, because the Government is breaking the law. Anybody else breaking the law gets prosecuted, but this is a Government that says it makes the rules but does not abide by them.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next member, I just say that I had referred the member on my left to Standing Order 115, “Offensive or disorderly words”. I expect the member to understand by that that I took offence at the use of that word.

Hon David Carter: It’s OK for John Tamihere.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): In this debating chamber we have a certain standard.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues): We have just been subjected to 5, or maybe 7, minutes of nasty, personal attack and extravagant statements from Nick Smith, the previous speaker, who is from the National Party. Essentially, he is glorying in calling me a tosser. At least I have never been sent from Parliament to seek psychiatric help for a stress-related condition.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point or order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member please be seated while I rule on this. I know what he is going to say. I tell the honourable Minister that I have just ruled that word out of order in this House. I know that the member was rebutting, but I did ask Mr David Carter not to use it, and I would appreciate it if we could get back to the debate and carry on.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I give an undertaking that I will not refer to Dr Smith’s mental condition again.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a personal reflection now, and I ask the Minister to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has referred to my mental state three times. He has claimed three times that I have seen a psychiatrist. I inform the member in the House that I have never seen—

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Ha, ha!

Hon Dr Nick Smith: He thinks it is funny. He is dragging this House down. If I challenge him on matters of legislation, on issues before Parliament, he gets nasty. I want to make it a matter of personal explanation that I have never in my entire life ever seen—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is the member seeking leave to make a personal explanation?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, I am.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that I have now dealt with this issue, and I want to get back to the debate.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not going to put up with this. Three times that member has made the accusation that I have seen a psychiatrist. That is totally untrue. What am I to do? I have known of members in the House, Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just want everyone to take a deep breath for a minute. The matter has been dealt with. The honourable Minister has withdrawn and apologised, and the member’s explanation has been accepted. I have now dealt with the matter, and there I want to leave it; I want to move on. I think it is in order that we move on.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. I would like to thank all the stakeholders involved in the development of the Supplementary Order Paper. Although the Supplementary Order Paper has been developed at a rapid pace, the provisions in it have been thoroughly considered, and the industry has been closely involved in the development of the provisions.

The Supplementary Order Paper proposes urgent amendments to the Building Act 2004 to improve its workability and to ensure that the transition from the Building Act 1991 is as smooth as possible. The majority of the proposed amendments are technical in nature, and relate to omissions, inconsistencies, and clarifications. Substantive amendments are, however, proposed to section 363 of the Act. The amendments to section 363 include clarification that the purpose of the section is about protecting the safety of members of the public using premises open to the public, or intended for public use; clarification that this section of the Act applies only to the part of the building intended for public use; new provisions to allow the staged use or occupation of buildings intended for public use, if it is safe to do so; and new transition arrangements for existing buildings, to ensure that the transition from the Building Act 1991 is as smooth as possible.

These amendments address the issues that have been raised by stakeholders, and that have been the subject of much discussion in this House. The Government’s willingness to fix up issues such as the lack of clarity in section 363 demonstrates good management in action. In any law the size of the Building Act 2004—some 450 sections—inevitably there will be drafting issues and matters to be clarified. A sensible Government moves promptly to solve problems once they have been identified, as we have done today. Our actions stand in sharp contrast to those of National, particularly those of the member Nick Smith, who has abandoned any attempt at a constructive contribution. Instead of wanting to fix up problems for the benefit of the industry, he has sought to stage a publicity stunt by trying to get the Wellington City Council to close down Parliament because of section 363.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Three times during my contribution on this particular bill you intervened and raised the fact of my not addressing the bill. I have noted that the Minister has well and truly strayed outside it, and you are adopting a different standard. The norm from the Chair these days is that there is one set of rules for this side of the House and a different set of rules for the other side of the House. I find that in respect of points of order, and I find it in respect of debate, and we simply ask for some consistency.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Dr Smith, I did intervene in your speech, but it would also be correct to say that it was rather late when I did so.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The member has egg all over his face because the Wellington City Council has refused to do so, saying that it is satisfied that the intent of the Building Act is being observed. In other words, he has his facts all wrong. Not only that but Nick Smith and the National Party, despite trying to make political capital out of a few drafting errors in the Building Act, are now refusing to help fix up those errors. New Zealand’s building industry would be quite right in thinking that National is more interested in petty politicking than in ensuring a robust regulatory environment for safe buildings.

I would like to thank again the stakeholders involved in the development of the Supplementary Order Paper. This Supplementary Order Paper shows that the Government is listening, and that when issues are identified the Government acts quickly. The Building Act aims to ensure that buildings are designed and built right the first time. I am confident that the Act, and this Supplementary Order Paper, go a long way to achieving that aim.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): Mr Speaker—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did you just hear the interjection from the member?

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

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The Hon Dr Nick Smith has the floor. Does Dr Smith have a point of order?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I was expecting you to deal with the issue that was just raised. But I will leave it to Mr Shirley.

Hon Ken Shirley: I am trying to assist the House here. I heard you intervene in an altercation across the floor of the House when Dr Smith took offence at the member who has just resumed his seat referring to psychiatric treatment. As the Minister sat down he made another quip that was equally offensive. I was offended by it, and I am sure that Dr Smith had good cause to be offended by it, too.

Hon Chris Carter: What did I say?

Hon David Carter: He has Alzheimer’s disease now.

Hon Ken Shirley: Yes, he has Alzheimer’s disease now. I think the whole House heard the comment, and the Minister is trying to pretend he did not say it. I suggest that the Minister should stand, withdraw, and apologise, and in future he should just try to contain and restrain himself.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): If the Minister made a derogatory remark—and I was distracted because I was calling Mr Catchpole—I would ask him to stand, withdraw, apologise, and cool down.

Hon Chris Carter: Well, I did make a derogatory remark. I simply said: “Have a rest. There’s probably a good psychologist somewhere around who could help.” If the member finds that offensive, then I withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member, because remarks like that lead to disorder and make it more difficult to control the House.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: I want to come back to the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill, which is the bill on the Table at the moment. I have heard discussion about a Supplementary Order Paper and what have you. I will leave that to the time when the motion is moved to bring the Supplementary Order Paper before the House, because a motion has to be brought in order to make sure it can be dealt with. That Supplementary Order Paper is the one on the Building Act. But in reality what we have before us now is the bill. After the original Building Bill went through the Government Administration Committee—and I was on that select committee—and was reported back to the House, some additional clauses were added to the bill that had not come before the select committee. One of those clauses that I am referring to in particular is clause 409, which was added to the bill. That provision had the effect of making all the documents available on the website, and it had an unfortunate spin-off in that it required additional documents, purely by reference, to also be included on the website. They included documents such as manufacturers’ specifications and particularly sensitive material that is unique to a manufacturer’s product. All that information, under section 409 of the Building Act, was going to have to be disclosed, free of charge, for anybody to access, when in actual fact that contravened the copyright regulations and restrictions. Therefore we fell foul of international copyright restrictions on a lot of the products involved and a lot of the information that was appearing on the website.

This particular bill, although it was very, very rushed—I point out the Government Administration Committee was given one day to consider the whole thing—

Hon David Carter: Three hours!

BRENT CATCHPOLE: The member is calling “Three hours”. Well, according to the report here, it was only 85 minutes. There were 50 minutes of hearing the evidence and another 35 minutes of consideration of the process. So if it was done over a period of 3 hours, then perhaps it was broken up during a particular sitting session. I must say that the select committee did a tremendous job to get the bill through in that short time. Given that the select committee had 1 day, and that it got through the bill in just under an hour and a half, I must congratulate the select committee. Dianne Yates is the chairperson. I know her well; she does a very good job. She keeps the select committee on the ball, and she should take a lot of credit for that. So my congratulations go to her.

However, I raise with the Government the issue of rushing these things. We saw that with the original Building Bill. That bill took a considerable time to go through the hearing process, but the last phase of it was done under urgency. It was rushed through. Clause 409 was added to the bill prior to it coming to the Committee stage and that was rushed. Nobody had an opportunity to really understand the meaning behind clause 409 and the implications it had with regard to copyright restrictions. Therefore, the present bill has had to come before the House. We believe it is a necessity, but it would not have been necessary had the original legislation not been rushed. Later on we will hear about the Supplementary Order Paper intended to correct other things within the Building Act. Once again, let us not consider this bill in a rushed state. Problems arise because things are rushed. Let us get it right the first time. We should take a little longer and get it right. Had that been done with the Building Bill, then we would not have had to have this particular bill. But then, the Building Bill was rushed, we have this bill, and it is important to correct a situation whereby copyright infringements are happening all the time, purely because everything was made available free of charge.

Having said that, my concern with regard to the restriction contained in this bill is that it will create barriers to access to the legislation. I notice that the Regulations Review Committee made that comment in its report on the bill and that it was acknowledged by the Government Administration Committee in its report. The fact that there will be barriers to access is a sad situation. I would like to see some way to get around that so that the information can be available, but with the copyright restrictions kept in mind.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I would like to address the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill, rather than the various Supplementary Order Papers that are floating around.

I would like to draw Parliament’s attention to the fact that the basic purpose of this bill is to remove the obligation on chief executives to make material available free of charge on the Internet. Basically, that is the purpose of this legislation—to remove the obligation to have important material like building regulations freely available on the Internet, and to allow various Government departments to charge for what was freely available information. So let us be under no illusion about the purpose of this legislation. It will allow Government departments to charge for information that is fundamentally important; legislation such as building codes—material that should be freely available, for example, to builders around New Zealand. Now, instead of being able to look it up on the Internet they will have to pay for it. This seems to be extraordinarily unwise.

The Green Party can acknowledge that a certain amount of information, if it is international, may have copyright issues. Building Act provisions are all basically New Zealand provisions, and I question why we are allowing Government departments to charge for what is basic information on building codes, etc. The leaky building syndrome showed us that builders and developers around New Zealand were flouting the regulations, ignoring the regulations. Surely, one of the lessons of that would be to make as much information—certainly, all the building codes and regulations—freely available for any builder or developer in New Zealand to access easily on the Internet, so that he or she would not be able to argue that somehow he or she had not understood the regulations and had built inadequate buildings. But this legislation basically states that instead of having information freely available on the Internet, it can now be charged for.

As I said in my first reading speech, I have seen this in operation with Food Standards Australia New Zealand. A lot of information about food codes is now not available on the Internet, instead one has to pay for them or fly to Wellington to Xerox them. One of the provisions of this bill is that some of the information will no longer even be available on the Internet, but will be available only in Wellington. So builders and developers around New Zealand will have to fly to Wellington to access important regulations and legislation that they need to know in order to comply with the various building codes. They will be available for inspection only in Wellington. What is the point of that? Will builders around New Zealand fly to Wellington—[Interruption] Yes, some of it will be available in the regions. The United Future member is rather defensively saying that that is not true, but these are the provisions that I understand are available in this bill. It will enable a chief executive to say “No, that is not available freely. No, you can get that information only if you fly to Wellington, go to the office and pay to Xerox the information.” This is silly legislation. It goes against the whole lesson of the leaky building syndrome that we must make sure every builder in New Zealand is fully informed and up to date with all of the building regulations. Now, instead of being able to sit and look at them on the Internet, they will have to pay for them or fly to Wellington. Guess what! Many of them will not do so. They are not prepared to do that.

Not only that; the bill is setting a precedent that other Government departments too, like the Ministry of Health, will now be able to charge for information, instead of having that information freely available on the Internet. This is basically a freedom of information issue. The Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill looks very technical and boring. Most people would say how incredibly tedious, and would not even read it or give it the time of day. They would not realise that it is setting a precedent to undermine freedom of information, in the guise of addressing copyright issues that really only pertain to international regulations. In the guise of that it is removing freedom of access to important information such as basic building standards, building codes, and so forth, and setting up, as the New Zealand First speaker said, barriers to access to information. That is absolutely true. Now we will have to pay for information that should be freely available, and we are setting a precedent so that this can be done by the Ministry of Health, the building code, and various other parts.

The Government will now earn another bit of revenue, charging for information that should be freely available. For that reason, the Green Party will be opposing this bill.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): United Future is continuing to support the second reading of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. I must say that the Greens need to be somewhat enlightened on this legislation, because Sue Kedgley’s speech, in terms of what this bill does and does not do, is so far away from reality that it makes no sense at all.

United Future totally agrees that information has to be available free of charge to builders. That is why United Future succeeded in making major changes to this legislation—in particular, to clause 5—in order to ensure that as much information as possible is available to builders and building practitioners around the country. It is simply incorrect to say that the building code and regulations are not available free of charge. They are available free of charge, and anybody reading clause 5 will see that there are extensive provisions requiring the chief executive to make available for inspection free of charge all the material that building practitioners will need, not only at the Ministry’s office in Wellington but also at all the Ministry’s offices around the country—and also to make material available on the Internet.

Part of the concession I obtained from the Government in return for United Future’s support of this legislation was to ensure that all compliance documents would be made available free of charge on the Internet. The Government indicated that it was unable to do that under this bill, because it was outside the terms of reference and would have required a change to the Building Act, but I am delighted to see that that is also going to happen. In practical terms, as from about a week ago all compliance documents were made available free of charge on the Internet. What this bill is about is only one small segment of the information that is necessary, and that is material incorporated by reference; that is, standards that are produced by external agencies that have copyright attracted to them.

In particular, standards associations, including Standards New Zealand, but, perhaps more significantly, the Australasian standards bodies—the ones we work in with, with Australia—and international bodies produce these standards, and the income they get in order to be able to produce these standards comes from the fees they receive by being able to sell them. If they had been made free of charge, not only would we breach copyright but these standards associations would then not have the income from the sale of their standards that they need in order to produce, and to continue to produce, standards and to meet those criteria.

Those standards associations do a valuable service to the building industry in providing standards that are well researched, and take a lot of time and effort in order to ensure that our buildings are safe. I would have thought that the Greens would be totally supportive of the work that standards associations do, because of the valuable role they play in ensuring that our buildings are built to adequate standard, and that the Greens would not be trying to undermine the work of standards associations nationally and internationally by taking away from them a valuable source of their income to do the job, and thereby effectively prohibiting them from doing the work they do.

So the Greens could not be further wrong in terms of their allegation that this bill is going to restrain the building code and regulations from being available free of charge. The idea that one has to fly to Wellington to get information is quite false. The only restriction in terms of the information that will not be available at regional offices is information relating to products and product safety standards. That is information that manufacturers need in order to manufacture their products. It seems reasonable to me that they should be able to get that from a Wellington source. It is not something they have to run down to the local branch at a day’s notice to get; it is something they require when they are doing planning for the production of their products.

I am pleased to see that this bill has come back unaltered from the select committee. We were very concerned, as was both the select committee and, particularly, the Regulations Review Committee, to ensure that the bill was kept to a minimum in terms of what it protected from free access to the public, and I entirely agree with the statements in the report of the Regulations Review Committee, which states: “We consider the copyright issues provide appropriate reasons for the change proposed in the bill. We wish to make it clear that in the absence of these issues we would be opposed to the bill. By removing the requirements to place incorporated material on the Internet, the bill in effect creates a barrier to accessing legislation. However, we accept that difficulties with copyright justify not using the standard clause in this case, and that this is an appropriate exception to the principles identified in our report.”

That has been United Future’s approach all the way along—that if there is a need to prohibit free access, it is kept to the minimum necessary. That is why we successfully approached the Government and got the changes to clause 5 that would ensure that rather than the chief executive having discretion as to how the information would be available, there would be a mandatory provision for the chief executive to continue to make all the material possible free of charge.

That is what the Government has done. As I indicated before, one of the concessions we obtained from the Government was an undertaking to consider an inclusion in the first amendment to the Building Act that, effectively, all compliance documents would be made free of charge. The sort of provision that that would require would be that the chief executive would ensure that new compliance documents, when issued, would be digitally published; that even when a new compliance document was published, any prior versions would also be available, because it is essential that there is a historical record so that people who are operating legitimately under a previous code can still get access to that code; and that amendments to compliance documents are clearly shown so that people who were legitimately operating under the compliance document prior to the amendment can still get exactly what they need.

There is a need to show the progressive change in compliance documents, and I am delighted that that is recorded in Supplementary Order Paper 361 in new clause 3D, which inserts new section 25A. That means that the undertaking that the Government provided to United Future in return for our support has come to fruition far faster than I had expected it would.

United Future expected that there would need to be changes to the Building Act. It was inevitable, as I said in my speeches on the Building Bill, that a document as complex as this Act in terms of the changing of the whole building regime that New Zealand operates on would require some fine-tuning over the next few years as it bedded down. As the Act comes into force, some errors have been picked up that need to be incorporated. That will always happen, whatever the administration—whether it is Labour, National, or whoever leading the Government. Inevitably, when legislation is as complex as this, it will need some settling down, some fine-tuning, and some amendments to it.

It is the case that some requirements—in particular, the provisions of section 363—have required this to be done as a matter of urgency, so we have been put in the situation of having to rush through the amendments, which is usually not desirable. But we are faced with the situation, which I can talk about when we get to the Committee stage, that a reading of section 363—which is ambiguous—could say that as we are in part of a building that is being worked on, the whole building is inaccessible. That, clearly, was not the intention, and I note that Supplementary Order Paper 361 will correct that.

Supplementary Order Paper 356, on copyright, again ensures that there is a minimisation of material kept away from the public. In fact, the Supplementary Order Paper ensures that the Copyright Act will provide that there will be no Crown copyright on material owned by the Crown. So it will be freely available and able to be reproduced, and I think the Government has gone to extensive lengths, by that provision and the provisions in the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill, to ensure that as much information is available, free of charge on the Internet and in hard copy, to the public as is conceivably possible.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker; I have sought the call several times during this debate. As the chair of the Government Administration Committee I want to thank Brent Catchpole and Murray Smith for their comments on the bill, because both were involved in the select committee. I thank the Government Administration Committee for the work it did on the Building Bill and on this Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill.

The matters in this bill are technical. As has been explained, the Government Administration Committee reported the Building Bill back to Parliament, and some standard clauses were added that were required by the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines. Those guidelines, as Sue Kedgley has pointed out, required that material be available on the Internet. What had not been foreseen was that that would have an effect on Standards New Zealand and an effect on copyright law. It would mean that not only would we not be complying with some international regulations but also that Standards New Zealand would be deprived of its income. The Minister was informed of this and has taken legal advice, and consequently we are faced with this bill, which is moving with urgency to correct that particular unforeseen problem. It was not a fault of the Government Administration Committee or of the original drafting of the bill; it came about because the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines were required to be imposed on the bill at that very late stage, and were found to be unworkable around that area of Standards New Zealand, as Murray Smith has very well explained.

Dr Nick Smith, who turned up at the select committee just for this bill, was not a member of the inquiry on weathertightness of buildings—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Thank goodness.

DIANNE YATES: —thank goodness—as his colleague Wayne Mapp was. He was not part of the select committee when we looked at the Building Bill. If Dr Smith is going to start pointing the finger and talking about botch-ups, I will remind him that the problems of weathertightness are multiple. Many of them came about through deregulation of the industry, which he will know went back to when his party was in Government. He also might like to recall that George Chapman, who I am sure is an old colleague of his, was chair of the Building Industry Authority when he was informed of weathertightness problems. What did he do at the time? Nothing. Long before any other people were involved, George Chapman was informed of these problems, as Dr Smith, Wayne Mapp, and members of the committee well know. If we are going to start pointing fingers, then we need to look back somewhat further than this particular legislation.

I thank the members of the Government Administration Committee. I also thank the members of the Regulations Review Committee, and in particular Dr Richard Worth for his work. I thank the Regulations Review Committee for giving us its opinion on the necessity to make changes in order to protect copyright laws. It has said of the incorporation by reference in this case: “We consider the copyright issues provide appropriate reasons for the changes proposed in the bill. We wish to make it clear that in the absence of these issues we would be opposed to the bill. By removing the requirement to place incorporated material on the Internet, the bill in effect creates a barrier to accessing legislation. However, we accept that the difficulties with copyright justify not using the standard clause in this case, and that this is an appropriate exception to the principles identified in our report.” I thank the legal minds on the Regulations Review Committee, chaired by Dr Richard Worth, for their cooperation in getting this bill back to the House and making the necessary changes.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I rise to debate the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill, and as I listened to the chair of the Government Administration Committee, she reinforced in my mind what a complete and absolute shambolic mess this legislation is. She rose to her feet and said thank you for the valuable contribution that she received on this legislation from Brent Catchpole and from Murray Smith—Brent Catchpole, of course, being a member from New Zealand First, and Murray Smith being a member from United Future.

I looked at the report back on this legislation, which went to the member’s select committee for a total time of 85 minutes, and, although the Government Administration Committee considered the legislation, Mr Catchpole and Mr Murray Smith were not there. So we have the chair of the select committee ticking off a report, yet she has forgotten the members of the select committee who looked at the legislation. It would be hard to find a more shambolic process as we debate the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill.

As I said in my contribution on the first reading, the bill is absolutely misleading in its name. This bill is entirely about a Building Act amendment bill, and that is where the debate should have been. However, the Government has very cunningly said that there are one or two other pieces of legislation with exactly the same problem as the building legislation. First, it found that it had to amend the Health Act. If we look at that legislation we see that the Health Act was passed in 1956. Here we are in urgency, rushing through legislation that the Government says is a matter of urgency, and it is to amend a bill that has been around for 40-odd years.

The other legislation being amended is the Commerce Act of 1986. The New Zealand public ought to realise that the bill we are absolutely amending with urgency is the Building Act 2004. It was passed at the end of last year when the Government was told that the legislation, as passed in this House, would not work. Nothing has proved that more succinctly than the fact that we are here dealing with this on 12 April.

We had an interesting contribution from Murray Smith. Obviously the man from United Future put a lot of effort into the Building Act legislation when it went through the House. In his contribution today he acknowledged that it would need some amending over the years that it came into effect. [Interruption] The member nods his head and says that, yes, those were the remarks he made. I remind the member that this legislation was passed last year and came into effect on 1 April 2005. It has not taken years for this legislation to appear back in the House wanting urgent amendment; it has taken but 12 days. Mr Smith shakes his head in horror. He had not realised that it was as bad as that.

What I want to say is that the legislation went to the select committee for 85 minutes. Only one minority report is attached to the legislation, and it is in the name of the National Party. It makes some very good points as to why the original legislation would never have worked, and the Government was told that at the time. The most worrying comments I have found as I have gone through the commentary presented back to the House by the Government Administration Committee are these: “When the Building Bill underwent its third reading in August 2004, concerns were raised that this mandatory requirement could infringe the copyright interests of third parties.” Those words categorically state that the Government passed legislation, supported by United Future, in August 2004 when it had been told that it would not work. It was told by the industry that the legislation, as being passed at the time, would breach the Copyright Act. The Government proceeded, with the support of United Future, to ram that legislation through. I understand that it received its final reading, again in urgency, yet the Government had been told at the time that the legislation would not work.

That is an amazing admission by the Government. But in the meantime we have been saddled with the Building Act 2004, which came into effect on 1 April.

Hon Chris Carter: Who saddled us with the Building Act 1991?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The Minister says it is the fault of the Building Act 1991. The Minister should pick up the legislation and look at it. It does not talk at all about the Building Act 1991. I say to Mr Chris Carter that it does not even mention that Act. Part 1 of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill refers to the Building Act 2004, which, if my memory serves me correctly, was in the name of the Hon Chris Carter or the Hon George Hawkins. One of those Ministers was responsible for the Building Act when it went through this House, and that particular Minister was told at the time that it would not work. So here we are, rushing through legislation that has been suitably doctored so that it amends two or three other bills that the Government has had to trace back through the statute books—it has found one going back as far as 1956—in an attempt to hide its total embarrassment that we are amending legislation passed about 6 months ago.

The other thing I want to ask is why this legislation is in the hands of the Hon Pete Hodgson. What has the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill to do with Minister Pete Hodgson and his portfolios? We will ask that question again during the Committee stage, because at this stage the Government is making no attempt to answer it. The Government could have done the honest thing. It could have put the bill in the name of the Minister who is responsible for building and construction, the Hon Chris Carter. But of course he has been a bit of a target lately. He has been a bit of a target both for members on this side of the House and, more spectacularly, for a member on the other side of the House, John Tamihere, who is now on extended leave. I will not quote Mr Tamihere’s words. I assure you, Mr Speaker, that earlier in the debate when you were not here it was ruled out of order to use those words in Parliament, so I will not.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tosser.

Hon DAVID CARTER: No, I say to Mr Smith that I will not use that word. That word has been ruled out of order. It does seem incredible to me that that word is out of order in the House, yet it is totally in order inside the Labour Party caucus room.

What the legislation does via the Supplementary Order Paper—and I will refer very briefly to the Supplementary Order Paper, because it is substantially larger than the rest of the bill—is to start to wade through the Building Act and the idiotic changes it brought in, effective from 1 April 2005. The Building Act amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper will change the rather ridiculous situation we have now, where legally the Beehive should not be occupied on any floor because renovations are going on on one of the nine floors. That is the situation my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith has revealed to the House, and that is the situation the Government was told about at the time when it passed the legislation—but, of course, with the arrogance that has now become a hallmark of the Labour Government, it ignored all the advice it was given. It passed the legislation. It rushed it through, and here we are, again in urgency, having to try to fix up the mess. I guarantee that Mr Murray Smith’s comments were right—this will not be the last amendment we pass to the Building Act.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 46

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Bill read a second time.

Instruction to Committee

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill that it have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The motion that we have just heard from the Leader of the House shows how arrogant this Government has become in its dealings with Parliament. It shows how close the Government is to its death throes that, in the name of Pete Hodgson, we are expected to accept a 21-page Supplementary Order Paper that is totally outside—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Oh, diddums.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Dr Cullen says “diddums”. Well I say to Dr Cullen that I think ordinary New Zealanders—perhaps the 230,000 people who work in the building industry—would want to be given a rational explanation. I ask the Minister, Chris Carter, why Supplementary Order Paper 361 is not in his name. Why, when we have a Minister for Building Issues whose responsibilities specifically include Building Act issues, is Pete Hodgson moving that Supplementary Order Paper? What sort of vote of no confidence is that in the tosser we have—[Interruption] Oh, he does not like what John Tamihere says.

Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your colleague, when he was in the Chair, ruled that the word “tosser” is unparliamentary, and the member has just used it again. I would like to request that he withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It was used by John Tamihere.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Does Mr Carter feel that that comment was directed at him?

Hon Chris Carter: Yes, I do.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The Hon Dr Nick Smith will please withdraw.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw. Is it not a funny day in the House when John Tamihere, from the same party as that member, can use that word, but nobody else can? I say that every member of the House knows that John Tamihere was right on the money. The smiles on the faces of Dover Samuels and his colleagues show that that is absolutely right. The way this Minister is dealing with these critical issues says it all.

Let us look to see just what is in the Supplementary Order Paper. Firstly, Chris Carter has told the House that there are “no problems with the Building Act”. Well, if there are no problems with the Act, why are we to accept a Supplementary Order Paper that is 10 times as long as the original version of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill? I ask the Government member and the Minister what sort of incompetent loser we have in the Minister, when someone else—Pete Hodgson—has to come along to fix up his botched bill.

Secondly, the Minister says that there are “minor technical problems” with the Act. Let me go through them. Section 7 has a problem with the definition of “building work” and of “restricted building work”. It also has a problem with the definition of “territorial authority”. In section 8 there is a problem with the definition of building. In section 14 there is a problem in respect of the roles of territorial authorities and regional authorities. New section 25A is to be inserted because there is a problem with regard to compliance documents being available on the website. In section 53 there is a problem in terms of the payment of levies. In section 67 there is a problem in respect of the granting of waivers. Section 85 is wrong, because it makes a mistake about the supervision of building work. Section 96 is wrong in respect of certificates of acceptance. There is a problem with section 100 in respect of the requirement for a compliance schedule. There is a problem with section 112 in respect of alterations to existing buildings. There is another problem with section 115 in respect of changes in the use of buildings, and there is a problem with section 116 in respect of extensions of life for a building, requirements affecting subdivision, and offences concerning the use of buildings.

There is a further problem, would members believe, with section 165 in respect of notices to fix, and another problem with section 191 in respect of entering people’s names on the register of building consent authorities. There is a problem with section 212 in respect of a council’s role as a building consent authority. There is a problem with accreditation in section 241, and a problem with the collection of levies in section 243. There is a problem with regard to registers in section 273, and with the functions of registrars in respect of section 311. There is a problem with regard to public buildings, a huge problem, in section 363, and there is a problem with the provision of code compliance certificates in terms of settlements involving multi-unit titles in section 364.

Do those problems sound minor—and technical? The ink is not dry on the Act —

Hon Member: Twelve days old.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is only 12 days old, yet this Parliament, under urgency, is expected to pass 21 significant changes without any public submissions, any first reading, any second reading, or any third reading—they are just stuck in the Supplementary Order Paper. I want to challenge the gits in United Future, who when they came to this House said they would keep this Government honest. Well, I ask them why they are going to allow this motion, which is a total abuse of process. What sort of doormat has United Future become that it can allow that? That party should be blamed, actually, because it was the doormat that allowed the Act to be passed under urgency, which has ended up creating this huge raft of problems.

Let me tell members what some of the problems actually mean. This is how bad the legislation is. If people are among the 15,000 architects, engineers, or designers of buildings, they are breaking the law, because they are not allowed to do building work—which includes design work—without a building consent. Members should just think about that. Those people cannot get a building consent without doing design work, but they are not allowed to do design work without getting a building consent. Has anyone ever heard of such a stupid, ridiculous law? Yet that is what was passed by Chris Carter and his mates in United Future, who now expect us, in urgency, to fix up the mess.

Is this not interesting? I drew the problems of the Act to the attention of the Minister, Chris Carter, on 30 March, and he got up in the House and said that there was no problem. But suddenly I threatened to prosecute the Government because it is illegally occupying the Beehive. That is right. The stupid Act that Labour passed, which came into effect on 1 April, states that where any building work is going on, if there is a building consent and no code compliance certificate, the building is not allowed to be occupied. Well, occupying such a building is exactly what every Minister of the Government has been doing. We again have the “Don’t do as we say; do as we do.” stuff from the Government. It says that it can pass these stupid, control-freak laws, and it expects everybody else in the country to follow them, but not those people in the Beehive who are breaking the law. Suddenly I threatened to prosecute the Government for that, and lo and behold here is this Supplementary Order Paper to patch the situation up—after the Minister had spent weeks saying there was no problem.

This is a disgraceful abuse of Parliament. I notice that John Tamihere stated in his article that we are verging on a dictatorship—and we are. When we have a Government that is prepared to abuse the Standing Orders by introducing a 21-page Supplementary Order Paper at a quarter past 9 on this Tuesday night, and expecting it to be passed through all stages without anybody having a say before tomorrow, the situation is truly ridiculous.

I challenge Government members about this. One of the stupid things they did in the Act was to prohibit New Zealanders from being able to do building work on their own homes.

Lianne Dalziel: Nonsense.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They did! Lianne Dalziel says that that is nonsense, but then she is one of the botched Ministers. If that is not true, why does that provision have to be amended? That is what the officials say. The Government’s own Department of Building and Housing says that that is exactly what the Government has done. That is stupid law, because there is absolutely no evidence that the problem of leaky homes was caused by the do-it-yourself builder. Generations of New Zealanders have improved their equity by doing home improvements, myself included. I simply ask members of the Government, having admitted they got 21 sections of the Act wrong, why they do not simply fix the 22nd mistake they made and allow ordinary New Zealanders to be able to get a building consent, improve their homes, and improve their lot in life—because that is what is required.

This motion from the Government is about hiding its mess. Chris Carter is sitting on an awful mess with regard to legislation that is not 12 days old, and he wants to completely abuse the process: to avoid a first reading, avoid any select committee hearings, and avoid allowing any member of the public to have a say. Yet he is making 21 pages of changes to one of New Zealand’s biggest industries. The House should reject this motion, and United Future should, for once, hold this Government to account and ensure that, at least third time lucky, we get the Act right.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): The previous National Party speaker has said most of the things I would like to say. Essentially, New Zealand First is of the view that this is very important legislation. It requires proper scrutiny, and it should be considered by a select committee. Engineers should have a look at it, builders should have a look at it, and architects should have a look at it. Local authorities should have a look at it as well, so that we know—

Dianne Yates: They have.

DAIL JONES: I tell Dianne Yates that they have not looked at the Supplementary Order Paper. We have not had one single submission on it, so the member should please get her facts right. The other aspect of it is that the drafting is still wrong. For example, if we look at clause 5A, we will see that it repeals the earlier subsections (2) and (3) of section 438 of the principal Act and adds subsections (2), (3), (4), and (6). So what has happened to subsection (5)?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: They can’t count.

DAIL JONES: They cannot count? I ask the Minister whether there is a subsection (5). Is there meant to be a subsection (5) and has it fallen by the wayside? There is a case of bad drafting, straight away. There is another example, of course, of bad drafting in clause 3P, with regard to section 241. In the way that that provision is drafted we would think that there was already a numbered subsection (1). In fact, there is not. It is just blank. It is just a section. There is no subsection (1) in brackets, etc., and then subsection (2). So, again, there is a drafting error in this legislation. Here we are, being made to rush legislation through that rests on that simple construction. I have those subsections here, if people want to have a look at them: in section 241, there is no subsection (1). So this thing is a shambles. Already, at this very early stage of drafting, it does not make proper drafting sense.

That is what I have picked up in a very short space of time, purely on technicalities, yet here we are, with the Government asking us to rush this legislation through the House right now, and it is a case of “She’ll be right.” It was a case of “She’ll be right.” last time, and she was not right.

Hon David Carter: She was wrong.

DAIL JONES: Helen Clark was wrong, and she should have moved out of the Beehive, as should all the other members. But, no, they insist on breaking the law in that building, and now they hope to change the legislation by this piece of drafting.

Dr Smith has gone through the legislation rather quickly, because he had no other alternative. It is so long that he just gave a very quick summary of the general points in the legislation. But I was looking at it, and if we have a look at the proposed amendment to section 7, we see that that looks at things such as the integrity of the building, and the health and safety of its occupants. I expect that we want legislation that deals with the health and safety of individual occupants to be right. A subsection has been added to that section, which relates to design work, because it was wrongly left out the first time. Now it has been inserted.

Clause 3A(3) now adds coastal marine areas to section 7, which were not included in the original Act. We now have legislation that refers to the Resource Management Act and to coastal marine areas and we are supposed to pass it without anyone who is involved with the Resource Management Act having a look at it. I am not the greatest expert on the Resource Management Act and I would expect that local authorities should have a look at it to see whether this is a proper way of drafting that legislation. But no. This Government is rushing it through and could not care less.

Clause 3B, “Building: what it means and includes”, states that it “includes the non-moving parts of a cable car attached to or servicing a building”. I would really like to have an engineer look at this to tell me what cable cars that are attached to or servicing a building are likely to do, and whether this clause is properly worded. I do not know a thing about cable cars. That is another problem. I remember when Brent Catchpole raised the original Act in caucus, and we were discussing it, that dams were mentioned. The Government even got dams wrong last time. The new clause 3C substitutes a new section 14, “Roles of building consent authorities, territorial authorities, and regional authorities in relation to dams”.

This bill just gets bigger and bigger and of more moment as one goes along. Here we are in Parliament being asked by the Government and by United Future to accept their word that the legislation is OK. But just on my first reading I have pointed out a couple of drafting errors in it. Those are just simple drafting errors.

An important aspect of this bill for anyone who is concerned about people with disabilities is that clause 3F replaces section 67(3) with a new subsection (3) stating that “The territorial authority cannot grant an application for a building consent subject to a waiver or modification of the building code relating to access and facilities for people with disabilities.” That was left out the first time around; it is in the bill this time. But I would like the people who are involved with disabilities—such as disabilities councils and all those sorts of organisations—to make sure we have it right. Is “people with disabilities” enough? Should there be wider wording than that? We really do not know, because we have not had the opportunity to have this put to a select committee.

Clause 3G addresses more errors that have been made. Clause 3G(1) repeals the earlier legislation and addresses the situation where a person who is not a licensed building practitioner commits offences. New section 116B in clause 3L goes on to address the situation of people who commit offences and who can be fined a maximum of $100,000. The new section states that it is an offence to use a building for a use for which it is not safe or not sanitary, or if it has inadequate means of escape from fire. This is a totally new section being inserted that gives a penalty of a $100,000 fine, without the measure going to any parliamentary select committee for consideration. What is more, if it is a continuing offence, there is a further fine of $10,000 for every day or part of a day during which the offence has continued. So if the offence had gone on for a 30-day month, that would cost the offender $300,000.

We are rushing through legislation that creates serious offences and we are not looking at any of the basic constitutional requirements. When we were going to fine people, at least until today, we had the opportunity to go to a select committee to see whether the fine was the correct amount, to discuss whether the correct people were being charged, and how they were being dealt with. But here we have a $100,000 fine imposed, with a further $10,000 a day. The Labour Party, supported by United Future, has done this. Murray Smith is a lawyer. I would have thought that a lawyer would be the first person to say that anything to do with an offence of this kind must be given close scrutiny.

The Law Society, for example, should have been invited to make submissions. It is basic work in this Parliament that the Law Society should be brought in to give us its view on the constitutional appropriateness of imposing a fine of that amount. But no. It is being rushed through Parliament. A fine of $300,000 or more will be imposed on some poor, unsuspecting person who has not the faintest idea that whereas yesterday he might have been doing his work appropriately, when this bill is passed—and I am not sure when the enactment date is, it could be tomorrow or next week for all I know—his work now carries a $10,000-a-day fine. A builder may be chipping away on a building site somewhere. He does not listen to Parliament, as he listens to a more interesting programme than that. He might be listening to some golden oldies type programme of 1960s and 1970s rock—

Hon David Carter: Winston would be.

DAIL JONES: Yes, some intelligent people would be doing just that. Then, all of a sudden, a building inspector comes around when the builder is 3 months into the job and tells him that what he is doing is wrong. The builder will say: “But you gave me the building consent to do it. Four months ago I got this building consent from you to do this, and now you are telling me that 3 months ago I started committing an offence.” How can any political party support legislation of this kind being rushed through under urgency? New Zealand First cannot support this legislation.

We supported the earlier legislation, because it was fine. Even though we were on the edge of things, we had a discussion and we supported it. But this, really, is suicidal. This will put builders into all sorts of problems. This is asking for trouble and for people to be prosecuted. We know that the local bodies are the worst for prosecuting on the most trivial things. They will prosecute for almost anything under the sun. The clause states that a fine of $10,000 can be imposed for every day.

How can we support legislation like this? New Zealand First will be opposing this legislation. We would like it to go to select committee to get full consideration so that we can see what is needed to be done, and so that all the people involved can have a look at it. If everyone had agreed to it, that would have been fine. But rushing it through when we know that the previous legislation was rushed through, supported by United Future, and has proved to be an absolute disaster, shows that we have not learnt from our mistakes. The Government wants us to go through it all over again. I have already pointed out that I have spotted a couple of drafting mistakes in this legislation. New Zealand First cannot support this Supplementary Order Paper and we will be opposing the motion.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): The ACT party will also oppose the Committee considering Supplementary Order Paper 361. I have listened carefully to the previous two speakers, and I think the whole House and the whole country should be alarmed at what is occurring here tonight. We have a Supplementary Order Paper that is 10 times bigger than the original bill. Moreover, the Act it amends is 12 days old. It is 12 days old. The Labour Government, assisted by its doormat, the United Future party, is making legislation on the hoof. It is rushing through the House under urgency legislation that we know is thoroughly bad. We know that the building legislation in this country is in a terrible mess, and all the indications here are that it will get considerably worse.

I do not think the average Kiwi realises the extent of the problem yet. The traditional do-it-yourselfer or home handyman is out of business, and it is the Labour Government’s rhetoric that is driving it. There are 21 pages of this Supplementary Order Paper. It is interesting—and the point has already been made—that the Supplementary Order Paper is in the name of Minister Pete Hodgson, not Chris Carter.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why?

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Why indeed? Mr Carter has been tossed aside. But the issue is Minister Chris Carter said that he thought there were no problems. To that extent he is tossing the issues aside. He is tossing the issues aside, yet he himself has been tossed aside as the Minister fronting the bill. [Interruption] No. He is either the “tossee” or the “tossor”. Perhaps Minister Carter could tell us if he is the “tossee” or the “tossor”.

Hon David Carter: Both!

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Perhaps he is both. Perhaps he is the “tossee”, the “tossor”, and, as someone else said, the tosser. We know he is the “tossee” and the “tossor”, and he is a tosser, too, so he is all three. Could the Government explain to us why the Minister who was in charge of a small piece of legislation has been tossed aside, and another Minister has been brought in to do the substantive Supplementary Order Paper, which is actually 10 times bigger than the bill?

This is the outrage: irrespective of whether he is the “tossee” or the “tossor”—because that is pretty irrelevant, actually; who cares—the real issue is that this important legislation, which will cause great offence to a lot of New Zealanders, is not going anywhere near a select committee. No public submissions have been called for. That is a very arrogant action from any Government. It is legislation on the hoof. It is a Government in meltdown and panic. All it is interested in is public perception and the closing down of issues. It did not want Minister Carter anywhere near the legislation, so it tossed him aside and brought in another Minister just to close the issue down.

The Government had its doormat party, United Future, to be complicit and to let that happen. Every home handyperson in this country knows who to blame. Who should they blame? United Future. That is the party that has allowed it to happen.

Dail Jones: All in the name of stability.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: All in the name of stability—absolutely. It will provide stability. No matter how outrageous the legislation that the Government wants to ram through Parliament under urgency, denying the public the right to be heard and to make a submission, in the name of stability United Future will be the doormat and allow that to happen.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not for long!

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Not for long—that is the redeeming feature. We know that it will not be for long, because the people will have their revenge. The voters will not tolerate that sort of behaviour. They will have their revenge, and it will be sooner rather than later.

I think they will have their revenge on Mr Carter, too. They know that he has been tossed aside. They know that he is either the “tossee” or the “tossor”, and some of them suspect that he is the tosser, as well. They will have their say and they will throw them all out, because this is bad legislation. As it becomes obvious how bad the legislation is, the country will realise that the building laws, which were already in a mess, have been made considerably worse by this Government. It is closing down the right of average Kiwis, the home handypersons, to do the basic tasks that they have done for generations in this country, because it does not understand them.

Certainly, the ACT party will oppose the legislation, and I understand that National and New Zealand First will. United Future members were not here a few moments ago—they missed the call. Perhaps they might absent themselves at this late stage, in which case we can stop this legislation, because New Zealand does not want it. We should all oppose it.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I am happy to front up to the Opposition parties to explain why United Future will support this Supplementary Order Paper, which makes amendments to the Building Act, being considered by the Committee. I will not take longer than is necessary to talk about it, but I am quite happy to explain to the Opposition parties why United Future supports it.

We have had the benefit—and I know that the Opposition parties have not—of looking at this Supplementary Order Paper over a number of days. We have been able to have a number of lengthy discussions with the Government over its contents and to make some improvements to it. I thank the Government for its willingness to do that. I agree with speakers who say that all legislation should go through the select committee process. In the ordinary course of events I think that is appropriate, so that legislation can be subject to good consideration. If this Supplementary Order Paper had not met some exceptions, that is what I would have looked for, as well. But I think the provisions in it can be, and need to be, done by way of urgency, for a number of reasons.

The first reason is the provision in clause 3D that effectively carries out a commitment that the Government made to United Future. That was the commitment I alluded to when I spoke at the first reading of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill—namely, that if there was to be a restriction on what would be freely available to the public, that restriction should be kept to a minimum. Having taken out the provision that allowed documents incorporated by reference to be made available free of charge, the Government then made a commitment that at the first opportunity it would include in the Building Act a provision stating that all compliance documents would be made available free of charge on the Internet. They are documents published by the Government that would have been made available free of charge on the Internet under the Building Act as it stood. Because of the changes that were made, the provision for compliance documents to be made available free of charge on the Internet would have been removed by the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill.

The provision has now been reinstated in clause 3D, which not only requires the chief executive to make the documents available free of charge on the Internet but goes to extended lengths to ensure that even historical compliance documents and compliance documents prior to amendment are made available free of charge, so that everybody is well aware of how compliance documents have evolved. If people are operating under a former compliance document that they are entitled legally to operate under, they will be able to get access to the former copy as well as the current copy. I have no problems whatsoever with that provision being in this motion, because I think it effectively reinstates the circumstances that currently occur.

The second provision that I have no problem with seeing in an urgency motion is the amendment to section 363, inserted by clause 3T. I note that, contrary to what the Opposition parties have alluded to, section 363 is, at best, ambiguous. Section 363 states: “A person commits an offence if the person uses, … any part of a building to which this section applies that is affected by building work—”. The confusion arises as to whether we should interpret that to mean a person who uses the actual part of a building that is affected by building work, or whether it means a person who uses any part of that building—not just the part that is affected by building work. In the case of the Beehive, is it the entire building that nobody can use, even if only part of the building is affected, or is it only that part that is affected by building work that cannot be used? That is the ambiguity. The intention, of course, was that only the part of the building affected by building work could not be used. But we have a confusing situation. There has been concern as to whether that will affect building, so this provision clarifies that only the part of the building that is affected by building work cannot be used. Of course, that part will be blocked off, as is happening now in the Beehive, so that people cannot access it. That is quite appropriate.

The Government has moved to allow a certificate of safety to be issued so that parts of a building can be used. I think that makes a lot of sense. It is a matter that had to be dealt with as a matter of urgency, which justifies this legislation going through in urgency.

All the other provisions, as I have looked through them, are technical or matters of procedure. They are not substantive issues. They are provisions that really just correct errors that have been found in the Act as it is, or anomalies that were unintended. They are not matters of huge significance. I do not think they are matters that need to be dealt with through a select committee process. It is inevitable that those will occur in legislation as complex as the Building Act.

United Future members, having looked through this legislation, are happy to consent to this matter being dealt with in urgency, firstly, because of the provisions that need to be dealt with urgently, and secondly, because the other matters are technical. If there had been matters of substance that needed close consideration by different elements of the building industry, and that did not have that urgency to them, they certainly should have gone to a select committee, but that is not the case here. United Future is happy to support this legislation going through now so that the Building Act can be corrected. The Building Act has in fact been around since August 2004, which was the date of assent. It has been around now for 9 months, giving the industry time to look at it and implement it, and find anomalies in it. I think it is an appropriate time to be looking at and getting right these things, so that the Act can start life on a good footing.

United Future supports the legislation for that reason, and will continue to do so.

A party vote was called for on the question, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill that it have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361.

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 59

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Motion agreed to.

Instruction to Committee

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Commerce): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill that it take the bill part by part.

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

Ayes 70

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 49

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Building Act 2004

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I note that Part 1 of this bill is amendments to the Building Act. I also note that the Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled has 21 pages of amendments to the Building Act, and I note that the Minister for Building Issues is in the Chamber. Would it not be appropriate for the Government to have the Minister responsible for the Act in the chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The Minister in charge of the bill is in the chair.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This is an extraordinary situation. As my colleague Ken Shirley pointed out, we have a Minister who is paid a ministerial salary, gets a flash ministerial house, and sits in ministerial cars, all for being the Minister for Building Issues, we have an awfully botched Act the ink of which is not yet dry, and we have 21 pages of amendments to it, yet the Minister responsible tosses away all responsibility for it. What sort of Government do we have, where the Minister responsible—

Hon David Carter: Tamihere’s right.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: He is absolutely right; he is literally right. Chris Carter has tossed away his responsibilities, and one who tosses things away is indeed, and must be, a tosser. We now have some insight as to exactly what John Tamihere was referring to.

This extraordinary Supplementary Order Paper—

Darren Hughes: This should be the last man to make a comment like that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would like the young member from the Ōtaki coast, who will be losing his seat in about 4 months’ time to a very talented young guy, to explain why we have a Minister for Building Issues who does not introduce Supplementary Order Paper 361, and who is not in the chair to defend his legislation.

Darren Hughes: The member should finish his personal attacks on the Minister and get on with debating the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I ask the simple question of the hot-headed member for Otaki why we have a Minister for Building Issues who, when we have a bill on building issues, is nowhere to be seen. The member was very talkative a moment ago. Can he give an answer to a simple question? He is sitting next to the Minister for Building Issues. Why is the Supplementary Order Paper not in his name, and why is he not in the chair?

Darren Hughes: Why don’t you talk about the substance of the legislation?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member wants to talk about the substance, but he is not prepared to answer the question. The key issue is ministerial responsibility. The Minister sitting next to him is the Minister responsible for the biggest botch-up in legislation that I have seen in my 15 years in this place.

Lianne Dalziel: He wasn’t the Minister.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, Lianne Dalziel was the Minister. I just want someone on the Government benches—

Lianne Dalziel: I wasn’t on the select committee.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I simply wish someone on the Government benches would accept responsibility for this awful botch-up, which is the worst case I have seen in my time in Parliament in terms of bad law.

Hon Chris Carter: This member needs another rest.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Chris Carter will not answer the basic question as to who is responsible for this mess. Well, I have a list here of those who have been the responsible Minister, and I would say it is probably the Prime Minister. I will say why. In the last 6 years we have had seven Ministers who have been responsible for building issues. It is little wonder that, when the Government has played a game of musical chairs with a portfolio that involves $18 billion a year of our economy, we have this sort of legislative mess and this sort of abuse of process.

I ask Lianne Dalziel why this legislation cannot be referred to a select committee.

Lianne Dalziel: Let’s debate the issues.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let us debate the issues, then. She is not prepared to answer those questions. Perhaps the Minister in the chair, Pete Hodgson, can say why clause 5A in the Supplementary Order Paper inserts subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), and (6) into section 438 of the Building Act. I know that education standards have plummeted in the Government, I know that Government members cannot count, I know that we are expected to rush this legislation through and make it law by tomorrow, but can Chris Carter explain why the Government counts its subsections in the order of (1), (2), (3), (4), and (6)? If the Minister in the chair would just pay attention for a moment, he would see that on page 15 of the Supplementary Order Paper there is a botch-up.

I refer to another botch-up that has been drawn to the Committee’s attention by Dail Jones, on page 11. Clause 3P adds a new subsection (2) to section 241, and it states that subsection (1) is subject to paragraphs (a) and (b). But there is no subsection (1). I have the Building Act here, and section 241 has no subsection (1). So here we have the Government, having passed a botched Act, rushing in a 21-page Supplementary Order Paper late at night, and already—[Interruption] Perhaps Chris Carter can answer this question. How can clause 3P have subsection (1) subject to two new provisions when there is no subsection (1)?

Hon Chris Carter: Just take a deep breath.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have. Would the member answer the question? [Interruption] Are those members not interesting? I ask them a serious question about their flawed law and all they can do is try to divert attention. The fact is the Supplementary Order Paper is a mess, as well, and this Government is avoiding any select committee process at all in dealing with it.

The first part of this amendment deals with the definition of building work. I want to say how badly the Government goofed up. What Chris Carter did with the law was to say: “You can’t do any design work on a building until you get a building consent.”

Hon Chris Carter: Ha ha!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: He thinks that is funny.

Hon Chris Carter: Because the member has got it wrong.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, if that is the case, why are we altering the definition of building work?

Lianne Dalziel: We are shifting the location of design work.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh well, why are we shifting the location of design work? I will tell Lianne Dalziel why. The reason we are shifting the definition of design so that it applies only to Part 4 is that every one of our 15,000 building engineers and architects has been breaching the law because of the flawed way that this law was drafted and passed.

We take the second issue—the mess over dams. If there are any building structures that have the potential to kill people it is dams. The largest man-made disaster in human history was the Vaiont tragedy where 16,000 people died as a consequence of a dam failure. But again we find the Government has botched the law in respect of safe dam design.

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my friend, but I just notice that in the lobbies there are officials, perhaps, just floating around who I do not think are officials associated with this legislation.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Where?

Dr Richard Worth: Right outside. It is a simple question with a simple answer. I would just like inquiries to be made as to why these people are floating around here.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I believe that they are officials or people assisting the Minister.

Dr Richard Worth: I do regret interrupting the flow of my learned friend’s speech, but it is quite unsatisfactory. This is not a place for Labour lobbyists to circle round weak Ministers.

Hon Pete Hodgson: They are officials.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I accept the Minister’s word that they are officials.

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am not going to take another point of order.

Dr Richard Worth: I would like to ask why it is necessary for more than 10 officials to be in attendance on a Minister on a bill of this complexity.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a question for you to raise, but I thank you for raising the first point of order.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The incompetence of this Government is that even with Parliament swarming with officials we end up with a Supplementary Order Paper that shows that Government members cannot count, that has provisions that refer to parts that do not exist, and that has 21 pages of changes to the Building Act that are being raced through Parliament to fix up problems that Chris Carter only 2 weeks’ ago said did not exist. What an extraordinary time we have in Parliament with respect to those!

I want to express serious concern about what is not in this bill. The Government, in its stupidity, decided to prohibit ordinary New Zealanders from being able to do building work on their own houses. I extended an extra bedroom on my first house in Christchurch, which enabled me to extend my equity. This Government is going to prohibit that. Thousands and thousands of New Zealanders have gone about improving their homes, adding rooms and doing work. This Government is going to prohibit their being able to do that, and I say that is quite wrong.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Commerce): I shall make a few brief remarks. The first is that the legislation in front of us amends the Building Act, the Commerce Act, the Health Act, and the Copyright Act. I am the Minister of Commerce, and what is more, I have obligations, through my portfolio in commerce, for Standards New Zealand, which, of course, is the group that promulgates most, but not all, of the standards in this country, which is why the bill is in my name. Secondly, I thank the member for pointing out an error on page 15. It does indeed, state (1), (2), (3), (4), (6). They are mistakes, or things, that are corrected as a matter of course by the Clerk’s Office and do not form part of New Zealand law. The third point I would like to make—

Murray Smith: Mistakes, mistakes, mistakes.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I shall say it again for the member if he would like to be quiet. I thank the member for drawing to my attention the numeration (1), (2), (3), (4), (6). I have checked it with officials. He is absolutely right; it does not follow, but it is not something that needs to be attended to by the House. It is routine after the passage of law for things like line numbers, etc. to be checked. They do not form part of New Zealand law, but I thank him for drawing it to our attention, anyway. My third set of remarks are directed to the member Richard Worth.

Hon Chris Carter: Dr Richard Worth.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not think it would be Dr Richard Worth, but Richard Worth, none the less. I say to him that the reason—

Dr Richard Worth: An explanation is helpful. I welcome an explanation.

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member will get an explanation if he would keep his mouth shut, and he will not if he does not.

Dr Richard Worth: I don’t think I need an explanation, but if you must make it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The Minister in the chair has accepted that there is a flaw on page 15, in that the Government cannot count from 1 to 6.

Darren Hughes: Move on.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The seriousness about this is that the Government rushes the Building Act through the Parliament. Before 12 days are up it introduces a 21-page amendment, saying “Oops, we screwed up. We got it all wrong. Under urgency we have to rush through another amendment, but don’t worry, we’ve got it all absolutely right.” And then it says: “Sorry, we couldn’t count from 1 to 6, and we’ll fix that bit up.” But the Minister has not addressed the substantive part. Clause 3P in the Supplementary Order Paper adds section 241(2), which states that subsection (1) of section 241 is subject to a regional authority’s power under section 244 and does not apply to any function it transfers to another regional authority. That all reads very well, except that there is no subsection (1). It does not exist, so how can we pass nonsense law that makes a subsection (1) conditional on a paragraph (a) and (b), if subsection (1) does not exist?

I have to say to the Government that despite the hoards of officials that it may have in the corridors, it has got it wrong, again. It has made another mistake. I cannot help believing that, for all the giggles that can come from the Government benches—[Interruption] Our primary responsibility is as legislators, and I have not seen in my 15 years in the House a new Act of Parliament so botched, so full of errors, and causing so many compliance costs.

The Minister in charge thinks that it is a laughing matter. I have just had a letter from a woman on the North Shore that stated that in applying for her building consent she was told she has to pay $43,000 before she is able to get a building consent for a house. Members opposite think that that is quite funny. They think this is all just a bit of a hoot. They think that ordinary New Zealanders come up with $43,000 for a new house just like that. Well, we do not. Members on this side of the House hold Chris Carter accountable for this sort of botched law.

Debate interrupted.

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

Tuesday, 12 April 2005

(continued on Wednesday, 13 April 2005)

Bills

Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Amendments to Building Act 2004 (continued)

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): National, as members will be aware, opposed the Building Act. We did so because, as we said at the time, it was very prescriptive legislation. We said that there were issues in it that were over the top. Although we acknowledged that there were deficiencies in the Building Act 1991, we also made it very clear that the cumbersome approach that was to be adopted would put huge compliance costs on how the industry worked. We also said that because of the change from inspecting properties to supervising properties, we would see huge costs associated with any building, but mainly with the building of residential homes.

It is interesting that at that time we acknowledged there would be ongoing problems with this legislation, and here we are, 12 days after the Act came into effect—it came into effect on 1 April, April Fool’s Day—making significant changes to legislation that one would have thought, it having had the scrutiny of the committee at the time, and submissions having been received on it, the Government would get right. Supplementary Order Paper 361, which has been tabled, really says that the Government got it wrong, stuffed up, and is bringing it back under urgency to fix it up. Well, that is completely unacceptable. This is an $18 billion industry. The Government needed to spend the time, hear the submissions, and take into account all the points that were articulated at the select committee. National was well represented on that committee with Shane Ardern and myself. We said that the bill would not work.

Now the Government is abusing the process, dealing with this legislation under urgency. I want to know why this Supplementary Order Paper will not be referred to the select committee, if it is so important. If it is so important that we should be debating it under urgency in order to fix up a mess that National members identified last year would be created, then we believe that it is incumbent on the Government to say to the industry and everybody involved in it: “Let’s look at it again. Let’s get it right. Let’s hear submissions.” That is our position, and it is the reason why we will not be supporting this legislation’s progress.

Clause 3C on Supplementary Order Paper 361 is concerned with dams, and section 14(2) in it states: “If a building includes a dam,—(a) the regional authority is responsible for performing functions under this Act relating to the dam; and (b) the building consent authority and territorial authority are responsible for performing functions under this Act relating to the parts of the building that are not a dam.” When is a dam not a dam? When it is in a damned bill like this, I guess! We visited a dam on the Waitaki River. What was in place there—the emergency procedures, and the monitoring of construction and of safety aspects of the dam—required expertise that far outweighed anything that any regional council or local territorial authority would have. Those councils do not have the expertise, but the people working on that dam do. Their stringent safety precautions, the functions and policies they have in place, would far outweigh any expertise that any regional council would have. So one would have to question why that sort of provision is included in the Supplementary Order Paper. National members are very clear in our minds that these things were tidied up at the time.

Clause 3L on the same Supplementary Order Paper repeals and replaces section 116B of the principal Act. This is the point that my colleague Dr Nick Smith has been talking about specifically. Subsection (1) makes it an offence to use a building “for a use for which the building is not safe or not sanitary;”, or if it has “inadequate means of escape from fire.” Subsection (3) creates a penalty: “A person who commits an offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding $100,000 and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding $10,000 for every day or part of a day during which the offence has continued.” Who has the sort of money in their pockets to be able to pay the exorbitant fines that this bill envisages? The select committee heard from the Far North District Council that a lot of the houses in its region do not meet codes of compliance. The figure escapes me, but there are thousands of properties that should not be occupied because they do not meet codes of compliance. Will we pull the plug on those property owners? Will we say that they should not be living in their houses because they do not meet a code of compliance?

Those houses probably do not even have consents. That is the issue, as we said earlier on in this debate. There will be a move from do-it-yourself operators not to go through the stringent provisions that the current Act allows, and they will bypass the system. In fact, there is an article in the National Business Review—

Darren Hughes: A fine paper.

LINDSAY TISCH: It has a very fine member’s photo in it, as well. This issue is dated 16 July 2004. The point I made in this article is that the Government was putting another nail in home improvement. That is what it says, and that is exactly the sort of issue—

Darren Hughes: Good publicity.

LINDSAY TISCH: While the member carries on, he should know that this is a serious issue. I suggest he takes a call to crystallise and articulate the Government’s position, because at the moment this legislation is a sham. It is a complete and utter waste of time. The point is that if the Government had got the legislation right in the first place, we would not be back here now under urgency trying to sort out the issue. It is so important, in National’s view, that the legislation should be back before the select committee, to let the people who will be affected by the legislation have a say.

I have another article, entitled “The Building Bill”. It also has photos of members. The point was made in it very clearly that as New Zealanders we pride ourselves on our practical ability to do our own thing. We have that mentality. We can knock down a wall, tile a bathroom, strip a door, build a deck—no worries. But this legislation means that those provisions will be taken away. This Supplementary Order Paper goes over the top in trying to correct some mistakes that have been made.

As Dr Smith has said, the provisions in the Act in its current form are not being carried through. Clause 3T substitutes section 363 of the principal Act with several new sections. This matter has been talked about in previous debates. The new section 363 is about “Protecting safety of members of public using premises open to public or intended for public use”. Dr Smith has said that if the law as it is written were being carried out, we should not be using the Beehive because of the construction work that is going on at this time. So there is abuse of the system, and that makes a mockery of the Act, which we spent time on. National members articulated those issues at the time. Now a bill has come in under urgency, 12 days after the principal Act was enacted, to try to correct these issues.

Well, our position is very clear. We are opposing this bill. If Government members think the issue is so important that we need to look at it more closely, why is there not a separate bill? Why do we not have a Building Amendment Bill to tidy it up? This bill is the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. It is a means to slip through the back door a Supplementary Order Paper to tidy up the mess of the Building Act, and that should not be happening. If these issues are so important, why is there not an amendment to the Building Act, which was passed last year?

If we take it further than that, we see the disarray that this Government is in. Over the last 5 years seven ministers have been responsible for the building industry.

Hon Ken Shirley: Seven?

LINDSAY TISCH: That is right; seven ministers have been responsible for the building industry. Where is the continuity? Where is the focus when there are different people in charge who do not understand the industry, who have no idea what it is about, and who have never been at the coalface?

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): This legislation has got the building industry up in arms; it is very concerned about it. I was speaking to members of the industry last night, because I had some concerns about the speed with which this legislation came in. They have already spotted errors and problems, and so have we. I ask the Committee to consider new clause 3P, inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 361, which amends section 241 of the Building Act. There are numbers missing. Obviously it was rushed in so quickly that it is all out of order. There are things in the wrong place and there are numbers missing. Even new clause 5A, amending section 438 of the Act, has a number in the wrong place and a number missing. I quickly went through the Supplementary Order Paper and found that paragraphs have been missed out. New clause 3M has paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (i) in new section 165(1). What happened to paragraphs (f) and (g)? Obviously something has been taken out, but nobody went through and checked it. The problem is that this legislation is being rushed through so quickly that errors are appearing again.

New Zealand First believes that this legislation is needed, but that we must get it right. The bill had to come before us because there were errors in the Act. The problems have carried on, and all of a sudden we are rushing the Supplementary Order Paper through, in urgency, in order to correct errors, including some major ones under section 363 of the Act, that have created all sorts of problems in the industry. This Supplementary Order Paper will solve some of them, but it will not solve them all. In fact, it will create more problems, because there will be confusion over the order of things. There are provisions missing and out of place. I ask the Minister in the chair, Pete Hodgson, why we did not put the Supplementary Order Paper before a select committee. If it had gone before a select committee, those issues would have been picked up by the members of the select committee and by the industry. They would have had a chance to take a closer look at the final product.

This document, in its final form, has not been put out to the industry. Yes, a discussion document went out, but a final draft document has not been out to the industry so that it could have a close look at it. People in the industry will spot holes in this legislation in all sorts of directions, and I am afraid that they have already spotted some. The industry has already expressed some concerns to me, and I would like to raise them later on. However, at this point in time I ask why the bill was not put out to a select committee. The select committee process is one where problems can be discovered and sorted out. Let us face it, we had to introduce this legislation to correct section 409 in the Act, because that section created a problem with regard to copyright. Now we are rushing another piece of legislation through the House, a Supplementary Order Paper, because there are so many errors in the Act. It is silly to put this legislation through in such urgency. The Supplementary Order Paper is quite an extensive document. It has a lot of implications, and if we do not get it right that will create many more problems.

I turn to new clause 3R, inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 361, which repeals sections 273(1)(b), 274(a)(ii), and 402(1)(t)(ii) of the principal Act. The question I have about this provision is to do with the register of building consent authorities. How on earth does the chief executive keep track of those authorities when a territorial authority has passed on its information, or transferred its functions, duties, or powers, to another territorial authority? He or she will have no idea about that until such time as errors start to appear and something starts to break down. I ask why the register of those territorial authority functions is not being kept by the chief executive. The chief executive does not have that record, so he or she will not know whom to go to when he or she has a problem. The chief executive will have to go chasing around and asking people left, right, and centre in order to find out who has that information and who has been responsible for the duties that were passed on or transferred by the other territorial authority.

To give members an example of how ridiculous the explanation of that measure is, I tell them that it refers to doing away with the registers of all consent authorities. That includes any private consent authorities, although I do not think there are very many of those left, because the Act makes it virtually impossible for private certifiers to be in existence. The whole thing was so rushed that the Government did not realise it had put in a provision that would do away with the registers for all the building consent authorities. That is just one example of the errors in this legislation. I am sorry to come down so hard on the officials who were put under pressure to come up with this legislation at such short notice. But let us face it, the first phase of the Act came into existence on 30 November 2004. Another very large segment of it came into existence on 31 March this year. From those dates a lot of these errors were known about; a lot of these things were discovered right in the very first stage. Why did it take so long for them to be actioned? It was simply because the Government was hoping the problems would not happen.

I am afraid the biggest example of that is in sections 362 and 363 of the Act, where, if territorial authorities—and I can give examples from Wellington and Auckland—were to follow the literal interpretation of the Act, we would have had to evacuate this building. The territorial authorities have been put in a very awkward situation. They could have set a precedent by ignoring the situation and saying that they would not take any action because everything was OK. But that would set a precedent, and everybody would expect to have the same treatment. That is why the Government suddenly thought it had better get into action and do something about the situation, and by rushing this legislation through it has put the officials under enormous pressure. They have come up with a lot of very good amendments, but there are still some errors in it.

New Zealand First says that the Supplementary Order Paper should be put to a select committee so that it can be sorted out in a proper fashion, with all the issues brought up and discussed with the industry. The building industry really wants the issues to be sorted out. It wants to have certainty in the industry, and it wants to make sure that everything is correct. When I see the number of errors that have occurred in this legislation already, I am afraid that we will just be back in this Chamber again in the not too distant future, to debate more of these issues and try to correct the errors we are about to inflict on the industry yet again. New Zealand First is not supportive of the process regarding this bill, because of its rushed nature—pushing the legislation through in urgency—and because of the errors that are occurring. I will take another call later on to discuss some of the other issues that have been raised by the industry already.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I have a lot of sympathy for the last two speakers, and I think that Brent Catchpole has probably enunciated the dilemma that exists with regard to these amendments fairly well. The difference between New Zealand First and United Future is that we have accepted that the changes that need to be made to the Building Act ought to come into force as quickly as possible. Given that the substantive part of the Act came into force on 31 March, there is a degree of urgency in correcting the problems that have been diagnosed, so that the industry knows where it stands and the ambiguities and confusions in the Act are dealt with. That means, unfortunately, that this bill needs to be rushed through in urgency and that it will not get the due consideration a select committee would give it. Quite simply, the time delay in getting the legislation to a select committee in order for it to consider the bill thoroughly, get submissions in and hear them, and then pass it, would only exacerbate the problems. From United Future’s point of view, we have had some opportunity to look at this legislation over the last few days. We have made suggestions that have been adopted, because changes needed to be made in order to improve the legislation and to correct further ambiguities or errors in it. I am grateful for the Government’s willingness to listen to that.

There is a maxim that rushed legislation is bad legislation. I think we suffer when we rush things through and then find that we have to revisit them later on, because we have not got them right or have made errors. I draw the Committee’s attention to an amendment that I have placed on the Table. It demonstrates the problems there have been in terms of rushing the legislation in. It relates to new section 116B, inserted by clause 3L of Supplementary Order Paper 361, regarding the use of a building or the giving of permission to use a building that is not safe or sanitary, or that has inadequate means of escape from fire. That is a new offence. It has arisen because of situations whereby landlords have allowed people to use buildings for, say, residential occupation, when the buildings were not in a condition to be used for that purpose. There was a recent example of that when a fire nearly resulted in the loss of life. It is important that there be a criminal sanction against people who allow buildings to be used for residential use, in particular, when they do not have sufficient means of escape from fire or are not safe and sanitary. That is what new section 116B is intended to provide.

However, my concern, on looking at the wording of the provision—it states that no person may use a building or permit another person to use a building—is that the courts could well interpret “permit” in a fairly loose way. Even the fact that a building has been used could be enough for the courts to say that a person had permitted it to be used. The fact that a landlord may not have known what a building was being used for, or may not have known it was being misused—for example, if there were squatters in it—could leave the landlord liable. I was particularly fearful that a court could take that broad sort of approach on the basis that every other offence in the Act is a strict liability offence. Those offences are clearly cut and dried—one either has a building permit or has not, either has a code of compliance certificate or has not, and so on. Those matters are very much in the hands of the landlord. But there could be a situation whereby a landlord, with no knowledge of the misuse of a building and no intention to misuse it, had squatters. If there was a fire and loss of life, it seems to me that the heavy penalties a building owner would face under the provision are such that there ought to be an element of what is called mens rea in legal language—some mental knowledge or awareness of what was happening.

I have an amendment on the Table that would change the words: “(a) use a building, or permit another person to use a building,” to “… knowingly permit …”, just to make it quite clear, if somebody were charged with that offence, that effectively that element of knowledge would be necessary. I discussed that with the Government yesterday morning when we were signing this legislation off. The Government had agreed to put that provision in, but it had not quite made it to the drafting stage. I am pleased that the Government will support that change in order to make the situation quite clear. That is an example, again, of something that we may well have had to readdress in the future after a luckless landlord had been caught because of the strict interpretation that had been provided.

One concern that I raised with officials is yet to be attended to. Because it has not been attended to, I am giving some warning of a concern that could arise through a difference between sections 49 and 53 of the Act. The intention of those provisions is for a building levy not to be paid until after a building consent has been granted, but to be paid before the building consent is issued. The difficulty is that section 53 has been amended to clarify that the levy is payable once the consent has been granted. However, section 49 has not been changed. Section 49(2) states that a building consent authority is not required to grant a building consent until it receives the levy. That means a local authority could say that it wants the money upfront and will then grant the consent, which is not what is intended—certainly not what is intended by section 53. We still have a little bit of an ambiguity there. We will have to wait and see whether, in practice, that turns out to be a real issue in terms of the way that local authorities deal with it. It may well be that they take the two sections together and recognise that they should grant consent before they collect the levy. In fact, that would seem to me to be practical. Local authorities do not really want to collect money at the same time that applications go in and then be faced with the situation of having to refund it again if the application is not granted, or of having to collect more money or to refund part of it if the application is changed so that the amount of levy to be paid alters. It seems to me that it is probably more practical from their point of view to grant consent before collecting the levy. That is another example of the teething problems we get with complex legislation like this.

It is a pity, given that the Act was passed 8 months ago, that some of the issues were not picked up early enough to allow them to go through a select committee process, in order for us to look at them more thoroughly and get views on them before the Act was implemented. Some of the issues in section 363, inserted by clause 3T of the bill, that have been referred to seemed to arise only once the Act started to come into force. It is, I suppose, a fact of life in New Zealand that very often legislation is put in place, but it is only once the rubber hits the road and we get to a position whereby somebody has to implement it—that is, the date it comes into force—that suddenly people realise there are some holes in terms of the way it should be implemented and, in particular, some ambiguity. People find out about that only at the time of implementation. Maybe that is really part of the justification for the Government’s urgency on this legislation. Effectively, some of these issues have only recently come to light. That is not something I am overly privy to, but I can imagine that that is a problem. Mr Catchpole, as well as me, has alluded to that as being a possible explanation for the urgency on this legislation.

There are some other provisions in this legislation. Most of the provisions, as I have previously said, are really matters of technical change and clarification. For example, the issue of cable cars was one whereby, under the provisions of the Act as it stood, if a single resident had a cable car, he or she had to get a compliance schedule. That was intended to be a compliance schedule for the cable car, but the way the provision was written meant a resident with a cable car would have then had to get a compliance schedule for everything in his or her house, when other residents did not have to get compliance schedules. There has been a clarification of that requirement, in that a single resident who has a cable car will have to get a compliance schedule only in regard to the cable car. That, of course, is what was intended. Those sorts of minor changes have been necessary to avoid hardship—in that case, to single residential owners—so that people would not be faced with the draconian problems that would arise through the unintended consequences of provisions in the Act.

I note also that there has been a change to the carrying out of restricted work, to make it clear that it is quite in order for somebody who is not a licensed building practitioner to carry out restricted work, as long as that work is supervised. The Act made it an offence for someone to carry out restricted work without being licensed, and it was not made clear that the supervision of restricted work by a person who is a licensed building practitioner is OK. That matter has been clarified in new clause 3G, and as well there is clarification of an issue regarding design work in new clause 3A. There was a need to clarify that not all design work will need a building permit. Somebody picked up on an ambiguity, whether real or imaginary, by suggesting that anybody who carried out any design work first had to get a building permit. Some design work will come within the definition, but that will be done by Order in Council. That is another important change.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues): I would like to thank the United Future member Murray Smith for his very helpful contribution in the last 10 minutes, and also acknowledge the very helpful contributions that United Future has made in the process of dealing with some mistakes that were made in this bill. We have seen a lot of crocodile tears cried over the need to change legislation. It has been curious to hear members—in particular, Nick Smith and Ken Shirley yesterday—carrying on and saying what a muck-up this bill has been. Of course, there were some mistakes, but I remind members that the Resource Management Act, passed by National in the early 1990s, has been changed 13 times. The Companies Act, also passed by National, has been changed numerous times. It happens with complex legislation that is being put into practice. It has to be adjusted to the realities of how things work.

This legislation to be amended, passed not so long ago, has over 450 clauses and has a lot of practical effect on the building industry. In fact, there were only two significant problems. The first is the copyright issue, in section 410, which United Future has been extremely helpful in working through—and New Zealand First for that matter. The second is safety in a public building where construction is taking place in part of it, in section 363. There has been a lot of legal debate about whether there was even really a problem there, but I accept that greater guidance needed to be given. We had some silly comments made by Nick Smith saying that Parliament needed to be closed down because the Beehive was having renovations. Curiously, the Wellington City Council, the territorial authority that makes that decision, said immediately that no such consideration was ever going to be given, that there was no problem. But, of course, Nick Smith has continued to put out press releases claiming all sorts of nonsense about it.

I want to comment on a few things that Murray Smith raised. He said he felt there was a contradiction between clauses 49 and 53. We have had legal advice from the department and there does not seem to be a problem, but we will talk through that issue with the member. We do not think there is a problem. He has put forward an amendment to new clause 3L to insert the word “knowingly”. That gives greater clarity for landlords, as the member explained in his presentation. I thank him for that contribution and we will certainly agree to that.

We are here fixing up a bit of practical legislation. I am pleased we are able to do that. As I said, there are only two significant problems, and one of them we do not even think is a problem, but we will just make sure that everyone is clear about that. We have an opportunity to go through a complex, large piece of legislation and fix up all those little things that inevitably happen when one is drawing up a big document—such as grammatical errors; numbering problems, which Dr Nick Smith spent an extraordinary amount of time talking about yesterday; and all those practical little things that happen inevitably in big drafting issues. We have that chance today. We are taking advantage of it. I am pleased and believe we will have better legislation at the end of this process.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): I think the Committee and the country should be deeply alarmed by the comments we have just heard from the Minister. He is trying to sweep this major problem, this very complex legislation, under the carpet by saying that this is just about little wee things, such as numerical problems and grammatical errors. I tell the Minister that that is why legislation should go to a select committee. That is why this Parliament, before it rushes in to pass laws, calls for public submissions to hear what people out in the community with experience, such as he has not got, might think about it. But no, he is captured by his officials. He rushes to the Parliament with this legislation, under urgency, and rams it through. All he is doing is putting a sticking-plaster on a weeping sore, because the situation is this: this Building Act was passed some 8 months ago; part of it became operative on 30 November last year; another significant part became operative on 31 March this year. That is just 13 days ago! Yet here we have another amending piece of legislation 13 days later.

But here is the real catch: a Supplementary Order Paper has been cobbled together and it is 10 times the size of the amending bill, but none of it is going to a select committee. That is arrogantly bypassing the proper processes of passing legislation. This Minister knows it. It is a disgrace, and he tries to sweep it under the carpet, as error after error is exposed here in the Committee. He has entered into a sort of back-scratching exercise, a mutual admiration society; with the doormat party United Future.

I shall comment on the speech made by Murray Smith from United Future, prior to the Minister’s speech. He was proudly claiming credit—it was sort of the great achievement of United Future, yet he shot himself down with his own words. I do not know whether any members have picked up off the table his amendment in hastily scrawled handwriting. Here he is in the Committee talking about legislation that is not going to a select committee, making further amendments to legislation that he is proudly claiming he has had all this great input into. In other words, he is acknowledging he has not got it right, and it is legislation on the hoof.

It is a very bad process and we are seeing far too much of that practice under this Government. It is panic legislation. It is a knee-jerk reaction, and the building laws of this country are far too important to be fiddling with and changing on the hoof in the way this is being done.

This Government has made an absolute mess of the building laws. On the one hand it has totally removed the longstanding tradition of the Kiwi do-it-yourselfer, who is totally driven out of the industry, and Government members might well say that the building industry supports that. Well, of course they do! Has the Government not heard of restrictive trade practice? All employment groups love banning the do-it-yourselfer, because then they get more work. Instead we have this great layer of registration upon registration. I know a lot of Kiwis who are quite competent in this work. I actually built my first house. I lived in it before it was completed. There were no problems. It is still standing, does not leak, and that was over 30 years ago.

Brent Catchpole: A good tent!

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: A very good house it was, I might add. That is the point. That has all ended now. No one can do any work within the structural envelope of the building. It is a nonsense. For the Minister to try to sweep under the carpet the fiasco we had in the clause that clearly stated—he might try to argue that it was ambiguous, but it was very clear—that someone cannot occupy any part of a public building that is subject to works, whether or not they are maintenance, restorative, or whatever, is a nonsense. It was very clear, and the Minister tries to say: “No, no, the city council was prepared to go along with that.” Well, I say: “Shame on the city council!” That is the problem with so many of our laws. We are not properly enforcing the many laws that we have passed, and at the same time we try to bring in layers and layers of more restrictive and prescriptive laws. This is bad legislation, and I urge the Parliament not to pass it.

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

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; Māori Party 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Murray Smith to proposed new clause 3L set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson be agreed to:

to insert in paragraph (a) of proposed new section 116B(1) of the Building Act 2004, before the word “permit”, the word “knowingly”

Amendment to the amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Murray Smith to proposed new clause 3L set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson be agreed to:

to insert in paragraph (b) of proposed new section 116B(1) of the Building Act 2004, before the word “permit”, the word “knowingly”.

Amendment to the amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 70

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Māori Party 1.

Amendments as amended agreed to, and Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Commerce Act 1986

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3 Amendment to Copyright Act 1994

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 356 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to clause 10 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 83

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

Noes 34

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Māori Party 1.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek clarification on the vote on Part 1. Can you please tell me what the vote on that part was?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Part 1 as amended was agreed to on the voices.

LINDSAY TISCH: I seek leave of the Committee to put that vote again, because National wants to record a vote against.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. The Clerk will conduct a party vote on Part 1 as amended.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. If National just wants to change its vote, the other parties do not need to vote again, do they?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): My understanding is that Part 1 as amended was agreed to on the voices and therefore that we need to conduct a full vote.

Part 1 Amendments to Building Act 2004 (recommitted)

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Amendments to Health Act 1956

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Part 4 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Clause 1 agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Clause 2 agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I need to clarify a vote, because the Clerk at the Table is not sure whether the vote was heard correctly. It is the vote on the Minister’s amendment to Part 3. I ask the Green Party to be so good as to repeat their votes on Part 3.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): We are for the Minister’s amendment and opposed to the part.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues), on behalf of the Minister of Commerce: I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Building Amendment Bill (No 3), the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 4), the Copyright Amendment Bill, and the Health Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 355.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Motion agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Readings

Third Readings

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues), on behalf of the Minister of Commerce: I move, That the Building Amendment Bill (No 3), the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 4), the Copyright Amendment Bill, and the Health Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This legislation corrects an unintended effect that resulted from the inclusion of an additional section in three Acts: the Building Act of 2004, the Commerce Act of 1986, and the Health Act of 1956. All those Acts require that when material has been incorporated by reference, those with delegated or statutory responsibility must make that material free of charge on the Internet.

In terms of the Building Act, to avoid the potentially negative effects that these requirements have the legislation removes the obligation of the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing to make available free of charge on the Internet material incorporated by reference. This provision is replaced with a requirement on the chief executive to make available for inspection free of charge, at all the department’s regional offices, key material incorporated by reference in regulations and compliance documents, including standards used by building practitioners in areas such as the use of timber and concrete in the construction of buildings, the design of buildings using timber and concrete, plumbing installation, access for persons with disabilities, and energy efficiency. In addition, the chief executive must make available for inspection free of charge at the department’s Wellington office all material incorporated by reference. All material will also be available for purchase at all the department’s offices. By amending the Building Act in this way, the Government has endeavoured to strike a balance between the facilitation of access to material incorporated by reference, and the legitimate commercial interests of the owners of copyright in standards and other material that may be incorporated by reference.

For the same reasons I have just outlined, the legislation also amends the Health Act and the Commerce Act, in order to remove the positive obligation on the Director-General of Health and the chairperson of the Commerce Commission to make material incorporated by reference available free of charge on the Internet. That obligation has been replaced with a provision that allows the director-general or chairperson to make material incorporated by reference available in any other way he or she may consider appropriate in the circumstances. Neither currently incorporates material by reference, and neither has any plans to do so, but the amendments in this legislation future-proof those Acts. In addition to the amendments I have just outlined, the legislation also amends the Copyright Act to clarify that the non-Crown copyright is affected when material subject to copyright is incorporated by reference into legislation. All these amendments ensure that the standards development process in New Zealand can remain up to date with international best practice. In addition, they ensure that the development of joint standards by Australia and New Zealand can continue, by ensuring that domestic and international copyright is given appropriate protection.

As implementation of the Building Act took effect, some small anomalies and technical errors were identified. Most important, there has been some debate around section 363 relating to the occupation of public buildings. These have been rectified by this legislation to make the Building Act more effective. I thank United Future for its support in this very worthwhile enterprise.

I commend this legislation to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Politics has been dominated for the last fortnight by a speech given by John Tamihere, in which he made three particular references. The first of those was that we were verging on a dictatorship—that this Parliament was being treated with disrespect—and that the Leader of the House, Michael Cullen, was “sneaky” in the way in which he dealt with issues. We were also told with exquisite language about the features of this particular Minister, Chris Carter, who was referred to as one who tosses things.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No. I ruled out the use of that word last night, and I would appreciate it if the member would come to order.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My point is that this legislation, and the appalling way this Parliament has been treated, have reinforced everything that John Tamihere said. Let me explain why. What we have seen is a sneaky little bill—the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill, which makes only one change to the Building Act—being introduced into the House, then a 20-page Supplementary Order Paper with 21 significant changes has been brought in over the top of it. That should concern you, Mr Speaker, because one of your duties is to protect this Parliament, and this Parliament is being walked over like you would not believe.

Only last week we saw the Government believing that it could simply walk all its Ministers out and shut down this House of Representatives. What we see with the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) is exactly the same sort of abuse and lack of respect for this democratic institution. What we really have here is the Government making an absolute botch of New Zealand’s building laws—and that matters, because the building industry is worth $18 billion per year to the New Zealand economy. The industry employs 230,000 people. Those people depend on a set of sensible building laws that are practical and workable, and that ensure we have homes and buildings that will serve our nation well. What we have is an arrogant Government that, under urgency, rammed through a botched bill written by a bunch of Ministers who would not have the foggiest idea about the building industry.

In this Government there have been six different Ministers for building issues. For a start, we had Mark Burton. We then had George Hawkins. We then had Lianne Dalziel. We then had Margaret Wilson. We then had John Tamihere. Now, we have Chris Carter, and to make matters even worse, this legislation is in the name of Pete Hodgson. It is little wonder that the building industry is crying out for some reasonable leadership and rules, when that sort of game of musical chairs is occurring on the Government benches. No Minister in charge of this portfolio area has been in charge for a period in excess of 9 months, so it is little wonder that it is the mess that it is.

A fortnight ago, during question time, I raised with the Minister for Building Issues, Chris Carter, a series of concerns about the Building Act, and I will quote what he said. He said: “There is no problem.” If there is no problem, why are we ramming 21 changes to the Building Act through this Parliament under urgency? Was he being untruthful then, or now? It must be one or the other. He cannot have said 2 weeks ago that there was no problem, and now say: “Hang on, we have to ram through 21 changes to the Building Act.”

I will make a bet today. The Government botched it the first time. It ended up with a Building Act that was totally unworkable, and that ended up with a Government breaking its own law. The officials in the Department of Building and Housing came before the Government Administration Committee and said: “Yeah, sorry, we are breaking the law.” Well, that is becoming a habit with the Government—whether it be in terms of forging paintings or of going at 150 kilometres an hour while every other New Zealander doing that gets pinged. And now we now have it in respect of the building laws, where the Government, over both copyright issues and occupation of the Beehive, has blatantly breached its own laws. That is the sorry state we have ended up with.

I will make a bet that any one of these changes will create more errors. I have to make a comment about United Future. United Future members supported going into urgency so that the building legislation could be passed in a mad rush. When National expressed concern at the time, they said: “No, no, it’s all right. It’s all OK. We have it absolutely right.”

Murray Smith: I never said that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, well, why did the member support urgency? I say to Murray Smith that he has put us under urgency, he voted for urgency, he voted the legislation through the House, and he said that it was all OK. Will he stake his reputation on these amendments being correct? If the Government has it wrong again, will the member take responsibility? United Future members said that they would be the honest brokers for the Government, yet they will allow the Government to treat this Parliament with the disrespect that sees 21 substantial amendments—20 pages of law—that were tabled only yesterday afternoon to be the law of the land by lunchtime today. United Future says that that is good lawmaking. United Future will be campaigning this year and saying: “Vote for us because we will ram 20 pages of law, affecting one of New Zealand’s largest industries, through Parliament within 24 hours.”, and United Future says that that is good lawmaking. It is shonky lawmaking, it is appalling lawmaking, it is a mess, it is causing great strife within the building industry, and the problems are not finished. The wallies on the Government benches have decided that the good old—

Hon Dover Samuels: The only wallies are on that side.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would like Mr Samuels to explain this to me. Why are we banning ordinary New Zealanders from being able to do building work on their own homes? There has never been any evidence presented to the select committee or anywhere else—in fact I have asked the Minister—on how many of the 2,300 claims made over weathertightness resulted from do-it-yourself builders. The answer is none, as far as we know. Why, then, is the Government prohibiting the New Zealand homeowner from doing building work on his or her own home? [Interruption] Oh, well, we have David Cunliffe. He says it all. He has answered the question that I have been asking Ministers. He said it is because homeowners do a crap job. Well, I have to say to David Cunliffe that generations of aspiring New Zealanders have done building work on their own homes and have improved those homes and, as a consequence of doing that, they have been able to get themselves ahead in life.

I was one of those New Zealanders. I had a little old house in Riccarton. I built an extra room on to it, knocked some walls out, and upgraded it, and that improved my equity. That is how generations of New Zealanders have been able to improve their lot, and this Government is saying: “Nope. You will not be allowed to do that in future. We will abolish the ability for New Zealanders to be able to get themselves ahead.” That move would be so typical of the control freak approach taken by the Labour Government that has got it into so much trouble with this particular legislation.

This process is an absolute disgrace. I remember being in Government, and Labour members would be completely throwing their marbles in the House because we had law changed over weeks. This law has not seen the light of more than 1 day. In the Minister’s contribution we have just heard, he made only passing reference to what he called a few minor and technical changes. Well, is it minor and technical that all our architects, designers, and engineers are prohibited by law from doing design work because of the mad drafting and mad laws that the Government has imposed here?

This will not be the last amendment to the Building Act. This is one of the worst reforms that I have seen in my 15 years in this Parliament. It is a diabolical mess. The Minister Chris Carter, and the chair of the select committee, Dianne Yates, should be apologising to the building industry for making such a mess of the law for which they are responsible. We have a Building Act that has been written by control freaks who have no practical idea as to how the building industry in New Zealand functions. They do not know the practical dimensions of what it is to be able to provide good quality buildings. They have added hugely to the costs for no benefit. The industry will continue to pull its hair out, but my response to the building industry is that help is on the way—a common-sense National Government will fix the Building Act later this year, because the building industry knows from this bill that Labour cannot be trusted.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): The Building Amendment Bill (No 3), which is the first part of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill, has come about because the officials, particularly the Legislation Advisory Committee, added a clause into the original Building Bill that had not gone past the select committee. That clause resulted in documents having to be put up on to the website. An unexpected result—because the Government had not discussed it with the industry—was that a whole lot of documents referred to in those documents also had to go on the website. The particular section, section 409, insisted that all documents had to be on the website.

As a result, a lot of copyrighted information had to be put on to the website free of charge. A lot of those items, in particular the standards and other technical details of manufacturers’ products, are confidential, very highly prized, and worth a lot of money to the individual manufacturers. That information had to be automatically put on to the website. Of course, that left people in the industry out of pocket. One of the major examples is Standards New Zealand. It relies on the income from selling its standards to people who require them. That is a means of funding that organisation. So forcing it to put those things on a website free of charge meant that a funding stream was going to be cut off, and that was going to make it very difficult for the organisation to continue to operate.

The other aspect of this legislation that makes New Zealand First very disappointed in this Government is the Supplementary Order Paper that has gone through that makes changes to the Building Act. Yes, a lot of those changes were needed, particularly the one to section 363, which was worded in such a way as to leave a bit of confusion and doubt. If it was read one way, then there was no problem, but it could be interpreted to mean that all buildings that had not been issued with a code of compliance certificate were not allowed to be occupied. The reason for that goes back to the Cave Creek incident when a platform that had not been signed off as code compliant or inspected collapsed, causing loss of life.

We accept that safety is a major factor that needs to be taken into account when we look at the Building Act, but unfortunately it was taken too far under section 363 and meant that the whole site had to be completed. Let me give an example of a situation where this becomes ridiculous. A multi-storey apartment block or a building that the public has access to is largely completed, except for the white lines in the car-park. Under this particular section, that building cannot be occupied until those white lines have been put in. However, there is now a mechanism that allows the territorial authority to alter the consent and allow a certificate of public use, so that the building can be used while those lines are still to be put in.

There is also another mechanism that allows a notice—I cannot find the actual terminology—enabling the site to be used. The territorial authority can alter the consent to take that into account. Of course, it makes a bit of a mockery of the process when a council is allowed to change the original consent and to actually take out a part of that consent. Why would anybody put the painting of the lines into a consent in the first place, when that person could just apply later on to put them in later, to prevent occupation of the whole building being halted. That particular example is one that was highlighted to me, and I think it really needed to be looked at a bit further.

That is why New Zealand First is opposing this legislation now—because there are errors. We have just had a whole raft of those errors highlighted in the House very quickly last night and this morning. The Building Bills were rushed through in such a hurry that errors were allowed to slip in. The original building legislation went through a select committee. A lot of errors were picked up during the drafting stage, and we on the select committee picked up a lot of errors. However, by putting through under urgency a Supplementary Order Paper—and, as has been noted by other members, it is a substantial Supplementary Order Paper—without it going to a select committee, we are making rushed alterations to the Act. Yes, the Act has some errors and has some problems, but we have already discovered that the legislation going through the House now is exaggerating some of those errors. Unfortunately, by not sending the Supplementary Order Paper to a select committee we are allowing errors to slip in.

The industry will be confused—the confusion will continue—because it will find other big holes that could have been picked up if the legislation had gone to a select committee. The whole process of this Parliament involves select committees that invite the public, and particularly those members of the industry who are affected, to make submissions. Through that process we sort out most of the problems and get legislation that is right, and is very close to what the industry requires, and what the public expects. But we have rushed this legislation through the House over the last day and a half, and I think we have made a huge error in not allowing the Supplementary Order Paper to go to a select committee so that the errors it contains could be corrected.

It is unfortunate that the officials were put under so much pressure to get the legislation here in such a short time, when they should have been given a lot more time. The first phase of the Building Act came into force on 30 November last year, and the next major phase came into effect on 31 March this year. Some of the issues had already been discovered long before the second phase came into effect, but it was as it came into effect that everybody started to panic. That, of course, put pressure on the officials to come up with corrections. I know they were working right up to the last minute to try to get the legislation right before it was sent out to several members of the House to have a look at, but we did not have time to go through it with a fine-tooth comb and put it out to very many people in the industry for their feedback. I managed to get some feedback last night. I discussed it with a few people and they picked holes in it straight away.

I am afraid that as we have not put the legislation to a select committee, those holes will reappear and will require another piece of legislation to come before this House very soon.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): Just to recap, we have a mess here. The Building Act was passed some 8 months ago. Part of it became operative on 30 November last year, just a few months back. Another significant part of it became operative on 31 March, only 13 days ago. If anyone needs to be given proof that this is legislation on the hoof, here it is. We are making a significant amendment just 13 days after that part of the legislation became operative. Moreover, we now have a 21-page Supplementary Order Paper that is 10 times bigger than the amendment itself. It is the sticking plaster on top of the sticking plaster on top of the festering wound.

United Future proudly claims credit for all this good work. The United Future members call it good work. They imply that it would not have happened if it had not been for their efforts, and I suspect that that is right. But that is nothing to claim credit for; it is something to be deeply ashamed of and apologetic for. And, in fact, we even had an amendment tabled by Mr Smith of United Future this morning during the Committee stage—scribbled out in his handwriting—after he had proudly claimed that he had worked on the legislation. He was very proud of the legislation, and implied that he had put it right. Yet here we have, even today, a handwritten further amendment. This legislation is a mess, and the building laws are a mess.

Perhaps what I found to be the most revealing comment came in this very third reading debate this morning, in response to an interjection from, I think, Dr Smith, who wanted to know why home handymen and women cannot continue to do the work that they have always done on their homes. Kiwis have great aptitude for building, and great experience at it that has been passed down from father to son. What was the response from Mr Cunliffe, the “junior Minister of Commerce” who actually has a responsibility associated with this bill? He said that oh no, the Government could not allow Kiwis to do building at home because they do a crap job. That is what he said. What a gross generalisation that was! What arrogance it was! I have never heard such arrogance in this House, but it typifies the thinking of this Labour Government, which somehow believes that only nanny State can control and direct those sorts of things. We need another regulation and more prescriptive controls from nanny State, to protect us all from ourselves—that is what the Labour Minister Cunliffe said here in the House today.

I think a lot of New Zealanders will take deep offence at that. I am certainly offended by that statement, as someone who built his own home over 30 years ago—a house that is still standing and does not leak. I know many of my friends did likewise. In fact, most of the homes in the Hutt Valley were built by soldiers returning from the war, who formed gangs and built each others’ homes. They reciprocated, and then went down and built the house next door. A lot of Hutt Valley homes were built in that way. But this Labour Government is saying that no, there is to be no more of that. We might have had 100 years in this society of good, innovative Kiwis doing a good job, yet the Government is saying that they cannot do that because they do a crap job. That is deeply insulting.

Of course, the building industry agrees with the Government. It says that yes, it wants there to be more restrictions and more controls. Well, of course it would want that. Has it not heard of restrictive trade practice? The bigger the building company, the more the industry supports it. There are so many laws and controls here that one now needs to employ one’s own bureaucrats in order to get approvals through city hall and through the various Crown agencies. Of course, that is economy-of-scale stuff. That gears things more—weights them more—in favour of the larger construction companies. So the home handyman is gone, and the small construction guy is at a serious disadvantage with this type of legislation. It is all about more central control—more central control from the Labour Government.

The United Future party members are proud. They are trying to say that this legislation is really their handiwork—that it is their work, and they did it. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should be hanging their heads low, in deep shame. Perhaps what is even more disgraceful—and I think this underscores the arrogance of this Government—is that having messed up the original Act passed only 8 months ago, and having brought an amendment to the House and then a Supplementary Order Paper that is 10 times bigger than that bill, the Government is not even letting Supplementary Order Paper 361 go to a select committee. Government members are saying this legislation is so urgent that they have to ram it through under urgency, without any select committee hearing or submissions from the public.

We had the Minister in the chair, earlier this morning, try to excuse that by saying the amendments were just to correct minor numerical and grammatical errors. Well, they are not; they are more substantive than that. We have things such as penalty clauses where one can be liable for a $100,000 fine or $10,000-a-day fines. Are those perhaps just numerical problems, and do they have the decimal point in the wrong place, a nought or two dropped off, or a nought or two added? Who knows? Those sorts of errors impact hugely on Kiwis’ lives every day, and the Government is ramming this legislation through under urgency.

The Minister, of course, was tossed aside. The Minister for Building Issues, Chris Carter, was tossed aside, and we had Supplementary Order Paper 361 in the name of Peter Hodgson. We had a bit of a discussion last night about the Minister being tossed aside. Was he actually the “tossee” or the “tossor”? We could not actually decide on that. He is clearly one of those: either the “tossee” or the “tossor”.

This is shameful legislation, and the ACT party will be opposing it. I notice that the National Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the Greens are opposing it. The only reason this legislation is going through Parliament under urgency is that the United Future party somehow thinks the legislation is good. It has not been able to convince us of that or tell the House what is good about it. The United Future members proudly claim this legislation as their own handiwork. Every builder, every home handyman or woman, and everyone who has any involvement with building structures out there should know that this bad legislation is a direct result of the United Future party, and should say: “Shame on United Future.”

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the third readings of this legislation, which started life as the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. It has now become four bills: the Building Amendment Bill (No 3), the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 4), the Copyright Amendment Bill, and the Health Amendment Bill.

I come to this speech with a particular interest in building issues that I brought to Parliament through my background of having been a lawyer for 26 years. During that time I acted for literally hundreds of home purchasers, home vendors, land developers, owners who were contracting builders, and builders—including one builder I fell out with because of substandard buildings that were being built, and who actually fell foul of the leaky homes legislation. I have been involved in drawing up contracts to purchase buildings and to build buildings. I have acted for purchasers and for builders in disputes, in mediations, arbitrations, and court proceedings, and I have even acted for a tradesman in a disciplinary hearing. So I came with a particular interest in the building industry.

For that reason I joined the Government Administration Committee in its consideration of the inquiry into weathertight homes, and also joined it for consideration of the Building Bill. As part of that I was privileged to visit Australia and meet, among other people, the Australian Building Codes Board, and I got a feel for what was happening both at an Australian-wide level and also at a state level in Australia in terms of the building industry, and for furthering the way that it cooperates with New Zealand. I hope and think that through that, and through the 26 years’ experience that I have had, I understand a bit about New Zealand homeowners, what their needs are, and how they think, and also understand a bit about the building industry in terms of its needs and the way that it thinks and works. My time in the House has enabled me also now to see the issues from a policy perspective, from a nationwide perspective, and from a perspective of the needs that we have as a nation as we move forward in terms of the building industry.

Being privileged to be with United Future means that I have been able to be in a position of having some influence in terms of the direction of legislation—to provide support for the Government but also to provide restraint on the Government at times. That is the role we have. As a centre party we are in a position where we are able to prevent the excesses of the major parties, and to promote good, common-sense solutions. With only eight out of 120 MPs we are not always able to get our way, and, in particular, where Labour has wanted to push extreme ideological issues it has been able to find the support of the Greens, who specialise in extreme ideological issues, in order to do things that we do not think make common sense. Our goal is, with the help of the New Zealand public, of course, to have greater ability to be the party of restraint, and to keep Labour and National on a centre course rather than their being pulled to the extremes that the Greens and ACT respectively would pull them, or being reliant on the proven instability and unpredictability of the New Zealand First Party.

In terms of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill, in my first-reading speech I went into detail on the considerable input United Future had had in the development of that legislation, and, in particular, the extent of the input we had had to make sure that, as far as possible, all information would be readily available free of charge to building practitioners. We required of the Government that the legislation be changed from the position that it had drafted, which would have allowed the chief executive discretion in terms of how that information was to be made available, to one that made it mandatory for the chief executive to make as much of that information available to building practitioners at a local level as was possible. So the restriction that was necessary, in terms of the copyright issues that incorporation by reference documents give rise to, was kept as narrowly as possible to the standards, which were, effectively, the ones that needed to have copyright protected. Beyond that, everything was readily available.

I am delighted that we have reached that position—in particular, with the amendment bill to the Building Act that has been agreed to. We are now in a position where, effectively, even compliance documents that are produced by the Government mandatorily have to be made available free of charge on the Internet. I am delighted that as of 2 weeks ago all compliance documents are now on the Internet, available free of charge for building practitioners to access. That is making information more available than it has been in the past, and, indeed, one of the changes that has been made by this legislation—in particular, the change to the Copyright Act—removes the Crown’s hold on documents that it has copyright in, so that those documents are freely available to be copied and used by the general public. So the Crown has abandoned its right to copyright, and that, too, will further the ability of that information to be made available and put into public hands.

So United Future members are pleased with the changes we brought about in the primary legislation in terms of incorporation by reference, and the fact that we have now been able to achieve the goal we set out to achieve, which was, as I said before, to make as much of this information as possible available free of charge at a local level for all New Zealanders, in particular building practitioners, to access.

National speaks with a degree of righteous indignation about the amendments to the legislation and the way in which it has happened, but it did exactly the same thing itself. It is inevitable that, in legislation as comprehensive as the changes to the Building Act, there will be mistakes and they will be picked up. It will not stop now. Even at the passing of the Building Act, I made it clear in my speeches that I envisaged there would need to be amendments as the legislation settled down. As I said previously today, it is not surprising that, as the legislation starts to come into operation, which it did on 31 March, and the rubber hits the road, suddenly issues come to light as local authorities and others have to start implementing it. Suddenly they find there is a hole that needs to be plugged, or an ambiguity, as in the case of section 363, that needs to be clarified. That is an inevitable result of legislation as complex as this that has changed the building regime from the laissez-faire regime we had in the 1990s to something that tries to provide a balance between the prescriptiveness that operated before 1990, and the looseness that operated after 1990.

I remind National that, at the end of the day, it created the mess we had, through the former Building Act and the changes made in 1990. That created a situation where there was complete, free, unrestrained ability of people to build what they wanted with scant, inadequate policing through the Building Industry Authority and through local authorities, which themselves were not held to account. Those huge problems resulted in the whole leaky homes problem that has arisen; it originated out of the National Government’s changes. The recent Building Act tightened the processes in a way that tried to provide some balance. Now we have the early, teething problems, and we need to make minor corrections to the direction of the Building Act in order to clear up some of those problems.

It will not stop here. I have always said, and I said previously, that this will not be the last legislation amending the Building Act. It is absolutely inevitable that, as it beds down, other issues will arise and some clarifications and changes will need to be made. That will be simply as a matter of course. It happened with the National Government’s legislation, with the Resource Management Act, the Local Government Act, and all those things; major changes need some bedding down.

That shows that big parties need a centre party to second-guess them, to provide some restraint, and even to give an independent view so that Governments can do their job better. That is the sort of role that United Future can provide, and will provide, in terms of both Labour and National—both of them having said they want to work with us. That is the sort of role we can provide in Parliament. It is an absolutely vital role—to ensure that the big parties maintain a centre position and do not get pulled to their extremes.

In terms of section 363, clearly there had to be some urgent change because of the ambiguity. That prompted the need to make these changes in a prompt manner, and the Government has, not surprisingly, taken the opportunity to correct some of the technical and administrative problems that have arisen that are not matters of huge significance but, nevertheless, in being corrected bring the Building Act to what it was always intended to be. This legislation is not perfect. I am sure that faults will continue to be found in it—in both the original Building Act and even the legislation that is being passed. It is unfortunate that it has had to be done urgently. Nevertheless, United Future supports the need for the changes, so that we can get the Building Act under way in the best possible way now.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): One of the reasons for the leaky building fiasco, which Parliament had an inquiry into, was that builders and developers were not following the standards and rules that were in place. That was one of the main reasons, we concluded, that this fiasco of the leaky building syndrome came about. Therefore, to try to ensure that all builders would have access to all the standards, and would not have the excuse that they did not see them, we made a provision under the Building Act that the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing must make all material incorporated by reference—and that includes all building standards—available free of charge on the Internet. Let us be under no illusion, despite all the bland reassurances from Murray Smith, a United Future member, whose party is propping up this legislation, that all documents would be available free of charge. I assure him and also any listeners that it is not true. Building standards will no longer be provided free of charge on the Internet.

Just to confirm that—because Murray Smith was busily saying last night that that was not the case—this morning we tried to download a basic building standard. Instead, we could not do so, because it was blocked. Instead, we would have to pay $232, plus GST, to get a basic building standard that all builders in New Zealand would be expected to comply with. Murray Smith has just told us that that is not true. He has just told us that every compliance document and all of the rules will be available free. [Interruption] He says that a building standard is not a compliance document, but it is. The building standard is the standard. It is the rule that everyone must follow. It is the most important document—the building standard that builders must follow. Some builders do not have access to those standards. Already, we have spoken to some builders who have said there is no way that they will spend $232, plus GST, to download a basic standard. They will rely on old knowledge.

That is completely contrary to the objectives of the Building Act, and the reason why we said that important material like building standards should be available free of charge on the Internet. That is why, in the debate on the Building Act, we went to considerable lengths to say that we must make it an obligation on the chief executive to make documents such as standards freely available on the Internet. This bill removes the obligation on the chief executive to make building standards available free of charge; now, they no longer are. It sets a precedent. It allows not only Standards New Zealand but others to start charging for information that should be freely available. The building standards in New Zealand are owned by Standards New Zealand. They are already owned by the Government, so there is not a copyright issue. They are owned by the New Zealand Government, and are standards that we require everyone to follow so that, we hope, we can avert another leaky building fiasco. But now builders are not allowed to download the standards for free from the Internet, which was the purpose of the legislation. Not even the standards that are owned by Standards New Zealand will be published online.

I can assure members that architects and builders are mystified. They are also angry about it. Why should they be required to pay for a standard that they must follow? What is the sense of that? With this silly little issue, which is presumably all about allowing the Government to earn money by charging builders $232, plus GST, for a basic standard, are we putting the desire to make a little bit of money from selling a standard that is supposed to be free on the Internet ahead of the whole intention of our new Building Act? That intention was to try to prevent a leaky building fiasco from happening again. We are telling all the builders in New Zealand that they have to pay through the nose for the standards, but there will be builders who do not do it. They will not spend the money, and will instead rely on their old knowledge. We may very well find that we are contributing, through this niggardly, miserly provision, to further examples of leaky buildings.

As the Greens have stated before, we have no problem acknowledging that international standards that are not owned by Standards New Zealand have copyright issues, and therefore cannot be freely available unless the Government purchases them. To buy all the copyrights for all international standards is probably not realistic. But the standards owned by Standards New Zealand are owned by the Government. Every builder and developer in New Zealand is obliged to follow those standards. Now we are changing this legislation to say that builders and developers can no longer get the basic standards free of charge on the Internet; now they will have to pay $232, plus GST, to download them. These standards are already blocked on the Internet. Murray Smith might like to check that he can no longer download from the Internet the basic standards that all builders are expected to comply with. The intention of the Building Act was to enable building standards to be freely available on the Internet—[Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you protect me from the constant interruptions from the member to my left. He is obviously agitated. I ask you to get him to contain himself.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The crosstalk does distract. I ask the member to desist.

Murray Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have not been constantly barraging the member, but when I hear so much drivel coming from the Green Party I cannot help but make some response.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. I also remind Mr Power that I am ruling on the point of order; he is not. He should not call out: “That is not a point of order.” when a member is speaking to a point of order.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not think we adequately resolved that issue. The member on her feet quite rightly called for the protection of the Chair from barraging from the cross benches. I am sitting between the members and the noise was deafening. It was a constant barrage of drivel. I think the member is entitled to protection from the Chair in that situation.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before Murray Smith rose to speak to the point of order, I had indicated to him that the barraging across the cross benches was not acceptable. That had already been dealt with.

SUE KEDGLEY: Thank you for your protection and intervention, Madam Speaker. Some of the regulations, legislation, and compliance documents will be available for inspection only in Wellington. Will we have builders flying to Wellington from around New Zealand? Will people from Whangarei fly to Wellington to look at these regulations? Obviously, they will not. The Government has said it is trying to reduce compliance costs in New Zealand. It has a mantra that it is reducing compliance costs and protecting small businesses. With this legislation it is increasing compliance costs. It is charging small businesses—as builders often are—around New Zealand for a basic standard that they have to comply with. They will have to pay $232. That increases compliance costs; it does not reduce them. It goes against the Government’s stated mantra about reducing compliance costs.

It is also against the intention of the Building Act, which was to ensure that materials such as standards were available free of charge on the Internet so that we could avoid a repetition of the leaky building syndrome. Evidence was presented to us that one of the reasons for the leaky building fiasco was that builders were not following standards. We wanted to make it absolutely easy and simple for all builders to follow standards, so that they would have no excuse for not doing so. That is why we wanted to make the standards available free of charge on the Internet. It is ridiculous that we require builders to pay to look at basic standards on the Internet, for which reason the Greens will be opposing this bill.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): It is not often that I agree with a Green Party member, but in this instance I think she is absolutely right. The Government has produced this legislation in a hurry and, as a consequence, more compliance costs have been built into the day-to-day lives of average New Zealanders.

I take issue with the United Future member, Murray Smith, who got to his feet and spent the last 5 minutes of his call speaking self-righteous drivel. He talked about why his party exists in this House. He did not even speak about the bill—he did not mention the bill for nearly 5 minutes. Instead, he spoke about why it was important to have minor parties like United Future in the House to keep the major parties honest. The thing I found most appalling was his contention that he knew, when he supported the passage of the Building Act, that it had errors in it and that it would be coming back to the House soon thereafter for correction. He is taking some pride in the fact that we are now here, under urgency, speaking about the changes he forecast. He said that that was the way we did things in this House.

I have news for him and his party—it is not the way the National Party does things, at all. We believe very firmly that we should endeavour to write good legislation at the first pass. I accept that from time to time there will be errors, but to set out to achieve error strikes me as an absolute nonsense.

I want to talk a little about the press release that was put out by Minister Hodgson. I find it extraordinary that Pete Hodgson is the Minister in charge of this bill, when the actual Minister for Building Issues is Chris Carter. I do not know whether Chris Carter has been tossed out of that portfolio, or whether, to use the words of someone else in this House, he is just a tosser. But that is not something I would want to dwell on.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members that that word has been ruled out of order. I ask the member to withdraw it.

Hon Ken Shirley: I can be of assistance. I heard the member. He did not say “tosser”, he said “tossor”, as in a “tossee” or a “tossor”—one who is being tossed—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to be seated.

Hon Ken Shirley: It is an important point. It is language.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I heard the member previously. The context he used the word in and how he used it was OK, then; this is different. I ask the member to withdraw that.

BRIAN CONNELL: I withdraw that, if I have given offence. But the point I was making was about whether he has been tossed out or whether he was the “tossor”. I think the member is absolutely right; that is the point I was trying to make. However we dress it up, the fact is that Chris Carter no longer has that responsibility. Given that he is the Minister for Building Issues, I find that extraordinary.

The real point I was trying to make was that Pete Hodgson wrote a press release, which I thought was pretty sycophantic. In the press release, he said that United Future wanted to ensure that builders had ready access to standards and design, and that there would be no more compliance costs built into the lives of average Kiwis when it came to buildings.

That is simply not the case. The Building Act has brought about an average increase in costs of around $7,500 for the average person building a house in this country. That is a compliance cost, and it is quite an extraordinary compliance cost. It is clearly not right for the member to stand up and say that that it is not happening.

The other issue I want to mention is something that I believe has been an absolute abuse of process in this House. When one does things in a hurry, one gets a mess. We were asked, I think about 19 April, to consider this legislation for the first time. A bill with one clause was introduced to the House, with 12 working days for consideration. The bill went to a select committee, where it had 2 hours of consideration before it was reported back to the House. That is an abuse of process.

Then, at the Committee stage, we found there was a Supplementary Order Paper, with 21 clauses in it, which had not had any consideration by a select committee, at all—and the Government, with the help of the United Future party, is trying to tell us that that is due process. Well, it is simply not, and it should not be acceptable to any right-thinking member of this House, or anyone in the broader community across New Zealand. I am sure everyone would agree that that is not due process.

Let us examine the legislation in the first instance. Why did it come before this House? It was a knee-jerk reaction to leaky homes. There had been a number of incidences in Auckland. The problem was confined to Auckland, but it was not about the non-treatment of timber; it was about the poor design of homes. The Green member has already said that we had the law and regulations in place, but that some builders were not following those regulations.

What we got as a consequence was 400 pages—380-odd clauses—of bureaucratic nonsense that will not fix the problem, at all. It does not concentrate on the heart of the problem; it does not concentrate on design; it concentrates on rules and regulations, and an insistence on treating timber. We even got into the ridiculous position whereby the Government was insisting on treating timbers like Douglas fir. Anyone with an ounce of experience—and I note that Murray Smith is very quiet on this point—would have known that treating Douglas fir timber was totally unnecessary.

So what we have now is legislation that, by Murray Smiths’s own admission, will come back to the House again, and again, because it is simply not right.

Inherent in this bill is the death knell for one of New Zealand’s great icons, the home handyman. This Government, which purports to support average Kiwis, has now ensured that home handymen will not be able to build their own homes without having extra compliance costs, or inspectors looking over their shoulders saying they can or cannot do particular pieces of work.

The other thing I find quite mystifying about this legislation is that nine ministers have lined up to take responsibility for it. Then, suddenly, they have all disappeared. No wonder it is in a mess, because no one is prepared to stand up and take responsibility for it.

What we have now is an absolute nightmare of legislation, which came to the House under the guise of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. The Opposition parties—with the exception of United Future that insisted it was good legislation—warned Government members that that bill was inappropriate. We warned them that if it were rushed through the House there would be problems. We warned the Government that, if the bill went through the House under this type of abusive process, it would come back with errors. Mark my words, we have not seen the end of it yet. This legislation will come back to this House again and again, because it is just bad legislation.

Of nine ministers, not one of them has stood up to take a call to try to justify why the legislation is good—because they know it is a dog’s breakfast. Nine ministers have circled through this legislation and out again, and I am not certain even now who is responsible for it. Looking around the Chamber, I cannot see a Minister who is putting his or her hand up and saying that he or she will take responsibility for it. That is simply because those Ministers know it is poor.

United Future members should hang their heads in shame. The way they have supported this process is simply shocking. It is a disgrace and an abuse of the parliamentary process, and the behaviour of members—particularly Murray Smith, who has tried to justify it by tabling handwritten amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 361 today—typifies why it is such a mess.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): I want to refer to some of the problems that have been highlighted, which resulted in the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill being introduced to the House. First of all, when the original Building Bill was reported back, there were problems caused by the inclusion of standard clauses—that is, the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines were followed in preparing the bill. It was highlighted at that stage that those clauses could possibly infringe the copyright interests of third parties. The Department of Building and Housing and the Ministry of Economic Development took legal advice. There was a divergence of views, and, in order to clear up that matter, the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill came before the House, which has been split into the Building Amendment Bill (No 3), the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 4), the Copyright Amendment Bill, and the Health Amendment Bill.

This legislation assures us that we are complying with the copyright legislation and that, eventually, we will save New Zealand a good deal of money, should there be cases under the previous situation of costly legal action for breach of copyright. I point out that the stakeholders and Standards New Zealand were consulted in the formation of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. When the Government Administration Committee called for submissions the stakeholders did not appear before it, but they had said that they agreed with the bill. Standards New Zealand came and explained the legal implications around copyright.

There was a good deal of grandstanding about the Building Act. I note that Nick Smith said in this House, just a few minutes ago, that we are crying out for rules in the building industry. He said that, yet the previous National Government, of which he was a member, was responsible for the deregulation of the building industry, which was responsible for the multiple problems around weathertightness. That was not the result of poor design, builders, or timber, but of all those things that came about through deregulation and, then, a building boom. The member knows that his friend George Chapman, who is president of the National Party, was the chair of the Building Industry Authority in the late 1990s when the weathertightness issue was drawn to its attention—and what did he do?

Georgina Beyer: Nothing!

DIANNE YATES: Exactly. I have to thank the Labour Government for facing up to the crisis in the building industry and bringing in a better system.

I will just point out, too, a couple of issues. One concerns the issue of not being able to build one’s own house. That is actually rubbish. In the present situation, anybody can wire his or her own house. An electrician has to come in and sign off that the wiring is OK and that the house will not burn down. This legislation states that anybody can build his or her own house, but that a registered builder has to come in and say that it has been done properly, that it will not fall down, and that it will still have some resale value. That is terribly important to anybody who builds his or her own house. During the inquiry on weathertightness we heard that in New Zealand at the moment, anyone who has a ute, a radio, a hammer, and a dog can build a house. It does not require anybody to have any building expertise. The legislation states that people can build their own houses, but they just have to have someone sign off that they have done it properly. I just wanted to clear up that matter.

In respect of this legislation, Nick Smith and other speakers have been grandstanding for the National Party. Dr Richard Worth, who chairs the Regulations Review Committee, and members of that committee, which consists largely of lawyers, have said that in this case it is necessary to change the law in order to make sure that we do not infringe copyright. I thank Dr Worth and that select committee for their opinion on this legislation.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Building Amendment Bill (No 3), the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 4), the Copyright Amendment Bill, and the Health Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Bills read a third time.

Bills

Gambling Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move, That the Gambling Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Gambling Act to allow licensing trust members to be involved in decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds to the community. Under the Sale of Liquor Act, licensing trust members are generally elected by their local communities. Some gaming-machine societies that operate their gaming machines on licensed trust premises have traditionally allowed licensing trust members to have input into their decisions. The Gambling Act prohibits that type of arrangement. It does this by way of a strict separation between those who run commercial premises in which gaming machines are operated and those who control the proceeds from the machines on those premises.

The bill exempts licensing trust members from this requirement, to reflect their unique position as elected members. The exemption also extends to community trustees where a licensing trust reconstitutes as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act.

The bill was introduced on 30 November 2004. It had its first reading on 14 December and was referred to the Government Administration Committee. I thank members on that committee for considering this bill within a short time frame. The committee considered 14 submissions, of which seven were supported by oral evidence. It reported the bill back to the House on 21 February and did not propose any substantive amendments.

The committee in its commentary made particular note of the local knowledge and accountability of licensing trust members, and the substantial contribution they make to the well-being of their local communities. The committee also noted that members cannot benefit financially from the trust. For those reasons, the potential for conflict of interest that the relevant provisions of the Gambling Act are designed to prevent is much lower in the case of licensing trust members than for other people with a role in running commercial premises.

I commend this bill to the House.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): The genesis of this bill goes back to some time ago, when the Government realised it had made a mistake—another mistake. We have just heard in earlier debates about how this Government is prone to making mistakes. At the eleventh hour the Government wanted to bring in in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) the provision we are now talking about. National opposed that. We said that this was important legislation. This matter should have been corrected during the debate on the Gambling Bill in 2003. It was not, therefore there needs to be an amendment to the Gambling Act specifically so those organisations affected by the key persons provision have the opportunity to have a say. Otherwise, that opportunity would have been limited.

In respect of the current provision in the Act, I have a letter from the Department of Internal Affairs dated 19 December, which went out to the trusts, stating that it had great difficulty when wanting to make any changes. It stated that section 113(1)(b) of the Gambling Act prohibits a key person in relation to a venue from being involved in decisions about grants or in the management or distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. That is what the department said at the time. It went on to state that there could be a conflict of interest, and then suggested that one could get around that by having a new, independent community society.

We must remember that prior to 1 July 2004—that was the operative date—elected members of licensing trusts were able to distribute the proceeds. It was only from 1 July last year that suddenly they were not able to be involved in the distribution of grants from their machines. The Department of Internal Affairs’ position at the time was that it could fix that, but that the community would have to set up new, independent community societies. That was a way around it. It stated: “It is open to the community in which a licensing trust operates to establish a trust to apply for a licence to operate gaming machines and to distribute the proceeds from those machines for authorised purposes within the community.”

So there is conflict between the advice the Department of Internal Affairs is giving, and the Government’s measure. It says that cannot be done, but under the Official Information Act I got all these papers—because they are considerable—about the arguments relating to the provision about the key persons. On one hand the Government has realised it has made a mistake—a big mistake, in fact—and on the other hand, its advisers through the Department of Internal Affairs are suggesting another means by which it could be remedied; that is, that by setting up a separate, independent operation.

National does not subscribe to that. We believe elected members of the trusts are clearly elected from the community and they should not be disqualified by that. They hold both these positions, they have an interest in the licensing trust as an outlet, and they should be involved also in what goes on. They clearly have no financial or proprietary interest in the operations of a licensing trust, so why should they not be involved in the distribution of those funds to the community? I have a list of licensing trusts, and it is quite interesting to see that they are throughout the country. Northern Trusts Ltd, which includes the Mt Wellington, Ōtara, and Papatoetoe licensing trusts. There is the Invercargill Licensing Trust Charitable Trust. We have the Trust House Charitable Trust, which includes Masterton, Rimutaka, and Flaxmere licensing trusts—

Georgina Beyer: Hear, hear!

LINDSAY TISCH: —the member from those areas has acknowledged that. We have the Ashburton Trust Charitable Foundation; West Auckland Trust Services Ltd, which includes the Portage Licensing Trust and Waitakere Licensing Trust; Mana Community Grants Foundation, which is the Porirua Licensing Trust; and then we have the Trust Charitable Foundation, which covers both the North and South Islands, including the licensing trusts at Cheviot, Clutha, Geraldine, Johnsonville, Mataura, Oamaru, Papatoetoe, Portage, Te Kauwhata, and Waitakere. So there is a wide spread of interests throughout the community.

Our position is quite clear: those people who are elected are elected by the community; they should have an opportunity to be part of that. One must realise that licensing trusts are not eligible to operate gaming-machines under the Gambling Act. However, some licensed gaming-machine societies choose to operate the machines in those premises. So it is not an argument about whether we agree at all with liquor licensing trusts and whether we should have them. They exist, and we want to make sure they have the ability to perform their functions. Many charitable societies have allowed, and want to continue to allow, the elected licensing trust members to be involved in the decisions about the operation of gaming-machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. As I said earlier, this was the position prior to 1 July 2004 and it is only since this Act came into being that that provision has been taken away.

National is very happy that this bill has come forward in this form as a Gambling Amendment Bill, not as a Statutes Amendment Bill, because it is worthy of further debate. We are particularly interested that this be progressed now, so that those people elected to licensing trusts throughout the country, who do a good job, and put back into the community the profits from the proceeds of gaming machines—about $25 million—should be able to exercise their best judgment and be part of the distributions committee.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): I thank the previous speaker for his cooperation both in the Government Administration Committee and in the House on the Gambling Amendment Bill, which is designed to allow elected members of licensing trusts and community trusts to be involved in decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds to that community. The main concerns of the committee were that the distribution of the proceeds should be transparent and that there should be accountability from the elected members, and we were assured of that.

One organisation the committee was particularly impressed with was West Auckland Trust Services, which presented us with its method of distribution and showed us that it also polled its community as to the community’s priorities in terms of where those funds should be distributed. We thought that was an excellent example to other trusts to poll their community as to whether they wanted the funding to be distributed to education, arts, sports, and so on. The West Auckland Trust Services distribution chart was based on its polling, which we thought was a very good example to other elected trusts in this regard. I wish to support this bill and look forward to its continued progress through the House.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I was fascinated by the brevity of the speech made by the Minister who moved the second reading today, because it brought to mind a recent announcement made by this Government about spending well over $40 million on problem gamblers. It was a press statement put out by one Damien O’Conner where he claimed, alongside his bureaucrats, that this bill was a world first. Well, I remind the House and the country just who it was that brought the problem of gambling into stark reality for New Zealand, and what we are dealing with now. Because all around this country we have huge problems with gambling, particularly in the Māori community, particularly in the Asian community, and amongst people who can least afford it, with disastrous results.

New Zealand First did not support the Gambling Act of 2003, which was an attempt by this Government, as John Tamihere would say, with its bureaucrats working night and day, with nothing else to do—no soccer on Saturday to watch, or Sundays to spend with families—to ensure that the profits from gambling went out of local communities and straight into some centralised bureaucratic disbursement regime—

Hon Damien O'Connor: No.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yes, they did, and that is why every hotel around New Zealand opposed that legislation. The Labour Party can make these sorts of grand promises that it is dealing—

Hon Damien O'Connor: No.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no. This bill actually improves upon that, and that is why we are supporting it. But it simply is the case of ignoring some of the realities.

What we have in New Zealand today of course is that the people who are bleeding with the gambling problems are spending money in localities where even the profits from gambling do not go towards the community in which they live. That is a fact. Damien O’Connor can shake his head, but the reality is that the Government decided to take full control off the local distribution agencies, and claim that the local people could not be trusted and central government could. That is as blunt as it got.

Hon Damien O'Connor: No.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, the Government did. More seriously though, we got this: a disastrous failure to acknowledge what a disaster so much gambling is in this country. Then to claim a “world first” as some sort of innovative enlightened Government is the worst and what one might call the “H” offence. I cannot use the word, but members will know what I mean. It is the very worst.

New Zealand First has always been opposed to this, and we want to remind New Zealanders who it was that changed the gambling society of this country—for the very worst. Can the House remember one Peter Tapsell when he was Minister? He brought in casino licensing in this country, and then, of course, against huge objections all around New Zealand, the Government imposed it upon Queenstown—

David Parker: Twice!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —twice upon Queenstown—and then upon the people of Hamilton, even though the mass majority of the local people were against it. The Government ignored all that. I remind the National Party that it was as responsible for that as well, because it had members on that authority, one of whom was challenged as to his behaviour—a former member of Parliament, whose name I should not mention because it is just part of the sad history of the National Party.

David Parker: Judith Collins was the chair, too.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is right. That is a fact. But how quickly they forget! Well, New Zealand First wants to say that at least this bill gives back some local control, but it does not address the serious problem that should be addressed in this legislation as to what we are going to do with a society that Labour turned upside down, and a society in which the very roots of that society that claimed once to be Labour supporters, and that Labour once claimed to represent, have been significantly—in the case of so many families and individuals—destroyed. I want to know which Minister opposite will get up and start talking about that as a key issue, and do something about it.

It is very, very serious that we have in New Zealand today certain families whose lives have been destroyed—not just limited. [Interruption] My colleague Brian Donnelly tells me that in the early days of the New Zealand First - National coalition Government we brought down a moratorium on new casinos, so the issue could be resolved. That is what I call a responsible party. That is what I call an enlightened party that acknowledges the difficulties, and, unlike those who signed one and a half pages of “motherhood and apple pie” by way of an agreement, we demanded things and got them done.

Darren Hughes: Mrs Shipley claimed credit for it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know that Mrs Shipley—

Hon Brian Donnelly: Jack Elder put it through.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Jack Elder put it through as a Minister for New Zealand First, and Mrs Shipley made many claims. That is why she is not here any more. She was of the reasons why the National Party is in the parlous state it is today, and why, after her little stint as Prime Minister, she took the National Party to the worst vote it ever had, since 1936 and its formation.

But Labour is no different. The Labour Party and the National Party are no different on this issue. They believe in all sorts of gambling. Why, they would have people betting on two flies going up a wall, if they could. If that could be organised, and they could get a tax cut and start getting their hands on the disbursement of the money and paying it out to all their pet little causes, they would.

Dianne Yates: No, we can’t do that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I tell that member from Hamilton that all sorts of things are being done in the name of the gambling industry today. All sorts of favourite projects are being funded—some of the most weird we would ever see—whilst people out there, the families and kids, are starving and going bankrupt because of problem gambling, encouraged by this administration.

So how about the next Labour speaker getting up and acknowledging that, because I know there are Māori members over there who know what I am talking about. They know what an abject disaster the industry is for Māoridom, and the sooner we do something about that the better.

Dianne Yates: I opposed the casino.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member said she opposed the casino but how worthy is that, when she supported the casino legislation? She is a member whose left hand does not know what her right hand is doing. She could not wait to line up and stand for the Labour Party that brought casino legislation into this country. That legislation is working like a giant vacuum, just sucking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Auckland, killing the culture, killing the society, and killing all sorts of leisure activities.

Government Member: No, it’s not.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, it is. If we asked any restaurateur or bar owner in Auckland about what is happening to the leisure dollar, he or she would tell us that the casino has had a profound effect. Is the money being spent in New Zealand? No. All the profits are being siphoned off overseas, in the case of Auckland—and somehow the Labour Party thinks that is good. But then again, for people who have sold $10 billion worth of State assets, anything would be a worthy prescription for their behaviour.

Anyway, I was listening to this debate and thought I should come down to the House to remind a few people about who is guilty, about who did what, and about where and when. One party in this country is opposed to this sort of gambling, because it is without merit, without employment, and without culture. It is the most base thing for somebody walking into a casino to say: “Here’s all my money. I hope I get a little bit back.” What industry in the whole world do members know of where people can walk into an establishment and say: “Here’s all my hard-earned savings. Whether or not my wife and kids can afford it, I don’t care. But, just in case, I would like to know whether I can win a little bit back.”

Dianne Yates: What about the horses?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Do not talk about the horses. I will tell the member about the horses. The horses could be one of New Zealand’s most explosive export industries. The horse industry employs 32,000 people in real jobs.

Dianne Yates: What about the TAB?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The TAB is part of the horse industry. At least there is employment. At least there are exports. At least there is an international reputation. That industry does have some redeeming features, but the industry that the member supports, and that the Government is so pleased to support, is in every way thoroughly bad for New Zealand.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): Now that that member has resumed his seat, the pigs can stop flying. He does not seem to be able to control his own shadow, as far as I can see. The simple fact of the matter is that gambling problems are something that we ought to be seriously concerned about. But this legislation does not deal with that, at all. The point to make with gambling problems is that a lot has to be taken on board as personal responsibility. In my opinion, nobody has ever had a gun held to his head and been forced to go into a casino and put money into a slot machine.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is the “Family Party” speaking.

MARC ALEXANDER: The “Family Party” actually wants choice. We want people to be able to decide for themselves what to do, and we want less Government intervention. But that member from the “Winston Party” obviously wants to have more Government intervention in people’s lives and more restrictions placed on individuals, and I think that is unconscionable. What did he do when we was in Government, other than melt down the National Party to the point where it cannot even get back into the race for the next election? It is crazy. The kiss of death is what the “Winston Party” is all about.

This bill amends the Gambling Act to exempt licensing trust members and trustees of community trusts, who are the equivalent of licensing trust members where the licensing trust is reconstituted as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act, from the definition of “key person” in the Gambling Act in relation to a class 4 venue. The amendment has the effect of excluding those members and trustees from the provisions of the Gambling Act that require the separation of functions, and it will enable them to be involved in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds.

Licensing trust members are elected under the Sale of Liquor Act to operate businesses in the hospitality industry. Licensing trusts are not eligible to operate gaming machines under the Gambling Act. However, some licensed gaming-machine societies choose to operate gaming machines on licensing trust premises. Many of these societies allow, or have allowed, licensing trust members to be involved in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. This was permitted under previous gambling legislation. The Gambling Act prevents this type of arrangement by way of a strict separation between those who run commercial premises at which gaming machines are operated and those who control the proceeds from the gaming machines at those venues. The separation of functions is designed to reduce the potential for conflict of interest. As licensing trust members are publicly accountable to their local community and cannot benefit personally from the licensing trust, the risk of conflict of interest is considerably lower.

Out of the Government Administration Committee came only one minor recommendation—that is, to clarify that the definition of “key person” includes trustees of a community trust who hold office under section 219Q of the Sale of Liquor Act. This is eminently sensible, and it is something that United Future will absolutely support. One thing that I would mention, however, is that, again, the previous speaker was utterly wrong, because the Gambling Act specifically avoided centralisation of the proceeds from gambling. He was simply wrong. But that is what we expect from the “Winston Party”, I suppose, despite the fact that its members might vote for other than what they talk about. Nevertheless, United Future will support this.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am very reluctant to interrupt this member’s speech—the sooner he gets it over with, the better—but the real fact is that he cannot talk about the “Winston Party”. We all know that the fastest rising party in this country is called New Zealand First, and it should be addressed properly by that name at all times—particularly by the “Poodle Party”.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Parties should be addressed by their correct name.

MARC ALEXANDER: Speaking to the point of order, I apologise if there was any confusion in calling New Zealand First the “Winston Party”, but in the minds of most the two are indistinguishable. I would just like to correct the member by saying that we are not the “Poodle Party”; we are in fact the guide dog of Parliament—the guide dog.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just remind members that they should refer to parties by their proper names. Those two names should not be used.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT): I am taking over the debate on the Gambling Amendment Bill for two of my colleagues, especially Heather Roy, who has followed it all the way through and has provided quite a bit of cooperation with the Government on this. As she stated in her first reading contribution, the attempt was actually made to put it through as a statutory amendment.

Rod Donald: It should have been.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Maybe that is the case, but that would have been an abuse of the power of Statutes Amendment bills, which are meant for non-controversial issues. As we have already seen by the debate in the House, this is not a non-controversial issue. Mr Peters actually had a good point, when he asked—but did not answer—where else, other than gambling, can one say: “Here’s all my money. Take all my money and I’ll see what I get back from it.”

The other example of that happening is with this Government, in taxes. It takes more and more taxes from taxpayers every day. Every week new tax laws are passed, and what do they get back from them? What are schools getting back from taxes at the moment? Schools are getting less and less back in terms of what the parents of the children pay in taxes; it is going into bigger and bigger bureaucracies. Schools are seriously underfunded. Paying one’s taxes in New Zealand now is a huge gamble, because people never know what they will get back, or whether they will get any money back. One reason that most people pay their taxes and are happy to pay their taxes is for the investment in the education of the future citizens of this country, but that is just not happening.

I also agree with some of what Marc Alexander said. I do not deny that there is a huge problem with gambling in this country. I take the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ word that it is a huge problem in the Māori communities, but there is an issue of personal responsibility here. People talk about gambling addiction. In what way is it a chemical that gets into one’s bloodstream, or one’s system, like drinking or smoking, or other drugs that become an addiction?

It is dangerous to blur the edges between addictions and problems. There are huge problems. There are families who go without because one or both parents are problem gamblers. But why does this happen when we see, in the paper, clients of casinos who are allowed to rack up huge debts, credit to the extent of—

Hon Member: $21 million.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I find that very difficult to believe. I would have absolutely no sympathy with gambling operators or the owners of gambling institutions if they lost every cent of that money, because they are clearly stupid in allowing someone to rack up a debt as high as that. No one would be able to go down to his or her local hardware shop and rack up such a high debt. Clearly, people have a problem with gambling if they run up a debt that is so high.

The other area Mr Peters touched upon concerns horses, and I totally agree with him on that. We had an internationally recognised, world-class industry in New Zealand with the breeding, training, and export of thoroughbred racehorses. It would be beneath the elite people in the Labour Party today to go down to somewhere like the Matamata training track before dawn, at 4 o’clock or even 2 o’clock in the morning, and to see what goes on there in terms of the huge amounts of money going into the local economy from horses. But what do breeders, trainers, and owners get from that? They get hit with more and more taxes. Industry charges, even accident compensation alone that some of them have to pay for taking on apprentice jockeys, along with all the associated costs and compliance costs that go with being a trainer in the industry these days, are greater than the income that people get back out of the industry. Why? Because no Government will ever equalise the taxes that are forced out of them on gambling issues.

I support this Gambling Amendment Bill. I notice that its first reading was done under urgency. That is because of poorly drafted legislation—legislation this Government rushed through because it overlooked the fact that there are honourable people who are members of and can run a licensing trust, and who can make decisions about where the proceeds from those gaming machines should go in the community. I find it highly ironic that this Government prides itself on supporting the arts and sport in New Zealand—but predominantly the arts—and that hardly a week goes by when we do not see another photo opportunity of the Prime Minister or her sidekick Judith Tizard being photographed at some arty-farty art opening, yet much of the proceeds from gaming machines goes into local community arts projects, whether at local theatres, exhibitions, or productions.

All MPs in this House would have had letter after letter, numerous letters, from those local arts communities, theatres, and repertory groups that feared they would be forced to close because of this Government’s move against the distribution of the proceeds of gambling within the community. What New Zealand First has accused this Government of is absolutely right. The Government is always trying to wrest control from communities back to Wellington, and to control them from Wellington. That is what this Government is all about, so why does it not just admit that that is what it is proud of being: essentially a controlling Government with no interest in communities?

It has no interest in communities being autonomous. Members can look at the way schools were closed down, or at the way the Government treats boards of trustees. Nobody is allowed to be autonomous. We can look at what the Government is doing to universities.

So ACT supports this amendment bill going through. It is a tragedy that the legislation has come back in this form, yet again in urgency, but we will vote for it.

ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green): I am delighted to support this Gambling Amendment Bill on behalf of the Green Party, and I am even delighted that the bill is being dealt with under urgency. We opposed the urgency motion, but this piece of legislation is one that does need to be dealt with promptly.

I cannot help but comment on the crocodile tears of the previous speaker, who is from ACT, because my recollection is that ACT was the only party to block this amendment being made by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill. If ACT members had not been so bloody-minded last year, this legislative change could have already gone through. [Interruption] Did New Zealand First also block that?

Dail Jones: You did, too.

ROD DONALD: I do not think we did.

Dail Jones: You did. You said so on the first reading.

ROD DONALD: I doubt it, because the matter should have been dealt with. I will check the Hansard. It should have been dealt with by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill, and that is certainly what I lobbied the Government to do, because there was a glaring mistake. The Act got it wrong in the first place. How can the principal gambling legislation give racing clubs and chartered clubs an exemption for key persons but not extend that provision to licensing trusts? That is exactly what this bill sets out to fix.

It is good that it is being done promptly, because, of all those organisations, licensing trusts actually have the most robust election processes. They are far more robust than chartered clubs or racing clubs, because licensing clubs have to conduct their elections under the Local Electoral Act every 3 years. There is a proper process they have to follow. It is a very open process, and every resident and those on the ratepayer roll in the territory of the licensing trust get to vote for the representatives on that trust. It would have become a ridiculous farce for the licensing trusts to have to set up parallel organisations to handle the distribution of profits from the trusts’ gaming activities. It is far better that one organisation addresses both the operation of the trusts and the distribution of the profits. I believe there are sufficient safeguards in the legislation to make sure there is not a transfer of money from one part of a trust’s operation to another in order to subsidise internally those operations, so I do not see any difficulty with the same people running the operation and distributing the profits.

What I do see is the enormous benefit of those profits actually going back to the community, and the licensing trusts during their lobbying activities made the very good point that they have returned the highest percentage of gaming monies to the community in New Zealand. For example, in the 2003-04 year the Invercargill trust returned 57 percent compared with most other organisations returning under 40 percent. On behalf of the Green Party, I say we would much rather that the profits from activities such as gambling and liquor sales went to the community than lined the pockets of the shareholders of casinos or big booze companies.

Having said that, I would like to conclude with a personal note, which is that I have real difficulty with the invasive nature of gambling in our society. There are far too many pokie machines around the country. I make a personal point of not going on the premises of any casino for any purpose whatsoever, because I believe that casinos are a scourge on society no matter what money is funnelled back through various trusts and charities. But if pokie machines are going to exist, it is far better that they are under the control of a community trust or licensing trust, where there is some sense of obligation to take account of the wider concerns of the local community, rather than their being under the control of those totally motivated by profit.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): I will take a brief call to say that when this matter was first discussed with New Zealand First and other parties in this House, the suggestion was made that the matter should be put in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). People were told that that would be quicker. New Zealand First had pressure put on it from licensing trusts that said every other party supported that action except for us. As we discovered during the course of discussions with the National Party and other parties, and during the course of the debate at the first reading, that particular line—that other political parties supported the legislation going into the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)—was used with every political party. But it transpired that that was not the case, as National and other parties proved during the first reading debate.

In fact, if this legislation had gone into that Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), it would still not be getting passed today, because that bill is well down the Order Paper. So putting it as a separate bill has proved to be the best thing possible. I think that the stand taken by New Zealand First, National, and other parties to have this legislation as a separate bill works very much to the advantage of the Licensing Trusts Association. The attitude adopted by the trusts would have backfired on them if the legislation had been left in that Statutes Amendment Bill.

We all want to make sure that when money is raised by gambling in west Auckland, it can be spent in west Auckland, if it is raised in Ashburton, it can be spent in Ashburton, and that that can be done in a similar way right around the country in places where there are licensing trusts. The people of Invercargill would like their money spent in Southland—on Southland rugby, perhaps, rather than supporting, say, North Harbour, although North Harbour members would appreciate any extra funds that might be made available to the North Harbour Rugby Union, which has an unfortunate habit of losing players to South Island cities.

However, New Zealand First supports this legislation. It is short legislation that rectifies a mistake made by the Labour Government when it rushed through earlier gambling legislation under urgency. The Government Administration Committee has looked at this legislation closely, and has even made an amendment to it to take into account an error that cropped up. The amendment could not have been made if this were, for example, a statutes amendment bill, but it was able to be made by way of the Gambling Amendment Bill in order to help key operators.

I also make the point that the leader of New Zealand First considers the issue of gambling so important and so detrimental to family life that he has taken the trouble to come to the House to speak on the bill today. I see that no leader of any other political party in New Zealand is at all interested in the detrimental effect that gambling can have on family life. It goes to show that New Zealand First is very interested in what happens to struggling families, poorer families, Māori families, or any families in which people think that the answer to everything may be found in a pokie machine or in some other form of gambling. That is not the case. We consider gambling to be a very serious issue. I touched on it during the first reading, and the Rt Hon Winston Peters has expressed that view on it much better than I ever could. New Zealand First supports this bill, which makes a minor change to the advantage of licensing trusts.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move, That the Gambling Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This short bill amends the Gambling Act to allow licensing trust members to be involved in decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds to the community. The amendment also extends to community trustees where a licensing trust reconstitutes as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act.

The Gambling Act prohibits licensing trusts themselves from operating gaming machines. However, some gaming-machine societies that are not licensing trusts operate machines on licensing trust premises. The Act also imposes a strict separation between the people who run the commercial premises in which gaming machines are operated and the people who control the proceeds from gaming machines at those premises. That currently prevents licensing trust members from having any input into decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds, and on the operation of gambling machines, when the societies concerned operate machines on licensing trust premises.

The bill exempts licensing trust members and community trustees from that separation of functions, in order to reflect their unique position as elected members who are accountable to their local communities. It continues to prohibit licensing trusts themselves from operating gaming machines.

Finally, I would like to thank the members of the Government Administration Committee for their consideration of the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): National is happy to support this bill for the reasons I mentioned during the second reading debate. I will just summarise. The bill exempts licensing trust members and trustees of community trusts from the definition of “key persons”. This will enable them to be involved in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine profits. As I said earlier, that was the case prior to 1 July 2004, when the new legislation, the Gambling Act, came in. That involvement was stopped, so we now have the issue that we are trying to rectify.

I made the point, which was also made by New Zealand First, that we believed it was important that a separate amendment bill to the Gambling Act be invoked—which is what we are doing now—as opposed to including this provision in a Statutes Amendment Bill. So we are comfortable that there is no undue influence. A trustee would not receive any monetary gain by being involved in the process and being on the committee that would distribute gaming-machine proceeds. We understand that about $25 million goes back into the community from those licensing trusts, and we are happy to support this proposition.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Fiordland Marine Management Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Racing), on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I move, That the Fiordland Marine Management Bill be now read a second time. On behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Marian Hobbs, I would like to introduce this bill back into the House. This is a very important bill. Fiordland National Park, and Fiordland as an area, is an icon for this country. Many millions of people throughout the world know the sight of Mitre Peak from postcards, and this bill will go some way to protect that very iconic environment that the world enjoys. Through the tourism industry it is a very big part of New Zealand’s economy, and the people who live in and around that area, including some very good operators whom I had the pleasure to visit in Doubtful Sound, are passionate about its protection.

I commend the Minister for her work in bringing this bill to the House. I know that those people who have a genuine interest not only in conservation but also in economic development will support this bill and its speedy passage through the House.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the Fiordland Marine Management Bill. We had a number of submissions to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee on this bill. It was not a vast number, because it is a bill that addresses issues in a particular part of our country, although it is a part of our country that is significant to all of us—the Fiordland area. It is a beautiful area to visit. It is an area that all of us can rave about and promote as we travel around New Zealand and around the world. It is arguably one of the most scenic areas in New Zealand. Consequently, those who live in Fiordland and in that area of the South Island are very proud, very protective, and very supportive of both conserving and utilising that environment for all those who care to visit and, of course, to fish there, and of using its resources sustainably.

There were some disappointments during the select committee process. When the Fiordland Marine Management Bill came into the House, the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment—who have been working for well over a decade—had put together a package that suggested how best to manage this particular region. The Fiordland guardians were made up of people with a particular commitment to the environment, to the fishing industry, to recreational fishing, to tourism, and to the ecosystem generally.

They got together, as I say, over a decade ago to put together a package to present to the Government of the day on how the area should be managed. I have to report that they were somewhat disappointed to find that the bill that reached the House for the first reading and was before us at the select committee stage did not precisely reflect what they felt were the needs of Fiordland. It did not reflect precisely what they had put forward as the best way to manage this beautiful area.

One of the issues was, of course, management into the future, and the team that would oversee that. They were concerned that in the future the guardians would not be drawn from a local pool with local thinking—by those who are on the ground and at the coalface, who are out on the water in Fiordland on a daily or weekly basis. In fact, the bureaucracy was going to stack the guardians quite heavily with the Wellington brigade rather than utilise those who actually live in the region.

The group raised this concern with the select committee, and the committee acknowledged that the appointment process for the guardians should better reflect, not Wellington’s desires for this area, but the Fiordland community’s desires for this area. We were glad to see some changes made to that aspect of the legislation.

Another issue raised was that of access to the Fiordland area by not just water craft but also flight craft—that is, helicopters and aeroplanes. There was a concern about aeroplanes landing on the water in a marine reserve. Members can appreciate that aeroplanes fly into the area not only on scenic air tours but also occasionally need to land on the water to drop off recreationalists—although that is rare—for all sorts of other reasons. There was some contention over the issue of aeroplanes landing in a marine reserve area. The argument was put to us that if commercial or recreational boats are allowed to cross over a marine reserve—and members will know that boats are not banned from marine reserves; they might be banned from fishing in marine reserves, but they can motor over the water—surely aeroplanes should be able to land in those reserves as well.

That argument seemed sensible to us. There is no reason why aeroplanes should not be able to land in those areas. What is more, they should not be billed for doing so. If a craft makes some sort of commercial gain from dropping off divers who are pulling stocks out of the water—outside a marine reserve, of course—perhaps a concession should be paid by the operator. But if a craft is simply landing, spending half an hour on the water for some reason or another before taking off, and not disturbing the marine life at all, why should a concession be paid? The select committee basically smiled upon that argument and thought it was fair enough, so we saw some changes to that aspect of the bill come about as well.

Other issues were raised during the select committee stage. We decided not to take the time to travel down to Fiordland as a committee, although some individual members did go down there, and I am glad they did. We had select committee submissions in the South Island, but we never did a site visit as a committee. The major reasons for that were the cost and the time it would have taken to do so, and the fact that most submitters to the select committee—by far the majority—supported this bill in principle. The debate was around the details. We got a pretty good picture of what was happening down there, because there was so much agreement on this legislation, so we did not necessarily need to visit. But I do thank the chairman and Larry Baldock for taking the time to visit and reporting back to us. I acknowledge them for doing that.

On the whole, the National Party supports this legislation. We would like to acknowledge Bill English, who in the initial stages of its coming to the House took the case to the National Party caucus. He did so because he had been involved with the guardians of Fiordland for some time as a local electorate MP—and, as I say, the guardians have been going for well over a decade—so he knew the ins and outs of this legislation, knew the goals of the local people, and wanted to see the National Party support them in their endeavour to conserve parts of Fiordland while also seeing large parts of it continue to be utilised.

I thank him for reporting that to the caucus and for encouraging the caucus to support the legislation. We certainly agree with him. We are glad that the bill has been massaged by the select committee to make changes to better reflect the needs of the Fiordland guardians now and into the future, and we wish them the very best with this bill. I commend the bill to the House on behalf of the National Party. I thank the Minister for bringing it forward, but more particularly I thank Bill English for promoting this issue and for working hand in hand with the guardians through to today.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): I want to thank my colleague Damien O’Connor for moving that the Fiordland Marine Management Bill be read a second time. This bill gives legislative effect to a strategy for the management of Fiordland’s marine development developed by the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment. The bill as introduced was really a work of compromises among a number of Government departments, also trying to fit in the vision of the guardians. I am really pleased that during the committee process the balance was corrected more, again, in favour of the guardians’ original strategy.

It has been a very difficult job to do. The Fisheries and Other Sea-Related Legislation Committee received 21 submissions on the bill. I would like to thank the committee for its thorough consideration of the issues raised by submitters and for reporting back on the bill within such a short time frame. The committee reported to the House on 1 April, recommending by majority that the bill be passed with amendments. The proposed amendments will align the bill more closely with the vision and objectives of the guardians, and that is great.

In response to the submissions of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, the committee recommends that the title of the bill be changed to “Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill”. Accordingly, the area that is subject to the bill becomes the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area. The committee recommends that the purpose of the bill be amended to recognise the local importance of Fiordland and the area’s distinctive biological diversity. These changes address some of the concerns of the Fiordland guardians and of environmental groups about the purpose of the bill.

A key objective of the bill is to facilitate better integrated management of the Fiordland Marine Area. To strengthen the bill in this regard the committee recommends that a clause be included that “requires” the chief executives of the management agencies to enter into a protocol with the Fiordland marine guardians. They are really being lifted upwards in the air as regards official involvement. I envisage that, through the protocol, parties will make commitments on such issues as the exchange of information, and the resourcing of, and attendance at meetings, of the Fiordland marine guardians. With regard to the latter, the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee recommends that a clause is included in the bill that states that employees of management agencies may attend meetings of the Fiordland marine guardians. Some submitters were concerned about the status of the advice provided by the Fiordland marine guardians, and the extent to which it could influence decision making. The committee therefore recommends that the requirement for Ministers and management agencies to “have regard” to any advice and recommendation of the guardians be changed to “take into account”, which is a higher legal obligation. I would have to say that I was extremely happy to accept this recommendation from the select committee. It was more in line with my original thoughts.

The committee received a number of submissions from environmental groups and individuals expressing concern that the area protected as marine reserve was insufficient and that it did not protect all ecosystem types. The select committee, in its commentary, has noted that the bill is not the final word on protection in the Fiordland Marine Area, but that it is a very good start. I endorse this. As a result of the bill the number of marine reserves nationally will increase from 18 to 26. This is a significant increase. The Government acknowledges that some gaps remain in terms of ecosystem protection. But I expect that this is a matter that the guardians will turn their minds to when the current management measures are reviewed 5 years from the commencement of the legislation.

The member from United Future, Larry Baldock, who sat on the select committee, has raised a number of issues with my colleague the Minister of Fisheries, and with me, regarding the change to the bag limits for recreational fishers. He supports the bill, and the approach of the guardians, for which I am grateful, but he has requested that the ministerial advisory panel on recreational fishing, soon to be appointed by the Minister of Fisheries, consider the bag limits set in the guardians’ strategy, which are to be implemented by this bill and the regulations made under it. I have discussed this with the Minister of Fisheries, the Hon David Benson-Pope. He is happy for the advisory panel to consider the bag limits and to report to him, and any recommendations of that panel will be fully discussed with the guardians advisory committee.

While I accept this procedure of considering bag limits, I am mindful that the particular beauty of this process is that of the gifts and gains made by the different local groups, which included local recreational fishers, as they set up the strategy. This is the same situation when the ecological groups argue that this is not as tight, as they would say, in the ecosystems. This piece of work is truly local decision-making at its very best, with its inevitable compromises among parties.

The committee received submissions from Ngāi Tahu seeking an amendment to the provision in the bill relating to the take of pounamu within the marine reserves created by the bill. The bill exempts Ngāi Tahu from the need to obtain an access arrangement under the Crown Minerals Act for the taking of pounamu by hand within those marine reserves. Ngāi Tahu sought an extension of its exemption to allow it to remove discreet boulders by mechanical means. The committee considered that this was inappropriate, given that the purpose of the marine reserve is to maintain areas as close as possible to an actual state.

It was preferable that the removal of such boulders be dealt with on a case by case basis. This will enable access to be granted only where the effects on the marine reserve would be minor. However, the committee recognised that the current provisions in the bill were somewhat anomalous, and that the exception from the need for an access arrangement for hand-taking did not apply in parts of the Fiordland Marine Area outside the marine reserves. It also considered that outside of the marine reserves there would be no difficulty in applying an exemption relating to the mechanical removal of boulders.

Because of concerns that this was potentially outside the scope of the bill, the committee recommended that a Supplementary Order Paper be considered to provide for this. I subsequently arranged for further discussions with Ngāi Tahu on the proposed Supplementary Order Paper, and Ngāi Tahu noted that Fiordland is likely to have only a small amount of pounamu relative to other areas. Its preference was not to proceed with the Supplementary Order Paper, but rather to have discussions with the Government on access arrangements over all the areas within its takiwā where pounamu is found. Accordingly there will be no Supplementary Order Paper related to this. But to keep faith with the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act and the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act, clarification has been made in this bill that nothing will affect those two Acts.

In order to address some technical drafting matters I intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper making some minor amendments to the bill. The passing of this bill, along with the fisheries regulations, will implement the statutory component of the guardians’ strategy. Planning is well under way relating to a number of other measures recommended by the guardians relating to enforcement and compliance, monitoring, biosecurity, information, and education. With the commencement of the Act I will be appointing the new guardians group provided for in the bill, and look forward to involving it in the implementation of these other measures.

Again, I take this opportunity to thank the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment for their hard work in developing the strategy, and for their input into the bill through the select committee process. The guardians’ process has been innovative and forward thinking. It has demonstrated how different interests can work together to define a common vision for an area and work cooperatively to reach that vision. It also demonstrates the reality of using local knowledge to make positive and sustainable local decisions. I am hopeful that some components of the guardians’ approach will provide a model for future local management and problem solving.

It is worth noting that, yes, the guardians have worked for 10 years, but for the last 4 years, at least, they have worked with Ministry for the Environment funding and support. This was a real partnership with a group that came to us and said: “To do this successfully we need Government support; and more than just fine words, we actually need the cash to do this.”, and we have done this. I also thank the Southland Regional Council for its cooperation and assistance throughout the bill’s development.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): I am pleased to stand on behalf of New Zealand First and give our support to this bill. But in so doing I wish to commence my speech by referring to the Minister’s previous statements. I refer in particular to the issue she just referred to, which is that representations have been made to the Minister of Fisheries, and her, with regard to catch by recreational fishers. That raises the whole issue of the Fiordland Marine Management Bill—an area-specific bill—against the backdrop of continued Government inaction and lack of planning with regard to the whole marine area.

Some of us in this House would have made representations with regard to a so-called oceans policy, which was meant to be an overarching policy to cover the total marine life on the near coast. None of that has been seen. When the request came to the Local Government and Environment Committee to look at this bill, it seemed to me to be rather strange that we were being asked to look at a bill alongside the unfinished business of a marine reserves bill, which has now been delayed further—it has been put to bed till after the election, because it is too hard. In actual fact, while we strongly support this bill—and I will give other reasons in the forthcoming few minutes—we deplore the fact that this specific legislation is before the House against no ability of the present Government to progress a progressive sequential policy with regard to the oceans of New Zealand.

Therefore we, last year, in looking at these matters with regard to marine parks and reserves, saw with regard to Mimiwhangata, which is an area in Northland, the need for a policy that began with consultation and led to understanding. Now, in the Fiordland Marine Management Bill that took place. It did not begin, by the way, because of Government concerns. This bill had its genesis right back in the mid-1990s because recreational and commercial fishermen, tourist operators, and others knew and had a unique understanding of what had to be done if they were to preserve and have recognised what hitherto they had regarded as their natural right—the natural right of recreational fishermen, and the acquired right of commercial fishermen, to fish as they were able to under existing regulations in regard to the Fiordland area. That is where it began. Also, the tourist operators were interested in being able to maintain their activities. So this did not begin because of some Government bureaucrat thinking it was a wise policy. It did not begin here in Wellington. It began out there in the regions.

The first point I want to make on behalf of New Zealand First is that one of the reasons we believe this is a very sound progressive bill is that this is a model that we were talking about last year in regard to Mimiwhangata, Aotea—or Great Barrier Island—and, shortly, the Three Kings.

This is a model that I believe should be adopted against the overarching final provisions of an oceans policy. So we applaud the fact that the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment took up the challenge and then realised in the year 2000 that they alone needed to bring in wider community input, including those traditional sectors of the community who have a precious regard for the community—and I mean that in the very best sense—so that all the so-called environmental issues were finally covered in the enlarged guardians committee. I acknowledge what the has Minister has said—that that was accomplished after the year 2000 by funding and support from Government agencies. As well, I acknowledge the work of the Southland Regional Council, which also realised that this was part, if one likes, of its marine and coastal management, and I acknowledge the part that at least two officers played in the development of this programme.

So we finish today with a sound bill before us; a bill that was changed by the select committee after its representations. The bill contains an acknowledgment that the gifting of what would have been acquired property rights by a segment of the community, the long-term right of recreational fishers to have a certain take being reduced, and also other areas of concession being made by the community, all incorporated into a comprehensive plan. From that plan came an acknowledgment that those unique areas of marine biodiversity, which we believe are the basis for a marine reserve, fit quite naturally. That brings me to the second part, as far as New Zealand First is concerned.

We see in the wider marine park concept, an understanding that if the process begins with consultation in the very first instance, with all stakeholders, in a cooperative understanding that they wish to achieve a harmonious end—the long-term management of the coast, the seabed, and foreshore resources in their community—only then will ministries such as the Ministry of Fisheries, the Department of Conservation, and the Ministry for the Environment be able to progress together a sustainable management plan, and one that the local community considers to be theirs. Ownership thereby ensues, as has happened in this bill. Therefore, those measures of enforcement, if needed, will take place naturally, because the local community, or the regional community, realise that that is to their long-term gain and benefit.

The third issue about this bill is that, in its revised form—after submissions to the select committee—it recognises more fully the fact that the guardians had a real role to play, which in the first reading debate we did not see. So we are very pleased to support the select committee’s considerations. The guardians are still a fundamental part of the long-term management. There are issues of regret. The major issue of regret for New Zealand First is not just the fact that this should have been part of an overarching oceans policy, and it is not just the fact that this has been taken out of its context and used as an area-specific example; it is the fact that in present Government legislation there is no capacity whatever to allow for integrated management at departmental or ministry level. That concept was one that the select committee wished to advance, but we were told very strongly and cogently by officials that at the present time there is no ability in legislation for an integrated role for the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation with regard to aquaculture and the marine farming environment, and no ability for there to be a cohesive, coherent structure with regard to the matters inherent in this bill. That is just not possible, and that is a disappointment to us. That should have been able to be incorporated, and that view was apparent in the submissions made to the committee.

The process this bill went through did include consultation—it was initiated, first of all, at a local level. The bill does not provide for integrated management. What it does do is almost recognise that the guardians—and this is very important for them—relinquish a variety of rights, or so-called rights, in the interests, their interests, of ensuring the quality and sustainable management of the environment and fisheries in the long term. So the bill incorporated a whole range of expectations, benefits, and activities that New Zealanders have always believed were theirs—and that is the case particularly with regard to recreational fishermen—being incorporated into an agreed understanding of how this can proceed over the next 7 years, and with regard to a proper review. The guardians will be a major part of the review as to what had been accomplished, and what should be the purpose of any further development in the area.

We are very pleased to support this real advance in thinking on the part of the Government in accepting an area-specific bill that covers the very aspects of consultation, cooperation, and responsible thinking by Government ministries in regard to a local issue. I only wish that people at Aotea—Great Barrier Island—Mimiwhangata, and the Three Kings could feel the same satisfaction in years to come that they could endorse such a model and that it could be part of their day-to-day thinking and activity.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): In rising on behalf of United Future to address the Fiordland Marine Management Bill in its second reading, I first express our appreciation of the initiative that has been taken by the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment. As we mentioned in our first speech, it began a process of local decision-making in order to come up with an alternative to the approach currently being undertaken, which seems to focus only around the marine reserve applications being put forward by the Department of Conservation. This alternative is something that gives a lot of people in New Zealand some hope of a way forward in terms of how our marine areas can be protected, while still giving respect and consideration to those who enjoy the marine environment but do not particularly hold to the philosophy that the only way to protect it is to have large marine reserves all over the place. I congratulate the guardians on their process. It has been a major achievement for them to go through this process and arrive at a consensus and an agreement. As a result of listening to submitters to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee on the bill, I think the guardians do need to be commended further for the way that they have managed the process.

It did, however, come as a surprise—and Phil Heatley mentioned this in his speech—to find that the guardians’ own submission had some quite serious concerns in it. The guardians felt that after they had completed their process the bill had been somewhat hijacked and diverted from its original intention, which was really about a fisheries management issue in their area. I am pleased to see that the committee and the Minister have agreed to make changes, so that the bill can be returned to much more of its original intent. I still have some concerns about the use of the word “preservation” in the bill, because I do not think that that was the guardians’ intent. I think they are very practically minded people down there in Southland, who understand that it is impossible to preserve anything. They simply want to do the best they can to manage and protect the area. The marine reserves that are being established are part of that goal, but the idea that we can preserve things really takes matters a bit too far. In fact, in my recent trip there, seeing the damage done by recent earthquakes showed me that the environment is changing all the time. We have to be flexible in that situation and do our best to keep things in good order. But to go too far and try to keep everything locked up in order to maintain that pristine environment seems to me to be ideological nonsense.

Fiordland is a beautiful area, and in many ways it has a natural protection by virtue of its remoteness and its wild nature. I think that we could go over the top in trying to preserve it for future generations—it will preserve itself, and that is what makes it so beautiful. It is a rugged and an amazing place. My recent visit was the first time I had been there, and I really appreciated the assistance given to me by Ministry for the Environment officials and also by the Southland Regional Council. They facilitated an opportunity to look through the area and to talk with the guardians after we had completed the select committee deliberations on the bill. It certainly helped me to understand more of the complexity of the process.

I am happy that the committee has addressed some of Ngāi Tahu’s concerns about the extraction of pounamu. The final Supplementary Order Paper that we will discuss in the Committee stage is designed to finish that process.

I had concerns about the recreational fishers’ submissions that came into the select committee, and also about the submissions that they put into the guardians’ consultation process. I acknowledge that it is difficult to get the issue right, because we are dealing with differences of opinion between local fishers, people who go there on charter fishing trips, and people who maybe travel there once a year from around New Zealand on their annual fishing holiday. It would be difficult to strike the right balance between those groups. I think there is a need to recognise the differences between charter boat operators and those who fish there in their own boats, particularly with regard to the bag limits that have been recommended by the guardians. A cut from 30 blue cod to three, with no right to accumulate numbers on a daily basis, seems to me to be a very severe cut. It was agreed to, none the less, by the representatives amongst the guardians who were speaking on behalf of recreational fishers.

My concern has been whether that cut was necessary. We heard from submitters who said that they did not mind accepting reductions in their bag limits or the non-accumulation provisions, provided there was good science to back up the provisions. I think recreational fishers in New Zealand are good environmentalists. They are not there to plunder the resources of the sea; they want to see them remain there for the benefit of their children and grandchildren. But they were asking some fairly reasonable questions, I thought. That is why I have raised the issue in the select committee, with Minister Hobbs, and also with the Minister of Fisheries, the Hon David Benson-Pope. It is clear that it is difficult to make any changes to the “gifts and gains” process; it was the key part of the agreement. This bill does not even deal with the fishing regulations, so United Future is happy to support the bill at its second reading, through the Committee stage, and into its third reading. We think it is a very good bill and one that will have very positive outcomes for the Fiordland area. But there were things that I thought could have been done to address some of the concerns of recreational fishers. I am very pleased to have had cooperation from the Hon Marian Hobbs and also from the Hon David Benson-Pope, which has meant we were able to address those concerns in some way.

The new advisory panel that the Minister of Fisheries is establishing to represent recreational fishers in New Zealand is a good forum for him to review the consultation process and to see what its members’ advice to him may be. There were 287 submissions during the guardians’ consultation process from all around New Zealand. Those submissions far outnumbered those from the other submitters in the process, but they were treated as one submission because they all came from Option4 and were on a form submission, which was somehow deemed to be less significant than other submissions. But I think those submitters still made very good points. In fact, about 90 of them made personal comments on their submissions, which still outnumbered the other submitters who had other concerns about the whole process. So I think it would be good if the newly established ministerial advisory group of recreational fishers could look at that and take up some of the issues.

The other part of the recreational fishing issue had to do with the science behind the decision to make such drastic cuts in bag limits. I think there is a lot more that can be done to see whether the fish stocks, particularly of blue cod, are under any threat from fishing in the fiords. Perhaps some more scientific and investigative work could be done. Recreational fishers around New Zealand could then be reassured by the Minister giving an undertaking to conduct a review of the bag limits in a couple of years’ time, if other scientific evidence comes to the fore that shows there is no real risk and no real danger to fish stocks.

Perhaps there is also a way of treating the non-accumulation regulations differently for people on charter boats, compared with those who are fishing on their own boats. I can understand the concerns about a charter boat that takes on 60 fishers who can each get three fish a day. When that tally is added up for a week, a great tonnage of fish has been hauled out of the area. It may be wise not to allow for that accumulation on a charter boat. But for a family, or for a fisher and a few of his or her mates, who go out on their own boat and who suffer a few days of bad weather and therefore cannot catch any fish on those days, it seems that it would pose no real danger to the environment if they could accumulate their bag limit over 3 or 4 days of that holiday, and take a few fish home to give to their neighbours. That is very much a part of the Kiwi culture. We fish not only for ourselves; we give a bit to our neighbours when we get home. That is the way we all enjoy the bounty of the sea around us.

United Future is keen to support the bill. We believe that it has been through a good process, and we do not want to hold it up in any way. I really appreciate the consideration given to us, but say that there will need to be some review of the catch provisions on behalf of recreational fishers. We look forward to further debate through the Committee stage in the House this week.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Greens have supported this bill because we are passionate about marine reserves and are committed to seeing many more of them in place in our seas. We are committed to seeing the marine environment managed sustainably and the non-extractive values given much greater weight. Those values are inherent values—not just the services that the sea provides for communities, but inherent values that the sea holds in its own integrity and on its own account. We are delighted that there are to be marine reserves in Fiordland National Park, but we have many concerns about the level of protection for the marine reserves that are set out in the bill.

Fiordland is the largest area of true wilderness remaining in our country, and it has a very special interface between the land and the sea. Its national and international importance is so significant that in 1986 it was given world heritage status by the World Conservation Union. Fiordland has ecological features that are absolutely unique, in the true meaning of that word. Because the fresh water that runs on the top of the saltwater prevents the light from penetrating through, we have extraordinary corals at very shallow depths that are normally visible only at enormous depths where divers cannot usually go. Those corals flourish in the fiords. In New Zealand terms and in international terms, Fiordland is an ecological treasure. But this bill, for all its attempts to protect that treasure, also fails in many ways and it therefore puts that treasure at continued risk of damage. The Greens want to remedy those risks. We will be proposing amendments to this bill in order to do that.

The Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee heard a number of submissions about the process by which the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment had achieved its strategy document and about the extent of its consultation. The Greens applaud the guardians’ extraordinary efforts in achieving the level of agreement that they have achieved. But that does not make them perfect, and it does not justify the risk that the marine reserves will continue to face. Much was made of the “gifts and gains” approach to the protection of the fiords taken by the guardians, and there has been some discussion about that today. Much was also made of the fact that all stakeholders were involved in the discussions. But we know that that is not true. In terms of gifts and gains, it is very clear that the marine environment itself has made the greatest contribution in that process, and that it has gained only the most minor level of protection in return. Only 1 percent of the Fiordland marine area will be protected by the reserves. That is a truly disappointing and minimal level of protection. All the reserve areas are to be within the inner fiords, leaving the outer, ecologically distinct areas unprotected.

Many ecologically fragile areas, for example those described as “china shops”, have lost any protection that they had, because the select committee decided to remove the restrictions on anchoring over them. Officials argued that because people did not anchor over those areas anyway, no restrictions were necessary. But that is a ridiculous argument. It is unbelievable that that argument was supported by the select committee, because now those very precious coral areas have absolutely no legal protection from damage. People will not even know that those areas are there and will not know they should avoid damaging them in that way. The Greens are putting up an amendment to reinstate the anchoring restrictions, because it is absolutely critical that those areas have the maximum amount of protection. There is no justification for removing those restrictions from this bill.

We are also very concerned that aircraft are allowed to land and take off within the marine reserves—within that 1 percent of the area—without any controls whatsoever. No concessions from the Department of Conservation are even needed. In national parks on land around this country, tour bus operators need concessions just to drive into a national park and out again. But the Fiordland marine reserves do not even get that very minimal level of protection. It would take only one spill of aviation fuel to wreak havoc with the ecology of the marine reserve. If there is just one minor accident, the whole of that reserve area will be irreparably damaged, especially since water movement in and out of the inner fiords is very slow, and it would be very difficult to mount clean-up responses within those areas. Yet we are placing them at risk by removing any controls whatsoever on the taking off and landing of aircraft.

The Greens were very disappointed in the guardians’ approach to the bill at the select committee hearings. We acknowledge the guardians are the primary group that has driven this process, and for that they should be congratulated. But it is not a question of the guardians owning this process. This area is nationally and internationally precious, and we all have a stake in its preservation—preservation which, as Mr Baldock mentioned previously, is about maintaining the area’s integrity and enhancing the integral values of the area for their own sake. Mr Baldock said that the area would be able to preserve itself, but that is simply not true. As we all know, all those sorts of areas are very fragile and are subject to damage from human use. We need to have the maximum amount of protection. Given that we are talking about only 1 percent of the whole area being put into marine reserves, surely that 1 percent deserves to be given the maximum amount of protection and preservation that we can provide.

We recognise the guardians’ role, but we also recognise that they are primarily a group of recreational and commercial users of the area, and we are disappointed that they did not have more respect for the ecological values of the fiords. Their wish to have the bill not refer to the international and national importance of the fiords was particularly disappointing. I have already said that the fiords have world heritage status and that Fiordland is a national park. It is ridiculous to argue that the words “national” and “international” should be taken out of the bill. That request, along with the submission that the word “preservation” be deleted from the bill—because the guardians said that it was insulting—clearly demonstrates that the intention behind the guardians’ strategy, and hence this bill, is to protect the interests of users to the greatest extent possible, with the fewest possible measures put in place to protect and preserve the incredible biodiversity of this national ecological treasure. That is a very disappointing approach to take towards the marine reserves of such an important place.

The Greens have supported a greater role for the guardians in the ongoing management and review of the marine reserve areas. It is absolutely imperative that local communities are involved in that, but we argued very hard for a conservation representative to be a member of that group in order to ensure that there is an advocate for the marine environment itself, not just the users of it. We are putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper on this bill that will seek support from the House to have one representative from the New Zealand Conservation Authority among the membership of the Fiordland Marine Guardians. That is sought to make sure that the guardians are a broad church, and that they represent all the interests that the fiord areas contain. It is really critical that the marine environment has an advocate. The New Zealand Conservation Authority has a very long history of involvement in marine reserves. It has extraordinary expertise, yet this Government and other political parties in this House refused at the select committee deliberations to have a Conservation Authority member appointed to the Fiordland Marine Guardians, for no other reason than that they did not want to. But that leaves that marine environment at incredible risk, because no one is there to advocate for it on its own terms and for its own sake.

The Greens have a number of amendments to this bill, and I have discussed some of them. I sincerely hope the House supports those amendments. They are designed to restore to the bill much-needed advocacy of the inherent integrity of marine biodiversity, which is sadly and obviously missing from the bill as it is now. We hope the House will give those amendments due consideration and support them if this bill is truly to meet its objectives of protecting, preserving, and assuring for future generations not just the management of the resources that the reserves will give to our people but the protection of the precious corals and all the biodiversity that lives within them, for their own sake and for the sake of future generations.

Debate interrupted.

Tabling of Documents

Licensing Trusts: Letter from Rod Donald

ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green): During the debate on the second reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill, in the middle of my speech there were some interjections from New Zealand First members saying that the Green Party had not supported the licensing trusts problem being addressed by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill. I seek leave to table the letter I sent to the Hon George Hawkins supporting the use of a Statutes Amendment Bill to address the licensing trusts problem. That should clarify the matter, and I hope the New Zealand First members recognise that they made a mistake.

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

Bills

Fiordland Marine Management Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Bill read a second time.

Name changed to Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill.

Bills

Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill

Instruction to Committee

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill that it take the bill part by part.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

Preamble agreed to.

Part 1 Preliminary Provisions

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Green Party has an amendment to clause 4, “Interpretation”. We want to ensure that the primary Minister responsible for the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Act and for that area will be the Minister of Conservation, not the Minister for the Environment—not that we have anything against the Minister for the Environment. In fact, the whole reason why the Minister for the Environment is the primary Minister involved is simply that the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment got funding from the Ministry for the Environment to do the work it did.

All other marine reserves are the responsibility of the Minister of Conservation. The Department of Conservation and the Minister have the greatest level of expertise and existing responsibility, and know best how the marine reserves process works. They can see the whole marine reserves structure throughout the country as a single whole. There is absolutely no reason why the Fiordland marine reserves should be treated differently from other marine reserves in this country in any way. So we strongly advocate that the Minister of Conservation be primarily responsible for ensuring that the reserves are treated the same, afforded the same level of protection, and given the same respect and position as other marine reserves.

Of course, these marine reserves ought to have that same level of protection and respect throughout the community, and from Ministers and from this House, because this area is incredibly precious and valuable to the whole of the community. It is absolutely unique, so it is entitled to the same level of protection. That is one of our major concerns with this bill as a whole—that so many of the provisions in it treat the Fiordland marine reserves as if they are different from others, but they simply are not.

We urge the Committee to support the amendment.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): Just very briefly, with regard to Part 1—and in particular, with regard to matters that have just been raised—I think it is one of the strengths of the bill that, for the first time, it recognises the need for an integrated management, albeit at this very limited stage. When we read in clause 4 that the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Ministry of Fisheries, and the Southland Regional Council are all involved, along with the Fiordland Marine Guardians, we can see that this is an excellent model that we should be endeavouring to pursue. I know that the Fiordland Marine Guardians, in particular, welcome this model. In actual fact, they favoured that the regional council should be the lead agency, and I can quite understand why. A regional council should be a lead agency, but for various reasons that was not to be.

This is the first stage, as I said earlier. There is a recognition that in legislative matters there is not yet the ability to go beyond this first cooperative stage. This bill takes into account existing arrangements, statutes, and facilities, and New Zealand First strongly supports this first step in what we see as a development, in years to come, not only for the Fiordland area—as important as it is—but for any marine park reserve area in the rest of the country.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 4 be agreed to:

to omit from the definition of “Minister” in subclause (1) the words “for the environment”, and substitute the words “of Conservation”.

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

Ayes 9

Green Party 9.

Noes 105

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to, and Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Marine Management Measures

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): This debate includes debate on schedules 1 to 12.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): I take a call on Part 2 to discuss the issue surrounding marine management measures and the establishment of the eight marine reserves set up under this bill. As the Fisheries and other Sea-related Legislation Committee went through its process, people from various sectors of the community came before it, often with a different slant on what was being done. The environmental groups said that the bill was terrible and that eight marine reserves were not enough, because the reserves represented the protection of only 1 percent of Fiordland’s marine area. We heard on several occasions from Metiria Turei this morning that they represent only 1 percent of the marine area. In actual fact, those reserves represent 13 percent of the area contained within the fiords and, therefore, a significant chunk of the fiords area is going under protection. But, of course, the environmentalists do not tell us that—they always want to put a different spin on it.

In respect of the 1 percent of the external area, as I said earlier, much of that coastline down there will protect itself. I think, too, that the Fiordland Marine Guardians and the people of Fiordland have made a huge contribution by giving up 13 percent of the inner fiord area to those marine reserves.

The thing that came under quite a bit of challenge at the select committee was the agreement for a moratorium, so that no further marine reserves would be established for a period of at least 5 or 6 years, until the first review of the Act has taken place. Many submitters said that that was terrible, and that they should have been able to start applications for more marine reserves the next day. Those submitters just never stop. They seem to think that the only way forward is to have the whole country locked up with marine reserves. The committee had to resist that pressure very strongly, because there is a gifts and gains process.

Yesterday we had some discussion in the House about marine reserves, and today I see that theRoyal Forest and Bird Protection Society has put out a press release overnight stating that United Future is anti-conservation because we are trying to stop the Marine Reserves Bill from going through the House. We are pleased to be able to stop that legislation this term, because it is an ill-conceived bill and still allows for the Department of Conservation to take too many heavy-handed measures in providing marine reserves all over the country.

The press release also said that Australia is a great country because 6 percent of its marine area is in protection as marine reserves, but that ignores the fact that the major part of Australia’s protection relates to the Great Barrier Reef, which is an enormous reserve. If we took that out of the equation, Australia would not be much further ahead than we are in New Zealand. Australia has only a few other little spots on its map under marine protection.

That is what concerns United Future. Unless we allow locals to be in charge of the process, as this bill sets up, we will constantly have the Department of Conservation, pressured by lobby groups such as the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and other environmental groups, pushing for more and more marine reserves. Ultimately, they seem to win the battle and get those things established without the real consent and consultation processes that are necessary at a local level.

I had a long discussion with people from Environment Southland, and they said that they could have established protection even without marine reserves. There are sufficient avenues under the Resource Management Act process to give some protection, and that may have been a better way to have approached it. But in the end marine reserve lobby groups seem to have won out, so eight new marine reserves are being established under this bill.

United Future will support this bill. We are pleased that only eight marine reserves are being established and that the moratorium is in place. That gives people a chance to take a deep breath now that the major consultation process is over, and not to have to face more and more applications coming in each year. Every application just opens up a whole can of worms again in a community.

It is nice to see peace descend in Fiordland. With the passage of this bill this week, I believe there will be a great deal of rejoicing—probably some cod will be eaten, some rock lobster will be cooked on a few barbeques, and even a few bottles of local wine will be opened to celebrate.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): I say just very briefly that indeed, as we were told, the protected area within the proposed marine reserves equates to 13 percent of the area enclosed by the recommended habitat lines—in other words, a significant increase. Secondly, with regard to this legislation, although the marine reserves in this case were marked out along habitat lines and others would have wished them to be marked out along other lines, that was seen by the Fisheries and other Sea-related Legislation Committee as a start.

Most important, although there is not the protection that some submitters would have wished for, almost all of the fiords are being looked after, and the “china shops” themselves are the subject of special provisions within the bill. I believe that that incorporates the other aspect—that is, all this area we are looking at here, which Ngāi Tahu refer to as Te Moana o Atawhenua, has been arrived at by natural development from the earlier conceptual thinking developed by the guardians.

Lastly, that takes into account the fact that concessions, which are an integral part of the tourist industry, will have a longer-term life than submitters believed they would have had at the start and, above all, that the Southland Regional Council, having been part of the process, will have no problems with the incorporation of the changes into its coastal plan. That is exactly as it should be.

As we said earlier, this is the beginning of what we hope is the model, not only for Fiordland, but also for other like developments for our marine life up and down our coastline.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Green Party has an amendment to clause 10(2) to omit paragraph (d). That provision states that the amendments to the Southland Regional Coastal Plan indicated in schedule 12 will not require the approval of the Minister of Conservation. We do not believe there is any justification for taking out the Minister’s role in this respect. The amendments will be made to the plan, and will come into force when the plan is operative. The other parts of the plan, as they become operative, will require the Minister to give consideration to them, and there is no reason why these particular provisions should not also require that consideration.

These kinds of deviations from existing process are at the root of the Greens’ concern about this bill. There are continual layers of deviations from process, deviations from existing protections for marine reserves, that simply cannot be justified, except perhaps as some kind of sop to the guardians. Certainly, we have an enormous amount of respect for the guardians for the work they have done, but, in the end, this measure is about protecting the marine ecology of that area.

Mr Baldock’s claims about the marine reserves lobby are not only unfounded but also completely unreal, when we consider the fact that only 1 percent of this area is to be protected by marine reserves, and that on the entire east coast of the South Island there is only one marine reserve, and it is a very small one indeed. There are very, very few marine reserves in this country. They are difficult to establish, both because of the process and because communities need to be involved and consulted. It is very good that the Fiordland community has lobbied around and worked to achieve some kind of marine reserve in this area but that does not justify the claims that there is such a thing as a marine reserves lobby that is turning the whole of our seas into marine reserves, because that simply is not true. United Future, on this point, is absolutely wrong. In fact, we have very few marine reserves, and the Greens are trying very hard to ensure that the marine reserves we do have in place are well protected—are given the maximum possible protection—to ensure they are there for the future as a valuable part of the New Zealand culture.

We are asking the Committee to support our amendment to clause 10, because the Southland Regional Coastal Plan will play a critical part in the further protections of Fiordland’s marine reserves. For example, I have mentioned briefly the taking off and landing of aircraft, and how that will not require a concession under this bill. The Southland coastal plan currently does not require any form of consent for the taking off and landing of aircraft. That plan is under appeal, there is a process going ahead about that particular provision, and the communities are working very hard together to come to some resolution. We look forward to that resolution, but that issue does show that the Southland coastal plan, along with this bill, are two critical protection measures that need to work together and be considered together when looking at the full scale of protections that can be afforded the marine reserves area.

If this bill allows for more and more concessions, more and more deviations from process and from the protections that other reserves are accorded, then more and more dependence and reliance are placed on the Southland coastal plan to provide those protections for the recreational users and for the marine reserves themselves. Then it becomes very critical that that plan has strong provisions to make sure those areas are protected. If, as is set out in this bill, there are further deviations from the usual coastal plan process—that is, the Resource Management Act process—then those protections become less and less available. More and more the marine reserves will become subject to interference or decisions made by this House that are not relevant, and do not take into account the full impact of the resource management considerations and the full extent of protection that the marine reserves require.

So we are very strongly asking the Committee to support this amendment, to ensure that the Minister of Conservation is required to give approval to the plan’s provisions, including the provisions that are incorporated into this bill. It is also a very important point, because the Minister of Conservation is not the primary Minister responsible for this bill; the Minister for the Environment is responsible. Therefore, the role of the Minister of Conservation in this bill is very, very minor. It is really, really important that the Minister of Conservation and the Department of Conservation have a strong role to play in the management of these marine reserves. Ensuring that the Minister of Conservation keeps his role of at least being required to give approval to the Southland coastal plan, is ensuring the Minister is playing a part. If the Committee does not want that Minister to be the primary Minister responsible, that is the decision of the Committee, but if my amendment could be supported, then at least the Minister of Conservation will have a role in helping to ensure and maintain protections through the Southland coastal plan. This will make sure that the marine reserves, as critical, unique, fragile areas of our ecology, are given the maximum amount of protection they deserve. This is something this House and the Government can provide for them. Again, there is absolutely no justification for affording these areas less protection than any other area. As we are talking about only 1 percent of the fiords—only a very tiny proportion of the sea area around the South Island—it is absolutely essential we do the best we can.

If this Government wants to go out and tell people that it is doing something for the environment, it needs to demonstrate that very, very clearly and specifically. Supporting the Green Party amendments is one very easy way to do that and to show that it is more interested in maintaining the value of these precious areas than it is in taking the path of least resistance. Because, in effect, that is what this bill is about. It has in large part taken the guardians’ strategy, which is fine—they worked very hard to get, and negotiate, a strategy around these areas. But what was missing from that strategy, and what continues to be missing, is an advocate for the marine environment itself.

Supporting this amendment, and supporting in future the other amendments the Green Party is putting forward, is one way that this Government can demonstrate that the marine environment deserves an advocate of its own. It deserves to be protected for its own integrity and its own value, and therefore these amendments that the Greens are putting forward, which try to restore that approach back into the bill, should be supported by this Government.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 10 be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (d) of subclause (2); and

to omit subclause (4).

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

Ayes 9

Green Party 9.

Noes 105

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Amendments not agreed to, and Part 2 agreed to.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Passenger Clearance Service Costs—Funding Formula

1. CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri), on behalf of Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie), to the Minister of Finance: What principles led the new funding formula for passenger clearance service costs?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The principle of fairness is based on the allocation of costs to the primary beneficiary, so the Government will pay the full cost for biosecurity and customs, and the airlines for aviation security. This leads to a rough 50-50 split between the two.

Clayton Cosgrove: How will the industry costs be allocated?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: They will be allocated through a uniform per passenger charge of $8.31, which will be collected by the airlines rather than the airports. This is in addition to the $1 Civil Aviation Authority fee, and represents a total increase of $4.31 over current charges. New international airports will move to the uniform charge at the end of their first year of operation, provided they have achieved a level of 9,000 departing passengers a year.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister accept that Rotorua is one of our tourism-centre jewels and that if it developed its airport to international standards, it should not charge any more per passenger than our current international airports; if he does not accept that, will he please explain why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We have provided for initial costs in relation to new airports, because when airports are starting up with small numbers of passengers the per-passenger cost is extremely high indeed. The Mayor of Rotorua has expressed his appreciation that the Government has listened to the submissions from him and other supportive mayors around the country.

Prime Minister—John Tamihere

2. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: What did she mean when she said, in relation to John Tamihere, that she is “capable of infinite forgiveness”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister meant what she said, which is that she is capable of infinite forgiveness, but she does like to see reciprocation.

Rodney Hide: In making that statement, had John Tamihere disclosed to her his involvement in the scam that has seen his former chief financial officer and electorate chairman, Mike Tolich, admit to the Serious Fraud Office that he had paid kickbacks to obtain pokie-machine moneys; and has she sought from John Tamihere a full disclosure of the scam for which the Serious Fraud Office is laying charges?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That matter has been the subject of an investigation, which decided that no charges were to lie against Mr Tamihere.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question asked whether Mr Tamihere had disclosed information to the Prime Minister. I cannot see how saying what everyone knows answers that question, at all.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question.

Gerry Brownlee: What happened between Monday night, when the Prime Minister was indicating that John Tamihere’s political career was all but over, and Tuesday morning, when he suddenly became a well-liked, valuable political asset who puts in 150 percent on a good day?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Mr Tamihere came to the caucus and apologised for his statements.

John Carter: Does the infinite forgiveness mean that the new standard she has set for her Government allows an alleged rapist, a convicted forger, a habitual drink-driver, and a self-confessed liar to be tolerated in her caucus; if so, how low a standard will she set in her naked desperation to retain office?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister indicated that much depends upon Mr Tamihere’s future actions, but I thought that member would have learnt that sometimes forgiveness in a leader can be quite important.

Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, know anything at all about the kickbacks that were paid to obtain money from pokie machines, and how John Tamihere might have advantaged in that way trusts for which he was associated?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am aware that the Deputy Prime Minister has read the report on those matters.

Rodney Hide: Did those reports explain John Tamihere’s involvement in those schemes, and what were those reports?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As the member is aware, charges have been laid against one person in relation to those matters. It would be inappropriate to—

Rodney Hide: No, two.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes. It would be inappropriate to comment further, which might influence the outcome of the court hearings on those matters.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Again, I beg your indulgence for the sake of question time. I asked a specific question. The Minister said he has seen some reports, and I asked him what the reports were. He did not address that in his answer.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question. He referred specifically to the reports.

Pharmac—Sole-supply Agreements

3. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) to the Minister of Health: Is she satisfied that Pharmac’s practice of entering sole-supply agreements ensures that New Zealanders get the medicines they need; if so, why?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): In the main, yes, I am. Since sole supply began in 1996 savings of over $200 million have been achieved, and as well it has enabled New Zealanders to have better access to a wider range of subsidised medicines than previously. For example, over the last 5 years 53 new chemical entities have been added to the subsidised lists, including new treatments for diabetes, severe pain, and chronic obstructive lung disease. I note that sole supply was introduced when the honourable member was a Cabinet Minister in the previous Government.

Hon Peter Dunne: Why did Pharmac enter into a sole-supply agreement regarding the product Salamol, when it knew at the time that there had been problems with inhalers clogging in Britain, which has now been the experience here, or is it simply a case of cost saving at all counts and the New Zealand asthmatic sufferer having to pay the consequences of that?

Hon ANNETTE KING: In respect of the last part of the answer, no, and Pharmac has been notified of a small number of complaints regarding Salamol. Those complaints have been taken seriously, and Pharmac is working with the supplier of Salamol, and with Medsafe. However, Pharmac has been informed by Air Flow Products, the supplier of Salamol, that clogging can be addressed by simply cleaning the inhaler.

Lesley Soper: Has sole supply been an effective way of managing access to medicines in New Zealand?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes. In addition to achieving savings on prescription medicines, sole supply has led to an increase in the number of pharmaceutical companies present in New Zealand. Generic companies have increased from only three main ones in 1996 to more than eight now, resulting in greater price competition when Pharmac runs its annual tender. New Zealand is a small market, and sole supply helps to ensure that medicines that might otherwise be hard to obtain are secured for New Zealand patients. Sole-supply agreements are widely used internationally. For example, in the United States one of the largest health management organisations, Kaiser Permanente, uses sole-supply agreements.

Barbara Stewart: Is she aware of comments made by Diabetes New Zealand’s president that Pharmac’s limitation of the access of 40,000 people with type 2 diabetes to self-monitoring products will serve only to drive up the cost of managing diabetes in coming years; if so, does she find the trade-off of short-term gain against long-term pain acceptable?

Hon ANNETTE KING: There will always be debate about which products ought to be used and which ones ought to be subsidised. I am happy and confident that the supply of drugs for diabetes in New Zealand is a good supply, and I am quite happy with the work that has been done in that respect. We look at new drugs when they come on the market, and we subsidise them as soon as is practicable and when their efficacy ensures we ought to do that.

Hon Peter Dunne: What does the Minister say to those asthma sufferers who either are alcohol-intolerant or have a cultural or religious objection to the use of alcohol, and who are now being forced to use Salamol, which is an ethanol-based product, as an alternative to Ventolin, which will be going off the market in a month or so?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Where there is a difficulty in terms of a person being intolerant to a particular drug, we have the ability for that person, because of special circumstances, to receive another drug.

Sue Kedgley: Why did New Zealand purchase 200,000 treatments of antiviral drugs to fight bird flu—the drugs being the only possible protection against bird flu—which had passed their use-by date; and is it standard practice for Pharmac to buy outdated, second-hand drugs?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member is totally wrong. She has been told that the doses we are receiving of the antiviral drug—which does not cure bird flu; the member is, in fact, wrong in that respect—have been made especially for New Zealand.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I specifically asked why the Minister bought the drugs last year. I am aware that new supplies are not second-hand, but that the ones purchased last year had passed their use-by date. Furthermore, I did not say that they cured bird flu; I said the drugs offered some protection against bird flu.

Hon ANNETTE KING: In respect of the 20,000 doses purchased last year, I can say that they have been certified by Medsafe as being able to continue to be used. That particular antiviral supply that we have is able to be used. The out-of-stock date was looked at. We checked to see whether the drugs could be used, and it was found by an expert committee that they could be.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am a bit unsure about just what occurred there. Sue Kedgley raised a point of order, and then the Hon Annette King made a contribution that seemed to be by way of an answer to an oral question. It seems to me that we have a sort of conversation by way of points of order occurring between members who are not satisfied with answers and Ministers who are taking the opportunity to spin their line a bit further.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I thought that clarification was being sought. I had not heard what the member had said about the 20,000 doses, so I took it from the look on Madame Speaker’s face, when her eyebrows shot up, that she was giving me the opportunity to expand my answer.

Madam SPEAKER: Certainly, the points of order were for not addressing the question. The Minister was prepared to expand on her answer because she had not heard the question. We aim to please, and normally the Opposition does like full answers, as I understand it—as full as they can get from the Government.

Hon Peter Dunne: How many more cases of the failure of the sole-supply policy will it take before either the Minister or Pharmac decides that change is necessary; or do New Zealand’s suffering patients simply have to continue to put up with what is going on at the moment?

Hon ANNETTE KING: There is no overwhelming evidence that we ought to change what we are doing now, and I would caution the member to try to get some of his accusations correct. He has received a letter from Pharmac very recently, in which it is shown that he made at least 16 errors of statement in this House or in press releases, around things that had happened with regard to Pharmac and particular stocks. I am happy to table the letter, so that everyone can read the response to what the member has said.

Peter Brown: Has the Minister noted the passion with which the Hon Peter Dunne has been putting his questions, and is she aware that this is the straw that is breaking the camel’s back and that, if the Labour Government does not agree with the Hon Peter Dunne, he may withdraw his party’s support on supply and confidence; if so, has she had any indication of that?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I have not had any indication. I would say of the United Future party and the Hon Peter Dunne that it probably takes a lot more than a few questions on Pharmac to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back—unlike, probably, the one too many glasses of whisky that broke the camel’s back under the previous Government.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please withdraw that last comment.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I withdraw.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take that as a slight, because I do enjoy a glass of whisky a day, and people tell me that it is good for my health.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. The Minister did withdraw.

Prime Minister—John Tamihere

4. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her response to question for oral answer No. 1 yesterday that “Leadership is about judgment, and I have exercised mine in the interests of the Labour Party.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, she has exercised her judgment in the interests of the Labour Party and, indeed, of the country as a whole.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Prime Minister realise that many New Zealanders consider Mr Tamihere’s censure to be meaningless, especially considering that he has been sent home on holiday—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Which members interjected during that question? Who interjected?

Hon Annette King: I will own up to an interchange between the honourable member for Tauranga and myself.

Madam SPEAKER: Then will you both please leave the Chamber. You know the rules on this.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. First of all, you should do us the courtesy of asking both parties. It was not an interjection; it was simply a statement to the Minister who has just resumed her seat as to what that sort of allegation will bring in the future in respect of her party. It was not an interjection; I was just telling her that if she ever did that again, she would know what came next.

Madam SPEAKER: I ask both members please to leave the Chamber. I am conscious of the fact that the Rt Hon Winston Peters is to ask a question. He may come back for that question then leave again.

Hon Annette King: I have a question, too.

Madam SPEAKER: And there is a question for the Minister of Health. She may come back to answer that, then leave the Chamber straight afterwards.

Hon Annette King withdrew from the Chamber.

Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Prime Minister realise that many New Zealanders consider Mr Tamihere’s censure to be meaningless, especially as he has been sent home on holiday without giving a public apology for his deeply offensive remarks about women and the Holocaust?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think that if the member had been present in the Labour caucus, he would have realised that it was not exactly the proverbial slapping with a wet bus ticket, at all. Indeed, I think if he had actually seen Mr Tamihere’s body language immediately afterwards, he would have realised how shaken Mr Tamihere was by what the Prime Minister said.

Judith Collins: Whose interests were better served by the exercise of her judgment in favour of Mr Tamihere: the Labour Party’s or those of the New Zealand women whom he referred to as “front-bums”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Mr Tamihere apologised to the Labour caucus for those comments. He accepted that they were completely inappropriate. As the Prime Minister has said, we shall move on from here in the light of Mr Tamihere’s subsequent behaviour.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When exercising her judgment on John Tamihere, what made acceptable his comments on the Holocaust—comments from which he has refused to resile publicly?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister dissociated herself and the Government from those comments on Sunday, well before the Labour caucus met. They are not acceptable comments.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Was it good leadership and good judgment to place her need for the Labour Government to retain office ahead of the needs of the many New Zealanders insulted by Mr Tamihere, and how bad will it get before she takes some action on their behalf; is this just a case of mind over matter—she does not mind, and they do not matter?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. Mr Tamihere’s remarks were deeply offensive and the Prime Minister made that clear. It is also clear that he has been under enormous pressure over recent months, and his behaviour over the next few months will determine what happens going forward.

Gerry Brownlee: Has Mr Tamihere failed to apologise because the censure motion was drawn up by Dr Michael Cullen, and there is a possibility that there was just one word in it that made it completely meaningless?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. The censure motion was not drawn up by Dr Michael Cullen.

Gerry Brownlee: Did the Prime Minister ever envisage in her wildest dreams that she would be using her judgment to defend someone who holds the views on women, gays, trade unionists, and his own caucus colleagues that Mr Tamihere holds, by saying that almost everyone likes him and that he is a valuable political colleague who gives 150 percent on a good day?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As the Prime Minister says, she is capable of infinite forgiveness in these matters, but I would remind that member that a number of his colleagues unburdened themselves of a whole string of homophobic and anti-women remarks during a number of recent debates in this House.

Rodney Hide: What sort of judgment has she been exercising when she has not bothered to find out just how John Tamihere benefited from the kickbacks that Mike Tolich has admitted to and is being charged for?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That member has made many accusations under privilege that have been the subject of Serious Fraud Office and other inquiries, and have been found not to have substance.

Dioxin Exposure—New Plymouth

5. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Associate Minister of Health: Will the Government offer free medical checks and free medical treatment to people who lived near the former Ivon Watkins-Dow plant in New Plymouth between 1962 and 1987, and therefore have elevated levels of potentially cancer-causing dioxin in their bodies; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Associate Minister of Health): Free hospital services are available to all New Zealanders already, as the member knows. If the member is referring to primary health services, free visits were offered to about 30 local residents in February. To date only four have taken up the offer.

Sue Kedgley: Why, when Viet Nam veterans are given free medical treatment for health problems caused by their exposure to dioxin, are residents in New Plymouth who have been similarly exposed to elevated levels of dioxin over many years not offered the same medical treatment?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member will be aware that our history is littered with programmes that give thanks to veterans for their active service—this being one of them. But I remind the member that when we did give 30 people who knew they had higher than normal levels of exposure to dioxin access to free medical primary care, only four of the 30 took up the offer and the other 26 did not.

Mark Peck: What were the steps taken when releasing the Paritutu serum dioxin study to ensure that people were well informed and supported?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Everyone in the study was contacted and individually briefed. Briefings were also given to district health boards, general practitioners, medical officers of health, the Paritutu community health liaison committee, and other stakeholders.

Rod Donald: Can the Minister confirm that two reports written by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research have found that people who lived near the Ivon Watkins-Dow plant between 1962 and 1987 have levels of dioxin in their bodies that are as high as the levels in some Vietnamese who were sprayed with Agent Orange, and comparable with levels in people from Seveso, in Italy, the site of a disastrous incident; if so, when will he admit that this must be one of the worst examples of dioxin contamination anywhere in the world at any time ever?

Hon PETE HODGSON: No, I cannot off the top of my head confirm either the figures or the comparative figures. My best guess is that the Seveso event was somewhat more serious, but there is no doubt that the New Plymouth event is a matter of great concern and a matter of ongoing research.

Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that the 30 people he referred to who were offered medical treatment were those who had their blood serum levels tested, and that there are, in fact, many thousands of people whom the Institute of Environmental Science and Research report confirms were living within a radius of 2 kilometres of the plant and are likely to have significantly elevated levels of dioxin in their bodies; why is he not offering all of those thousands of people free medical treatment?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I can confirm that the number of New Zealanders with raised serum dioxin levels will be far higher than the few people who were part of the most recent study. I myself am almost certainly one of them, having gotten through veterinary school in part by spraying 2,4,5-T to control gorse. The really important thing to remember about dioxin exposure is that dioxin exposure and various subsequent cancers, for example, are very loosely linked, and that the science—the epidemiological activity to try to get a closer linkage, or not—is still continuing. We simply have very, very few links between certain levels of dioxin exposure and certain types of cancer.

Sue Kedgley: Can he confirm that the Institute of Environmental Science and Research report found that dioxin levels in the blood serum of the exposed group were, in fact, higher than those of a similar group in Seveso, and does he agree, therefore, that it was premature for the Minister of Health to state in a letter sent to residents in New Plymouth in 2000 that a comparison of the levels around the Ivon Watkins-Dow plant with those in Seveso would clearly demonstrate that the levels released at the plant were very low, and will he, therefore, be correcting that information sent to the people of New Plymouth?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am not able to confirm comparisons between Italy and New Zealand off the top of my head. I certainly can confirm that the levels of dioxin amongst workers at the Ivon Watkins-Dow plant exceed the levels of dioxin amongst residents living around the plant, and my best guess is that the dioxin levels currently in the blood of the President of the Ukraine would be far higher still.

Sue Kedgley: What other evidence does this Government need before it honours a promise that was made by the public health director, Don Matheson, to residents in a community group meeting 2 years ago—namely, that if there is proof that Ivon Watkins-Dow caused the problem, the Government would seek recompense and sue it? Now that the report has confirmed that there is evidence, will the Government be suing Ivon Watkins-Dow?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The case for suing Ivon Watkins-Dow is a very modest case indeed, and therefore would almost certainly fail. I think it is more important to work out not what is happening to dioxin levels but what is happening with birth defects in New Plymouth compared with the rest of New Zealand, and with cancer levels in New Plymouth compared with the rest of New Zealand. Both of those reports are likely to come to us, and to be made public, mid-year.

Rod Donald: Does the Minister agree that if the Government does not sue Ivon Watkins-Dow, it will send a terrible message to multinational corporations that they can come to New Zealand, pollute our local environment, poison our local residents, and get away scot-free—indeed, with the assistance of the Government of the day?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Can I say to the member a little more directly that we have advice that the chances of success, if we were to sue Ivon Watkins-Dow, would be slight indeed. We operate by the rule of law, and if a court case will not succeed there seems to be little case for undertaking it.

Sue Kedgley: Is one of the reasons why the Government is reluctant to sue Ivon Watkins-Dow the fact that Governments in the 1960s and 1970s spent millions of dollars subsidising the chemical 2,4,5-T, which, of course, has given rise to this problem; and is the Government concerned that it could end up as a co-defendant in any legal action?

Hon PETE HODGSON: No and no.

Meningococcal B Vaccine—Reports

6. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Health: What reports has she received on the meningococcal B vaccine?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): There are regular updates on many aspects of the meningococcal B immunisation programme. The most recent advice relates to the safety of the group B meningococcal vaccine. The chair of the Independent Safety Monitoring Board set up by the Health Research Council, and made up of international experts in epidemiology, paediatrics, and immunisation, Professor Terry Nolan, has said publicly that there are no safety concerns around the vaccine after analysing data based on the first 525,000 doses delivered to 210,573 children.

Steve Chadwick: What is the latest report the Minister has seen on the progress of the roll-out of the $200 million meningococcal B vaccine programme nation wide?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Last week the Ministry of Health reported that the meningococcal B vaccine is now available to half of all under-20-year-olds in New Zealand, and that nearly 160,000 young New Zealanders have completed the three-dose vaccination programme. This has involved a huge amount of work and dedication from parents and health professionals, but, as programme director Dr Jane O’Hallahan said, our children deserve it. The aim is to vaccinate 1.15 million New Zealanders under the age of 20. They are the people most at risk of being disabled, maimed, or killed by this disease.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What practical help will the Minister provide to overworked general practitioners who totally refute her suggestion that the meningococcal vaccine roll-out will make it easier for them to administer the flu vaccine when it finally arrives 1½ months late after all her bungling?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I totally reject the comment that the vaccine was late because of my “bungling”. The member has already apologised to me personally for comments that he had made that were wrong. He may want to apologise for that one, as well. As everybody knows, this vaccine did not arrive on time, because of a manufacturing error. I do not know of many health Ministers who do the manufacturing of vaccines. I can say to general practitioners that for the meningococcal B vaccine programme, we have undertaken to employ—and district health boards have employed—a large number of nurses. It is mainly nurses who carry out the vaccination programme.

Judy Turner: Is the Minister satisfied that parents have been given sufficient ongoing education about the limitations of the immunisation programme and the fact that they need to watch their children for signs of the disease, given that the vaccine does not protect them from all strains, and given that radio advertisements playing today do not give parents sufficient advice of this risk?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I agree with the member that we need to ensure that parents remain vigilant about all strains of meningococcal disease. Meningococcal B is a particularly nasty strain, but we do also have meningococcal C in New Zealand. We are aware of that, and certainly efforts are being made by our public health physicians and others to ensure that parents are mindful of the need to be careful with any of these sorts of problems and to go straight to the hospital if they detect symptoms.

Steve Chadwick: Can we afford to relax our efforts to vaccinate our children against this terrible disease?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, we certainly cannot. So far this year there have been 53 cases of meningococcal disease and three deaths. Recent well-publicised cases of the disease highlight the point that this epidemic will not go away on its own. We do not know when it will strike, and the vaccine is the best way to protect against this particular strain of the disease.

Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave to table a document from the Manawatu Standard entitled “Double-up a problem”, which points out just how difficult the delayed roll-out of the flu vaccine is to general practitioners.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Question No. 4 to Minister

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am raising this point of order at the first available opportunity. I think that your ruling with respect to having me ejected from the House was grossly wrong, particularly as there was no attempt to feel for the circumstance in which the event happened. The plain fact is that the Minister was not insulted by my colleague Peter Brown, but she sought to fling an insult back to this side of the House. Naturally that sort of reaction would occur in any such circumstance. Not to take that into consideration and not to treat her the same as me with respect to that was, I think, wrong and unfair. I want to make it very clear that if people—including you—want cooperation in this House they will get it, but not when I get a ruling like that. I want to make it very clear that I do not think Jonathan Hunt, or any other past Speaker, would have done anything like that.

It was simply not an interjection. I did not interrupt the questioner. I did not interrupt the Speaker or the Minister. I was speaking to someone else, as many people have been doing in the last 10 minutes in this House. None of them have been ejected from this House at all. I heard colleagues speaking to each other as I walked back into the Chamber. I think that that sort of ruling might be attempting to set some sort of standard, but it is not a standard we will tolerate or live with. We want fairness in this House, and I think that that ruling was grossly unfair, given that the Minister made that allegation, which was a lie in itself—not true—and you almost allowed her to get away with it. I want to make it very clear that if you want disorder in this House, let that happen one more time and then some members will find out how rough the game can get when it comes to things that are personal.

Madam SPEAKER: The member knows well that this House has sought to have the rules enforced rigidly. I have been attempting to do that, but obviously with a modicum of common sense. We know that when people are asking questions, there are to be no interjections or chipping across the House. It was on that basis that I gave my ruling. The member also knows that members cannot argue with a ruling on a point of order. I have heard what he said. Now I ask him to ask his question.

Superannuation—Married Rate

7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: What was the percentage of the net average wage used to calculate superannuation payments for married couples in April 2000 and April 2001, and why was it set at this percentage?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): In 2000 the rate was around 67.8 percent of the net average wage, delivering an increase of $21.42 a week for a married couple. That reflected the anticipated increase based on raising the floor back to 65 percent before the Government Statistician rebased the net average ordinary-time weekly wage index, which could have been used, of course, to justify a lesser increase. Following the normal annual adjustment, the married couple rate rose to 68.3 percent of the average wage in April 2001.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Minister of Finance this curiosity: if the rate of New Zealand superannuation was set at 67.8 percent and then 68.5 percent respectively in April 2000 and April 2001 to compensate for the drop in net average wages, which Grey Power estimated at the time to cost superannuitants $21 per week, why did he then allow the rates to drop back to 65 percent and below, as evidenced by this chart I have?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On 27 January 2000 I issued a press statement announcing the changed rates and explained the technicality around the change in the index. I said in that press statement that the rate at which the pension drifted to 65 percent of the average wage would depend on the relative movements of wages and prices over the next few years. For as long as it is over 65 percent it will be adjusted for inflation only, but it will never be allowed to sink below 65 percent again in terms of the 1 April figure.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is it OK for the Labour Government to have the rate above 68 percent, but grossly wrong for New Zealand First to suggest it in 2006, and what does he mean when he says he put out a press statement to set the new rate at a figure not to go below 65 percent, when his colleague Rick Barker has released the actual figures for March 2004 at 64.88 percent and for June 2004 at 64.83 percent; and what on earth is he talking about?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Facts and law. In this particular case it has been pretty much the same since 1976 when New Zealand superannuation was set at 80 percent of the average wage—that was at 1 April before the next adjustment occurred, then normally the figure would have drifted below 80 percent and then be restored to 80 percent. That has also been the case with the 65 percent floor. The reason for it being above the floor in the year 2000, I just explained, was that we had based the anticipated level of payment on the net average ordinary-time weekly wage index as it was at the time we became the Government. Shortly thereafter the Government Statistician announced a rebasing of the index, which could have been used to justify a lower rate of increase. That would have been seen, in our view, as a betrayal of the promise we gave people at the election only a few short weeks earlier.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is he trying to allow Treasury to be politicised with respect to the figures on these calculations that he released the other day, claiming that the total cost would be $1.68 billion 10 years from now; and on what fictional borrowing and drawings figures, earnings figures, and consumer price index figures was Treasury doing that calculation, or what clairvoyant did he use to make that statement to the media?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In this year’s Budget, as in every Budget, the Government makes certain predictions around the rate of inflation and the rate of wage growth over the coming period—normally set at a 2 percent inflation rate, and 3 percent average wage rate over the long term. It is always Treasury practice, and I am sure the member may recall from his intimate, close, detailed involvement in budgetary provisions in 1997 and 1998 that when a major costing item is included in Government spending it is assumed that it will be paid for by additional borrowings, so in the long term the cost of additional financing also has to be included. That is the case in the spending proposals in this year’s Budget from the Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why was 68 percent OK for his Government in 2001 when it was trying to keep its promise, but wrong in 2006 when New Zealand First will be back in the administration making sure that the promise is kept?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Because the 68 percent was seen as the level in 2000. As I said in the press statement it was anticipated it would drift back to the floor of 65 percent over time. The member is proposing a new floor of 68 percent rising to a new floor of 72.5 percent. That is over a 10 percent increase in the cost of New Zealand superannuation, and throws into question any long-term fiscal forecast.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a document setting out the 67 percent and 68 percent rates of 2000 and 2001.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table an answer from Rick Barker in which he sets out that this Government has fallen below 65 percent on a number of occasions.

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

Rates—Rebate Scheme Changes

8. DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) to the Minister of Local Government: What changes is the Government proposing to the rates rebate scheme?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts), on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: The Government is proposing major changes to the scheme, which will provide significant benefits to ratepayers on low incomes. The Government has listened very carefully to these ratepayers. The maximum rates for rebate will increase from $200 to $500—a 150 percent increase. The income abatement threshold will increase from $7,400 to $20,000—a 170 percent increase.

David Parker: How many people will be eligible for a rebate under the revised scheme?

Hon RICK BARKER: Up to 300,000 ratepayers could be eligible for the rebate. This will include many superannuitants. I wish to pay tribute to Grey Power for drawing the need for such an upgrade on rebates to the Government’s attention. The House will be very pleased to know that we will be able to meet the needs of low-income superannuitants and other low-income ratepayers by injecting a budgeted $50 million into their incomes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: If the Government is so concerned about rates why is his Government, in clause 9 of the Resource Management Amendment Bill, making ratepayers responsible for remediation of contaminated sites, at a cost that has been estimated by the Ministry for the Environment as $1 billion, and given that the Prime Minister is so keen to talk about the $50 million gift, why did she not also mention that the Government is proposing to dump on ratepayers this additional $1 billion cost?

Hon RICK BARKER: The Government is talking very closely with local government and has a funding project under way to address a variety of issues about funding, to ensure that local government is adequately funded.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was quite specifically about the $1 billion cost that the Government is going to pass to local government and ratepayers in respect of contaminated sites. I did not hear any response at all from the Minister to that quite specific issue.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question.

Larry Baldock: Can the Minister confirm that increasing the income abatement threshold, and the amount of the rebate, has been something that United Future has raised with him on a number of occasions over the past year, and would he also acknowledge that another United Future proposal to remove GST on rates would reduce even further the financial burden on superannuitants and all ratepayers in this country?

Hon RICK BARKER: I am happy to confirm that United Future members have been in dialogue with the Government over this very issue, and it has been a very successful policy outcome.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the report of the Ministry for the Environment for August of last year that estimates the liability of cleaning up contaminated sites at $1 billion.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table clause 9 of the Resource Management Amendment Bill that makes councils responsible for cleaning up contaminated sites.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection. It will not be tabled.

Social Development and Employment, Minister—Confidence

9. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister for Social Development and Employment?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Gerry Brownlee: What persuasion did she use on Mr Maharey to get him to change from his Monday night position, stated in the Evening Standard, that he was not accepting an apology from Mr Tamihere, to his position on Tuesday morning, when he said he was drawing a line under the issue and moving on because the Prime Minister had told him to do so.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Mr Tamihere came to caucus and made a humble apology. My colleague Mr Maharey is a very generous man.

Deborah Coddington: Has John Tamihere retracted his description of Steve Maharey as “smarmy”; if not, what is the basis for her statement: “Everybody likes John.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Mr Tamihere has humbly apologised for the statements that he has made. Indeed, it is true that Mr Tamihere can be a very likeable person. As the Prime Minister said, he can also stumble in a big way. Unlike some people in this place, he does know when he stumbles, as well.

Deborah Coddington: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I specifically used the word “retracted”, not “apologised”. The Minister might have addressed the question if I had asked whether Mr Tamihere had apologised. He did not address the question, given that I asked whether Mr Tamihere had retracted the statement.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question.

Gerry Brownlee: When was the last time the Prime Minister spent 2 hours with Mr Maharey, and was her experience one that left her walking away with screeds of paper, none the wiser from his very clever and smarmy dialogue, and knowing that the whole conversation was of no substance at all?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think that the last occasion the Prime Minister spent 2 hours with Mr Maharey would have been on Monday morning at Cabinet. She would have come away, as she has come away on a number of occasions recently, knowing that Mr Maharey has contributed to a drop in the number of people on the unemployment benefit from 164,000 to 60,000, that he has introduced the first major benefit reform package since 1938, and that he has helped to drive unemployment down to the lowest level in the OECD. He is not only hard-working and conscientious but highly successful.

Te Wānanga o Aotearoa—Enrolments and Courses

10. Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) to the Minister of Education: What action, if any, is he taking to investigate the validity of enrolments and courses completed at Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, which received some $239 million of taxpayers’ money last year?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I have asked the Tertiary Education Commission to investigate all allegations of dubious enrolments as they have emerged. As I have already said, I am not satisfied that that wānanga has operated either ethically or appropriately, and action will be taken to address that.

Hon Ken Shirley: Did the report of Graeme McNally, the Crown’s former representative on the council of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa—reported to the Minister last year—raise the issue of fraudulent enrolments, and why is the Minister refusing to release that report, following my request under the Official Information Act?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The reports of the Crown observers and Crown managers are not generally released, for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

Lynne Pillay: What steps is he taking to address other concerns relating to Te Wānanga o Aotearoa?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Heaps, and even more will happen. A Crown manager has taken control of the finances. The Tertiary Education Commission is renegotiating its charter to ensure that it focuses on its core role. I have appointed new members to the council, including Wira Gardiner. And the Auditor-General is conducting an inquiry into conflicts of interest and inappropriate use of taxpayers’ funds.

Simon Power: Is he satisfied that the Tertiary Education Commission and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority processes for checking any falsified enrolments at the wānanga are satisfactory; if not, what further action does he intend to take to ensure that any such failures are rectified?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The Tertiary Education Commission and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority do not do a student by student check on enrolment forms. That would take the bureaucracy to a level that I think would be inappropriate. Where there are complaints and things are drawn to their attention, investigations do occur. I know that in at least one case Mr Shirley has drawn some things to our attention. The National Party has tended to defend Rongo Wētere, but this Government is determined, when each case is brought to—

Judith Collins: That’s ridiculous.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is not ridiculous. The leader spent the day at Ratana wandering around with Rongo Wētere. I do not know why those members do that, but they are pretty stupid.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Did the report of the financial review of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa by the Education and Science Committee, tabled in December 2004, contain a minority report by the ACT party expressing its concerns about financial mismanagement at the institution; if it did not, how does the Minister interpret that omission?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Having looked at that report as part of my official duties, I cannot remember seeing such a—I am checking with the member; I did not miss it on the way through. All we can say is that it they are continuing to be slack.

Hon Ken Shirley: How can the Minister claim that the Auditor-General’s investigation will uncover inappropriate use of taxpayers’ moneys, when investigation into the validity or otherwise of enrolments is specifically excluded from his terms of reference?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Because I understand that the Auditor-General consulted with the Tertiary Education Commission, and satisfied himself that it was an inappropriate way to deal with that matter. If there has been fraud, in the end it will not be a matter for the Auditor-General; it will be a matter for the police.

War Memorial Park—Plans

11. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Does she have any plans to create a national war memorial park where all theatres of war in which New Zealanders served can be represented; if not, why not?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage), on behalf of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: The Prime Minister said at the time of the interment of the Unknown Warrior that the Government has begun the process of negotiations towards acquiring land for a national memorial park. These negotiations are continuing, and we are confident that they will be successful.

Ron Mark: Why do the plans outlined by the Prime Minister not include an undertaking to build a memorial of the type and scale of those found in the United States and Australia to honour all men and women who served New Zealand during the Viet Nam War?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Every country decides what is appropriate in terms of war memorials to commemorate the sacrifice of those who have given their lives in battles across time. New Zealand has the National War Memorial, in Buckle Street, that recognises the service of people, from the Boer War to the Viet Nam War. There are many other war memorials around New Zealand. I do not think it is particularly useful to compare what happens in Australia and the United States, which are, of course, much bigger countries. However, this Government has paid extensive notice. We have, for example, published a series of oral histories commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Second World War. We are progressing plans to have a memorial to New Zealanders in Hyde Park in London. I believe that the service of people across New Zealand and across the services is very well attended to.

Madam SPEAKER: That answer was a little long.

Ron Mark: Does the Government not think about the fact that 37 New Zealanders lost their lives in Viet Nam, that more were wounded, that many more survived but had their health and the health of their children seriously affected by exposure to defoliants, and that for over 30 years these servicemen and women were stigmatised and denigrated for their service in that war; and does she not consider that those are very good reasons why the construction of such a memorial is the right and proper thing to do?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: I am delighted to have the support of that member for the actions that this Government is taking, particularly the setting up of the Ministry of Veterans’ Affairs, and our proposal to work towards a peace park in Buckle Street.

Police—Resources, Counties-Manukau

12. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) to the Minister of Police: How many sworn officers—full-time equivalents—were there in Counties-Manukau Police District on 30 June 2004, and how many are there today?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): I am advised that in July 2004 there was a restructuring of police operations across the Auckland region that reclassified police from three districts, to three districts plus one support group, without affecting the number of police on the ground. Prior to the restructuring, on 30 June 2004 there were 795 sworn police officers designated as Counties-Manukau staff. Under the new structure some of those police were re-designated as Auckland metropolitan crime and operations service group staff, even though they continue to sit at the same desk and do the same jobs—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just tell us the number.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I simply interjected that the member asked a very simple question—how many officers were there then, and how many are there now? We got a whole lot of garbage that the Minister mumbles into the microphone, when all that members want to hear is the answer to the question.

Hon Mark Burton: I, for one, am interested in the facts of the matter. The member may not be but I would like to hear the answer. If members opposite are not interested in the facts, that is revealing to members of the House.

Madam SPEAKER: Let us proceed. I do not need any more help with this. Would the Minister proceed with his answer.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Under the new structure, 633 sworn staff are currently designated Counties-Manukau district staff. Police coverage in the district has not been affected by the new structure. In fact, police numbers across the Auckland region are up.

Hon Tony Ryall: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think in the interchange that followed the Minister’s statement and the interjection by the Hon Nick Smith, the Minister gave us the pre-restructuring figure of 795. That was correct according to official documents. He did not give us the number after the restructuring that appears in nine official documents that I have on my desk, which is 683. Did he read that out?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Yes, the Minister gave the figure at the end of his answer. It would so help if people listened.

Hon Tony Ryall: No, he gave the figure 633, which is the figure at the moment. He did not give the figure that followed the restructuring in June. He gave the pre-restructuring figure—and I accept what he is saying—but he did not give the post-restructuring figure.

Madam SPEAKER: I am trying to work out exactly what the point of order is.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: He was not actually asking a question. To get down to that level of detail in a point of order is irrelevant to the question. The Minister gave an answer that completely answered the question asked.

Madam SPEAKER: I think that is correct. The Minister did address the question. It may not have been the answer that the member wanted, but there is a supplementary question he could ask.

Hon Tony Ryall: He gave an explanation about the change of restructuring, but he never gave the figures.

Madam SPEAKER: Ask a supplementary question, please.

Hon Tony Ryall: What is the Minister’s explanation for the number of sworn officers in Counties-Manukau being run down in the past few months from 683 to 633—a reduction of 50 front-line staff—while there are over 1,000 unallocated cases in Counties-Manukau?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Restructuring took place. There are now more police in the Auckland area than there were at the time of restructuring. There are now 2,088. There were then 2,072.

Stephen Franks: Is the Minister satisfied that the Northern Communications Centre has enough staff who are properly trained to do their duties; if so, on what basis?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The police have conducted a review—they have had that done—and will make some announcements about that shortly.

Martin Gallagher: How has the reorganisation of some staff into the Auckland metropolitan crime and operations service group affected police service delivery in the Counties-Manukau Police District?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Under the new structure, in addition to Counties-Manukau staff, North Shore - Waitakere has 622 sworn staff, Auckland has 637, and the Auckland metropolitan crime and operations group has 196. Although the same staff are sitting at the same desks in the same stations, the new structure is proving highly effective. I am advised that in North Shore - Waitakere, crime was down by 7.4 percent last year, in Auckland it was down by 11.9 percent last year, and in Counties-Manukau it was down by 11.3 percent. I hope most people would rejoice in that.

Marc Alexander: Is the Minister comfortable with our low police-to-population ratio in comparison with other jurisdictions, such as Australia, Britain, and the US, or is he simply unable to obtain resources from the Minister of Finance to ensure the public’s safety?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: We compare apples with apples. We look at what results were, and we look at them now. New Zealand’s police are doing a very good job. Crime has dropped down by 8.2 percent, which is the best it has been for more than 20 years, and the police are getting more and more resources.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why does the Minister not simply confess to the House that front-line police numbers in Counties-Manukau have been run down deliberately in the last 9 months to meet the Government’s funding constraints?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: This Government has given the police more money. That member was going to take it away. He sat in Cabinet as Minister of Justice when his Government was reducing police numbers by 540 and cutting $40 million to $50 million out of the budget.

Marc Alexander: Has the Minister put in a bid for more resources to fund additional front-line staff; if so, is he confident of receiving it; if not, why not?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: That member will have to wait until 19 May, when I will be smiling.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table an official police document—the New Zealand Police monthly human resources scorecard—which shows 50 fewer—

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. The document may not be tabled.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to ask the Minister why his coalition partners do not know the details of the police budget that is about to be announced.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Ron Mark: It is a point of order. I am seeking leave to ask the question why the coalition partner to the Government does not know the details of the police budget.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to ask that question. Is there any objection? There is. The question will not be asked.

Marc Alexander: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to correct that member. We are not a coalition partner.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you for that point of clarification.

Bills

Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 3 Fiordland Marine Guardians

JIM PETERS (NZ First): The discussion on Part 3 needs some reference to the fact that the Fiordland Marine Guardians felt that their role was not given proper and due recognition in the original bill. I am very pleased to say that the revised bill takes that into account as far as we were able to, bearing in mind the lack of a truly more integrated system, by statute, at the present time. Earlier on we heard from another member that in the opinion of the Green Party, the Minister of Conservation needed to have an elevated status in this bill. However, the role of the Minister of Conservation is recognised, particularly in regard to the review process.

Firstly, changes have been made so that clause 12(1)(a)(iaa) states that the functions of the guardians include: “advice and recommendations on the effectiveness of management measures in the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area:”. That is a due recognition of the issues that were raised by the guardians. Secondly, clause 21 states that a review will be carried out by the Minister of Conservation, who will, in turn, consult with the guardians and invite them to be part of that process. Lastly, and probably most importantly of all, the select committee took into account the need—and I believe that this is very important for the long-term development of this concept—for the guardians to include at least five members, rather than two, who are ordinarily resident in the Otago or Southland regions. In other words—and this is a very major task for the Minister—the guardians will be a representative body that represents that locality. I commend the select committee members for their work. We support this part of the bill.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party, in the name of Metiria Turei, has moved some amendments to this part, all of which restore some measure of the environmental protections for marine reserves that are missing from the bill. Most notably, we think that the guardians should include a member of the New Zealand Conservation Authority. The Fiordland Marine Guardians grew out of the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment, to which the Sustainable Management Fund grant was made. Clearly, the latter group was most concerned with the sustainability of the fish that people consider valuable to catch.

The final form of the plan, on which this bill is based, recognised, in a modest way, the need to sustainably manage the marine environment for other purposes—specifically, to protect the unique biodiversity of the fiords. The New Zealand Conservation Authority is better equipped to advocate for this, and to ensure that this purpose is not downgraded to people primarily interested in extractive activities, be they recreational or commercial. We also recommend changing the review period to enable a review to occur no earlier than 3 years and no later than 5 years. That is sufficient time to assess the effectiveness of the management regime that will be put into law by this bill. The review should be time limited, being completed within a year of its start.

In schedule 3 we recommended that the automatic right to land aircraft in the marine reserves be taken out. It is absolutely irresponsible to allow an unlimited number of aircraft to land and take off within the marine reserves without any controls. The requirement for a concession could affect the control necessary to protect both the natural environment and the experience of that environment for the people who go there. Tour buses need concessions to drive into national parks and planes require the same to land in national parks. Likewise, aircraft should require some level of permission from the Department of Conservation before landing in marine reserve areas.

Marine reserves are our national parks of the sea. The potential for disaster is enormous and could be easily remedied with the exercise of a little bit of control. These marine reserves deserve the same level of protection as any other national park in our country. In schedules 6, 7, and 8 we have restored the anchoring restrictions to the “china shops”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): We are discussing Part 3. The member should be debating Part 3.

KEITH LOCKE: Does that not include the schedules?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is schedule 13 only.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): I rise to speak on Part 3 of the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill and welcome the recommendation by the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee to change clause 14 so that when the Minister appoints the Fiordland Marine Guardians, he or she needs to ensure that at least five members are ordinarily resident in the Otago or Southland regions, whereas the original bill required only two. It is important that the focus is on the local area, and I think the change will strengthen those provisions.

Initially, I think the Minister appointing the guardians is the necessary way forward. It is a process that began in the local area, and those who first became involved were those who were willing to put up their hands and volunteer their time for what was going to be quite a long process—one that would require a considerable amount of self-sacrifice in terms of their time and energy to see it through.

So we are comfortable for the Minister to continue with an appointment process after this bill is enacted, but in the long term United Future would like to see communities choosing representatives in their area, similar to the process we now have with our district health boards, where we have elections for a number of the board members, then the Minister can appoint a few others, perhaps to fill in a few gaps where he or she sees that the board does not have representation. That would be a good step forward, and perhaps with the implementation of clause 21, “Ministerial reviews” that recommendation may be made in the future as the guardians bed in and settle down. Perhaps in the years ahead communities will have an opportunity to elect their guardians’ representatives. We in United Future believe that would work very well for the New Zealand Conservation Authority and the 13 conservancies around the country that are, at this stage, ministerial appointments. We think there could be a balance between elections and ministerial appointments to fill in some gaps where there might be a lack in experience or representation of community interests. However, at this stage United Future is comfortable with the appointment process, and we will look forward to that review occurring in 15 years’ time.

We also welcome clause 22A, “Protocol between management agencies and Guardians”, which we think will strengthen the important role of the guardians so that the process continues to be a locally-managed one that Government agencies must take account of, work with, and take note of the advice the guardians give. That was the whole genesis of this project, anyway—working together with Government agencies but not being led by them, and allowing local residents to take care of their own marine environment. We believe most residents are capable of doing so. We want to see it not just applied in Fiordland but also adopted in other regions around the country. I think that New Zealanders are conservation minded. They know how to take care of the environment, and, when engaged properly, there can be a win-win situation both for Government agencies and for the community. United Future wishes to commend this part to the Committee, and we will be supporting it.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 12 be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (e) of subclause (2).

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

Ayes 10

Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Noes 108

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 14 be agreed to:

to omit from paragraph (a) of subclause (2), the expression “Minister of Conservation”;

to omit from paragraph (d) of subclause (2), the expression “.”, and substitute the expression “: and”; and

to add after paragraph (d) of subclause (2), the following new paragraph:

(e) ensure that one member is nominated by the New Zealand Conservation Authority.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Noes 108

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 21 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) the word “at”, and substitute the words “not earlier than 3 years and not later than 5 years”.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Noes 108

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to, and Part 3 agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 3 be agreed to:

to add after the words “section 7(1)”, the words “subject to obtaining a concession in accordance with Part IIIB of the Conservation Act 1987; and the said Part IIIB shall apply as if references in that Part to conservation areas were references to the marine reserves established by section 7(1) and with any other necessary modifications”.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Noes 108

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 358 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to schedule 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to, and schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to schedule 6 be agreed to:

to insert after clause 3, the following clauses:

4 Activities prohibited in Kahukura (Gold Arm) Marine Reserve

Anchoring is prohibited in the area of the Kahukura (Gold Arm) Marine Reserve described in clause 5.

5 Area of Kahukura (Gold Arm) Marine Reserve in which activities prohibited

(1) The area of the Kahukura (Gold Arm) Marine Reserve in which the activity referred to in clause 4 is prohibited is described in subclause (2).

(2) All of that part of the Kahukura (Gold Arm) Marine Reserve enclosed by a line—

(a) commencing at the seacoast at a point 45° 07’18.3808’S and 167º 08’08.8363’E (being at the southern end of section 3 of map SO 344884); and

(b) proceeding—

(i) in a generally south-easterly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 07’28.7038’S and 167º 08’29.3518’E; then

(ii) along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides to the seacoast in a generally southerly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 08’03.0454’S and 167º 08’34.5196’E; then

(iii) in a generally south-westerly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 08’05.1081’S and 167º 08’15.5893’E; then

(iv) along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally northerly direction to the point of commencement.

(3) The area described in subclause (2) excludes all islands and stacks.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Noes 108

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to, and schedule 6 agreed to.

Schedule 7

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to schedule 7 be agreed to:

to add after clause 1, the following clauses:

Activities prohibited in Kutu Parera (Gaer Arm) Marine Reserve

Anchoring is prohibited in the area of the Kutu Parera (Gaer Arm) Marine Reserve described in clause 3.

Area of Kutu Parera (Gaer Arm) Marine Reserve in which activities prohibited

(1) The area of Kutu Parera (Gaer Arm) Marine Reserve in which the activity referred to in clause 2 is prohibited is described in subclause (2).

(2) All of that part of the Kutu Parera (Gaer Arm) Marine Reserve enclosed by a line—

(a) commending at the seacoast at a point 45°19’08.0172’S and 167º 10’10.4736’E; and

(b) proceeding—

(i) in a generally northerly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 18’50.1402’S and 167º 10’22.1454’E; then

(ii) along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides around Shoal Cove in a generally easterly direction; then

(iii) across the mouth of the Camelot River; then

(iv) along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally westerly direction to the point of commencement.

(3) The area described in subclause (2) excludes all islands and stacks.

4 Co-ordinates in terms of WGS84 Datum

The co-ordinates shown in this schedule are in terms of WGS84 Datum.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Noes 108

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to, and schedule 7 agreed to.

Schedule 8

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to schedule 8 be agreed to:

to add after clause 1, the following clauses:

2 Activities prohibited in Taipari Roa (Elizabeth Island) Marine Reserve

Anchoring is prohibited in the area of the Taipari Roa (Elizabeth Island) Marine Reserve described in clause 3.

3 Area of Taipari Roa (Elizabeth Island) Marine Reserve in which activities prohibited

(1) The area of the Taipari Roa (Elizabeth Island) Marine Reserve in which the activity referred to in clause 2 is prohibited is described in subclause (2).

(2) All of that part of the Taipari Roa (Elizabeth Island) Marine Reserve enclosed by a line—

(a) commencing at the seacoast at a point 45° 26’19.6158’S and 167º 06’54.6080’E marked “DB14” on sheet 6 of SO Plan 344884; and

(b) proceeding—

(i) along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally northerly direction to a point 45° 25’44.2680’S and 167º06’40.3333’E; then

(ii) in a generally north-easterly direction to the seacoast of Elizabeth Island at a point 45° 25’30.8977’S and 167º 07’14.5776’E; then

(iii) along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally south-easterly then northerly direction to the seacoast of Elizabeth Island at a point 45° 25’28.3879’S and 167º 07’30.5427’E; then

(iv) in a generally south-easterly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 25’29.3402’S and 167º 07’40.4304’E; then

(v) along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally south-easterly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 27’26.2960’S and 167º 9’31.6229’E, marked “DB18” on sheet 6 of SO Plan 344884; then

(vi) in a generally north-westerly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 27’00.9921’S and 167º 08’43.1654’E, marked “DB17” on sheet 6 of SO Plan 344884; then

(vii) along the line of the high-water mark at mean spring tides in a generally north-westerly direction to the seacoast at a point 45° 26’40.0269’S and 167º 07’53.6795’E, marked “DB13” on sheet 6 of SO Plan 344884; then

(viii) in a generally north-westerly direction to the point of commencement.

(3) The area described in subclause (2) excludes all islands and stacks.

4 Co-ordinates in terms of WGS84 Datum

The co-ordinates shown in this schedule are in terms of WGS84 Datum.

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 10

Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Noes 108

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to, and schedule 8 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

Schedules 9 to 11 agreed to.

Schedule 12

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 358 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to schedule 12 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to, and schedule 12 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 13 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill be now read a third time. One of the main features of the bill is the creation of eight new marine reserves in Fiordland—a total area of nearly 10,000 hectares. Although the bill creates reserves, they are to be managed under the Marine Reserves Act. Special conditions apply to those reserves. For example, within the reserves Ngāi Tahu will be able to take dead marine mammals and remove pounamu by hand, and fishers will be able to store rock lobster pots and live rock lobster within designated areas. Also, anchoring will be prohibited in particularly fragile areas within some of the reserves.

Those conditions are a result of the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment’s “gifts and gains” process, whereby stakeholders gave up certain benefits in the interests of achieving the overall protection and sustainable management of Fiordland. That the guardians secured the support of recreational fishers, commercial fishers, and iwi for those marine reserves is a remarkable achievement. A key aspect to achieving that support was that there would be a moratorium on the creation of new marine reserves in the Fiordland marine area for 7 years or until a ministerial review of the management of the Fiordland marine area, as required by the legislation, is completed.

The legislation also creates a new body—the Fiordland Marine Guardians—to provide advice and make recommendations to management agencies and Ministers involved in the management of the Fiordland marine area. Ministers and agencies must take into account any such advice. In total, there will be between five and eight members. I assure Mr Baldock and Mr Jim Peters that to maintain the local flavour of the initiative, five of the members must be resident in either Otago or Southland, which is great, and one member must also be nominated by Ngāi Tahu.

In addition to this legislation, the Government is committed to several Fiordland-specific work programmes to give effect to other aspects of the guardian strategy. The work programmes will cover monitoring, compliance, and enforcement; information and education; and biosecurity. They will involve the guardians and key agencies with management responsibilities in the Fiordland marine area, including the Southland Regional Council. I am pleased to announce that the Government is providing the necessary budgetary funding for those programmes so that they can now get under way. Along with the legislation, they will contribute to achieving better integrated management of Fiordland’s marine environment.

I give particular thanks for the work that has gone into this legislation. Firstly, I thank the House and, in particular, the Fisheries and other Sea-related Legislation Committee for honouring the work done by the Fiordland guardians by reviewing the bill with efficiency, attention to detail, and speed. I also give thanks to the officials in Wellington from the Ministry for the Environment, Department of Conservation, and Ministry of Fisheries for their work in converting a local and brilliant plan into legislation. That has involved compromises not only among the different ministries but between central agencies and the guardians. In fact, the notion of “gifts and gains” has spread not only from inside Fiordland but between Fiordland, Wellington, and central government.

My thanks also go to the officials from those departments who worked at the local level with the Fiordland guardians. In particular—and I know that one is not necessarily meant to do this all the time—I pay tribute to Alisdair Hutchison from the Ministry for the Environment. He was the officer who worked so well. In fact, one of my first trips as Minister for the Environment occurred because Alisdair Hutchison asked me to go down with him to Te Ānau to meet the people involved who had been working there, so that we could set up the funding necessary to get this project under way. He was a committed regional member of the Ministry for the Environment who wanted to support what he saw was really good work. So I pay tribute to the work that Alisdair Hutchison has done in that area. Those from the South Island will be able to recognise that particular official.

My thanks also go to the local member, Bill English, because I found out very early on that he worked very closely with the chair of the guardians, John Steffans, in order to keep abreast of the progress. When I checked with him he would say that he had met frequently with John Steffans, and I appreciated that. I think it is really timely to note that we have a new member in the House from that area, Lesley Soper, who also will recognise Mr Steffans and continue to work with the guardians on these issues.

My very special thanks go to the Hon Pete Hodgson, who was at that time the Minister of Fisheries. Pete Hodgson and I attended at least two gatherings of the guardians and friends in Te Ānau. Together we made a public commitment, when the guardians handed over their plan to us, to have this work of the guardians turned into special Government legislation and also to give the financial support to back that up. It was really good to have a person from the south who understood the issues involved and the particular processes, and who was able to instruct his officials on how important this legislation is. Of course, that was continued by another member of the south, my colleague the Hon David Benson-Pope.

But my greatest vote of appreciation is to John Steffans, the chair of the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment, and to Laurel Tierney, the coordinator, because this legislation represents the culmination of years of hard work by the guardians. The chair, John Steffans, is present, I think, to witness this third reading, and I acknowledge that this legislation is testament to his and the other guardians’ vision and tenacity. The select committee is aware of their tenacity and their deep commitment to Fiordland’s marine environment.

At this stage I say to some of the members from one particular party in this House who thought that this was just a bill about fisheries that that really casts a slur on people who I have seen stand in Te Ānau and say that they want that environment. They live and work in that environment more than any other people in this House, and they really honour it. They want it for their children, grandchildren, and grandchildren’s children. They are absolutely dedicated to that environment. They do not want it “fished out” and they do not want it destroyed—they certainly do not want that special underwater coral destroyed. So they are absolutely careful about it. But they understand the meaning of sustainability, and I love them for it. It is about sustainability. It is three legs absolutely in action in terms of economic growth, social development in a remote area of New Zealand, and care and protection for the environment. Those people have shown how different interests within one community can work together to define and achieve a common vision.

Through this legislation Fiordland’s marine environment will be better protected and more sustainably managed. It will also ensure that the local community in Fiordland will have an ongoing role in the management of the area’s marine environment. This is not about locals doing it against the world; this is about locals who know and love the area, and who know it far better than I think any other people in this House know it. The local people know every corner of those particular fiords. Ministers and officials alike have learnt a great deal from the guardians’ process, and we are excited about exploring whether similar models can be used. I commend the bill to the House.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): At the first meeting of the committee, Mr White from the Ministry for the Environment laid out for us the values of Fiordland. I think it is worthwhile at this point to go quickly through what those were. He spoke about the unique marine environment, and we have heard that aspect being developed in the course of this debate. He talked about exceptional biodiversity, and we in New Zealand First sympathise with the issues that were raised by the Green Party. We recognise that that is something to be prized and is precious. The value of marine resources was covered in that opening meeting; also the knowledge that has been gained and developed by the extensive tourism operators in their operations over some time. Very important as well were the commercial and recreational fisheries that have been a core part of that—albeit that at times those who fished in the area came from other places. In both the Māori and Pākehā sense, the significant historical and cultural values were covered—in this case enshrined in legislation—as was Ngāi Tahu’s role in regard to Southland and Stewart Island.

We then looked at elements of the bill, and picked up on the huge and considerable difference under which the proposal was developed—one that we in New Zealand First find so commendable, particularly as some of us have had over 25 years’ experience in dealing with these matters along the coast, and we have not found, I must say to the Minister, the exciting thoughts that she enunciated with regard to at least one ministry.

May I pause and say as an aside that this will mark an exciting new development in the sustainability of our marine life and coast. We look forward to that happening more and more. But in this case we have the guardians who picked up—originally from a fishing viewpoint, we understand, but, secondly with environmentalists, scientists, and community representatives, and not least the Southland Regional Council—the whole process that has resulted in us being here today.

We in New Zealand First are very, very pleased to be able to support the third reading of this bill. We understand where the reserves sit in the national biological picture. We understand that some people may not have been satisfied, and they told us so in submissions. They said that the protections with regard to the ecosystems were not as they would have wanted, and particularly that although this proposal concerned habitats, they were looking at whole communities and ecosystems. They said that this region was unique, not only nationally but also internationally, with regard to those matters, and that therefore the bill, when it is enacted, will at the beginning be only part of a long-term understanding and process.

So we commend the bill to the House at its third reading. We commend particularly the developmental role, the present role, and the role that the committee has now enabled the guardians to have in the future—not to be just a committee of advice but a committee to which “regard must be given”. We look forward to the eight marine reserves being part of a representative coastal marine picture and not something specially set aside. We will therefore be anxious to see, as will other members of the House, after the 5 years what will be the impact of science and a proper review upon this whole development of a marine park and reserve developed in this sense.

We recognise that the Southland Regional Council has to make some changes, and that it would have wished—and I repeat what I said in my first reading debate—that this opportunity had been extended to allow the whole of its coast to enjoy the same protection and preservation, and also use, that this legislation will allow the people of Fiordland, in the defined area, to have. So in these respects we look forward to the future. We hope that the close working relationships that have been developed in recent years will be maintained, that there will be goodwill and cooperation, and, most of all, that we will come to realise more and more the uniqueness and real diversity of our coastline—one in which both man and other creatures have a place. So to the new board New Zealand First says kia ora, and expresses its good wishes for the future.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): The ACT party is very pleased to support this legislation. We recognise that this is a particularly good example of bottom-up decisions from a number of interested and affected parties on the ground, rather than being some sort of centralised bureaucratic answer to what is a very important area for us all. We note that eight new marine reserves, 10,000 hectares, are involved. I was very pleased to serve on the Fisheries and other Sea-related Legislation Committee on this bill. I actually urged that the committee travel to look at all those nooks and crannies down there, and I am still very disappointed that my other colleagues on the committee were not so keen. I would have been very pleased to look at the area closely on the ground. I think it is important for a member of Parliament to do that, especially when it involves such a special part of our heritage.

It is great that the stakeholders have had such an influence in this proposal, and, as the point has been made, a new phrase has come into the lexicon—“gifts and gains”. It is a very good concept. It acknowledges that there is a place for compromise. Nobody got all that was wanted, but it is something everyone can live with and it is a pretty good framework in any open democracy.

Certainly, the fishing industry was rather terrified as to what might happen if exclusive reserves were put right across Fiordland. It now has special areas in which to operate its important industry and to put its crayfish pots. At the other end of the scale one could say that we have very good protection for what are called the “china shops”—these special, unique areas. I am reluctant to call anything unique in an ecology, but the area certainly has a very special ecology, with its black corals and other areas that are very vulnerable to disturbance by anchors, chains, fishing gear, or whatever. They now have the protection they need. It is quite nice in this House to have a bill that seems to have the support of the whole House. I certainly commend it to others. It is a very good framework for a bright future in managing Fiordland.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future on the third reading of the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill, soon to become an Act. First, I echo the comments made by the Hon Marian Hobbs in appreciating all the players who have been involved in bringing the legislation to this point. They include some outstanding people, who are real pioneers, really, in a new concept of the way we may deal with the management of our inshore areas and the precious parts of our New Zealand coastline. I commend them for the work they have done.

This bill establishes eight new marine reserves—approximately 10,000 hectares. It is not an inconsiderable amount of marine area. But it is disappointing that instead of hearing all members in this House celebrating this achievement, there is one party that continually whinges about there not being enough in the way of protection. I refer, of course, to the Green Party. King Solomon, many, many years ago when he was writing his proverbs, said that there were six things that could never be satisfied—and I am sure that if the Green Party had been around in those days he would have said there were seven. We have a Green Party that is never satisfied, no matter how many marine reserves are established.

Many people said that it covers only 1 percent of the area, but they did not acknowledge that it covers actually 13 percent of the inner fiords area, which is a significant amount to go into marine reserve protection. People often go on about there not being enough marine protection, and a press release issued yesterday by Mr Weeber of the Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand bemoaned the fact that we are well behind Australia when it comes to marine protection, and that Australia has over 6 percent of its marine area in no-take reserves. Now, of the two things that are not taken into account in that statement, the first is that nearly all of that 6 percent would be in the Great Barrier Reef reserve—

Hon Ken Shirley: It’s multi-use.

LARRY BALDOCK: Yes, and it does not fully exclude fishing in all parts of it, anyway. Secondly, although in New Zealand we may not have as much area in marine reserves, we have a quota management system that is a form of marine protection and extends out to the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. If that were not some form of protection, I would wonder why we even had the quota management system. So it is not always good to make comparisons of ourselves with our neighbours.

Mr Weeber identified an opinion poll showing that 95 percent of New Zealanders wanted marine reserves. Therefore, we can be sure, as we pass this bill today, that a great number of New Zealanders will be happy. But that poll brings on for me an inspiration for perhaps another Tui billboard message, which would say: “95 % of New Zealanders want a marine reserve in their favourite fishing spot—Yeah right”; or “95% of New Zealanders want a marine reserve in their backyard—Yeah right”. Of course, when we have polls that ask questions about that, we have to make sure they ask the right questions.

Jill Pettis: Yes, but they like them there when they want to sell their property.

LARRY BALDOCK: Yes, everybody wants a marine reserve somewhere else, but if we were to ask whether they wanted one in their area I think we would get a much lower percentage than 95 percent. I think that the very process the guardians have been through, which has been a very lengthy process, is confirmation of the fact that we may all want marine reserves around our coastline but, when it comes to saying where they will be, a great deal of consultation is required, as well as the “gifts and gains” process that has been part of this whole initiative. We also need always to take into account that concept of “not in my backyard, thank you very much”.

So I again commend the guardians for having guided their local residents and stakeholders through this process, and for having been able to decide where the marine reserves would be. Some complained that not a whole sound or fiord was in marine reserve protection, but some arms of the sounds—almost complete arms—are in marine protection. I was sorry that Mr Shirley was not able to make it down there but, after my having been down there and having a look, I think significantly large areas are protected in order to preserve the areas that people are concerned about.

United Future welcomes the strengthening of the guardians’ position in the bill as it is now nearing completion and going to its third reading vote in a short while. We believe that the guardians are integral to the success of the legislation and we also look forward to the Minister’s review in 5 years’ time. Perhaps, as I mentioned earlier, we may see a recommendation there that some more democratic process may creep into the future appointment of guardians in the area, which we think would be an improvement.

I welcome the commitment from the Minister of Fisheries, the Hon David Benson-Pope, who has acknowledged through the Hon Marian Hobbs in this debate in the House that he will consult with the ministerial advisory panel of recreational fishermen regarding the regulations to be changed in relation to recreational fishing bag limits prior to making those decisions, because normally those regulations would have another consultation period. In relation to his statement that there was no need for that consultation because there had already been consultation, I think it is helpful to hear him say that he will at least take some advice from that new panel he is establishing. I hope that further studies to be carried out in the area will give better science on the fish stocks and the habits of fish species there, and perhaps will lead to a review of the regulations in due time.

This bill is a good example of why United Future’s proposals to restructure the Department of Conservation are a good idea. Local people are capable of making good agreements to preserve their marine areas without the department initiating and driving the process. It would be a vast improvement in New Zealand, I believe, if the Department of Conservation were relieved of its advocacy role to concentrate on managing the conservation estate, and marine areas once established, through a community process that everyone could own from the very beginning. That is the hallmark of this whole bill, and we commend it to the House.

LESLEY SOPER (Labour): I am proud to be in the House for the third reading of this important bill for my region, and to hear such cross-party support for it. The bill implements a positive and sustainable local solution, created using local knowledge. The Fiordland Marine Guardians, to their credit, have spent 8 years developing the Fiordland Marine Conservation Strategy and have achieved cross-sector support for their proposals, which will ensure the preservation, protection, and sustainable management of Fiordland’s marine environment. This bill recognises that Fiordland is a globally unique environment with valuable marine resources and exceptional biodiversity. It is, therefore, worthy of special protection.

The bill will contribute positively, not only to Fiordland but also to the standing of New Zealand’s entire environmental protection, and it is a credit to all those involved. All New Zealand wins from this bill.

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Tourism): I want to make a very brief contribution, in my capacity as Minister of Tourism, to congratulate the Hon Marian Hobbs and all those involved. As the gallery is full of media, which we would expect when this degree of cooperation is being witnessed in the House, I just note that this Parliament can from time to time find agreement on a matter that is of huge long-term interest and importance to our nation and to future generations. So I really do want to congratulate Marian Hobbs, and all those who have worked with her, on this achievement.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Railways Bill

Second Reading

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence), on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Railways Bill be now read a second time. Last year the Government rescued the rail network from its disastrous privatisation, and pledged to invest $200 million in it. Crown ownership of the national rail network will help to ensure that the rail system is maintained and developed as a vital part of New Zealand’s transport infrastructure. In addition, the Government’s funding assistance for passenger rail services in Auckland and Wellington—rolling stock, stations, and track—will have extra investment. The aim is to encourage patronage, so that access is improved and road congestion and environmental impacts are reduced. A national rail strategy is currently being developed. It is intended to provide a framework for the development of rail in New Zealand. Its focus will primarily be on improving rail freight and urban passenger transport, in order to support economic growth and to contribute to the well-being of individuals and their communities.

This bill is aimed at promoting the safe operation of the rail industry. It recognises the changes in rail ownership and operational activities, and reflects the strong commitment made by the Government to recognise the recommendations made in the Ministerial Inquiry into Tranz Rail Occupational Safety and Heath 2000, also known as the Wilson report. The bill introduces a more integrated and robust regime that is based squarely on safety risk management principles. Under the current legislation, rail operators are accountable for safety through their approved safety management systems. There are now a growing number of participants in the rail sector whose activities are fundamental to the safe delivery of a rail service, but who will not be covered by a safety management system. The bill extends the licensing regime to cover a greater proportion of those that are termed “rail participants” under this legislation. It requires a clear and visible chain of responsibility between licence holders and subsidiary organisations.

The bill takes a co-regulatory approach to safety. Responsibility for safety is placed squarely on the separate licence holders and their associated rail participants, to provide assurance to the Government that the safety policies and operational systems they have in place mean that they are operating safely and that they will continue to do so. The bill consolidates existing legislation relating to rail safety and expands on that legislation to address a number of deficiencies in the current rail safety legislative framework.

The bill introduces a wider-ranging process of safety assessment to improve safety assurance. It also broadens the range of enforcement powers available to enforce safety. Currently, rail operators submit a safety management system to be approved by Land Transport New Zealand. The Wilson and Halliburton reports criticised Tranz Rail’s safety management system as being “voluminous and unwieldy”. The bill addresses this issue by splitting the safety management system into a high-level safety case and a separate, but linked, safety system. The safety case contains overarching safety risk management documentation that is designed to ensure that the rail participant can properly assess, control, and manage its safety risk and provide safety assurance to the director of Land Transport New Zealand. The safety system is a documented record of the detailed management and operational policies and practices that relate to the safe conduct of all business activities.

The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has examined the bill thoroughly and has recommended that it be passed with amendments. I support the amendments—as does the Minister—that are proposed by the committee, as they strengthen the bill. The committee has done a commendable job. Supplementary Order Paper 353 recognises the new authority, Land Transport New Zealand, and ensures the objectives of the New Zealand Transport Strategy are reflected in the rule-making provisions. The Supplementary Order Paper also addresses level crossing safety, following recommendations from the coroner concerning a fatality at the Silverstream pedestrian level crossing. These provisions ensure that all parties involved in the operation or management of the crossing will agree in writing on the warning devices to be installed and operated.

The relationship between the bill and the Health and Safety in Employment Act is now a great deal clearer. The role of safety manager, with its high level of personal responsibility, has been removed. This is consistent with the principle that safety is everyone’s responsibility. The committee has refined the hierarchy of interventions the director may take where action is deemed necessary to ensure safe rail operations. Each intervention is more appropriately targeted to the safety risk involved. To clarify safety roles in the new rail environment, a mandatory obligation has been introduced for rail operators and their personnel to obey all instructions from the network controller. The safety case—the key risk management documentation—is now more comprehensive. New aspects require policies to ensure that rail personnel are fit for duty and, in particular, that they are not impaired by drugs or alcohol. There also needs to be a policy for consultation with unions and other representatives of rail personnel in the development of safety systems that affect rail personnel.

The revised Railways Bill will assist in fulfilling the Government’s commitment to rail by improving rail safety performance. It reinforces the rail safety framework and supports other rail initiatives, such as the repurchase of the rail network, the investment in rail infrastructure, and the development of a national rail strategy. I commend the Railways Bill to the House.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I am very happy to take a call in the second reading of the Railways Bill, and I want to make a few points about it. First of all, the National Party is prepared to support this legislation as it came back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, because I think a process was finally followed that this House would be pleased with, but I do not think that members can be pleased with how it started out. The House and the select committee were presented with an initial bill that I think had had an appalling level of consultation with the various industry players.

As everyone in this House knows, the very semantics of the wording we use can often make a big difference. I know that Dr Michael Cullen knows that changing just one word can alter the meaning of an entire agreement or bill. Dr Cullen knows that; he is an expert at the changing of one word.

We ended up in this case with a bill that operators such as Toll Holdings were really quite outraged about. Its representatives said to the select committee: “If only we had been able to be consulted with and been able to have our side of things heard, and with just a small amount of change to some of the semantics and some of the wording—where you have ‘all reasonable steps’ and ‘all practicable steps taken’—we could have lived with a lot of this. But in the way it is currently worded, it will just be an absolute bunfight.” I have to say that all sorts of things about safety in the workplace had to be adhered to, which in some cases, as far as I could tell, were contradictory to the actual Health and Safety in Employment Act.

It seemed to the select committee that there was a way around that, and that the officials should have gone away and talked, because we had a very good basis for the bill. That was the Wilson report. I am very happy to say that I think the Wilson report was of substance. It had some value, and we were hoping that we could turn the Wilson report into a legislative vehicle. That is what I think we have ended up with. As the Minister, who just spoke in the second reading, said, there is a high-level safety case in relation to all the operators who work on a railway line.

We need to understand what the big difference is with railways now. Instead of there being just the former one operator that both ran the carriages and trains and owned the line, and so on—likeNew Zealand Rail, as it used to be for years, or like Tranz Rail, as it then called itself—we have split up the railway line. I guess the best analogy for that is the situation with the roads, where a particular body owns the roads. In the case of the State highways it is Transit, on behalf of the Government, and all the players that want to operate on those roads, like trucking companies and private motorists, pay for specific access to use those roads. With rail, we will see a range of different operators, from the big Toll Holdings, which is the biggest operator, to Connex, which is running trains in Auckland, to smaller companies, and to the hobbyist railways, where trains run for only a few kilometres on a little spur somewhere. So the legislation is required.

I make the case again that the National Party was very happy about the legislation but, as the Minister has said, there is a Supplementary Order Paper to come. I have just been able to look at it. We were not aware of this Supplementary Order Paper, even though this legislation was introduced back in 2003 and the select committee, I repeat, reported back to the House on 9 August 2004. There has been plenty of time, if the Government had wanted to have some cooperation on the Supplementary Order Paper, to let members of the Opposition see it before today, before we suddenly bring this bill in and bang it through under urgency.

I have looked at this Supplementary Order Paper and, as with some Supplementary Order Papers, I see that it is reasonably trivial. There is some stuff in it that now calls the authority Land Transport New Zealand, because when the bill was introduced the authority was the Land Transport Safety Authority. Of course, no one will object to that, but how about something like the proposed new clause 48(a) that gives the Minister the power to make rules concerning “… rail vehicles, railway premises, or railway infrastructure:”? The bill as introduced, under clause 51(a), provided that ordinary rules could be made, amongst other things, to “regulate the use of railway lines, and empower access providers to control, restrict, and prohibit the use of a railway line, and to close railway lines in specified circumstances or on specified occasions.” But quite serious concern was expressed about that.

The select committee members, I think, worked very cooperatively—Lynne Pillay is in the House today, and I think that she will agree that the select committee worked very cooperatively—to get the bill to where it is, but what do I see in this Supplementary Order Paper? The select committee had deleted that power because on evidence, on balance, and across the board of all operators who made that submission, it was something that should not have been in the bill. But what do I see now? I see that Supplementary Order Paper 353 proposes to reinstate it.

The Minister is saying that he does not care what was said in the submissions from all the various interested players at the committee hearing. He does not care about what the officials finally advised the committee, or, indeed, what members of the committee across Labour, the Greens, National, and ACT—four parties or maybe even five parties; I do not think that United Future was represented on the committee—all agreed to, and agreed to in a very cooperative style. No—remembering that the bill was reported back on 9 August 2004, we now have a situation where the Minister has come back with a Supplementary Order Paper and has shoved that provision back in.

Now, I have to say that that really tests our resolve to try to work cooperatively. I think that sending the officials away to work with the various players—mainly Toll, because it is the main game in town, but also a number of others—got us a bill that was tidy and a report back we could all sign up to. It got us into a space where we were comfortable—but now this has happened. It is actually a sort of Michael Cullen on steroids trick. This is not just changing one word; this is coming back and changing the entire intent of the bill by whamming in a Supplementary Order Paper in at the last minute.

I will be talking a little more to some of my colleagues about how we will deal with this bill at the Committee of the whole House stage. But, at this point, I say that the bill as reported back from the select committee does great credit to all members of that committee, to the officials, and to the people outside who have to run the rail system. If this bill were passed as it came back from the committee, we would have a safer rail system in which people would know their responsibilities more clearly. The chain of command would be established as to who was responsible for the railway lines, for the land on the side of the railway lines, for the operation of the rolling stock, for the health and safety of workers on the railways and members of the public who come near a railway line by way of using a railway crossing or walking beside it, and for the rights of individuals to enter on to railways land or to walk off it.

This bill would cover all of that in what I think is a very tidy fashion—but not when the Government, in the form of the Minister, just says it does not care what everybody has agreed to or how long the process took place: “I know best; I am in charge. ‘We won. You lost. Eat that!’ Here is a Supplementary Order Paper at the last minute.”

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): I am very pleased to rise and take a call on this bill, because I agree with Maurice Williamson that it is a very important bill. I also agree with him that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee worked really hard on it. I think that the outcome is very, very good. I also have to commend the industry for its submissions, and the union and the employers, who worked together and put very much time and energy into making sure that all the t’s were crossed and all the i’s were dotted, and that we ended up with the best bill we could get. After all, this Government believes that a well-developed, safe, and sustainable transport system is absolutely essential to growth and innovation.

Let us not forget what this bill was a result of. Last year we rescued the rail network from its disastrous privatisation, and we pledged to invest $200 million in it. Crown ownership of the national rail network will help to ensure that the rail system is maintained and developed as a vital part of our transport infrastructure. The bill seeks to build on that. It aims to, and certainly will, improve rail safety. That is very, very important. The bill will transfer rail safety legislation into a comprehensive piece of legislation—namely, this bill—so that what we see is what we get.

The bill will also ensure public safety and the protection of those who are not covered by the Health and Safety in Employment Act. It will ensure health and safety on the job, which this Government is really committed to, as are the workers and their representatives out there. The bill will also gain assurance from the rail industry that it is managing its safety risks.

There has been much work and much commitment, as I said before, from both the union and the employers within this industry to ensure that all bases are covered. I have no hesitation in standing here as a member of the select committee and commending this bill to the House.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I agree with almost every word the honourable member who has just resumed her seat said. When this bill went through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee there was a great deal of cooperation between members. The officials took a huge amount of time, going back three or four times, I think, to various participants in the railway system. I also agree that this bill is essential to make our railways safe. I most certainly agree that the Government has bought back the railway line in a dilapidated state and that it needs some capital injected into it. I do not think $200 million will be enough—I think it will fall short by a long way—but I agree that the railway system was in a dilapidated state and needed some money put into it.

But now we have this Supplementary Order Paper, about which I note the honourable member Lynne Pillay did not say a word. I have only just received a copy of it and I have only had a limited amount of time to read it. I have to say that it raises a question mark in my head. I listened to the Hon Maurice Williamson, and I think he made a very good point—despite the fact that he is obviously suffering from Alzheimer’s, because he could not remember that Peter Brown and New Zealand First were on the select committee.

Hon Maurice Williamson: I said that.

PETER BROWN: No, the member did not. He got it wrong.

Hon Maurice Williamson: My total apology. I withdraw and apologise.

PETER BROWN: I thank the member. He has raised some concerns that do not sit comfortably with us at all. We will take a closer look at this Supplementary Order Paper, because I hope the Minister has not undermined—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Michael Cullen.

PETER BROWN: Does the member think it is a Michael Cullen trick?

Hon Maurice Williamson: Yes, he changed one word—

PETER BROWN: He has actually changed about a thousand words, by the look of this Supplementary Order Paper, so we will take a very careful look at it. I hope that the Minister has not pulled some sort of swifty on the select committee, because the select committee took a lot of time and trouble in endeavouring to get this bill right. New Zealand First is of the mind that the bill should be supported in its entirety, and if the Minister has reversed some of the assertions in the bill, then we will be concerned.

Our only other concern—we would like to put this to the Government, maybe one of the next speakers for the Government will tell us the reason—is why it has taken so long to get this bill before the House. The bill was reported back mid last year, and now, in April 2005, we are discussing it in urgency and trying to progress it through the House.

I do not think there is a great deal more I can say. I remember at the time being impressed by the way the select committee applied its talents, its determination, and its dedication to getting this bill correct and fair in all manner of areas. New Zealand First was very impressed with the attitude of the committee and the outcome—the way the bill was finalised. But I am just a bit concerned by this Supplementary Order Paper, and we will be taking a closer look at it when the bill gets to the Committee stage. In the meantime, New Zealand First still supports the bill.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT): The ACT party does not support the Railways Bill. It is always hard to argue against safety, because one’s opponents can then very easily put out a sound bite saying that one’s party is arguing against safety. When we debated the first reading of this bill, the Hon Jim Anderton, as members might recall, stood up and used a very emotional ploy. He talked about the terrible accident that happened to the child Morgan Jones on the railway. A considerable amount has already been done since that accident. In fact, since 2000 when the Wilson report came out, Tranz Rail, in particular, has done a significant amount of work in improving its safety standards.

There are a number of reasons why ACT cannot support this bill. It started off with good intentions. It went to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, as the Hon Maurice Williamson pointed out, and we on the select committee worked towards reporting back with something on which we could reach at least some sort of quasi-agreement that it was better than what came to the select committee in the first place. But, as is typical, especially when we are in urgency—it comes back to urgency—we have to pass all remaining stages of the bill, and lo and behold, there is a Supplementary Order Paper that damn near takes the bill back to what it was before it went to the select committee in the first place and before we heard all the submissions.

And there were significant submissions on this piece of legislation—from Federated Farmers, from Toll Holdings, from Tranz Rail, from the unions, and from the small railways operators. Those are the operators of heritage railway tracks and the small not-for-profit organisations—charitable trusts that run railways just because they are rail nuts. And good on them. They do a good job in terms of preserving some of our historical railways heritage. But this bill is a push by the unions. It is a union-backed bill. It is interesting that—

Jill Pettis: Rubbish!

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Well, Lynne Pillay just stood up and said it was pushed by the unions. She said it in her own words. She said that the unions backed this bill—

Lynne Pillay: I didn’t.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: She cannot even remember what she said 5 minutes ago, but she said it was a union bill, and she said that it was good to see that the employers cooperated with the unions. Well, what choice do the employers have—the wealth creators, the working people in New Zealand—when these pieces of legislation come before them? They had the Health and Safety in Employment Act, they had the amendment to that, and then on top of that they have the Railways Bill. If that member had even bothered to read the Wilson report she would have seen that it specifically stated that rail should not be disadvantaged when it came to safety measures, that any legislation that followed the report should not be anti-competitive, and that rail should be on the same footing as other forms of transport.

This is not what we have seen. This Railways Bill is demonstrably stricter and more prescriptive than analogous legislation that deals with air transport and road transport. It is significantly more prescriptive in a number of ways, and one is that there is a regulator. The participants, as they are defined under this bill—the licensees, and the people who control access to rail—said in their submissions that they accepted that they have to be responsible for safety and for the setting standards, they have to be accountable for those standards, and they have to be accountable when things go wrong. There is no problem there, they do not disagree with that at all. But what will happen is that having a regulator responsible for all that will take the responsibility for the safety standards, and setting the compliance and vigilance for those standards, away from the rail companies—the rail participants—and put them in the hands of a regulator. All the participants will be reduced to box ticking and ensuring that the companies comply.

As I said at the beginning, it is hard to argue against safety, and we do not argue against safety. But one always has to remember that safety comes at a cost. Under this bill, safety is coming at a significant cost. Those parties, such as the Greens, who say they want to save rail, should look very carefully at the costs in this legislation that will be inflicted on rail operators. The licensing costs will go up for the participants, and the fees have not been set yet. Plus Land Transport New Zealand has stated that its costs will go up. Its hourly rate will go up to $160 an hour. There will be no time limit on that, so those costs will run into the many thousands, and those costs will always be passed on to the people who use rail, whether it be freight operators, or whether it be passengers.

The companies themselves will not carry those costs. When those companies find that they are in financial difficulty and that they cannot carry the costs and have to pass them on to their customers, what will this Government do? I know what they will do. We will see more of this nationalisation of State assets in reverse. We will see a repeat of what happened with Air New Zealand. It will happen with the railways, and we will go “back to the future” where, in 1 year, $90 million of taxpayers’ money was lost by New Zealand Rail, and where we had shocking safety standards.

The member Lynne Pillay has huge faith in Crown ownership ensuring that safety follows. She has an incredible faith in politicians. I do not have that faith in politicians. I would not have that faith in any politician to ensure that no accident happens on the rail, and this is what this legislation will do, because it puts the onus on the Minister of Transport. The perception out there will be that the Minister of Transport will keep rail safe. What will happen the first time that there is an accident? Who is going to be responsible? Will the Minister of Transport put up his hand and say “mea culpa”? I doubt it very much. This is bad legislation made worse by a Supplementary Order Paper introduced at the last minute to overturn the agreements that were reached at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and we will not be supporting this bill.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie): I am happy to take a very brief call on the Railways Bill. As the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I want to thank fellow committee members for all their hard work—those who turned up and understood the bill. I think there was an ACT leadership thing going on—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Primary!

Hon MARK GOSCHE: Yes, primary—that was it—paid for by the taxpayer. It was not done by rail, though; I think it was done by aeroplane. Quite frankly, I think that speech was an ungracious one, because Deborah Coddington does actually contribute very positively to the committee when she is there. On this bill, all the members worked through a very good process.

As the Minister of Defence said in his speech, this measure is about an approach whereby the Government does not set the rules then expect the people out there just to follow them; the people out there are actually engaged in setting the rules themselves, monitoring them, and making sure, from both the management and the workforce perspectives, that they have the safest possible rail system in New Zealand. There are many terrible international examples of rail safety gone wrong. The select committee tried to learn from those examples and not repeat the mistakes. I think in this bill we have the best of both worlds. We have proper Government intervention through a proper Government agency, but, more important, we have management and workers together making sure we have a safe railway system. I look forward to the debate in the Committee, where we can test that as we go through the bill.

MIKE WARD (Green): The Greens are supporting the bill. The process in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was good. It took some time to get our heads round the measure, because what we have now is an industry with a great many players, and there is scope for overlap and therefore scope for gaps between responsibility. This legislation provides measures to ensure responsibilities are met and things do not fall into gaps.

Rail does not have a bad safety record. The problem is that when things go wrong they can go horrendously wrong, and the accidents can be of a horrific nature. Trains are very large and very unstoppable, and it is important that we do have really good processes in place, as Mark Gosche has said. It is up to the operators to write out their safety procedures. But they are not left on their own. They then have to have those safety procedures approved by the Director of Land Transport New Zealand, as it is now.

The mechanisms in place are, first of all, the safety case and the safety mechanisms. The safety case provides the overarching framework of processes and mechanisms, and the safety systems are the more detailed procedures for the day-to-day operations. The removal of the position of safety manager is interesting, the reason for it being that it is believed that all operators have to take a measure of responsibility. The words in the bill provide that the buck actually stops at the highest level. There are a whole range of operators, from access providers to infrastructure owners, rail vehicle owners, premise owners, rail traffic controllers, and maintenance providers. It is important that in each of those areas there is sufficient funding in place to make sure that the operators have the funds and the expertise in place to meet their safety obligations.

Deborah Coddington made a good point about the amount of costs met by rail operators. Of course those costs are higher for rail operators than they are for other transport operators. In the case of road transport we have warrant processes that are administered by somebody else. In the case of rail transport the expertise lies with the rail operators. They have to supervise their own safety processes, to make sure they are done day by day, because they are the ones who know about the matter.

The Greens are pleased to support this legislation.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): Firstly, I thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the work it has done. United Future does not have a member on that particular committee, but I can see from the report back that the committee worked very cooperatively and made some very useful changes to the legislation. I also thank the officials who helped us with a briefing to enable us to come up to speed with the changes that have been made. As I said, we think that these changes are improvements to the legislation.

The bill proposes a more proactive approach to identifying and managing critical safety issues, by ensuring that the key rail participants are licensed, that key safety data is collected, that operators demonstrate that they are managing safety risks, and that the Land Transport Safety Authority has more powers to audit, inspect, and sanction operators. This bill seeks to reduce compliance costs without reducing safety standards. A feature of the bill is its proportional response to the various issues that arise. It does not seek to overlegislate, but it does not let pressing issues fall through the gaps. It provides distinctions as to who is accountable, and that is very useful. Another feature of this bill is the implicit incentive to maintain a required level of safety standards.

The changes made by the select committee reflect the ongoing vigilance of the industry and Parliament to maintain safety standards and to correct any problems, inconsistencies, or discrepancies—no matter how incidental—that might compromise rail safety or the efficient management of the rail corridor. The inclusion of new definitions of terms and positions in the first series of clauses provides needed clarity as to the roles and responsibilities of positions that are central to operational safety and performance. It also provides for a clear pathway to accountability in order to isolate and fix problems that may arise. We are interested not just in sheeting home the blame to someone but also in then being able to fix the problems that may arise.

The legislation recognises that addressing issues of safety often calls for direct action to be taken, bypassing the line of authority when circumstances warrant it. That is represented in the bill by the requirement to obey the network controller unless circumstances dictate independent action—such as where the network controller has no knowledge of the situation at hand. That flexibility allows for quick action to be taken, and is yet another example of the practical measures that are a hallmark of this bill.

It is encouraging to note that the legislation reflects the thinking of experts in the field who have first-hand experience in other jurisdictions. The fact that an expert from the United Kingdom was consulted on risk management in the rail industry is testimony to the fact that no stone was left unturned to get the best result. This approach—ascertaining as much what to do as what not to do—is a healthy approach to designing safety standards. Safety monitoring at a personal level is also addressed in the bill, which requires that safety assessors have the requisite training, knowledge, and experience to undertake assessments. United Future commends that inclusion of expertise as a necessary requirement of safety assessors.

We are also pleased that unresolved issues surrounding level crossing safety have been addressed in this bill. There have been too many tragedies involving personal safety at level crossings, largely because of a lack of adequate warning devices and signs. We are pleased that there will be improved coordination between parties, both at the local level and at the higher governmental and operator levels, to improve warning signs and related safety measures. It is important that a balance be reached between allowing heritage rail operators—who offer important tourist attractions—not to be overburdened with compliance costs, and still maintaining required safety levels. United Future is pleased that this bill recognises that balance. The bill also provides a good balance between upholding requirements and allowing flexibility to act to achieve railway safety.

United Future congratulates officials and the committee for applying practical solutions to pressing risk management and rail safety problems. This is an approach that United Future always advocates, so we gladly lend our support to the second reading of this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Instruction to Committee

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety), on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Railways Bill that it take the bill part by part.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I think that we now have a process we could follow that will make this stage go quite quickly. I can give the Government and the Minister an assurance that National Party members do not intend to take too much time on this, if we could get just one thing from the Minister. I would ask him to take us through some of the key parts of Supplementary Order Paper 353.

In particular, the amendment that I am very concerned about is to clause 51. It reinserts paragraph (a) to regulate the use of railway lines, and so on. I understand that the clause is in Part 2 and that we are doing this part by part, so Madam Chairperson may want to rule me out of order. But all I can say is that the Minister knows very well that Oppositions can delay bills for a long, long time if they want to. We do not want to. We want to work cooperatively; we really do. We think that we got this pretty well tidied up in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I ask the Minister to take a call to give us a brief explanation. It does not need to be earth-shattering, thunderous, or something that will make the front page of the newspaper tomorrow—we just want a little bit of a description.

Some of the amendments are so obvious, it is not funny. Of course, one would want to change the definition of “Authority” from the Land Transport Safety Authority to Land Transport New Zealand. That is correct. Then there are other things, such as amending clause 92(1)(b) to omit the unneeded cross reference, for example. Of course, there will not be any political concern about that amendment. But, I repeat, some things that the select committee, after intense discussion and consideration, had agreed to take out—for example, clause 51(a)—have now gone back in. The Minister may have a perfectly logical explanation and say that that paragraph had to go back in because it did not stay in, so I will make it clear now: we will cooperate. There will be hardly any speaking from us, at all. We will go with this bill as it is, if the Minister could give us a very brief explanation as to what is going on.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Shortly, I will do that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The question is that Part 1 be agreed to, but first of all we have the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 to be agreed to.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This might be a sneaky little trick, but I hope it is not. I have made it clear that the Opposition will cooperate. All we are asking for is a very brief explanation as to why this Supplementary Order Paper is back here at the last minute. Members might remember that this bill was reported back in August 2004, after extreme cooperation from the parties. A brief explanation is all that I am asking for, which is a very reasonable request.

If we have to start voting on the Minister’s amendments, not only will we vote them down—probably unsuccessfully, because of our numbers—but we will also start speaking on them and haul down a team from all the other busy operations, and we will take this bill through every damn clause and part that we can. But I am sure that the Minister will have a good explanation for us.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Perhaps I can help.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I ask whether the Committee wants to deal with Parts 1 to 4 as one question.

SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National): My understanding from Mr Williamson is that the Minister has indicated he will make a contribution prior to the question being put on Part 1 only. Presumably because you have put the question, members will need to seek leave for the Minister to make a contribution prior to that vote being taken. If that is the case, I seek leave accordingly.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have not completed putting the question.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety): I assure Mr Power that I would have immediately taken the call, had he not risen to seek leave and used some time in the Chamber.

The Hon Maurice Williamson has made a very good contribution, and I thank him for his offer of cooperation. I am aware that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee debated the issue of clause 51(a) and, with the officials, agreed initially that it was probably not needed in the bill and should be struck out. However, the New Zealand Railways Corporation has sought the reintroduction of this enabling provision in the rule-making powers to enable better management of the network, and to ensure that the overall management of the network can be thoroughly achieved. It is an enabling provision. It allows for changes to be made as needed. It may be that for a period parts of the network shall be controlled in some way—restricted due to operational requirements or other matters, perhaps. They may even be the sorts of matters that Mr Brown raised a while back about track maintenance. For whatever reason, the New Zealand Railways Corporation, which owns the tracks as the former Minister will be aware, has asked for this clause to be re-included. The officials, having heard the case, have recommended that that is the case. That is why the clause is back on the Supplementary Order Paper.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I will take one quick call to ask the Minister to give an explanation—and this will be very cooperative, I promise members. I thought that stuff would be covered under the Rail Network Bill, in terms of the New Zealand Railways Corporation’s ability to close track when there were issues about safety, such as bolts having been taken out. The Rail Network Bill would have allowed for that sort of regulation. If the clause is also needed in the Railways Bill as a belt and braces I will live with it because it seems a halfway reasonable explanation, but we did not think it was necessary to bring it back into this bill. If the Minister could explain, that would be fine.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety): The Rail Network Bill is about the role of the New Zealand Railways Corporation as an entity. The Railways Bill is much more about the corporation being a participant in the operation of railways. So this provision might be needed for operational reasons. There might have been a slip, or something of a temporary nature, which means that the speed on the line needs to be regulated. Or there may be some subsidence around bridge footings, which is the type of situation where conditions could lead to the need to provide some sort of restriction, or maybe even to close the track temporarily. They are operational issues rather than network ownership issues. That is the best explanation I can give the former Minister. I am sure that as a former Minister he will realise the practicality of these issues.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to clause 4 be agreed to.

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

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 7

ACT New Zealand 7.

Amendments agreed to, and Part 1 as amended agreed to.

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): I do not think that there will be a great deal of debate on this bill. By and large, I think the whole Committee is supportive of it. I seek leave to take the whole bill as one part from now on.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to take Parts 2 to 4, including the schedules, as one question. Is there any objection? There is not. That is agreed to.

Parts 2 to 4 and schedules

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Mine will not be a long contribution. I accept that the Minister has stood and clarified why clause 51(a) has been inserted in the bill, but I draw his attention to new clause 48 on the same Supplementary Order Paper

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Which clause?

PETER BROWN: Clause 48. It is a modification of the existing clause 48, but I think it gives the Minister all the powers he needs to do everything that he just outlined to us. I cannot find any need for clause 51(a) to be reinserted into the bill. Having said that, New Zealand First is quite happy with this bill. As I said in the second reading speech, we believe that the railway needs a safety regime that is more practical and a little bit more comprehensive than the current regime. We are very supportive of this bill. If the Minister wants to put in clause 51(a), we have no real beef with that. We can understand it, but we do not think it is necessary. We accept the Minister’s explanation but we think the issue is well covered.

I conclude by saying once again that a lot of work was put into this by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and by officials. I would like to compliment the officials. They went back three or four times to various rail participants.

Hon Maurice Williamson: We were quite hard on them.

PETER BROWN: I think we bullied them a little bit, if the truth is told. But they came back and delivered the goods and I think they have a pretty good bill. I am a little disappointed that the Government did not see fit to alert us to this Supplementary Order Paper. The Government had a lot of cooperation from the Opposition parties and we would appreciate a little—

Hon Maurice Williamson: It was nearly a case of all bets are off, I tell you.

PETER BROWN: It got close to that. It touched on our sensitivities. But I think the Minister has taken the point on board. When the Government gets cooperation, as it has on this bill, it would be nice if it would say: “Look, we just want to amend it a little bit. Would you guys like to give it some sort of consideration?”. But the Government is the Government, and one gets consideration from the Government only by insulting one’s own colleagues and calling them goodness knows what. Then one gets considered by the Prime Minister, and one gets cuddles. But by cooperating with the Government one gets nothing except treated with a degree of contempt. I conclude by saying that New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety): I thank members for their support of this bill. It is a very sensible bill. In answer to Mr Peter Brown, the purpose of clause 48 is to line the bill up better with the new land transport legislation—simply to reflect better the wording of the two pieces of legislation and to make them work better together. I think we should proceed with the voting.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Parts 2 to 4 and the schedules be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to, and Parts 2 to 4 and schedules as amended agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety), on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Railways Bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Architects Bill

Second Reading

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts), on behalf of the Minister for Building Issues: I move, That the Architects Bill be now read a second time. I would like to acknowledge the timely and thorough consideration that the Government Administration Committee has given to the bill. I would also like to acknowledge the submitters who made both written and oral submissions. This bill repeals the Architects Act, and introduces a modern regulatory framework for architects. It is a companion measure to the Building Act, which reinforces the importance of each element of the building process, and it is an important component in the wider review of the regulatory framework for the building industry. A debt of gratitude is owed to the honourable Lianne Dalziel, who introduced the bill into the House, and to the Hon Margaret Wilson.

My colleague Lianne Dalziel has spoken in this House before about the initiatives that are contained in this bill. The bill strengthens the regulatory framework and has a strong focus on consumer protection. It does that by introducing both initial and ongoing competency testing for registered persons, by establishing a public register that includes details of disciplinary action taken against a registered person in the last 3 years, by providing people with the information they need in order to choose a competent, registered architect, and by introducing meaningful reinforcement and sanctions provisions.

The select committee has considered the bill and reported back to the House. It has supported the key principles behind the bill and recommended some amendments to better reflect the policy intent behind the proposals. The main changes from the committee include: an amendment to increase the maximum fines for breaches by registered persons to $10,000, so as to provide a more effective deterrent to offending; an amendment to increase the maximum fines for persons claiming to be registered, when that is not the case, to $10,000 in order to prevent the registration system from being undermined; an amendment to enable the registration board to undertake any function delegated to it under any other enactment, so as to increase flexibility and allow better integration with the Building Act; and an amendment to replace protection of the title “architect” with protection for “registered architect”. Consistent with that, the committee has recommended a number of consequential amendments, including a change to the title of the bill and a change to the name of the registration board.

Following the release of the committee’s report, concern has been raised regarding the appropriate use of the title “architect” in relation to building design. I signal to the House that I intend to table a Supplementary Order Paper to address those concerns. As currently drafted, the bill requires the registration board to be established on 1 July 2004. That date is no longer appropriate. The Supplementary Order Paper will also ensure that time is provided for the establishment of the board.

I find it interesting that the National Party opposes the establishment of the registration board and has recommended, instead, that the New Zealand Institute of Architects undertake registration. That institute is a voluntary industry organisation, and has no statutory role under the bill. As my colleague the honourable Lianne Dalziel said in her first reading speech on the bill, the current registration board, the Architects Education and Registration Board, and the New Zealand Institute of Architects were closely involved in the development of the bill, and it fits with their desire to modernise the regulation of the occupation.

In conclusion, this bill is an integral element of the wider review of the building legislation of 1991 and of the inputs into the building process, and is necessary to ensure that buildings are designed right first time. I wish to thank the members of the select committee for their work in considering this bill, and to acknowledge the contributions of those who provided submissions. I commend this bill, as reported back from the select committee, to the House.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those in favour—[Interruption]

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country): I can understand your haste in wanting to move on, Madam Speaker, but there are a few comments the National Party wishes to make, particularly in response to the Minister. Before I do that, I welcome the newest member of Parliament, Ms Soper, whom I have not yet had a chance to acknowledge. I hope her time in this place, although it will be brief, will be enjoyable. Perhaps she may learn some lessons from her senior colleague the honourable John Tamihere on how to get promoted in this place, and I wish her luck with the process.

I come back to the Architects Bill, and I say to the Minister who has just finished his speech, Rick Barker, that the reason why the National Party has suggested self-regulation rather than Government-imposed regulation is that more often than not that brings about the best outcome for all concerned. As the Minister said in his opening comments, the whole process started with the Building Bill. We can see now what a circus that legislation has turned into, what a mess the Government has made of it, and how it has had no effect whatsoever on resolving the problems that came from the leaky houses situation we have in New Zealand because of the circus the Government created. With regard to the whole argument around whether architects should be described as “registered architects” or just “architects”, it is our view—and always has been—that the best body to administer that regulation is the group itself, whose members have the expertise, the knowledge, and the desire to see the right outcome.

Architects were themselves caught up in the whole debate around leaky homes. The inquiries that took place into that issue suggested that the failures were systemic, from design—which, of course, is the area where architects are involved—right through to monolithic cladding and untreated timber, and the list goes on and on. Architects themselves were quite anxious to protect their brand, and so they should be. Why should the Government—and this is the question that the Minister did not answer—step in and use a mighty big sledgehammer to crack a very small nut? Therefore, National believes the regulation that the Minister is suggesting we should have supported is not necessary.

This bill is very good legislation in the sense that it is simple, it protects the brand “registered architect”, and it gives architects the legislative framework that they have decided would be desirable. For that reason, the National Party will support the bill going forward. I know that my colleague Lindsay Tisch has studied this issue substantially, and he will bring forward a recommended change to the bill in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper. I am sure that the House, once it has fully studied that Supplementary Order Paper, will accept that it is very good, and that it will pass, rather than the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper. The numbers in support of National’s Supplementary Order Paper are getting stronger all the time. The Government should take note of that—and it should certainly take note of what Mr Tisch has to say about that—and pass Mr Tisch’s Supplementary Order Paper, which the National Party will be voting for.

I say also to the Minister that it would be helpful if, in his contributions through the debate—if he or any other Labour member is prepared to make another contribution—he would explain to architects why the Government believes that they are not qualified to decide how to regulate themselves. As I recall matters, architects themselves stated in their submissions that the best way to get the outcome the Government wanted was not to use a heavy hand—although the Government Administration Committee, as the Minister rightly said, suggested that increases in the fines should take place. There are now fines of up to $10,000 for a variety of offences—up from $5,000—and a range of other fines in the legislation. We think that that is the right approach. The Minister should explain to the industry why he thinks that his department, or another Government department, is in a much better position than architects, or would have much more knowledge than them, so as to dictate to that group what it should or should not do with regard to the registration of the industry.

Hon Rick Barker: Disgraceful.

SHANE ARDERN: It is a fair question, and the Minister seems to have a view on it. I would like the Minister to explain to us why that is so. There is no evidence to support that approach in most of those cases.

If we look at the Building Act, we see the mess that it has turned into. When central government dictates what “Joe Hard-worker”—the builder with the ute, the dog, and the radio—can do, or even that if “Joe Hard-worker”, as most hard-working Kiwis do, buys a run-down house, does it up himself on the weekend, and allows it to become part of his growth plan in terms of equity, it can dictate the way he must do that, and that he must pay this expert and that expert to give him advice on how to do it, then we end up with the exact opposite of the outcome we set out to try to achieve. It would be good if the Minister could enlighten the House as to how many leaky houses now coming through the inquiry that was set up by the Government are homes that have been renovated by the home-handyman kind of builder. Perhaps in the Minister’s seat of Tukituki there may be one. I have heard of none; I have seen none. I have asked for evidence that “Joe Hard-worker” and “Bob the builder”, with their ute, dog, and radio, caused that problem, and I have seen none. I have seen absolutely no evidence to back that claim up. So I ask the Minister to take a call. I may be proven wrong, but I have not been able to find one single case that could substantiate that argument.

In the case of architects, there are good ones, bad ones, registered ones, and those who use the title of “architect” but who are not registered. Just like hiring or not hiring a master builder, that is something the consumer must always have the right to decide on. If somebody has the skills and expertise to be an architect but does not have the necessary regulation—if that person is not cornered and driven into a high - end cost structure by a Government regulation, but can still give the design work necessary to “Bob the builder” or the home-handyman renovator—then why should he or she not be allowed to do that? The Minister has not answered that question.

National will support this bill because we believe that in its current form, provided that it is not subject to the passing of any Supplementary Order Papers that the Government may subsequently bring forward, it is good legislation.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui): I am sure that the Minister will take some calls at the Committee stage. We are currently at the second reading. This bill has had a fairly long gestation. I have certainly met with architects in my electorate to discuss their concerns and to listen to the issues of importance to them, and I was very pleased to have that opportunity. Architecture is an important profession. Our built environment is of considerable importance to New Zealand. Although our natural environment receives a lot of attention, our built environment is deserving of attention as well—and it does receive the attention due to it from time to time.

This bill makes a number of changes to improve standards for architects, and I think that that is largely what the profession was aiming for in its consultation—to modernise the legislation that applies to it. The bill has many key features. They include the protection of the title “registered architect” and the establishment of a public register that includes details of disciplinary action taken against an architect in order to provide better information to his or her consumers. My understanding and experience is that the profession is very client and customer - focused, but the establishment of a public register will be of benefit to both the profession and its clients. The introduction of ongoing competency testing for architects is another feature of the bill, as is a modernised governance and administration process, which will help to bring the legislation in line with current practice in occupational regulation.

A number of amendments were made by the Government Administration Committee. One was an amendment to increase the maximum fine for persons claiming to be registered when, indeed, that is not the case. That fine increases to $10,000 to prevent the registration system from being undermined, because the protection of the integrity of registration is very important. Another amendment replaces the protected title “architect” with “registered architect”. Consistent with that, the select committee has recommended a number of consequential amendments, including a change to the title of the bill and a change to the name of the registration board.

It is interesting that although there is agreement on, and support for, this bill around the House, the National Party opposes the establishment of the registration body, even though that is what the profession wants. The National Party has recommended instead that the New Zealand Institute of Architects undertake registration through self-regulation. Given that the vast majority of parties in this House have listened to representatives from the profession, I think National is really just reverting to type, saying: “Let the market rule.” We all know that that principle never works—it never has and it never will. The National Party is basically reverting to type and not responding to professions and organisations that know themselves better than anybody else. This bill will provide advantages for both practitioners and their clients. It is a good bill, and I think that we are all keen to assist in facilitating its rapid passage through the House.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): One is loath to criticise colleagues, particularly colleagues who work fairly hard and diligently on a select committee, but I have to say that in terms of this bill they got it wrong. They got the substance of the bill correct, because the industry is supportive of the substance of the bill. But the bill as it stands now, without the Supplementary Order Paper, protects the term “registered architect” and leaves the word “architect” out there floating for anybody to use—effectively anybody.

Before I had read the report back from the select committee, I had architect friends contacting me, and they were up in arms. They outlined, in quite some detail, who could or would be likely to use the term “architect”. In basic English an architect, in the minds of most people, is a person who designs buildings or modifications to buildings. When we think of an architect we do not think of a landscape architect, or a software architect—I suggest most of us do not. Because these architects who approached me were so angry, I did a little private survey, asking many people what an architect was—just that one word. They all, without exception, said that an architect was a person who designed buildings. Most of them added: “I would have thought you were old enough to know that, Peter!” after I asked the question. I told them I was asking for a genuine reason.

I think this Supplementary Order Paper was initiated by Mr Tamihere. One has to say he has been getting a lot of flak recently, but if it is true that he initiated it, a degree of debt is owed to the honourable John Tamihere, because without this Supplementary Order Paper this bill could go through protecting the term “registered architect”, as against “architect”.

New Zealand First is absolutely committed to protecting the term “architect” for people who design buildings. Of course, they have to be up to a standard. When we say “buildings” we are talking about homes, commercial buildings, and what have you. But when it comes to homes it is the biggest investment, by far, that anybody makes. If a person has a home or commercial building designed by an architect, that person wants to know that the architect is up to speed. So we want the architect to be registered, to have gone through the necessary exams, and to be kept up to speed with industry requirements. So it is very, very important that an architect is actually an architect, not somebody who has done half a course or has some ability in designing things. He or she must be a fully qualified architect.

New Zealand First is keen to support the Supplementary Order Paper where protection is again offered to the words “registered architect” and “architect”. An architect in simple English language is a person who designs buildings, and the term should be protected. I have to say that for that to escape the notice of the select committee is to do a huge disservice not only to architects but also to people who would use them. I believe that the Minister’s amendment, which, as I say, I think was initiated by John Tamihere, will bring the bill back into line, and I am personally very, very grateful that that has been undertaken. On that basis, New Zealand First will support this bill.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I have to say that I was dying to get the call immediately after the last Government speaker, the senior Government whip, because it was so amusing to see what pure lip service was being paid to the Architects Bill. No Minister was paying any attention. The speaker the Government put up was reading, essentially, from the notes of the Government Administration Committee and was applauding what the committee had done, not knowing that her own Minister had a Supplementary Order Paper sitting on the Table to undo all the good work she was applauding. Mr Brown thinks that the undoing is a good idea; he thinks that Mr Tamihere’s amendments are a sound idea. I do not.

I think it is quite wrong for any profession to seize a general descriptive word, a word that has a meaning in common language that goes far wider than the technical meaning, and then to say: “That’s ours.”, and that anyone else cannot use it. What that seems to mean, for example, is that a landscape architect could be in trouble if he or she were involved in helping to draw up plans for a building. A financial architect doing a financing plan would be in trouble. There are all sorts of uses of the term “architect”—for example, the architect of the Iraq war. It is a general term, a general piece of language.

We simply do not do that in other ways. Accountants, for example, were not allowed to seize ownership of the term “accountant”—the description that was given protection is “chartered accountant”. I think that Mrs Pettis was absolutely right in her praise for what the select committee did. She very correctly identified the contribution the select committee made. It heard submissions and it resisted the self-interested whining of the establishment of the profession, which wanted something far too wide. So for her to draw attention to what the select committee did and to praise it in her speech, as she just did, was sensible.

The sad thing is that Mrs Pettis’ own Government colleagues and Cabinet do not agree with her, and they seem to—

Jill Pettis: Mr Franks, you are putting words into my mouth.

STEPHEN FRANKS: If Mrs Pettis cares to look at her Hansard, she will find that she praised the change of title of the bill to the Registered Architects Bill. She praised the change the committee made to ensure that the term “registered architect” is protected. What the Supplementary Order Paper on the Table will do, even though it may not have been read by anyone on the Government benches, is reverse that good work. I see that the honourable Minister Mr Barker has just suggested that Mrs Pettis hold her tongue, because he knows that I am dead right and that she was dead right the first time. This Government wants to suck up to the professional body and has decided that it is far better to grease to the people with the money—the people who run the professional organisation—and to give them what they have asked for.

That is not usually how this Government portrays consumer protection. This Government usually says that it is making businessmen whine and is making trouble for business, because that is the way it claims it is doing something for the consumer. Instead, in this case, it has succumbed to the representations from the industry. It has taken away a perfectly descriptive word for a whole host of people who should be able to refer to themselves as architects but not as registered architects, and this bill now changes that. I hope that the National Party will vote against the Supplementary Order Paper, because it is wrong.

Lindsay Tisch: We’ll vote against it, unless I get my Supplementary Order Paper changed.

STEPHEN FRANKS: OK, so there is a qualification. Well, I will be interested to follow it, and I hope that we can vote on the same side. I always prefer that.

I am certainly very disappointed to hear that New Zealand First is going to go along with a move to lock up a sensibly descriptive word and give it to one profession. We do not, for example, say that only engineers who are members of the institute can use the term “engineer”. They have to be registered engineers. We do not lock up the term “accountant” for accountants. The new bill for lawyer regulation will not give the degree of absolute assurance that the Registered Architects Bill will now give.

I am glad to see a relatively simple and straightforward piece of law coming in to reform the law that regulates the architecture profession. I am interested that consists of only 48 pages. I compare that with Mr Goff’s disaster bill for the law society of over 300 pages, in which he hands to them just about everything they ever wanted.

I am interested, of course, in one or two of the other things that the Supplementary Order Paper does—in the other last-minute thoughts. One of the problems in this bill that one would have thought would be looked at closely flows from the very poor drafting. The bill refers to plans, but it does not say what a plan is. In this case, for example, I expect we will explore in the Committee of the whole House what a plan that someone draws for a building is. Does it include the landscaping plan? Does it include the plan, for example, of a shopping centre, which would be a very detailed plan outlining how the letting is to be done and exactly which shops will go where?

That would not normally be considered something that the Government would regulate in an Architects Bill. But this legislation is so poorly conceived, like the Building Act, that we will probably end up with some poor real estate agents suddenly being advised someday by their lawyers that they are caught by an Act they would never have dreamt would touch them There would be a plan, obviously, for the letting, progressive opening, and sharing of income—in essence, the terms that are used in everyday language to do everyday things. This bill now carelessly seems to give a prior right, or so-called protection, to the architect’s profession in relation to those.

I think that commonsense will apply. Probably, most people will simply ignore those meanings of the law, but it is just bad handling of Government business to end up with legislation that is so easy for a lawyer to criticise when he or she looks at it for the first time. ACT is not represented on the Government Administration Committee; I wish we did have enough entitlements to allow us to be on that committee, because the Government seems to send to it everything that it wants to slide through and pretend is unimportant. The committee simply has not done a good job on the technical aspects of the bill. The definitions are sloppy and casual, and they will require people to say: “Surely Parliament can’t have meant that. We will read it as if it doesn’t say what it actually says.”

That is the same phenomenon we are seeing at the moment in relation to the Building Act. The Minister in charge, Mr Carter, has had to stand up here and tell us all that he has instructed his officials to tell local authorities that they ought not to apply the law as it reads, and that they should simply not enforce it—in other words, do something that we have tried always to get away from constitutionally: exercise administrative discretions to overcome poorly written law.

This bill is likely to be supported, overall, by the ACT party. We will vote against the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. We will do that for the reasons so ably outlined by Mrs Pettis, the Government’s chief whip, before she realised that the Government had done a back-flip and put in a Supplementary Order Paper that completely undoes the good work of the select committee. We hope that Mrs Pettis will have the courage of her convictions and join us in voting down the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper and in voting against New Zealand First and United Future, which I expect will also support the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper. It will be very gratifying indeed to see such a fine speech as that made by Mrs Pettis followed up by a vote that is in line with her own rhetoric.

MIKE WARD (Green): The bill does not prevent anyone from designing a building; it prevents people from being misled into believing that those who are not suitably qualified to design buildings get the job of doing so. That is the purpose of this bill, and it makes good sense. Designing a building is more than just putting up something that looks good; it also has to work. Some buildings that owners have had built in recent times indicate that the protection they might expect from local authorities and building inspectors is not necessarily there. Therefore, going to an architect who has suitable qualifications makes very good sense.

Architects have the task of designing those most enjoyable spaces in our community—and we do not have enough of those kinds of buildings—making sure that people know, when they go to architects, that they are architects, that they have been trained, and that they know not just how to make things look good but how to make them work and to be weatherproof as well, and that is important.

A couple of interesting points have been raised, and I guess they have been raised with the other parties as well, by an architect in Auckland—that is, relating to the idea that the term “architect” needs to be more clearly defined. The reason is that architects not only draw up plans for buildings; there are other sorts of architects, such as software architects, landscape architects, financial architects, etc., who also draw up plans relating to buildings. It is perhaps important that that is made clear in the Supplementary Order Paper.

The term also applies to registered architects. Apparently, 40 percent of architects do not register as architects, and that is something that needs to be addressed. The Greens support this legislation. It does give a reasonable level of protection.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): United Future will support the second reading of the Architects Bill, which is to become the Registered Architects Bill. It is notable that I was part of the Government Administration Committee for the purpose of this bill. At that time a large part of the reason for joining the committee to deal with this bill was that we were dealing with the reformation of the New Zealand Institute of Architects in conjunction with the Building Bill that went through. It is important to note that there is a link between the two. That link really comes down to the terminology of “licensed building practitioner” in the Building Bill and, in particular, the need for all building practitioners, which will include architects, to be licensed building practitioners in order to do the work they want to do, in so far as it relates to the construction of buildings.

It may be worthwhile outlining both our understanding and the select committee’s understanding of the way the two relate, because I know there has been some confusion about it in the past. As I just said, all building practitioners will need to be licensed. The intention is that when it comes to design work, licensed building practitioners will be of a design category. They will be divided into classes of licence under the design category, and different classes of licensee will be entitled to do different levels of work, depending on their competence, experience, and training.

It is yet to be seen just how many classes of licence there will be under the design category, but it is envisaged there may be three or four. That was the expectation we had at the time we were considering it. We are not sure whether the licences will rise up in scale from one to four, if that is the number, or down from one to four. I will assume it is scaled upwards and that a class 1 licence will entitle very basic work to be done and a class 4 licence the most sophisticated buildings and complexes.

It is envisaged that the people who are able to obtain class 4 - type licences will be registered architects and are likely only to be registered architects. Certainly, that class of licence may be open to people who can prove they have the same competencies of registered architects, but it is hard to see how that would happen without their having registration, at least of an equivalent status to the sorts of qualifications and experience that New Zealand - trained registered architects have. So the highest level will be reserved to registered architects, and the lower levels to people such as those who are currently termed “architectural designers”, and so on downwards.

So there needed to be a dovetailing of the Architects Bill with the intention under the Building Bill to have those classes of licence. We took that into account in the select committee when we looked at this.

As we looked at the need for changes to the architectural profession and its governance, and at the need to update the New Zealand Registered Architects Board, as it will become, we took into account three aspects, as alluded to in the report we wrote. The first was consumer protection, the second was professional competencies, and the third was market competition. We were well aware of the confusion in the public sphere between people who call themselves architects, and people who call themselves architectural designers. Indeed, I recall mentioning at the time that I had spoken to a friend and asked what the difference was between an architect and an architectural designer. He was of the view that the architectural designer was the one who had the qualifications, which just shows the level of confusion that was there. And that was somebody who had actually been involved in building his own house, and one would have thought he would have known something about it.

But there is certainly a degree of confusion in relation to the term “architect”, as to who is an architect and what it means when people say they are architects. It is really that, more than anything else, that motivated the select committee to think that it was time we should be referring to “registered architects” rather than simply to “architects”.

The second reason for doing that, as previously stated, is that we have all sorts of architects now. We have landscape architects, eyelash architects, and a wide range of people who are using the term “architect”. It has become something of a generic term. The term “registered”, of course, is already well used in the professional sphere. We have registered medical practitioners. We also use the term “chartered” for chartered accountants and chartered professional engineers. So New Zealanders have become accustomed to having an adjective in front of a generic occupational term. We have registered valuers, as another example.

That then gives the public some sort of idea that the person they are dealing with has not only some professional competency but also the backing of some sort of registration board that has acknowledged that competency. It seemed to us that it was to the benefit, in fact, of the architectural profession to be using the term “registered architect”, because in the mind of the average person it denotes that that person has something more than simply a degree, or holding themselves out to be capable of something. It means they have the backing of a board that has registered them, and a professional organisation that is effectively behind the term “registered” and that is giving some credibility to what they do. It is actually in the long-term interests of architects to refer to themselves as registered architects. No doubt, under this bill they will be able to do that, because we are indeed changing the term to “registered architect”. The sooner architects who are experienced, have the necessary qualifications, and have become members of the New Zealand Registered Architects Board, refer to themselves as registered architects and not architects, the better it will be for consumer protection, and the better it will be for the architectural industry generally.

That raises the issue of what to do with people who are at a lower level of competence but who are designing basic buildings—maybe single homes that are not complex, garages, or structures of that sort—and their ability to be able to do that work, and to call themselves architects rather than architectural designers and titles of that nature, as they do now. There is a huge amount of confusion out there about people who are using that other sort of terminology. I do not think it is feasible that architects should be able to ban the use of titles like “architectural designer”. It makes for too much of a closed shop. There is a place for people who are not registered as architects to do that sort of basic work and, as I said right at the very beginning, the whole purpose of the Building Bill, in terms of the licensed building practitioner regime, is specifically to ensure that people who have competency at a certain level are able to exercise that level without having to have the high standards that registered architects require.

So that is really the issue that confronted us, and that is the reason the Government Administration Committee thought it would move to the term “registered architect”, and free up the term “architect” to be used in a generic sense.

One of the other things we had debate about, and conflict with the architects board, was the issue of who should be the chairperson and deputy chairperson of that board, and how they should be appointed. The bill provides that the Government will appoint the chairperson and deputy chairperson, but the architects wanted to make those appointments themselves. I think the Government’s insistence that it appoint chairperson and deputy chairperson is right, because at the end of the day that board has quite a strong element of consumer protection. There is nothing to stop the Government appointing to those roles a person who is an architect, and in most instances I think it would certainly be advisable, for credibility’s sake, to have appointees who were knowledgable about the industry they were meant to deal with.

Nevertheless, there is a role for the Government to be involved from a consumer protection point of view, in order to ensure that the architects board does not become a closed shop, and to do such things as limit, by very strict rules, those who can enter their profession. There is the important role of allowing some degree of freedom, and not having a hierarchy created, and that is one way that that can be achieved.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Architects Bill, because I took part in the select committee process for dealing with it. I was invited to the join the Government Administration Committee, which was ably chaired by Dianne Yates, and we did a very extensive examination of, first of all, the weathertight homes problem and the debacle that followed that. Then, at the same time as the Building Bill was before that committee we examined the close relationship between the Architects Bill and the new Building Bill. It was during that process that we realised there was a need to link the two pieces of legislation.

That link comes about through the licensed building practitioner regime. Through that regime there is a set of classes of licence, and architects fall into one of those categories. During the select committee process we heard from numerous people for and against the retention of exclusive use of the name “architect”. As a member of the committee, I hate to disagree with my colleague Peter Brown on this issue. I understand the position he has taken, but I agree with the outcome of the select committee process. The committee agreed to deal with architects under the term “registered architect”, and to free up the term “architect” for those people who have the necessary qualifications. I give the example of people who have a qualification such as Bachelor of Architecture. Such people should be able to use the term “architect”. They have the qualification, and with a certain amount of experience they will fit into the licensed building practitioner format, so there is a place for them in that structure. Obviously, there is a means of discipline within that structure, and there is also a means of identifying what level they are capable of. The registered architects will have been accepted into their own institution, and will be recognised, accordingly, as licensed building practitioners.

It is interesting to note that during the select committee inquiry into the bill the New Zealand Institute of Architects came before us and claimed to have a certain number of members. After the select committee produced its report, there was a mad flurry of activity behind the scenes, and all the MPs on the committee were lobbied. I was one who was lobbied to try to have me change my view on it. I had a visit from Chen Palmer and Partners, along with—

Jill Pettis: How much did it cost you—$3,000?

BRENT CATCHPOLE: Well, it did not cost me anything. That firm was representing the Architects Education and Registration Board and the New Zealand Institute of Architects. It was during that discussion that the New Zealand Institute of Architects claimed that its membership was 2,000, which did not tally with the numbers that had been given to us during its presentation to the select committee. During the select committee process it had said the membership was 1,000. When questioned why there was a difference in the figures, the institute agreed that its membership was 1,000, but said there were another 1,000 trying to join. I have to question why that other 1,000 were being included in its membership. When I questioned members of the institute further as why those people were not being welcomed into their club—I have to use the term “club”, because that is the way it seemed to us during the select committee process; it had become a closed shop or club type of arrangement—I learnt that some of those people either elected to remain outside of it, or were being kept outside of it, because they had disagreements with the institute. It was during that process that I realised we had it right in splitting away the registered architects, and having a separate category of architects.

I was very disappointed in the claim made by the institute that it had received dozens and dozens of letters from overseas expressing grave concern about the proposed changes. When I asked for copies of those letters, I received some. I point out that the meeting with the people from Chen Palmer and Partners took place on 19 May 2004. The date on the first letter, from Paris, is 19 May 2004. If we take the time difference into account, that was the day after our meeting. The next letter is dated 22 May 2004, and was from a New Zealand architect. Then there was another one, from Scotland, dated 20 May 2004—the letters are starting to be dated several days after the meeting—and it just goes on. Those letters are all dated after our meeting. I wondered whether the institute had actually received any of those letters beforehand—perhaps those dates were incorrectly put on them! But I was very disappointed in that process, because the institute’s representatives were making claims about the institute’s membership that were not quite correct, and then they made claims about letters they had received from overseas.

I have to question their ability to manage their institute, because we were disturbed by the fact that they were very blasé during the select committee process, but when things looked bad for them they brought in the big guns. It must have cost an awful lot of money to have Chen Palmer and Partners lobby for them.

Jill Pettis: Yes, it’s $3,000 an hour.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: How much an hour? Good heavens! For the institute’s representatives suddenly to take a heavy-handed approach like that, after the select committee had gone through its process, shows, I suspect, that they were smarting. The institute’s membership must be very angry with the representatives who did the presentation. They were very blasé and were not very forthcoming with the information they should have been presenting.

Personally, I am of the view that there should be two classes, with the criterion for registered architects being that they meet the qualifications of the Registered Architects Board, and there being another level for architects on their own. Those people will have qualifications like a Bachelor of Architecture, and they should be allowed to use that qualification, because they have earned it. They should not be excluded. They have the ability and the qualification to produce quality designs and buildings. Of course, under the Building Act and the whole process of licensed building practitioners they fall into one of the categories. Depending on their level of competence and qualification, they should be able to fit in accordingly.

The one other point I would like to raise on this part of this bill is the link between the Building Act and the Architects Bill, and the regulatory means for disciplinary action. It needs to go both ways. If registered architects fail in terms of the Building Act, then that information is passed back to the architects’ board for disciplinary action. Ordinary architects, who are not registered, are disciplined under the Building Act—they are kept in line there.

With that point, I conclude that I strongly believe that the select committee had it right. A very good examination was made by the select committee, and I congratulate Dianne Yates on the work she did on it. I am disappointed that the Government, because it has been heavily lobbied, is changing the bill with a Supplementary Order Paper that will come up later.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on this bill, which has been around for a long time. In fact, I heard the Minister for Courts say in the opening address that this bill goes hand in hand with the Building Act. Well, say no more! What have members spent most of today, under urgency, doing but trying to fix up some of the issues in the Building Act by way of legislation that does not bear any resemblance to the Building Act?

I want to draw the House’s attention to what has been happening in other countries. A review of what happened with our closest neighbour, Australia, is significant. Our Government Administration Committee made a trip to Australia, and information was supplied to us—and I took a particular interest in this matter—about a review of legislation regulating the architectural profession. It was a public inquiry. I think the points that came out of it are relevant for the debate we are having, and for the legislation that we will be voting on shortly, not to mention the Supplementary Order Paper that the Government has subsequently produced.

It is interesting to note that architects have wanted a monopoly. That is why, as Mr Catchpole has said, they were quite horrified at suggestions that the term “architect” be replaced by “registered architect”. I note the architects’ submission to the select committee, dated May 2004, on the proposal in the committee’s report to remove protection of the title “architect” and, instead, to protect the title “registered architect”. They stated: “The change has taken the architectural profession by surprise and it has provoked considerable shock and concern. There is widespread agreement within the profession that this will spell the end of the longstanding reputation of high standards and professionalism that architects have earned over the years, and the end of consumer protection safeguard incorporated in the protection of the title ‘architect’.”

That is what they said; here is their submission, and that is what they said. But if we look at overseas experience, we see that in Australia, for example, architects have only a very small share of the market for design of new residences. Usually, residences are of a standard design or they are project homes. But even with large commercial projects, architects face competition from specialist project engineers, managers, and non-architect designers. That is the nature of the business they are in. So the experience of other places would suggest that architects are having to compete more and more for their share of the market, and what the architects in New Zealand are suggesting is that they need that monopoly protection.

If we look at what the recommendation of the commission was, we see that its report states that amendments “could improve current Architects Acts by reducing impediments to competition and promoting transparency and accountability of Architects Boards. In particular, introduction of a two-tier system which freed up use of the generic title ‘architect’ (and its derivatives), and applied statutory certification only to a title such as ‘registered architect’…”. That is the Australian experience.

That is one reason why the Government Administration Committee decided that “registered” is, in fact, a term that other professions use. Let us look at some of the numerous examples that have already been given. If we look in the Yellow Pages—at the accounting profession, for example—we see that there are chartered accountants and accountants. There is clear separation between roles in such professions. If we look at the profession of which I am a member, valuers, we find that there are valuers, chattel valuers, plant and machinery valuers, and—surprise, surprise—registered valuers. So the term is commonplace. And there are other professions—some of which have been mentioned, like engineers—in which there is a two-tier system that gives consumer protection. If we look at even the motor industry—and the member over there in the back row has an interest in that—we find motor vehicle dealers and licensed motor vehicle dealers.

So, having looked at those other professions, we are saying to architects that they can stand on a pedestal in the role of registered architect, but to say that one cannot be an architect in any other sense is absolutely and completely wrong, because the word “architect” is generic. The dictionary entry for the word “architect” states it means a designer who prepares plans for buildings or ships, or supervises their construction, or a person who brings about a specific thing, as in “the architect of his own fortune”—and it goes on and on. The point I make here is that “architect” is a generic term. For the building industry or people who prepare and design plans to say that only they can use the term “architect” is completely and utterly wrong. Another dictionary I looked at actually states that an architect is a person who plans, devises, or contrives the achievement of a desired result. So there may be software architects, landscape architects, financial architects, conservation architects—I could go on and on.

The point I make here is that National members are supporting the bill because those who sat around the select committee table represented various professions where there are already such tiers. Architects, lawyers, accountants, and—as in my case—valuers have a two-tier system.

One of the areas that we are concerned about—and this is a point the Minister made—is that we are not happy with the registration board approach. We have always subscribed to the view that we get the best results with a self-regulatory regime. If someone wants to be a member of an organisation, let the organisation set the rules and conditions. Why should Parliament dictate how the profession operates? That is mentioned in our report as being an important factor.

I want to bring to the House’s attention my amendment that changes very slightly some of the points made in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 354. Originally, that Supplementary Order Paper was in John Tamihere’s hands. It has now, of course, been given to Chris Carter. When we look at the definitions in the Building Act we see that there is absolutely no correlation between them and the definitions in this bill, but this bill was actually brought in at the time when we were debating the Building Bill. The bill before us has sat on the Order Paper for months and been moved around. I want clarification that will enable us, when we come to debate the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper, to tie in its intent with what is actually in the Building Act, because the Minister and other speakers have said that the two go hand in hand.

In the Building Act we have a definition of “plans and specifications”. It states that that term means: “drawings, specifications, and other documents according to which a building is proposed to be constructed, altered, demolished, or removed…”. So there is a clear definition in the Building Act, but there is no definition in the Architects Bill, as to what a plan is or a specification is.

The other question is what “architect” means. I have said it is a generic term that is used by many professions. The bill does not define the word “architect”. As a result, the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 354 provides an explicit definition for the purposes of what is to be the Registered Architects Bill, namely a “person who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises construction of buildings …”. If that is to be the definition of a registered architect, then it is my view that the same definition should be in the Building Act.

Bill read a second time.

Name changed to Registered Architects Bill.

Bills

Registered Architects Bill

Instruction to Committee

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) on behalf of the Minister of Commerce: I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Registered Architects Bill that it take the bill part by part.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Registration, complaints, and discipline

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): I want to look at Part 2 in conjunction with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 354 and the changes I propose to that Supplementary Order Paper that would, I believe, clarify the position. I want to go back to the point I made during the second reading debate on the question of what an architect is. The word “architect” is not defined in the bill at all. As the bill does not define the term “architect”, the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper has provided a definition for the purposes of the Registered Architects Bill. I made the point—and I reiterate it—that the Supplementary Order Paper states that an architect is: “a person who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises the construction of buildings …”. But let us look at the Building Act. This is a comparison of two pieces of legislation that go hand in hand. It does not talk about architects at all, but it does talk about plans and specifications. It states: “ ‘Plans and specifications’ means the drawings, specifications, and other documents”—and that is an important phrase—“according to which a building is proposed to be constructed, altered, demolished, or removed ,”. So here we have a difference between the two pieces of legislation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

LINDSAY TISCH: I am referring to clause 7, and to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 354. The point I was making before the tea break was that we have different types of architects. All the so-called architects, be they software architects, landscape architects, financial architects, or conservation architects, will in the course of their work prepare plans. That is the nature of the work they do. So what does the Government mean in its Supplementary Order Paper, therefore, when it states “designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises the construction of buildings”? This is the issue I have with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. Is it going to be illegal for software architects to use the title “architect” when they prepare software and concept plans for a building? The Minister might like to take a call on this. Will it be illegal for landscape architects to use the title “architect” if they prepare planting plans for building projects? Will it be illegal for financial architects to use the title “architect” if they prepare financial plans for a property developer’s building portfolio? Will it be illegal for conservation architects to use the title “architect” if they prepare a written conservation plan identification of the architectural or cultural significance of a heritage building?

It would be ridiculous to fine these people $10,000, which is provided for in the bill, because these people are preparing plans that are associated with buildings. It is illogical to limit the use of the generic word “architect” beyond the definition required for the purposes of the bill, and thus the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper needs to clarify the phrase “prepare plans”.

I referred before the dinner break to what is in the Building Act, because that talks about definitions for plans and specifications. I want to see a clear distinction, so that there is no doubt whatsoever about the difference between preparing and drawing plans. My Supplementary Order Paper, which has been tabled, states: “No person who designs buildings, draws plans and prepares specifications”—that is the word change—“for buildings …”, and it continues.

Let us be very clear about that. The clause would read: “No person who designs buildings, draws plans and prepares specifications for buildings, or supervises construction of buildings may use the title ‘architect’ unless they are registered.” That, in my view, tidies it up.

The second point I want to bring to the Committee’s attention is the use of the abbreviation “BArch”. If someone has a Bachelor of Architecture, clause 7(2) states that “a person may use the title ‘registered architect’ or ‘architect’ (or words, initials, or abbreviations of those titles) in accordance with the rules, in representing qualifications or titles awarded by overseas agencies.”

It is the phrase “awarded by overseas agencies” that I have difficulty with. Does it really matter where the qualification comes from? I would have thought that New Zealand qualifications were held in the highest esteem. Certainly, when members of the Institute of Architects appeared before the select committee they made that claim, and I am not doubting their sincerity at all. One must be aware that 40 percent of all architectural graduates do not become architects. They do not become registered. But they have a qualification. It is just the same as someone not practising law who might be able to call himself or herself “such and such LLB”.

Someone could well be an accountant and could call himself or herself a chartered accountant, even though that person might not be practising at the time. I am entitled to call myself a valuer because I have valuation qualifications, but I am not a registered valuer, because I do not have a practising certificate, and that is the difference. Clause 7(2) states: “Despite subsection (1), a person may use that title (or words, initials, or abbreviations of that title), in accordance with the rules, in representing qualifications or titles awarded by overseas agencies.”

What I want to see here, in my submission, and the Minister might take a call on this, is the omission of the words “awarded by overseas agencies”. It is very clear then. People who have qualifications are able to use those qualifications because they have earned them, they have a degree or qualification that they can put beside their name. It does not purport that they will be a registered architect. But, just as with any other profession, those people would be able to use their qualification. I do not believe that people who have an overseas qualification will be deemed to be any greater, and have any greater experience or expertise, and offer to New Zealand consumers the protection that this bill is aiming to give.

I do not think, also, as I read this part, that even if people were to come to New Zealand, they could come here and not be registered but still use the expression “BArch” because it has been awarded by an overseas agency. I think that is wrong. So my Supplementary Order Paper states, quite clearly, that people who have a qualification are able to use that term, even though they may not be registered.

These are the points that National wants to bring to the Committee’s attention. I invite the Minister to take a call specifically on the points I have mentioned. I think they are very clear. I do not think they are contentious in any way. They clarify the position. What they do, in my view, is bring some clarity to the whole debate, because the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper is ambiguous.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): I will respond to the comments made by Lindsay Tisch, and accept his challenge. Mr Tisch predicates his amendment on a misconception of how the title “architect” can be used. He seems to think that the definition here is ambiguous in some way. I think it is absolutely plain. I have never seen it be more simple or more direct in my life. In new clause 7(1A) on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter, the term “architect” refers to a “… person who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings,”. I will pick up The Concise Oxford Dictionary, which I happen to have with me, and look at the definition of the word “building”.

Darren Hughes: Which page?

Hon RICK BARKER: It is on page 172, for the member’s information. “Building” is defined as something built with a roof and walls. That is pretty straightforward. I thought all of us would understand what a building was—walls and a roof.

Mr Tisch thinks that if someone does any architecture in conjunction with software that happens to relate to a house, then the person who is designing the software architecture is somehow making a building. But I say to Mr Tisch that I have never seen a piece of software yet that had walls and a roof. Mr Tisch then goes on to say that if someone does some landscape architecture around a building, in conjunction with a building, then somehow that is a building—that that landscape has walls and a roof. I have not yet seen walls and a roof on a tree or a garden. I have seen them on a glasshouse, which I would say is a building, and I have seen a garden shed that has walls and a roof. But no one calls that a garden. It is the garden shed; it is a building.

Also, we have other sorts of architecture. I saw something very interesting in the Cook Islands loan scam, where tax evasion was the key. Someone described the architecture of the scam—how it was constructed. I would say that someone could front up and use the term “architect” in that context perfectly legally to describe himself or herself as a scam architect. I would say that no one would be able to sue such a person for calling himself or herself a scam architect. That is why Lindsay Tisch’s amendment is wrong—it is absolutely wrong. The amendment in new clause 7(1A) on Supplementary Order Paper 354 goes on to state “supervises the construction of buildings”. An architect is someone who supervises the construction of buildings—something with walls and a roof. So if a person is an architect and supervises software, then obviously it does not have walls and a roof.

The definition is absolutely accurate; there is no ambiguity at all. Reference to a naval architect, which Mr Tisch alluded to, is not confusing, either. If a person calls himself or herself a naval architect, that person is not using the word “architect”. Such a person is saying “naval architect”, because the person realises that he or she is working with a ship’s sides and keels and topsides, but that ships do not have what people would normally see as being walls and a roof. There is a roof on a ship, but people call it something else. I just want to make that clear.

Simon Power: What is it called?

Hon RICK BARKER: I just cannot remember at the moment.

Dail Jones: That’s got the member!

Hon RICK BARKER: It has me for the moment, but I will come back to it in a tick.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): A deck.

Hon RICK BARKER: No, it is not a deck. But then the roof of the top of the ship is a poop deck. I am not sure, but I think there is another term for it—bulkhead, there is a range of other terms.

The point about this issue is that the definition is absolutely clear, and the Government is opposed to the amendment proposed by Lindsay Tisch, just as it is opposed to the second amendment to clause 7(2). What the amendment to that clause on Supplementary Order Paper 354 tries to do is to make sure that if someone has an overseas qualification and comes to New Zealand, then that person is entitled to use that qualification provided it is done within the context of the person being registered as an architect, and it is not being done in order to deceive. But if that person had the title, which may not have been registered, and if using it may, in fact, lead people to believe that he or she is qualified to do the job when he or she is not, then we are saying that is illegal—that we do not like that.

I want to assure Mr Tisch that if someone puts on his or her card that he or she is a landscape architect that person will not be sued, because it is quite clear that the person is a landscape architect, and that that has nothing to do with walls and a roof. If a person calls himself or herself a software architect that person will not be sued, because that person’s work has nothing to do with the walls and roof that make a building. We are perfectly happy with the definition as it stands. I think anybody who reads new clause 7(1A) about an architect being a “… person who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises …” would say that that definition is absolutely clear.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): It was good that the Minister took the call to try to explain why he is opposed to Lindsay Tisch’s amendments. I propose to support them, for reasons that do not arise out of anything doctrinaire—it does not seem to me that this bill should involve political alignment—but simply because the words do not tell me what they intend. When the bill refers to “overseas agencies” in clause 7(2), it states that, despite the prohibition on using “architect” or “registered architect” in relation to building when one is not a member of the institute, one can use that title, or words, initials, or abbreviations of one of those titles, “in accordance with the rules”, and it does not tell me here what “the rules” are, but perhaps I have missed it somewhere. But it is worse that it says “awarded by overseas agencies.” Now what on earth is an overseas agency? Is this a mail-order university? What is an overseas agency for the purposes of this bill? It may be that there is a really straightforward answer and that it appears here somewhere. But it seems to me that this could be like Bernie Ogilvy’s university—his doctorate; the sort of thing one goes and spends 5 months at, and as long as one receives the label “architect” one can walk around the purported protection.

Hon Rick Barker: No.

STEPHEN FRANKS: The Minister is saying “No.” I hope he can explain exactly how. Because I have been as quickly as I could through this bill and I cannot see why the term “overseas agencies” does not refer to anyone setting up as the conferrer of useful titles. My amendments suggest that, instead, this clause should refer to “New Zealand university”. I say that because the term “university” in New Zealand is protected—as long as one is not a wānanga it is fiercely protected—and, in fact, the Government has made it plain that it will not be lightly allowing institutions to use that description. So if we wanted to repair this defective provision with the very short notice that we have, a reference to “university” would mean that at least we were referring to BArch, or the qualifications that have some content.

But I look at clause 7(2) as the most “own goal” loophole that can be imagined. It says we have the strict rule that New Zealanders with a New Zealand Batchelor of Architecture cannot use their qualification if they are involved in anything connected with building, but someone who gets one from an overseas institution—and it may be a New Zealander who simply sends for it by mail order—can walk right around the rule. Surely the Government cannot mean that.

If that is not what it means, then the Minister had better read into the record of this Parliament—into Hansard—exactly what it does mean, because the courts will be very puzzled. The courts will be struggling to find just what Parliament was meaning by something as vague as a “title … (or words, initials, or abbreviations of those titles) … awarded by overseas agencies.” I take it that the Minister is being briefed on this. I hope he can explain it.

I now want to go back and speak in support of Mr Tisch’s first amendment. Because it seems very clear indeed that the word “plan” without referring to drawing plans can refer to just about any scheme that involves a building. The Minister may not be from a culture that is familiar with the way business is done, but the first thing to do when building a building is to go to the bank with a business plan. I am sure the Minister is not intending to catch the person who prepares business plans—[Interruption] It may be, as he says, that this is pedantic, but without the extra clarification that Mr Tisch adds, by talking about drawing a plan, I think the court will not have enough to be able to say: “No, drawing a plan doesn’t refer to all those other kinds of plans.” So I think Mr Tisch’s amendment is a very sound one.

But if Mr Tisch’s qualification is wrong we would really like to know the reasons. The Minister scoffed at the notion of, say, a landscape plan, because he said that did not involve a building. That may be the case, except that we now have a Building Act that expressly extends the meaning of “building” a long way past what the Minister talked about as being a structure with a roof. I think I recall from the debate only a few days ago that “building” now includes dams. No one has ever called “dams” a building before. But I think that, for the purposes of the restrictions in the Building Act, it now includes dams—holes in the ground with no roof.

So I suggest he could give a more substantive answer than simply mocking the Tisch amendment and the efforts of the Green Party and United Future Party to do their best in this Committee stage on what should be a non-contentious bill, to improve its wording to avoid ambiguity, and to do what this Parliament is here to do during a Committee stage of a bill, which is not to set people on a course that inevitably involves enriching lawyers at some stage in the future.

The Tisch amendments are minor, and as I see them, quite uncontroversial. They are an attempt to improve the language. They do not try to change the policy. They do make it clear that what we are talking about is what most people would think of as builders’ or architects’ plans instead of all the other kinds of plans that there can be, and the other kinds of specifications, for that matter. I think the only reason the Minister can genuinely offer for opposing that amendment instead of welcoming it, and endorsing it, is simple arrogance of office—the pride that says “We can’t learn anything until we’ve been humiliated the way we have been on the Building Act.”

I am surprised that this Minister, who does not have the natural arrogance of the Minister in charge of the Building Act, Mr Carter, does not simply say “We will look to it.” Why not reorder the business, give the Parliament a couple of hours, look at those words, and recognise that. If it is really too excruciating to have a National Party amendment approved by United Future, the Greens, and the rest of the Parliament, then put in a Government amendment to do it. Handwrite it. We will not care. ACT will vote for it as long as it improves the legislation. That would be satisfying. It would be satisfying for this Parliament if we improved it. But to simply stand there and scoff at a clarification without saying why it would do harm is not a responsible position for a Minister to take.

I ask that the new clause 7(1A) the Government has put in, in reversal of the considered work of the select committee, be modified as proposed by Lindsay Tisch from National, because the Parliament ought to have more care, when promoting legislation, that it will not be simply a picnic for lawyers at some time in the future.

In terms of “overseas agency”, the least embarrassing course would be to take Mr Tisch’s proposal and simply drop those words. It is embarrassingly vague. “Overseas agency” sounds like al-Qaeda’s public relations firm. An “overseas agency” could be anything. It is an undefined term, and we could remove it. I think “overseas agency” could be left, but the Minister would be far better to replace that term with a reference to New Zealand universities, so that we know that what is intended is “BArch”, or whatever the term is that the university confers to show that someone has spent the time and qualified in architecture in New Zealand. That, of course, would mean that 40 percent of New Zealanders who choose not to become registered architects within the institute would not then be tempted to find their convenient “overseas agency” through which to exercise their loophole powers, or to find a way through a loophole.

Mr Tisch also mentioned that there were requirements in other law for people to state their qualifications—for example, in prospectuses. Prospectuses quite often set out plans or diagrams. A prospectus for a unit trust to fund a shopping centre will have a plan and it will be in connection with the building. The prospectus requirement under the securities regulations is that one must put one’s qualification. As subclause (2) stands, any foreign designer could put his or her architecture qualification, but it would appear that a New Zealand qualified architect could not, irrespective of whether he or she is a member. It just seems that the Minister is being offered a way out and is not taking it.

MIKE WARD (Green): Do I think that there is likely to be any confusion over the term “architect”? No, I do not. If a software architect used the term he or she would put “software” in front of it. If a landscape architect used it, he or she would put “landscape” in front of it. If a software architect wants to design buildings, he or she cannot use the word “architect” on its own. “Architect” on its own has a well-understood meaning: it means somebody who builds buildings—someone who designs buildings and supervises their construction. It is very clear on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter that anyone who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises the construction of buildings may use the title “architect”. Anyone who does those things is a registered architect, provided he or she has the qualifications and is registered. That is fairly clear.

We have been told that although the words “overseas agencies” are used, they do not preclude New Zealand architects from using their qualifications. It does not indicate, however, that because people have “BArch” after their name, they are necessarily the kinds of people who have the expertise to design a building that will keep out the weather and do all the things we would expect of it. It just means that they have the basic qualifications—that they have been to university for the required length of time and sat the examinations. That is the beginning. Normally, it takes a great deal more experience than that to design buildings, and that experience can be gained in an architect’s office.

The term “draws” is not free from ambiguities. We draw up plans for all sorts of things. So putting the term “draws” instead of “prepares” would not really clear up any ambiguities at all. There are ambiguities only if the term “prepares plans” is divorced from the rest of the description of “… prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises the construction of buildings…”. People may use the title of “architect” provided they have the appropriate qualifications and provided they are registered.

It is important that people who want buildings to be designed for them go to the kind of people who have the appropriate qualifications. We are not talking just about buildings that keep out the weather; we are also talking about buildings that are safe. I think of the building that I spend a great deal of my life in these days.

Stephen Franks: The bill doesn’t state that we have to use an architect.

MIKE WARD: One does not have to. But if a person has any sense at all, he or she will go to somebody who has the appropriate qualifications. I would suggest that anybody who simply relies on the terms “architect” or “registered architect” as the sole reason for going to somebody really needs to do a reality check. I would hope that someone would go and look at the work that the person had done before, check out his or her credentials in terms of experience, and go to somebody who had a track record that could be relied on. The terms “registered architect” and “architect” are a measure of protection, but, of course, a client would need to do more than to simply rely on that term.

I will not be supporting Lindsay Tisch’ amendments. I looked at them and checked out just what is in the bill. It is fairly clear that those amendments are not necessary.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I think there is common ground among all parties, including the Government, on this measure, and that is that the intention is that the proposed wording “prepares plans and specifications for buildings,” in new subclause (1A) of clause 7, on Supplementary Order Paper 354, is confined to architectural plans and specifications. It is not intended to have a broader definition that goes beyond that. That is the intention of the Government, the Minister, and the Opposition parties, and certainly it is my intention. The argument is simply whether the wording that is there achieves that end, or needs some modification such as that proposed by the National Party in Lindsay Tisch’s amendment, which would change “prepares plans and specifications” to “draws plans and prepares specifications”.

Firstly, I express my appreciation to the Minister for making his officials available to talk with me at length during the tea hour to discuss that. I know that it is not a matter of the Minister taking an arrogant line and being a stick in the mud; he is taking advice from his officials, and his officials are the ones who really need to be convinced about this, but I was not able to do that during the tea hour.

However, I should clarify for the sake of the debate that “building” has a far broader definition than simply walls and a roof. Section 7 of the Building Act states that it also includes mechanical, electrical, or other systems, a fence, a vehicle or motor vehicle, a mast pole or a telecommunication aerial, a cable car, and any two or more buildings that, on completion, are intended to be managed as one building. That is the extent of the definition. The definition is far broader, in terms of the Building Act.

Notwithstanding that, we are talking about construction and we are looking at the issue in that context. That is probably the critical thing; we are looking at the question of preparing plans and specifications in the context of new clause 7(1A), which states: “No person who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises the construction of building may use the term title ‘architect’ … ”. That in itself, firstly, confines us, in terms of what we are talking about, to architectural-type work; to work that is commonly understood to be architectural work, and not work that is outside that—and I think landscape architecture is one example of that that has been mentioned.

Also, the term “prepares plans and specifications for buildings,” would be read by any court as a whole. The three words “plans and specifications” are read together, and they are defined, again, in the Building Act as meaning “the drawings, specifications, and other documents according to which a building is proposed to be constructed, altered, demolished, or removed:”. To some extent, to try to take “prepares plans” out of that context, and to say that it could be read outside the context of both this subclause and the definition of “plans and specifications” in the Building Act, is not realistic in terms of the way that the court will approach it.

The question is really whether National’s amendment will actually improve the situation. One of the things I note is that by separating out the words “plans and specifications” so that they no longer operate as a unit, and making the phrase “draws plans and prepares specifications”, we may be creating more problems than we are resolving. That will make “plans” a separate unit, distinct from specifications, because the amendment states “draws plans” then “prepares specifications”, as opposed to “prepares plans and specifications”. That may in fact create more problems. There is also the issue as to what the phrases “prepares plans” and “draws plans” actually mean. For example, could one say that a landscape architect actually draws a plan? One might argue that he or she does indeed draw a plan—and prepares a plan, as well. So does the word “draws” actually solve the problem for us?

I am not too sure that this amendment would actually correct the perceived problem. Therefore, I am a little ambivalent in my own mind as to whether the amendment ought to be supported. I do have a concern that “prepares plans” could be construed, particularly by the Registered Architects’ Board, as allowing a very broad-brush approach to be taken, and that it could abuse it for its own ends in terms of protecting the industry. At the end of the day, that can be challenged in the court and it would take only one court ruling to do that. So although I have some sympathy for the change, and had in fact intended to support it, I am not sure, firstly, that it does solve the problem, and, secondly, I am concerned that it may actually make the situation worse by dividing up the phrase “plans and specifications”, and separating the words out as not actually flowing together. On balance, I will not support the amendment, despite having the freedom to do that.

In terms of the second amendment—and I have heard what Mr Franks has said—I think the difficulty Mr Franks has is that he is overlooking the fact that new clause 7(2) on Supplementary Order Paper 354 states “in accordance with the rules”, and he has admitted that he is not quite sure what “in accordance with the rules” means. But “in accordance with the rules” is an obvious reference to clause 67(2) of the bill, which provides for the board to make “rules that govern all of the following matters:”, and paragraph (b) of which states: “the form of words, initials, and abbreviations that must be used if the title ‘registered architect’ (or words, initials, or abbreviations of that title to which section 7(1)(b) applies) is used in representing qualifications or titles awarded by overseas agencies”. It seems to me that what is happening here is that there is already provision for the use of the terms as far as New Zealand qualifications are concerned. That is clearly covered in the bill, in clause 7(1) as it stands, and new subclause (2) is to cover the situation of qualifications outside New Zealand. Paragraph (a) of clause 67(2) governs the ability to set up rules to say how the abbreviations can be used in the New Zealand context, and paragraph (b) states that the board can set up rules in terms of how the words, initials, and abbreviations can be used in regard to overseas qualifications.

So it does seem to me that including the words “in accordance with the rules” gives quite a lot of scope for the board actually to determine what is acceptable when it is looking at overseas qualifications, and the limits to which that can be used. That, no doubt, would include looking at the overseas agency concerned, and how that should be able to be expressed. So there is some sense in new subclause (2) of clause 7; it does not need the amendments that National and ACT are proposing, because of the context of clause 67(2).

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I am grateful to have been referred to clause 67 by Mr Smith, which does indeed provide the board with an instruction to make rules. I think he is correct that the reference to rules in clause 7 probably contemplates those rules—although I think it would have been better drafting practice if that had been defined either in clause 4 or in clause 7 itself. But I certainly do not think that clause 67 puts the board into a position whereby it can write rules that exclude overseas agencies without the possibility of a very good fight in court.

I am not trying to debate Part 3, but I am saying that in the context we have, clause 67 expressly preserves forms of words that are outside the forms that are approved by the rules to represent a person. It states: “(without limiting any others that may be used consistently with this Act)”. I have no doubt that because of the term “overseas agency”, someone will at least argue that his or her overseas qualification is one that he or she may use, because it is consistent with the intent of clause 7, which is not to prevent people from accurately describing their qualifications.

This is the problem that happens when the Government ignores the work of a select committee that has gone through and seen that the most rational framework would be one that accepts the same limitations that other professions have accepted, and decided that the word “registered” should go ahead. I do not think the Green argument that people who are software architects will put “software architect” or landscape architects will put “landscape architect”, helps very much because I am not confident that that does not still constitute a breach. The protection clause simply states that it is “words, initials, or abbreviations … that are intended to cause, or that may reasonably cause, any person to believe that the person using those words, initials, or abbreviations is a registered architect.” If one calls oneself a landscape architect, one is still claiming to be an architect, and of course it will be in connection with buildings. Just about any big project now has a landscape component.

I am looking at this as I suspect lay people will look at it, because ACT members were not represented on the committee and we did not go through the reasoning that the committee members reached. They came out saying that they were comfortable, for example, that the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement would work, because a registered architect in New Zealand would equate to similar requirements of the equivalent profession in Australia. Now, of course they will not. By succumbing to Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s eloquent lobbying, the Government, United Future, and the Greens are now saying that it will not be equivalent to the requirements in Australia. So there is nothing to tell us that the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement will still be as neat a fit.

It may be that the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, can rebut that. There may be facts that are not obvious, but the problem is that the Supplementary Order Paper does not have the same kind of explanation that the select committee made to explain what it was doing. At the very least, it would help the courts in future if the Minister would make a statement to rebut any inference that the rules in clause 67(2) will not be comprehensive. If they are comprehensive, then that may assist the court. The statement should also explain exactly what it is the Minister thinks an architecture graduate from a New Zealand university can do about his or her qualification, when he or she is engaged in something connected with building. Does the Minister think graduates can use the term “BArch”? Does the Minister think their letterhead can state “Graduate Architect”, or words to that effect? That is what the bill does not tell us.

After all this time, I think the public, architects, and the customers of architects are entitled to expect that they could look at the bill and know the answers to those questions. I do not know those answers.

MIKE WARD (Green): If landscape architects or software architects want to set themselves up to design buildings, prepare plans and specifications for buildings, or supervise the construction of buildings, then they may not use the title “architect”, because it is quite clear that the proposed amendment to clause 7 on Supplementary Order Paper 354 reserves that title for people who are registered as architects and who have the appropriate qualifications as architects. No one else can use that title. If people go along to a landscape architect or a software architect to get their house designed, then they probably deserve what they get. It is very clear in this bill that that term is reserved. The provision is phrased: “(1A) No person who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises the construction of buildings may use the title “architect” unless he or she is a registered architect.” That is very, very clear to me.

Stephen Franks: So what do they do with their qualification? What do they do with their degree?

MIKE WARD: Their qualifications are guaranteed by the fact that they are registered. Clearly, a person will not get registered if he or she is a landscape architect or software architect.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to the amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter be agreed to:

to omit from proposed new subclause (1A) the word “prepares”, and substitute the words “draws plans and prepares specifications”.

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

Ayes 34

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 84

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to the amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (2) the words “awarded by overseas agencies”.

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

Ayes 34

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 84

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to the amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter be agreed to:

to add to subclause (2) the words “or New Zealand university”.

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

Ayes 34

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 84

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 2 be agreed to.

hat the amendments be agreed to.

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

Ayes 84

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

Noes 34

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7.

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

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 7

ACT New Zealand 7.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question t

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. When the Clerk calls: “Any other votes?”, is that the time that a member who wants to have a vote recorded personally and separately from the party vote would speak up?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Was it within the member’s ACT vote?

STEPHEN FRANKS: No, it is just that Mrs Pettis made a speech against this Supplementary Order Paper before the meal break, and I thought that with 51 votes cast, hers might have been the missing Labour vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, that is not a point of order. The parties call it.

Amendments agreed to, and Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 New Zealand Registered Architects' Board

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): This debate includes debate on schedule 1.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): On this part, in which there are a whole host of establishment issues, I would like to hear from the Minister as to why the Registered Architects’ Board is being left with such a relatively lean set of instructions, requirements, and specifications, when this same Government seems to have decided that the more up to date model of professional regulation, as it appears in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill, requires hundreds of pages. When I look at it, I see that the model looks reasonably self-contained and adequate, so I am not criticising it, but I think the Minister could take a call to explain. It is so elegant. The functions are set out very briefly—the powers relating to members, the composition of the board, the criteria for appointment to the board, and the committees are all set out in the way one would expect of a tradesman-like drafting job.

This part sets out, in about 10 pages, pretty much all the provisions of a regulatory regime for a self-regulating organisation to maintain and oversee quality standards. I commend the Government and the officials responsible. As far as I can see, it is a framework that pretty much does what one would expect an architects board and a registration body to do. I would, nevertheless, be very pleased if the Minister could explain whether any particular efficiency has been achieved. Has something been missed because it was seen as superfluous to architects? Is there a view that architects are not as important as lawyers? It is odd.

Health and safety depends on what architects do. Buildings collapse in countries that do not have high standards of design. Two hundred people were squashed in Bangladesh last night, presumably because a building was not built to a very high standard. I am surmising, but it is the kind of thing that happens. I would be a little disappointed if this bill were as lean and spare as it is simply because of the view that what architects do is less important than what lawyers do. I cannot help but compare it, as a model of regulation, with what the Government has proposed in the hundreds of clauses and vast, expanded specified provisions to govern what used to be the lawyers self-regulatory organisation.

I am also interested in the relationship between the board and the Minister. Clause 59 states that the board must provide an annual report to the Minister, showing the audit. The Auditor-General must audit but the bill does not actually give the Minister the powers, as I see it, to turn round and dictate to the board how it is to exercise its powers. That might be qualified by the fact that clause 69 states that the Minister must approve the rules that are proposed by the board. I think that is a shame. I think it would have been far better if this part of the legislation had set up the opportunity for there to be more than one board, that boards should be competing to attract architects to them and to uphold high standards, and to make sure that their standards are recognised by the market as adding value. That would have been a better safeguard for standards than to have the Minister’s approval of the rules. The temptation under clause 69, of course, is for a Minister to make sure that no one can ever accuse the Minister of having disregarded anything that might relate to a consumer interest. Of course, they then gold-plate the rules or they hold them up, out of fear that someone will hold them responsible later. I think clause 69 is bad in principle for an organisation that should be taking full responsibility for quality standards in a profession.

I hope the Minister can answer those two questions. Firstly, why is this so simple and elegant compared with the other professional regulation measure before us? Secondly, why is the Minister reserving the power to, in effect, second-guess or overrule decisions of the board? I imagine that this is a comfort to the officials. Clause 69(3) states: “The Minister must not approve a rule unless the Minister is satisfied that the rule is consistent with the rules that apply to other related building occupations.” I am not sure what kind of consistency is contemplated there. It would have been understandable if it stated: “… unless the Minister is satisfied that the rule is consistent with the requirements for public safety”, or something that was an overriding concern that the Minister had to look out for. But when the clause states: “… consistent with the rules that apply to other related building applications”, what is meant by “consistent”? Is it consistent in terms of fees payable, drafting style, penalties, coverage? What consistency is required? Most of it could be utterly irrelevant. Does the term “related building occupations” include plumbers or electricians? Is that the new Building Act? What is meant there, given that it refers broadly to rules? Does this assume that the definition of “rule” is not the definition that Mr Murray Smith said was the definition in this Act—namely, the rules under clause 67? This assumes that other building occupations have rules that are parallel to the rules under clause 67. I have no idea.

There is nothing in the commentary that states that other related building occupations will have rules that are familiar. It may well be that the Minister runs into blocking action by someone who does not like the rules, who will be able to stand up and point to a building occupation that does not have a rule that is parallel to the rule proposed by the architects. Then the Minister and the architects are once again spending thousands of dollars and time on lawyers, because of clumsy work done upfront.

I think it is simply because the Ministers here decide they want a finger in every pie. The rules of a profession being approved by the Minister actually mean that the profession has lost its pride. It also means that instead of having that nice balance, which a profession must always monitor, between the interests of its clients and the interests of the people who are the clients of those clients—that is, the interests of the public, those who use architects, and the interests of the architects themselves—we get politics coming in. People can lobby the Minister. Instead of bothering to persuade all their peers, instead of going through the expertise available to the professional body, they can short-circuit it, they can employ a Sir Geoffrey Palmer who comes and talks to the Minister, scares the Minister politically, and then we have either a veto or an argument between the Minister and the professional body.

That is the area of Part 3 that ought to be the embarrassment to the profession. Instead of the profession spending all the thousands it must have spent on Sir Geoffrey Palmer to do the lobbying, it would have been far better if it had spent that time and money on making the case for the profession to be truly accountable for its own rules, instead of subjecting them to a politician.

I think there are some safeguards there. Clause 69(3) states: “The Minister must not approve a rule unless the Minister is satisfied the rule is consistent with the rules that apply to other related building occupations.” The only element of safeguard there is that if there is a silly rule in place they all have to have the same silly rule, and if there is a good rule in place they will all have that rule. But what if there is no rule? How can it be consistent when there is a simple absence? There are quite a few building-related occupations that simply will not have this structure of rules. I think it is a carelessness. I hope the Minister can reassure me that he has in mind a whole set of rules for all the other building occupations; at least that will make this one work.

Judith Collins: Law.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Law is a building-related occupation; certainly, conveyancing is. I do not think the rules here will be consistent with the rules they are preparing for lawyers. I do not know whether Mrs Collins can think what the building-related occupation rules are. It would be plumbers, electricians—

Judith Collins: Plasterers, roofers.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Yes, and carpenters, master builders.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to, and Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Miscellaneous provisions

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 4 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to, and Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Schedule

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to the schedule be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to, and clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts), on behalf of the Minister for Building Issues: I move, That the Registered Architects Bill be now read a third time. I am pleased to begin the bill’s final passage through the House, as this bill represents the balanced path for the regulation of architects that both industry and consumers have been seeking.

The debate in the Committee stage was very interesting, and I want to applaud Murray Smith for his clear exposition of why clause 7(1A) of Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the Minister’s name should stand. He hit the nail exactly on the head when he put together the “prepares plans and specifications” provision in respect of buildings. The three things should be read together. We had some debate in the House that people who were architects of a financial plan were somehow going to be covered by this bill. This bill is about buildings, so Mike Ward was exactly on the money, as well.

Dail Jones: No, this bill is about architects.

Hon RICK BARKER: Architects—yes, that is right. The second thing I want to do is to reassure members of the ACT party who were concerned about the title “overseas agencies”. The whole purpose of the part was to be able to make a distinction between qualifications people have as academic qualifications, and qualifications they have as professional qualifications. People will be able to use their titles in relation to architecture if they have qualifications from an overseas university. They will be able to write about them and say they have them, but they will not be able to put those forward as if they were professional qualifications unless they are consistent with the rules provided under this legislation, and therefore registered. So the bill is making a very clear distinction. I want to reassure the ACT party that people will be able to write about and have their qualifications relating to architecture on letterheads and otherwise, providing they are not putting those forward as if they were professional qualifications—unless they are registered and compliant with the legislation. The bill is making a clear distinction, which I think the member Stephen Franks has missed.

This is a very good bill, which has been around for a long time. I thank Stephen Franks for his comments on the symmetry of the bill. I am sure its writer, Margaret Wilson, would be very pleased to hear his comments of admiration.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): During the Committee stage I listened to Rick Barker’s explanation of the definition “architect”. Although it was imaginative, I find myself in agreement with the Tisch amendments and with the comments and contribution made by Stephen Franks, in particular. It is easy in this environment to be certain about what the term means. It is easy to dismiss the concerns of Mr Franks and Mr Tisch with a wave of the hand and a “Don’t be silly; that will never happen.” attitude. Well, I recall similar assurances being made about the foreshore and seabed legislation. We heard: “Don’t worry, that will never happen.” We were told that the issue would never be back in the courts. We were told that the Māori Land Court would never make a determination that would make life difficult for members of Parliament—because the bill passed with such complete certainty! There was no equivocation or ambiguity. [Interruption] New Zealand First! That is right, the legal mind of Dail Jones has already been questioned by Judge Williams.

I find myself wanting to conclude National’s remarks in the third reading debate on the Registered Architects Bill by saying that, yes, we support this bill, but not without reservations, in particular those contained in the Tisch amendments. We are concerned about the fact that this Government’s view of how others will interpret legislation does not affect the way the courts may, do, or will interpret legislation, and it is the height of arrogance to assume that the legislation is so unambiguous, so certain, and so clear that it will not be questioned. So although Rick Barker stands and makes dismissive gestures about examples of the word “architect” being used to describe those in other professions or trades who may have incorporated that word into their titles, the proof will be in the pudding. Mr Tisch made a contribution to try to clarify some of those issues. That contribution was dismissed outright by this Government, and time will tell whether the Tisch amendments were right or wrong.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): New Zealand First supports this legislation and the Supplementary Order Paper that has come through. If the Tisch amendments had been passed, I believe they would create a great deal of ambiguity and confusion in the courts, which is the reason why New Zealand First would not support them. Of course, any matter that comes before this House and provides for, say, an appeal to the District Court, as this bill does, may end up in the District Court. I say to all those people who wish to go and see lawyers, whether they are the 17 people from Ōpōtiki who cannot understand an Act that states that the Crown owns the foreshore and seabed as its absolute property—

Hon Dover Samuels: That’s one group that can’t understand it.

DAIL JONES: And there is only one other group that cannot understand it—Dr Brash’s group. The Crown owns the foreshore and seabed as its absolute property. That is clear to everyone in New Zealand, other than to 17 people in Ōpōtiki. Well, I say to people who want to go to court, only one word—“breed”.

Darren Hughes: “Breed” or “breathe”?

DAIL JONES: Breed—because lawyers love people who want to fight cases that they will lose. It is a lawyer’s dream. So I tell those people to breed, and I say to Dr Brash “Breed.”, if that is what he believes about the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

However, I come back to this bill. Of course people can go to court. That is the right New Zealanders have. It is their right under the Magna Carta to go to court. It is their right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and under all the various legislation that goes back to before there were Māori in New Zealand. It is people’s right to go to court and be judged by their peers. Nothing in this bill stops that from happening. Nothing in any legislation ever stops that from happening. Whether they win, of course, is another matter, and, as a lawyer, I say to them: “Just breed.”

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): The ACT party has voted for the Registered Architects Bill for the reason that, on balance, it probably does more desirable things than undesirable things. But it is such a shame to have to support something reluctantly, because, with a little bit of approval and a bit of commitment to quality in legislation, we could have had something that was far more satisfying. In this case, “satisfying” would simply have meant law about which the Minister could answer simple questions without confusing us more than we already were.

The Minister tried to answer a question when he began the third reading debate. He said that, yes, of course people will be able to use their professional qualification on their letterhead, as long as, in relation to building—and I think I am paraphrasing him correctly—it does not purport to be their qualification for building. The words were something to that effect. It was quite a long sentence that essentially said: “Yes, you can use your degree; yes, you can put your degree on the letterhead, as long as it is not in connection with a building and implying expertise in building.” Well, what else is a degree in architecture? So does that mean that they can or they cannot put their degree on the letterhead? We do not know, and the reason we do not know is that the Minister would have had all those whisperings in his ear from the officials behind him, busy telling him “Yes” on the one hand and “No” on the other hand, and he ended up as confused as we predict the court will be when it tries to make head or tail of what New Zealand First, the Greens, and United Future have now colluded with Labour to pass.

The other opportunity I should take at this stage is to explain why we are voting for this bill, despite having voted against the first schedule. We voted against the first schedule simply to record, for the sake of consistency, that we believe in one law for all. We do not, unlike the other parties in the House, justify race discrimination on the grounds that it might be well intentioned. ACT is against race discrimination. ACT is against “the soft bigotry of low expectations”—I think that is the phrase. We can see in the first schedule to this legislation that the New Zealand Registered Architects’ Board, of all bodies, is directed, as a specific requirement as a good employer, to recognise the aims and aspirations of Māori, the employment requirements of Māori, and the need for involvement of Māori as employees of the board. So what is that, a quota? Does that mean that the Registered Architects’ Board now has to go out and find some token Māori because this Parliament is telling it that it must recognise the need for the involvement of Māori as employees of the board? What a patronising piece of law. What a piece of bigotry. It is bigotry because it has such low expectations that Māori need Parliament to instruct the Registered Architects’ Board that they must be employed. What a pathetic piece to be sticking into law in this country in 2005.

The rest of this Parliament, as it does, solemnly voted in favour of those provisions. ACT is proud that we do not vote for this stuff. We actually read the law. We think that quality matters and that principles are only principles if one sticks to them consistently. Just because there is an architects body out there and it is election time, and greasing around and throwing baubles at tiny segments of the electorate is the fashion, it does not mean we should be voting for provisions as patronising as these. The need for the board to be a good employer—

Steve Chadwick: It’s what they wanted.

STEPHEN FRANKS: I will tell the member why they wanted it—presumably “they” being the representatives of the architects. They probably told the Government that they would go along with these nonsense words because they knew this Government to be full of people who would not advance the legislation unless they did. They probably feared, knowing what this Government is like, that unless they came up with this kind of twaddle and stuck in this stuff that compels the board to employ Māori, that the cabal—how did John Tamihere describe them—of lesbians, and the rest of it, would not let them get their legislation through. Is that what the member for Rotorua is really saying when she tells us that the architects wanted to be told that they must employ Māori? They would employ Māori because Māori were competent. They would employ Māori because they presented as the best person for the job. That is what any employer would do. Employers do not come along and say to Parliament: “Please order me to employ Māori.” If the member would care to look at clause 38—

Steve Chadwick: I was on the committee.

STEPHEN FRANKS: The member is telling us that she was on the committee. Did they actually come before the committee and say: “Please instruct us to employ Māori?”. How did they word it? What did they say? They are not my words. The member was shrieking at me: “That’s what they wanted! That’s what they asked for!” Who were they, and what did they ask for? Did they ask for clause 38(2)(d) in schedule 1, which tells them that they must recognise the need for involvement of Māori as employees of the board? Clause 38(2) in schedule 1 requires that the board must recognise the need for involvement of Māori as employees of the board, and the aims and aspirations and cultural differences of ethnic or minority groups. What is this? Does the Registered Architects’ Board have to employ someone who understands tepee building, gers, or Mongolian yurts? What are these Māori reference words doing in legislation to set up the board to register architects? How do they recognise the cultural differences of ethnic or minority groups on the Registered Architects’ Board?

Judith Collins: Ask Mr Choudhary. He will know.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Mrs Collins says that Mr Choudhary will know. There may be someone else in the Chamber who was on the select committee, because we are now being told that that is what the architects asked for. I really would like to know how they—

Steve Chadwick: That’s not what I said. I said they are very happy with it.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Oh, now they did not ask for it. Now I understand that they are very happy with it. Of course they would be happy if they had a couple of spiky-haired people with big dangly earrings telling them: “You be happy with this or we won’t advance your bill. You just show joy or it won’t go through.” I think that is the sort of thing we are hearing. We are hearing that there was a bit of a stand-over of the architects board. They were told: “You be very, very happy. Dance, or we will not put your bill through.” It is interesting, is it not. It is really very, very strange.

There is a bit more here too that I had not noticed. The board has to recognise “the employment requirements of persons with disabilities.” The regulations already require ramps and toilets for disabled people. What more can the architects registration board do to recognise the employment requirements of persons with disabilities? This is PC nonsense.

Judith Collins: It’s the sort of thing John Tamihere railed against.

STEPHEN FRANKS: It does sound like the sort of thing John Tamihere has been railing about. I can understand how sickening it must have been sitting in Cabinet when he was required to sign up to this sort of thing. What it does not explain to me—sure, John Tamihere has blown the whistle on the Labour Cabinet—is why the rest of Parliament voted for this. Why, on schedule 1, was the 113 to7? I think that it should not have been just ACT saying that this kind of nonsense does not need to be put in the law. I would expect National to vote against this schedule. I would expect New Zealand First to vote against it. New Zealand First has very recently discovered that it has votes in relation to principles of the treaty. It now manages to vote against bills that refer to those principles. What about voting against bills that tell the Registered Architects’ Board that it has to involve Māori as employees of the board, because that is patronising pap?

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I begin by congratulating the New Zealand Registered Architects’ Board and the profession of architects on achieving their new bill after 40 years, replacing their 1963 Act and bringing them into a form of governance that is of a more contemporary nature. I know they have waited a long time for it, and I guess that once they saw the bill come out of the select committee they thought they were getting close, only to have to sit on their hands for a number of months before it finally came to the House. But the bill is here tonight and it will be passed tonight, and no doubt they will have a cocktail party of their own to celebrate.

I must agree with Stephen Franks’ comparison of this bill with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill and agree that this bill is succinct at 87 clauses. It is something more of the sort of ilk we would expect in terms of a Government bill regulating a profession. Certainly, it makes the 380 clauses in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill look ponderous, complex, and way over the top, as I have said previously. I guess the architects have to be congratulated on having a modest-sized bill come through the House. I would only like to see lawyers achieve the same result at the end of the day.

This bill is about setting standards in terms of architecture, but it is important, in relation to the new provision for standards, educational qualifications, and things this bill now implements, that the Registered Architects’ Board, as it now is, does not continue with the reputation it has for being a bit of an old boys’ club and for being restrictive. I know that there is some concern out there from some quarters that there is a degree of patch protection as far as architects are concerned.

I think it is important for the good of the profession as a whole, and for the whole building industry in fact, that architects have an inclusive organisation that tries to foster difference within its midst. It may well be that architects need to look at different standard qualifications in terms of architecture, to accommodate some of the people who have architectural degrees but who want to work more in a fringe area than in the main areas of high-rise buildings, commercial buildings, and buildings with other complicated designs. It is important, if the registered architects’ profession wants to maintain a broad membership, that it can accommodate the needs of its members, both at the highest levels and at lower levels. I would encourage it to do that. Certainly, at the Government Administration Committee we heard from architectural draftspeople and others who are working in areas on the fringes of strict architectural work, and we heard their concerns about where they fitted within the industry. I will commend to the Registered Architects’ Board that it tries to take an inclusive approach, but I recognise that it does have to set some minimum standards.

This legislation, as I said in my second reading speech, ties in very much with the Building Act, and with the licensed building practitioner regime. There will be a design group there, and the indications within this legislation in terms of its facilitation, which allows the Minister to delegate functions to it, are that the board will be looked to in order for it to play an important role in relation to design practitioners, under the licensed building practitioner regime, and in setting standards for that group—at least in a consultative way, if not also in a way that involves the assessment of practitioners in terms of the various categories of design. I think the board could make an important contribution in that area, but if it is to do that, it is important that it takes the inclusive approach I was referring to earlier.

I congratulate the board on achieving this milestone of a new Act, and wish the board well for its future as it implements the Act, sees it bedding down, and furthers the interests of its own profession.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Charities Bill

Second Reading

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce): I move, That the Charities Bill be now read a second time. The Charities Bill will establish a new Crown entity, the Charities Commission. One of the commission’s functions will be to administer a registration, reporting, and monitoring system for charitable organisations. The intent behind establishing the commission is twofold: firstly, to improve public trust and confidence in charitable organisations, and, secondly, to obtain better information about the size and scope of the charitable sector.

A number of changes have been made to the bill by the Social Services Committee, and I will shortly outline the scope and intent of those changes. In addition, the Ministry of Economic Development wrote to approximately 25 umbrella organisations and other entities, to seek their views on the workability of the bill. On the whole, the feedback from those groups was positive. In addition to the changes recommended by the select committee, the Government reaffirmed its commitment to the charitable sector by announcing in October last year that it would commit $9.8 million in funding to the commission. That means, for example, that registration with the commission will be free for all organisations.

The select committee has recommended that the bill provide for the commission to be established as an autonomous Crown entity. That removes the requirement for the commission to establish and maintain a separate register of approved donee organisations. That function will continue to be undertaken by the Inland Revenue Department. Operationally, however, most charities will deal with one agency. With the agreement of the donee organisation, the commission will have the ability to provide the Inland Revenue Department with any information contained in the public register, including information that has been withheld from the publicly accessible register for public interest reasons. The Inland Revenue Department will be able to assess whether a registering charitable organisation also qualifies to be recognised as a donee. The notable exception will be charities with significant international operations that also want to be donee organisations. They will need to work with the Inland Revenue Department or obtain parliamentary approval to be added to the list of recognised overseas donee organisations contained in the Income Tax Act 2004, as is the current process.

The select committee has recommended significant changes to the section of the bill outlining the commission’s functions. Many submitters expressed a concern that the commission’s functions were too focused on its registration and monitoring role. To make the bill’s intent clearer, the commission’s functions are now explicitly set out as providing education and assistance on matters of good governance and management to charitable organisations. The bill gives the commission the ability to provide policy advice directly to the Government about issues faced by the charitable sector. For example, the commission may want to make recommendations to the Government about whether a new type of corporate legal entity for charitable organisations needs to be developed. Under the bill, as it has been reported back, the commission will monitor and promote compliance with the legislation. The bill also now gives the commission express responsibility for taking prosecutions for offences against the legislation in appropriate circumstances.

In many of the submissions received, concern was expressed about the definition of a charitable purpose used in the bill. The test used in the bill comes from case law, and the select committee has not recommended that that test should be changed. What it has recommended is that the bill codify, for clarity reasons, the common law on non-charitable, incidental purposes. Throughout the select committee process the single biggest concern raised in relation to the charitable purpose test was the position of advocacy, and whether organisations that undertook advocacy work would continue to be classified as charitable and be able to register. The committee has recommended changes that make it clear that the commission will not prevent an organisation from being able to register if it engages in advocacy as a way to support and undertake its main charitable purpose.

The bill has been amended to increase flexibility for registration. A national organisation can now register on behalf of a number of entities, where those entities are affiliated or closely related to it. That will enable charities with complex organisational structures to register once, if they so choose. The commission will also have the power to grant a waiver, so that registered organisations are able to comply with their regulatory obligations and duties in a way that best suits the organisation concerned. For example, a parent organisation with 29 branches around New Zealand will be able to register, and each of its branches will be able to use the same registration number and will generally need to file one annual return form that covers the organisation’s entire operations. Where that is not possible or practical, an organisation can request that the commission allow each of the 29 branches to file its own return. I also propose, by way of a Supplementary Order Paper, to extend the commission’s power to grant a waiver to cover the registration requirements for charitable entities. The commission could then allow an umbrella entity to file a single set of rules on behalf of the group.

I wish to thank the members of the select committee for their work in considering this bill, and I acknowledge the invaluable contribution of the many hundreds of people and organisations that took the time to make submissions and present oral evidence on the bill. During the Committee of the whole House, I intend to table a Supplementary Order Paper that will make the following changes to the bill: consequential changes due to the enactment of the Crown Entities Act of 2004, minor changes aimed at improving the workability of the bill, and three other changes. The first empowers the commission, where it deregisters a charitable entity, to specify a period of time within which that entity may not reregister. The second of those changes empowers the commission, when it does deregister a charitable entity, to also disqualify an officer of that entity from being an officer of a charitable entity for a period not exceeding 5 years. Those provisions are also consistent with the provisions of the Companies Act. The third change removes from the bill provisions that exempted the commission from the laws of defamation where it issues notices and publishes details of possible breaches of the bill and other serious wrongdoings. I consider that such provisions are inconsistent with the broad Government policy in the Crown Entities Act. Also, there are no special reasons why the commission should be treated differently from other Crown entities.

I commend the bill to the House.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I was a member of the Social Services Committee who looked at this bill, and I heard a tremendous number of submissions from a lot of people who came along to give their time to talk about what a silly bill it was. But there was a good thing about that committee that Georgina Beyer chaired, and she chaired it very well, too, I should say—I like to give credit where it is due; I do not often get the chance to give credit in this place. [Interruption] Mr Hide asked me to say nice things, and I tell Mr Hide that I am going to do that.

One thing that happened was that the Labour Party members on the select committee were very shocked that everybody who came along to submit on this bill submitted against it. Those people submitted against it for the very reason that this bill, which is called the Charities Bill, is not particularly charitable. It is all about trying to remedy a wrong that does not actually exist. The Government, of course, thinks that the great wrong is that there is not enough money going into Government coffers, or enough people being employed to regulate the ordinary, everyday lives of people who volunteer their time and money—and, many times, their family’s work—to be able to help people in need.

We know there are lots and lots of charities in this country. There seem to be thousands of them. Most charities are not huge organisations. Many charities are actually very small organisations, and the provisions for charitable purposes have been determined by the Inland Revenue Department ever since there has been an Inland Revenue Department. There cannot be a more powerful body in this country than the Inland Revenue Department when it comes to having powers to investigate, look at, and take money out of people’s bank accounts, wages, and almost everything else.

Yet this Government, which is utterly driven by a politically correct agenda, and utterly incapable of seeing the wood for the trees, is utterly incapable—as Mr Tamihere has said—of being able to relate to ordinary New Zealanders who go about their business, who do not commit crimes, and who pay their taxes. The Government is utterly incapable of understanding that. This Government feels that any people in charge of any money not actually their own must be about to steal it.

That is the way this Government has acted. It has acted by wanting to over-regulate those bodies to the point, we found out, that even someone like Sue Bradford, who is a very good, hard-working member of the select committee, would not be able to be on the board of one of those charities because of her previous time as an almost professional protester—no, not professional, but a person who would have been protesting.

Sue Bradford: Radical protester.

JUDITH COLLINS: She was a radical protester, as she likes to be called. Well, this is a House of Representatives, and everyone can be represented here, even radical protesters. She is someone whom I would not mind having on a board I was on, and I think she would be quite happy to be on that board, but we found out that she would have been stopped by this silly Government that simply wanted to say it did not trust anyone.

Now, of course, we have found out the real reason for it all. Apart from the fact that the Government wants to rip money out of the system and take money out of the little charities that pay for things like school uniforms or sports equipment for kids who need it, and for poor schools in poor areas, the Government wants to rip money out and control the system itself. The Government wants to get rid of those little charities and organisations. [Interruption] I ask that member opposite, who keeps screaming out, why she did not give her speech as though it actually had some meaning. I really did think, before, that I should have been seeking a point of order and suggesting that maybe the Minister could stand up and be given the chance to redo her speech. But next time she should sound as though she means it, because the speech she gave earlier sounded as though it had been written by some flunky who did not know any better.

Of course, we understand that this Government is so much better at talking about charity and about what it wants to do for people than it is at actually doing it. And there is no other example, really, that is quite as good at the moment as the example of the attitude of Government members in their charity towards Mr John Tamihere. That is certainly an act of charity towards Mr Tamihere—and it is one of those stunning acts of charity that the women members of the Labour caucus will stand by and support a man who has referred to them in such a disgusting way as Mr Tamihere did. Those members do not have enough in them to stand up and fight for their rights, so they leave it to me—a National Party MP—to have to stand up for them. Well, what sort of attitude is that? Fortunately, I am a pretty charitable person, and I am happy to stand up for them if they are too weak and emotionally crippled to be able to do it for themselves. I will stand up for them, because they definitely need it.

Peter Brown: Are you charitable to tossers?

JUDITH COLLINS: Mr Brown is asking me whether I am charitable—and under this bill, I am thinking in a charitable way—to tossers. Well, I say to Mr Brown that it is not really a term I would normally use. I would not like to call any member of this House by such a term but, unfortunately, Mr Tamihere does. We have to understand that there is a certain amount—

Rodney Hide: Who said “tosser”?

JUDITH COLLINS: I think there are a couple of members who did, but I tell Mr Hide that we will not go into that.

I will seek in the Committee stage to bring about a change to some parts of the bill. One of the changes I will seek to deal with is the fact that the Charities Commission—which will, of course, be made up of Labour Party flunkies—will have to try to minimise compliance costs. We know, as people who have been involved in small businesses, that it is the compliance costs that grind people down in business, and they will grind people in those charities down. Generally, the people we are talking about are not people who are financial wizards. They are often mums and dads who help out at Scouts and all sorts of organisations like that. Yet, here they are, being treated in this bill as if they are some form of great, big business.

The compliance cost in the bill is something that Mr Tamihere has talked a lot about. He has said a lot about small-business compliance cost, yet the Government will not see its way to be charitable towards the very people who spend their time and money raising money for other people—which is a very charitable thing to do.

I cannot understand why this Government thinks that the Charities Commission will have more power and ability to deal with the deceit or criminal actions of people involved in charities than the Inland Revenue Department and the police have. We know there is a shocking shortage of police, particularly in south Auckland and particularly in Manurewa, which is in the Hon George Hawkins’ electorate. There is a shocking shortage of police there, yet we have a bill here that says maybe that is why the Government is going to have a Charities Commission.

We know that the Charities Commission will always be full of Labour Party flunkies while Labour is in power—but fortunately that will not last long—and we will see a huge amount of cost. We can just imagine how many trips overseas there will be for those commissioners to look at charities. How many little people will be paying for that? How many school uniforms will be lost because of those costs? How many people will be told: “I’m sorry; we won’t be able to fund your child going to Scouts this year, because the money has had to go in compliance costs.”? Charities and the Charities Bill should be all about getting the money out to the people who need it, not about building a huge administration in order to stop money going where it needs to be going.

I think that almost every—in fact, every—submission I heard on this bill was against it. Government members eventually listened to some of those views, but what they could not get their head around was the fact that it was a bill nobody wanted except for themselves and their officials.

Unfortunately, the Minister who was previously in charge of this bill simply could not understand what was actually in the bill or how it would work. I understand that the Labour Government may have some trouble with understanding how charities work, but if the Greens can understand it, why can the Government not understand it? I mean, everyone else here can understand it.

The exception is United Future members, I think, who will do what they always do and help out the Government on anything tricky. That is a real shame, because I have received submissions from interfaith people saying: “Please—we’ve got a bill here that’s going to set how we have a board. We don’t always have boards.” Yet the Government will be dictating through this Parliament who will be in charge of the very church charities that United Future says it is happy to support.

In essence, this bill is unnecessary. It imposes a load of extra compliance costs on charities, and the money should be going where it is needed.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa): I am very pleased to take a short call on the second reading of the Charities Bill. I will focus primarily on my gratitude to members of the Social Services Committee, which I am proud to chair and which I chaired during the course of the hearings on this bill. I thank the members who served on the select committee: Dr Muriel Newman, Paul Adams, Sue Bradford, the Hon Taito Phillip Field, Bill Gudgeon, Moana Mackey, Katherine Rich, Dr Lynda Scott, the Hon Judith Tizard, and Gordon Copeland. I also thank Judith Collins, who on occasions was present as well.

The committee received 753 submissions, of which we heard 161, and we held hearings in Auckland over 2 days. It became very apparent to the select committee very early on in the hearing of submissions that some points were consistently raised by the submitters we heard. So we devised a list of the eight concerns most often raised by the submitters we had seen, so that those who came after them could look at that list and agree that those were the points they had concerns about. That was provided particularly because of the very short amount of time submitters had to have their voices heard, and it allowed submitters to get the best they could out of the process in that time. That was achieved because they were able to eliminate the eight points and go on to other matters that concerned them that they otherwise might have had little time to express.

I believe that the select committee process worked as far as our democracy is concerned—to the point, indeed, where the submissions we read and heard had a profound effect on how the committee felt it should deal with the bill. As the Minister mentioned in her speech, most, if not all, of the eight concerns consistently raised by submitters have been addressed and rectified in the bill that is before the House now. That should send a strong and clear message to New Zealanders that the select committee process is of value, that what is of most value is their opinions and submissions on particular bills, and that they are indeed listened to by members of select committees. Quite often we are told that they are not valued and that we do not listen to them. Well, here is an example of a bill on which they were listened to and to which they added some significant changes—there has been a virtual rewrite of the original bill.

In the House this evening we are on to the second reading of the bill and we will, I hope, speedily continue through to the Committee stage. I conclude by acknowledging the select committee again but also, importantly, the officials who worked with the select committee. They included officials from the Ministry of Economic Development, the Inland Revenue Department, the Ministry of Social Development—particularly the Office of the Community and Voluntary Sector—Treasury, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. They had hours and hours of work to do as the committee went through its considerations.

Also, I would like to acknowledge Gordon Copeland, in particular. He, of course, worked some years previously with the working party towards what became a draft of the Charities Bill. I look forward to his speech later on. He will be able to enlighten the House and anybody who happens to be listening on the details and perhaps the gestation of this bill. With that—

Darren Hughes: Oh, no!

GEORGINA BEYER: Well, I should carry on; I am getting rounds of applause here. I wish the bill a speedy passage through the House.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First): Taking into consideration the serious concerns of the many charitable organisations throughout the country, New Zealand First supports the intent of the bill. Clause 15 disqualifies a number of classes of people from serving as officers. New Zealand First supports in particular the exclusion of people who have been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of 2 years or more, or of 2 years or less when a person has been sentenced to imprisonment.

The Charities Bill establishes a new Crown entity, the Charities Commission, responsible for running a registration, reporting, and monitoring system for charities. It is also important to note that only those charities that are registered with the commission will be able to retain or gain tax-exempt status, while any unregistered charities will not be income tax exempt. That will ensure that the sector becomes more accountable and transparent to the donating public, and that fraudulent activities can be eliminated.

New Zealand First believes that this bill will assist in the ongoing provision of important services to the community, that confidence in the charitable sector will increase as a result of the activities of the Charities Commission, and that this confidence will encourage the Government to consider a more generous tax rebate.

What is the definition of “charitable purpose”? Part of the criteria for registration as a charitable entity is that the entity must be maintained for charitable purposes. The bill defines “charitable purpose” as including every charitable purpose, whether it relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter that would contribute positively to community advancement.

The commission will have a number of enforcement powers available to it to address any situations involving deregistration. In the first instance, the commission is more likely to use its lesser enforcement powers or its education function to encourage and help the charitable entity to comply with its obligations.

New Zealand First believes that this bill will encourage more responsible activities and more accountability to public donors. It does not pose a threat to democratic process, because it is only when laws are in place that democracy can function. The voluntary sector is much appreciated by New Zealand First for the service it renders to the general public. The sector’s independence is firmly in place without being jeopardised by the fly-by-nighters who, as we are only too aware, are getting a free ride under the guise of being charitable organisations. New Zealand First supports the bill, because charitable organisations have been part of the landscape of New Zealand communities and are a reflection of a service-rendering society.

During the hearing of submissions, as the chairperson mentioned, a list of eight points was agreed to by the select committee under the stewardship of the chairperson and with the supporting vote of the committee. The list reads: (1) general concern that compliance costs imposed by the bill will be onerous; (2) concern about the definition of “charitable purpose” that is used and the position of organisations that undertake advocacy; (3) the commission’s status as a Crown agent and its lack of independence from government; (4) the fact that registration numbers will need to be displayed on all correspondence and fundraising materials, general concern about compliance costs of this; (5) disqualification of officers clause too onerous and may prevent people from volunteering to be officers; (6) inability to indemnify officers is too onerous and may also discourage people from becoming officers; (7) filing claims specified in the bill for providing information and annual returns to the commission are sufficient; (8) commission’s functions need to include a general education and support role, and not be limited just to providing advice and support about regulatory duties and obligations.

Listing those eight points assisted us to cut down the time spent listening to submissions. As submitters read those points, they were able to get past them. I now realise that the bill covers those points, to the advancement of charitable organisations in the country. I am sure that many submissions listed concerns outlined in the list I read out. Those submitters will now be happy with the result in the final bill.

New Zealand First has concerns, but we are looking at the overall picture of charitable organisations throughout the country. We support this bill to the House.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this bill. It surprises me that New Zealand First is supporting it.

Peter Brown: Show a bit of charity. Where’s your charity?

RODNEY HIDE: Mr Peter Brown calls out that I should show some charity. In fact, to New Zealand First I do, because do I think that party is a charitable case. Mr Peter Brown, in particular, I think is a charitable case so I will not be too hard on him. I will just point out that I think he is mistaken. In fact, I can understand New Zealand First being mistaken. What I cannot understand is the United Future party being so mistaken, particularly Mr Copeland, who has some experience of the charitable sector. I am astonished that he, with his experience, would come along to this great House—[Interruption] Mr Copeland calls out that he has had quite a bit of experience. He cannot have learnt much. I am astonished that he comes to this great House and proceeds to socialise charities in New Zealand.

The whole point of the charitable sector is that it is private. The whole point of the charitable sector is that it gets on and does the business. The whole point of the charitable sector is that it does not have to worry about busybody politicians coming along and making charities pay registration fees. That is the success of the charitable sector. Anyone who believes in charity in New Zealand has to vote against this bill. Anyone who believes in the charitable sector and the importance of a civil society has to vote against this bill. Why? Well, what, I ask Mr Copeland, is the purpose of this bill? It sets up a new Crown entity. How, I ask Mr Copeland, will a new Crown entity help a charity? It is the charities that pick up the flotsam and jetsam that falls out of the welfare State that Mr Copeland supports. Now he is turning round and wants to hobble the charitable sector with a Crown entity that the charities themselves will have to pay for. I ask Mr Copeland: what is this Crown entity going to do? It is going to sit there, and this Charities Commission will be responsible for running a registration, reporting, and monitoring system for charities.

I ask Mr Copeland: how many charities are there? There are 37,000 charities. So Mr Copeland and New Zealand First are voting for a quango to look after 37,000 charities—to monitor them, to register them, and to keep an eye on them. There will be an army of bureaucrats doing that. [Interruption] Sue Bradford laughs. How many people does she think it will take to register, monitor, and run 37,000 charities? [Interruption] Is the member going to vote against it?

Sue Bradford: Absolutely!

RODNEY HIDE: Oh, thank God! I love the Greens! Sanity from the Greens. Why cannot New Zealand First see it now? ACT and the Greens are agreeing. The great National Party will be voting against the bill. And here we have that basket case New Zealand First voting for it. God only knows why Mr Copeland is voting for it.

Peter Brown: God does know.

RODNEY HIDE: God does know, I know. God only knows why New Zealand First would vote for this. I ask Mr Copeland: what is the mischief that we are trying to fix?

Gordon Copeland: If ACT and the Greens are against it, we must be right.

RODNEY HIDE: I have to say that that is the definition of the logic from the United Future party. Mr Copeland just called out that we are going to set upon the charities of New Zealand a charitable commission, set up by the Labour Party, with seven Government appointees running it, all on the public tit, paid for by the taxpayers, that will require charities to register. Mr Copeland was asked: “Why are you voting for it?”. His answer was: “Because the Greens and ACT are voting against it.” That is the logic of the United Future party.

Peter Brown: That’s a pretty good reason.

RODNEY HIDE: I have to say that they are no longer poodle power, because they do not even have a poodle brain. The logic of it is that there are some charities that run off the rails. Charities have been around for 400 years, and they are forever running off the rails. What is the mechanism that we have to pursue them? Section 58 of the charities Act. I ask Mr Copeland: who is in charge of that? The Attorney-General of New Zealand is in charge.

Dail Jones: The charities Act?

RODNEY HIDE: No, section 58. Under that section we can pursue a charity for fraud.

Dail Jones: Of what?

RODNEY HIDE: Section 58 of the Charitable Trusts Act.

Hon Matt Robson: What about Fiji?

RODNEY HIDE: Mr Robson, the deputy leader of the Progressive Party, leading the left-wing faction of the Progressive Party, calls out: “What about Fiji?”. If they want to talk about charitable trusts, they have an expert sitting on their side of the House in the name of Mr John Tamihere. We know that Prime Minister Helen Clark has forgiven him. All is forgiven. She will know all about the charitable trusts that Mr Tamihere has set up, where the money has come from, and where it has gone to. Do not worry, we will be revealing that, for the delight of—

Hon Paul Swain: What about the pyramid selling schemes?

RODNEY HIDE: Mr Swain is calling out about the pyramid selling schemes. Let us get back to the point. Why do we have 37,000 charities having to be registered and monitored by a quango?

Darren Hughes: Stop ripping them off.

RODNEY HIDE: Now we have whatever that guy’s name is, Darren Hughes, calling out, saying that the Attorney-General has not been doing her job. I agree with him. If the Attorney-General did her job and pursued those people who ripped off the charities and used them for personal gain, we would not be debating this Charities Bill tonight—because the Attorney-General would be doing her job.

Gordon Copeland: Now it’s a “he”.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, when she was the Attorney-General. Now it is a “he”. What is he doing about the charitable sector? Is he pursuing them? [Interruption] Mr Copeland now agrees with me. God knows what he is thinking. I say to Mr Worth—he will understand this—that if the Attorney-General was doing his job we would not need this bill. Is that correct?

Dr Richard Worth: Quite right.

RODNEY HIDE: He agrees with me.

Gordon Copeland: I don’t disagree.

RODNEY HIDE: Mr Copeland now does not disagree. So now he is saying that if the Attorney-General was doing his job, we would not need this bill. I look forward to United Future’s contribution to this debate.

Peter Brown: Well, sit down and get it.

RODNEY HIDE: I will. We will get it after this, and I want to hear some logic about why they are voting for this bill. I ask Mr Copeland to tell us in his contribution to this House how many civil servants it will take to monitor, register, and promote the research in the charitable sector. He does not know. He is voting for the bill, and he does not know. I ask Mr Copeland: how much will it cost? [Interruption] I have no idea, but I am not voting for it.

Darren Hughes: It will be a lot less after ACT has gone.

RODNEY HIDE: It will be a lot less when ACT is in power; that is true.

Darren Hughes: When ACT has gone.

RODNEY HIDE: How much will it cost? The member is going to vote for it.

Gordon Copeland: No, you are right. I have no idea.

RODNEY HIDE: The member has no idea. Mr Copeland has no idea what it will cost. He has no idea how many people it will take, yet he is going to vote for the bill. Who is going to miss out? It will be the poor and the downtrodden—the people whom these very charities have been set up, going back hundreds of years, to serve. They are the people who will miss out. Why would we load charities with extra cost? Why would we load charities with extra bureaucratic hassle when we could simply demand that the Attorney-General do his job and pursue the ratbags who are ripping off their own charities—pursue them to the nth degree? If we did that and, indeed, lowered tax, we would have more charity, not less. This bill is about having less charity in New Zealand, and for that reason the ACT party is voting against it.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): I have to say, on behalf of the Green Party, that it is a real pity that we are seeing the Charities Bill come back to the House tonight for its second reading and all further stages under urgency. The community and voluntary sector has seen this bill as a really significant piece of legislation, and I think it is unfortunate that we now have to deal with it in such haste. A complex bill such as this deserves the time and care needed for last-minute consultation and discussion, especially during the Committee stage, yet with such short notice it is virtually impossible to do that. I apologise in advance to the groups and individuals in the sector with whom I usually work for not having had the time to consult them on the final phase of the bill.

In a way the fact that we are dealing with the bill with such unnecessary despatch in the House tonight typifies the whole unsatisfactory process on the bill from its conception to its delivery. The facts that the bill was conceived, evidently, in Treasury, and was designed by the Ministry of Economic Development show just how out of touch the originating Minister or Ministers were with the realities of the community sector in this country today. The officials who worked with us on the Social Services Committee had a really tough job on all fronts, and I have a lot of sympathy for them. They should never have been put into such a position in the first place. A bill that deals in such detail with issues of critical importance to all types of community and voluntary sector groups should have been, all along, within the purview of a ministry with substantial experience of the sector, with the most obvious examples of such ministries being the Ministry of Social Development or the Department of Internal Affairs. The bill should not have been the responsibility of a ministry far more accustomed to working with “for profit” business than with the vast diversity that comprises the world of non-governmental organisations.

The Government has very belatedly decided to hand the Charities Commission over to the Department of Internal Affairs, with input from the Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector. That is a good step forward, but it should have happened right at the start. A lot of the problems in the gestation of this legislation could have been avoided if the people who put it together had had the kind of substantial and hard-won experience of working with community groups that is needed when dealing with a whole series of complicated and sensitive issues. And any public servants with decent experience of working in this area would have known that the bottom line, in terms of getting buy-in and acceptance, would be widespread and detailed consultation locally and regionally, as well as nationally, rather than reliance on a limited and carefully selected task force to do the job for them. The history of this bill through Parliament exemplifies why and how even a well-meaning Labour Government still has a long way to go in terms of understanding not only how best to work with the third sector, but also of understanding the need for the Government to treat all parts of the sector with the respect of an equal towards an equal, rather than acting as a superior towards an inferior.

I now turn to some of the details of the bill itself. I sat on the select committee, which received many hundreds of submissions that critiqued in fine-tuned detail many, many aspects of the legislation as drafted. I was as impressed as ever with the integrity and passion of community sector submitters in all their variety, and with the fact that right across the spectrum people were almost universally committed to either major reform of the bill or throwing it out and starting again. I do not accept the comments made by several previous speakers, including our committee chair, Georgina Beyer, that the eight points put forward to the submitters by the chair were the only ones they were concerned about. In fact, there were hundreds of points of concern, many of which were not touched on in the list of eight that was presented to the submitters. I am sorry that the Labour and United Future members of the committee chose to take the path of least resistance and to make a series of hodgepodge reforms of the bill, rather than having the clarity of vision to actually throw it out and start from scratch, learning from the overseas experience readily available to us and also utilising far more comprehensively the wisdom of all the groups that care about these things.

There have been improvements made to the bill, and I am glad of that. Some pleas from the sector were listened to and heard. We are pleased, for example, to see changes that mean compliance costs have been reduced, that the prohibition on indemnifying officers has been removed—a totally ridiculous provision—that umbrella groups can register all their constituent bodies, that the blanket disqualification of officers with certain convictions has been taken out, and that the absurd requirement to have the group’s registration number on all written communication is gone. However, serious concerns remain. For example, we still have big issues around the definitions of “charity”, “charitable purpose”, and “public benefit”. The select committee, in its wisdom, decided not to expand or update the definition of “charitable purpose”, which the Green Party believes is a missed opportunity to update a concept rooted in the law of early 17th century England. We are, indeed, truly immured in our colonial past.

We also continue to have queries about advocacy, and about the extent to which the advocacy function of community organisations can, and should, be regulated through the mechanism of this bill and of the Charities Commission, once it is established. The Government has attempted to improve the bill by the addition of a provision to clarify that an organisation with so-called non-charitable secondary purposes, such as advocacy, will be allowed to register with the commission if its advocacy is in support of the charitable primary purpose. However, I am still really apprehensive about the extent to which that allows the State to define what is, and is not, acceptable to itself as advocacy, and what exactly is, and is not, charitable. That takes us back to the original definition problem. In the argument around advocacy I also remain as concerned as I always was, right from the start, that some groups with substantial advocacy functions will not even bother to try to obtain charitable status, and the fact that they do not have it will have a downstream negative impact on their ability to gain funding. Funders will be looking for that registration number, even if it is on fewer bits of paper, and if a group does not have that number I fear the consequences. It will be far easier for funders just to say that if there is no number, they will provide no money.

Another area of disquiet for us, even in the amended bill, lies in the fact that although very limited appeal rights have been established, there will still be an inability to develop common law that relates to the sector, because those rights are so restricted. And from a more overarching point of view, I remain completely unconvinced that this bill will actually, or adequately, address the need to find ways to expose and extinguish bogus and corrupt activities within the not-for-profit sector. The Government talked a lot at times about that being the trigger for the development of the bill—as Mr Hide did earlier tonight, as well. But, in fact, I do not think that this bill will make much difference at all, if any, in that area. The worst levels of corruption and theft in the sector happen because some people are simply determined criminals, and I do not see how the bill will aid in stopping that, any more than the State sector legislation that we recently passed can, in itself, stop determined theft by public servants from Government departments. At another level the best way to deal with internal fraud, abuse, and other problems such as that in the community sector is actually through things such as good employment practices, and the willingness of groups, for example, not to give false or misleading references for employees who move on to another organisation, having left a trail of disaster behind them. Again, that is not something that the bill can hope to solve. The answers lie in more willingness to share information when necessary between groups, and in not leaving others to carry the can for a poor employment decision or for someone feeling sorry for a desperate job applicant.

Beyond the amendments made during the select committee process, the Government has also tabled further extensive changes to the bill this week. Those changes are mostly minor and beneficial in nature, but none of them demonstrates the kind of major improvement that might have led the Green Party to change its position on this bill. We are voting against the Charities Bill tonight because we do not have confidence in the process by which it has been developed, and because we do not think the amendments made by the Government go far enough towards solving the problems that the bill creates. We also lament the lost opportunity here. If the Government had had the patience to start the process over again, and had worked cooperatively with the sector to draft a really exciting and positive bill, Labour would have had our enthusiastic support from beginning to end. As it is, this bill leaves a sour taste that all the minor amendments in the world will not fix.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): My involvement with this matter goes all the way back to 17 December 1987, when, in a now somewhat infamous line-up in the Beehive, Roger Douglas announced to the nation his proposal for a flat tax. He then went on to say that would mean charities would, henceforth, be paying taxation. Many twists and turns have occurred in the saga in the more than 17 intervening years that have brought us up to this day.

This is the second attempt by a Labour Government to establish a Charities Commission. I opposed the first attempt in 1989, but then tried with successive Ministers of Finance for the next 10 years to get the Government to allow greater tax rebates for gifts made to charities, from the maximum level of just $500 resulting from a total gift of up to $1,500 per year. That was the rate that existed through that whole decade. In fact, it was not until Dr Michael Cullen became the Minister of Finance in the year 2000 that that limit was adjusted for inflation from $500 to the current level of just $630 by way of tax rebate, based on giving up to a maximum of $1,819 per annum. That amount of $1,819 is incredibly stingy when compared with the amounts allowed in other OECD jurisdictions.

The USA has long allowed virtually unlimited tax deductibility for charitable gifts. This, amongst other things, sees the super-rich giving literally billions of dollars to charity, in the case of people like Bill Gates and Ted Turner. It also means that the great universities like Harvard and Yale have enormous endowments, whilst charities that work to alleviate poverty and addictions, and do other good works, flourish to the benefit of all.

The United Kingdom, under a Labour Government, has adopted similar policies because it recognises, in this most tangible and motivational of ways, the importance of encouraging both philanthropy and generosity amongst the citizens of their countries.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member relate the issue to the bill, please.

GORDON COPELAND: Members should remember it is more blessed to give than to receive. The good that charities do in our community is very significant. Indeed, I go further in saying that charities are the most efficient organisations known to humankind. It is estimated that $1 of social services delivered through a charity would cost $2 if delivered through a Government department. Encouraging charities to flourish, therefore, is just common sense.

New Zealand charities have high hopes for this bill. Their hope is that once the commission to register, monitor, and ensure that charities prosper is established—a task that we are likely to see completed very soon—the tax rebate will be lifted substantially and significantly in the 19 May Budget this year. In that regard I hope they will not be disappointed.

It is true that this bill will mean that charities face new and additional compliance costs. There is no getting around that reality. This bill is therefore somewhat reluctantly accepted by charities as being necessary in order to bring about the benefit of a higher tax rebate for gifts given to charity. I am pleased to record that the Minister of Finance, Dr Cullen, is already in the public record as saying that once the Charities Commission is established by this bill, which will be passed into law hopefully this evening, he will be giving consideration to a significant increase in the rebate level for charitable gifts.

I am also bolstered in my hope for this bill and its outcomes by the experience of both the United Kingdom and the USA. The United Kingdom has for many years had a Charities Commission. In recent years, again under the current UK administration and Chancellor Gordon Brown, the ethos of that commission has been changed quite significantly, so that now its role is to ensure that philanthropy, charity, and generosity flourish in the UK, for the reasons that I have mentioned. As a result, charitable activity, and charities themselves, are now flourishing once again in the UK to a greater extent than they have for many, many years.

A similar situation exists in the USA. The USA does not have a Charities Commission, but it is necessary in order to have tax-free status for a charity to complete an annual return to the Inland Revenue Service. This is quite voluminous, and imposes compliance costs on charities in that nation that are far greater than will result from this bill. Not unnaturally, when the Internal Revenue Service provisions were introduced by legislation in the United States, charities strongly opposed them. But they now say quite openly that they were wrong. That is as a result of the increase in public confidence that has flowed from the fact that people know that they are dealing not with cowboy charities but with genuine, bona fide charities. Charitable giving, in fact, has grown in the United States by several billion dollars. So that gives me the confidence and the hope that we will see a similar result in New Zealand.

This bill, therefore, for me is just—if one likes—the first step in an ongoing process. I hope that it will lead to charity, philanthropy, generosity, and that the good works our many, many thousands of charities undertake, often unsung, on a day by day basis in this country, will flourish and grow in the years ahead. If they do, then all sectors of society, including the Crown accounts themselves, will greatly benefit and we will see far greater social services and good, strong, robust social outcomes for the citizens of this country.

With those remarks, I signal that United Future will support this bill both in its second reading and through all remaining stages.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): I want to follow the comments made by Rodney Hide and Judith Collins during the course of this debate. It is very appropriate to ask why we need some legislation. Rodney Hide said during the course of his contribution that we should look at the Charitable Trusts Act, because the answer is there. Unfortunately for Mr Hide, that is not the case in practice.

As I said in the first reading, the call for the regulation of charities has been a longstanding one in New Zealand. In fact, it goes back even as far as 1967 with a call made by Justice Gresson in the case of Re Goldwater (deceased) [1967] NZLR 754. There was a call for a review of charities and that Act.

When I was in practice in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, I set up charitable trusts under the Charitable Trusts Act. I asked, having looked through the Act, what controls there were on all those charitable trusts. Really, there were no controls on any of them, although it would be fair to say that Mr Hide was correct to say the Attorney-General could look at them. But by the time a complaint is laid with the Attorney-General on anything, all the evidence has gone, all the money has gone, and it is far, far too late.

The Charitable Trusts Act has not proved to be very good in practice in so far as control of charitable trusts is concerned. I wrote to the Minister of Justice about that matter and I received a copy of the Property Law and Equity Reform Committee report on the Charitable Trusts Act issued in 1979. The report referred in paragraph (1) to the request to consider the comments made by Justice Gresham in Re Goldwater (deceased). The report went on to state: “Subsequently it was suggested that the whole of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 called for a general examination. In particular, the question was raised of the desirability of establishing more effective means of control of charitable trusts, perhaps by means of a charities commission along the lines established in the United Kingdom.”

The report, in paragraph 13 of page 7, stated: “The committee was asked to give particular consideration to the questions raised by the Rev. R M O’Grady, the associate-general of the National Council of Churches, in a newspaper article in which he said: ‘The public has no protection against charities in New Zealand. It would not be difficult for a skilled promotional person to raise $10,000 or more for almost any appeal one cares to name. Simply by national advertising and a small mailing to selected persons, any charity can get itself established in a few weeks. Raising really big money for a charity requires time and planning. By far the best method is the house-to-house collection.’ ” That quotation is taken from a report written in 1979. We were talking about $10,000 then. Taking inflation into account, we would be talking about a bigger figure that could be raised by a skilled promotional person who could end up fleecing all the people who thought they were giving the money to charities. So I was very pleased when this bill came before the House.

The need for this legislation has clearly been established a long, long time ago. As Rodney Hide has said, the legal basis for a charity goes back to 1601 and, of course, that Act just confirmed what had been happening prior to that. The Statute of Elizabeth 1601 confirmed the basis on which one could establish a charitable trust. So the whole concept has been going for a while. But in England—since before 1979, obviously—there has been a charities commission, and in New Zealand, since before 1979, we have had complaints about the way in which charities have been run. So that is the reason, if we need a reason, in answer to Rodney Hide’s question as to why we need a charities commission, or some control on charities, and this bill is the best bet that I have seen so far.

I note what Mr Copeland said. Rather than looking to the past, he is looking ahead to what might happen in the future. If much more money could go to charities, that would be well and good.

New Zealand First did not make a minority report on this bill, but we were concerned—I was present at the select committee on the day we did the deliberation—that the Government was watering down the provision for the disqualification of officers, as the commentary states on page 10. Clause 15(2) identifies which persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities. The original clause 15(2)(c) and (d) stated: “(2) The following persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities: … (c) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more: (d) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence:”. Paragraphs (c) and (d) were taken out by the select committee, which put in, instead: “(c) an individual who, or a body corporate that, has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961) and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years:”.

So the committee was trying to bring into the provision that “Nandor Tanczos Clean Slate Bill” type of thing—that nice, warm, green, fuzzy idea. The committee has changed the provision into a nebulous type of thing, which means that anyone who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more can be a trustee, and a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and who has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence can be a trustee. New Zealand First cannot support that. How can anyone who supports law and order, or who wants to make sure that the trustees of a trust function properly and are not criminals, possibly support that amendment? That is why I have lodged an amendment on the Table reinstating the original clauses 15(2)(c) and (d).

After all, the criticism of trusts and charities is that they are being fleeced by fly-by-nighters, criminals, or people who may get on the board and do away with the money—and this bill is promoting that. It is promoting criminals being on the board. It is nonsense to strike out those two paragraphs and to put in a nebulous provision about whether those people were sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years. The whole thing is a nonsense. I think that we need to be tougher on law and order. We need to make sure that charities have a stronger ability to refuse to accept people who have criminal convictions of 2 years’ imprisonment or more, or who have been sentenced to imprisonment for less than 2 years for an offence.

I cannot understand how United Future or Labour would have agreed to those provisions concerning persons being convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more being struck out. The mind boggles. Of course, the Greens, in a strange sort of way, opposed this legislation. But when I said that New Zealand First wanted this provision to be reinstated, they then changed their mind and now they support this part.

Sue Bradford: We certainly don’t support what you are putting up now.

DAIL JONES: What I am putting up is what was in the original bill. The Greens do not support what was in the original bill, because there might be a member in this House who falls within the definition of the original clause 15(2)(c) and who would not be eligible to be a trustee on a charity.

Judith Collins: He’s on stress leave, isn’t he?

DAIL JONES: No, I say to the member that such a member is sitting in the House at the current time. There is a female member of this House who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment of a term of 2 years or more who might be affected by this legislation.

I just raise the point that if a person has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more—that means just a conviction, without the person going to jail—he or she can still be a trustee on a charity and be involved in working for a charity. If the person has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence, he or she can still be a member of that charity and be working for it. I think that is nonsense.

As I said, the commentary states, under the heading “Disqualification of officers” on page 10: “The New Zealand First Party supports the intent of the original bill.” As we support that intent, we want to see that intent retained in the way that the Government originally wanted it—and I believe the Government was absolutely right on that occasion. So I have put forward an amendment to reinstate the original provision into the bill. We want honest people working for charities, and the new clause 15(2)(c) is totally contrary to what was intended in the formation of the Charities Bill and the Charities Commission.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to.

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Bill read a second time.

Instruction to Committee

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Charities Bill that it take the bill part by part.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

Part 1 Charities Commission

KATHERINE RICH (National): It is a pleasure to rise to speak to Part 1. Looking at the part, I find it very interesting to see how much of it the Government has changed. It is not often that one picks up a bill and finds that more or less an entire part has been rewritten, word for word. The only thing I can see that has not been rewritten is the definition of “chairperson”, which means the chairperson of the board. The rest of it has been struck out by majority, and new provisions have been put in. I am not surprised as to why, either, because after 753 submissions, all of which have said that the legislation as originally drafted was nuts, the Government did not like being bagged by charitable group after charitable group and being told that the bill was an absolute nonsense.

One of the first things to be struck out was the idea that if a body was not registered under the new Charities Commission, it would not officially be able to receive funds, and that groups, community trusts, or financial groups would not give one funding if one was not an approved donee. That was one of the major things that this bill created concern about. Members of group after group said that it was hard enough being a volunteer and being involved in a charitable group without the level of bureaucracy and registration required, plus the cost, which will make their work more and more difficult in times when it is harder, not easier, to collect funds. So the Government has done a total flip-flop.

The Government has rewritten this entire part. It has taken out the bits of heavy-handed regulation, because it knew they would be unpalatable in an election year, and it has put in a few clauses that it thinks will get the bill through, with the help of a few parties in this Parliament. I think that that will backfire. We have already heard the Minister introduce this part with as little passion as could possibly be used in such a delivery. That is because her heart is not in it, either. She knows that this bill will provide a level of regulation and cost that we have not seen before. Thousands and thousands of charities will find it harder, not easier, to do charitable work in this country.

A lot in this part was an absolute joke. My learned colleague Judith Collins told me in the House today that 37,000 groups will be looking to register through this new organisation. What a waste of money! It will not put one more volunteer on the street. It will not make their work any easier. It will not help one single New Zealander to get any better service. It is all about Government control. It is about the Government sticking its nose in so that it can collect more tax. That is all it is. That is what we are seeing here. The Government wants to collect more tax from some of those groups and get its hands on money that it does not actually earn. As to saying that the whole point of the bill is to protect people, I tell members that those organisations that rip off New Zealanders will not bother to register through the Charities Commission. They will not bother to go through the processes to become legitimate charities. That is the whole point—they are criminal. They will go ahead and rip off New Zealanders without getting the registrations and things that this bill requires. Even some of the reporting required in this part is just absolutely outrageous.

I wonder whether any members of the Government have been involved in a voluntary group of late, because if they have, they would have heard people saying: “What is the point of becoming a volunteer when we’re going to be in the gun if things go wrong?” So we have seen a total rewrite. Part 1 does not look anything like what was in the original bill, because the Government knows that the bill as first drafted was an absolute joke that was designed to create problems—and boy, it is not like the criticism from some of its mates when they turned up to give submissions on this part. Time and time again this legislation was bagged, and Government members sat like sad sacks—

Judith Collins: Like they are now, really.

KATHERINE RICH: Like they are now, but they are probably thinking more about John Tamihere than anything else. It is interesting, though, that while we are talking about the Charities Bill, the Government has shown the ultimate charity to Mr Tamihere by allowing him to stay. So why is the Government being so charitable to Mr Tamihere when it is being super-uncharitable to those charities and organisations?

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): I want to take a brief call on Part 1 of the Charities Bill. Let me just say for a start, in response to the remarks from the member Katherine Rich, that I would have thought it was actually quite meritorious for the Government and the Social Services Committee that considered this bill to have changed the bill significantly in response to the genuine concerns of the many submitters whom we heard. I do not find it a very convincing argument that having heard those submissions, it is some kind of cardinal sin to change the bill accordingly.

The other point I make is that under this bill registration for charities is not compulsory. Indeed, because of my involvement in the sector a number of charities have already come to me and said they are not sure whether they really want to register, because of the compliance costs involved. I have said to a couple of them that they should think carefully about that. The purpose of registration in Part 1 is to enable charities to remain exempt from income tax. Many smaller charities do not have any taxable income as defined in terms of the Income Tax Act. For a lot of charities, whatever comes in on one hand in terms of income is immediately applied to charitable works on the other, so they do not actually have any taxable income.

So it is still an option for such charities to decide not to register. It does not make them some sort of second-class citizen. They are still legitimate charities—it is just that they will not get tax relief if they have some taxable income, which might be just a few bucks of interest, for example, that they have to pay tax on.

That is an option for charities. In contrast, the large, prominent public charities will certainly, of course, need to register and so forth in order to continue to access income tax relief, and also to ensure that money given to those charities is eligible for what we call donee tax rebates.

I really want to talk about just one aspect of the amendments to clause 4, as set out in Supplementary Order Paper 357, which changes the definition of “officer”. This is a very worthwhile amendment. It arose as a result of submissions received from the Inter-Church Working Party on Taxation, and, in particular, from the representatives of the Anglican and Presbyterian Churches. Those Churches are governed by bodies—in the Anglican Church referred to as synods—that comprise several hundred people.

It would be quite impossible to have all those several hundred people designated as officers of the charity. For example, we have to ensure that every one of those people is not disqualified from being an officer in terms of this bill, and it would be quite an impractical way to proceed. Accordingly, this amendment is aimed at ensuring that the Anglican and Presbyterian Churches, and to some extent the Methodist Church, will be able to register themselves and have a definition of “officer” that will fit the circumstances of their organisations. That is a very good step forward.

Furthermore, the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper omits and substitutes a new definition of “officer” and adds subclause (c) and subclause (d) to do with regulations, just in case the submitters, the select committee, and the Government itself have missed something and a problem arises about registration to do with officers. Regulations may then be put in place to overcome whatever difficulty arises.

The intent is to give complete flexibility to the new commission so that it can register charities that come to it, having regard to their particular circumstances. Those circumstances vary enormously. For example, the situation as between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church is quite radically different. This is a good step forward and I commend the Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I note that Mr Copeland explained to the Committee why United Future is voting for this part and, indeed, for the whole bill—which is with some reluctance, as I understood his speech. It is because Michael Cullen has promised he will increase the tax-free threshold for charities if United Future supports the bill.

Judith Collins: Did you check all the words!

RODNEY HIDE: I do not know whether Mr Copeland checked all the words. He has just said that to say “promise” might be a bit rich. But, to be honest, he has just explained United Future’s voting for this bill in a most unparliamentary way—that is, there will be a quid pro quo for charities, and that is why United Future is voting for it. It is not voting for the legislation because it thinks it is a good idea; it is voting because Michael Cullen, who—we know from John Tamihere—dupes and tricks United Future most days, has promised them, some time in the future, some more money.

Gordon Copeland: Dream on!

RODNEY HIDE: I think that Mr Copeland is dreaming on about this promise from Mr Cullen.

I notice that Mrs Rich has explained just how much this bill was gutted at the Social Services Committee, so I do not need to go there. But I draw members’ attention to the functions of that commission, that quango, that Mr Copeland wants to vote for. It is truly extraordinary. There will be a quango of seven Labour Party flunkies and an army of bureaucrats, and when we see the calibre of the people that Labour has as MPs and JPs, we can imagine the sort of people that Labour will have on the commission.

The commissioners’ job will be to educate and assist charities in relation to matters of good governance and management. Can one imagine Helen Clark lecturing and educating anyone on good management and good governance, or John Tamihere lecturing anyone on good management or good governance? What a joke! The commission is there to make appropriate information available in order to assist persons to make registration applications under this legislation. So it sort of exists to teach charities how to fill in the forms that the commission requires to be filled in. Under clause 10(a), its function is to: “receive, consider, and process applications … and (b) compile and maintain a register of charitable entities;”.

I remind Mr Copeland that the charities sector has survived 400 years without that sort of bureaucratic nonsense. The commission is also to (e) “receive, consider, and process annual returns submitted by charitable entities … —thousands and thousands of them. It is to supply information and documents to the Inland Revenue Department, and to monitor charitable entities. So charitable groups that are getting on with doing the business will find an army of those types of people—the sort who run the Labour Party and whom John Tamihere described as narrow; who have no family life or outside life, but who just sit around plotting late at night—

Judith Collins: Parlez-vous français?

RODNEY HIDE: Parlez-vous français? Those people will be crawling all over those charities to monitor them. They are to inquire into charitable entities, so we will suddenly find that they have nothing better to do but plot and plan when inquiring and investigating into charities.

What about this? Under clause 10(k) they are to: “stimulate and promote research into any matter relating to charities,”—

Hon Member: Smarmy!

RODNEY HIDE: It is exceedingly smarmy; in fact, it makes one think that Steve Maharey must have had something to do with it—and “(l) carry out any other functions that the Minister may direct the Commission to perform in accordance with section 87;”.

I say to Mr Copeland that I think this bill proves what John Tamihere was saying about Michael Cullen and United Future. United Future is voting for this bill not because it agrees with it but because Michael Cullen has “promised” to increase the tax-free threshold for charities, and that is the quid pro quo. Well, there is a word for what Mr Copeland has just admitted to and I am not allowed to use it. But that shows us the sort of integrity that United Future members bring to this Parliament when they vote or do not vote for a bill. They are voting for this bill on a monetary promise that will never be delivered—and John Tamihere was right: they are so stupid they do not even know how duped they are; they do not even realise it.

If people want to know why charities are going to struggle in New Zealand, they have two groups to blame—United Future and New Zealand First. I say this about United Future: at least it was bribed to do it.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I thank Mr Hide for his contribution and just say to United Future—

Hon David Benson-Pope: He visits Fiji regularly for a contribution.

SIMON POWER: That Minister should go back to sleep. I say to United Future to beware of legislation that sets up a commission. The Tertiary Education Commission was also created in a similar vein. That commission was to be a light-handed steering instrument to guide strategic priorities in the tertiary sector—whatever that means. Two hours and lots of paper later, I was none the wiser. The story with the Tertiary Education Commission is that it now has a staff of 324 people—

Rodney Hide: No!

SIMON POWER:—that is the light-handed steering instrument—and cost $210 million to set up and run. It has been restructured once already—every job readvertised in a complete restructuring of a governance system that parties in this House said would not work. The Government was told at the time that commission was set up that it would not work. But, no, the Government members sat opposite and said that we did not understand that that was a light-handed steering instrument and was not designed to get in the way of the tertiary sector. The same thing will happen in the charities sector.

I say to voluntary organisations and charities to beware of clause 7 that sets up a commission. I will tell those charities what is coming with that commission—320 bureaucrats will storm down the doors of their charities to monitor work that the charities have always done unencumbered, without needing to seek the permission of the Government to do too much, and with their independence never compromised. I tell charities to beware of legislation that sets up commissions. That means one thing: that the pitter-patter of an army of bureaucrats is on its way to disrupt the good work that charities throughout New Zealand do.

Where is the hint in the legislation that that is what is coming? Well, members and those interested should turn to clause 10. There we have a page and a half of the commission’s functions. It is very reassuring that it will be a light-handed organisation that will leave the sector to get on with its business! There is a page and a half of things it will do—a page and a half of functions to interfere with the workings of charities.

But my favourite clause is clause 10(i)—it is a doozy. This commission will monitor charitable entities to ensure that the entities that are registered as charitable entities continue to be qualified for registration as charitable entities. Look out, here comes the commission with its clipboards and pens, both red and green, for initial checking and auditing. That group of bureaucrats will be on the march to disrupt the good, independent work that charitable organisations have done up until this point.

The real questions the sector should be asking the Government are why do they need that commission, why do they need more people interfering in the way they conduct their affairs, and why do they need clause 10, with paragraphs (a) through to (o), outlining the functions of the commission. I say to those organisations that the same thing happened with the tertiary education sector. It was promised a light-handed commission that would guide the sector gently. Look at what has happened! The commission has 324 bureaucrats and costs $210 million. I tell the sector to beware of legislation that sets up commissions.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 10 be agreed to:

to add to clause 10, the following new subclause:

(2) When carrying out the functions of the Commission, the Commission must have regard to the need, where reasonably possible, to minimise the compliance costs of the registered charity.

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

Ayes 34

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 84

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Charitable entities

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I want to look at one particular clause that really does strike at the heart of this legislation, which is too socialistic for even the Greens to support, as it has too much Government regulation. There may be a snigger coming from members opposite, but they know it is true. I refer to clause 26, “Grounds for removal from register”, which states that “The Commission may remove an entity from the register if—” and in particular, I refer to subclause 1(e)—“any person has engaged in serious wrongdoing in connection with the entity;”. What does that mean? I turn to the definition—

Rodney Hide: Would John Tamihere be interested in this?

JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, I think Mr Tamihere would be interested in this. But I turn to the definition of “serious wrongdoing” in clause 4, and that definition is given as “(a) an unlawful or a corrupt use of the funds or resources of the entity; or (b) an act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes a serious risk to the public interest in the orderly and appropriate conduct of the affairs of the entity; or (c) an act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes an offence; or (d) an act, omission, or course of conduct by a person that is oppressive, improperly discriminatory,”—and what does that mean?—“or grossly negligent, or that constitutes gross mismanagement”.

What that means for charities is that if the charity is unfortunate enough to become the victim of a con man, the charity suffers. It is the charity that folds, and that has to be one of the most stupid provisions in this legislation. What does it mean? Well, the Problem Gambling Foundation a few years ago had a big chunk of money ripped of by Ralph Gerdelan, who was at that stage, I think, the chief executive. He stole money from that organisation, and under this law, when it comes through, that very victim, the Problem Gambling Foundation, would in fact be liable to have itself deregistered.

Rodney Hide: How would Stephen Ching get on?

JUDITH COLLINS: I think Mr Ching might also have some problems. How many laws do we have where the victim pays, yet again, because of the wrongdoing of the perpetrator of the crime? This is like having the poor old person who is stolen from suddenly lose his or her house, as well. That is exactly what this silly, silly law is all about. It is a complete overreaction. We have 37,000 charities in this country. We know the ones that get ripped off, because we discuss these matters in the House, day after day, and it normally involves people whom we all know. Yet what we have here is a bill that punishes the very people who are the victims. I can just imagine that if another party had put forward this sort of silly legislation, the Government would be screaming and saying: “Oh, no, we cannot attack the victim twice.”

This bill attacks the victims of crime by saying that they could lose their charitable status. What about the charities that provide homes for abused women? What if one of them happens to be ripped off by a con woman, a con artist, or whoever? What about them? They are liable to be stripped of their charitable status by some unfeeling Government body full of people who have never put themselves on the line, full of Government appointees and people who have never done a charitable act in their lives except at their last caucus meeting, as the Labour Party just did, and who make their living out of the taxpayers of this country and have never contributed a cent that they did not get from taxpayers first.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): This is an appropriate time for me to make my point in regard to clause 15 and the amendment I propose. The two provisions I wish to reinstate in the bill are clause 15(2)(c) and (d). They can be reinstated along with the new clause 15(2)(c), which states that the following persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities: “an individual who, or a body corporate that, has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961) and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years:”. So if someone was sentenced in 1997, which is 8 years ago, this provision does not apply. So despite anything that someone did in 1997 or before—any type of dishonesty—that person is still entitled to be a trustee. In 7 years’ time the person who has just been mentioned by Judith Collins will be entitled to be a trustee again. That is what this legislation permits.

Rodney Hide: Well I’m pleased I’m not voting for it.

DAIL JONES: It is quite extraordinary, and that is why I am proposing my amendment. My amendment, which was originally in the Government’s bill, states that a person cannot be involved if that person has been “convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more”, or if one is a person “who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence”.

That is relatively minor, if we look at section 2(1) of the Crimes Act of 1961 and make our way inevitably through that. What we are concerned about in this particular part is people who may have been charged with offences from more than 7 years ago involving dishonesty; taking, obtaining, or copying trade secrets; or aggravated burglary. Those people could be trustees if they committed the offence and were sentenced more than 7 years ago. But for some reason if they did it in the last 7 years they cannot be.

What is the magic about 7 years? I am not suggesting that we should provide for such a big offence in the last 7 years; I am just saying it should be something involving a sentence of 2 years or more imprisonment, which is what the Government originally wanted. It is in addition to what the Government wants in regard to 7 years. It seems to me to be such a simple measure. The Government wants to do something to protect charities from people ripping them off, but it is quite happy to have people on charities who may have been the great train robber 8 years ago. Such people could be entitled to be an officer of a charitable entity. Any criminal who was sentenced 8 years ago on dishonesty matters can be an officer of a charitable entity. It is quite extraordinary. I just cannot believe that that is what clause 15(2)(c), put in by the majority, does.

All I am asking is whether we can go back to including the original paragraphs (c) and (d), which I am calling (bb) and (bc), and the new paragraph (c) as well. The Government can have what it wants, but I say that it does not want criminals who were convicted 8 or 9 years ago, or even 3 years ago, of minor offences, on those charities. If we look at the charges mentioned here, they involve terms of imprisonment of 7 years, 10 years, and 15 years as we go through. If in the last 7 years one has been convicted of a 2-year offence, one could still be on a charity even now.

Someone in the Government has not thought this through. There will be the defrauding of charities left, right, and centre because those people will be permitted to be on them. I just cannot understand the Government’s thinking on this issue.

New Zealand First is supporting this bill. There are no deals. It is because I have taken an interest in this matter for 15 years. I have been creating charitable trusts for people for a long time, and I just cannot understand a bill that would allow dishonest criminals to be officers of charities under a bill that is meant to protect people from dishonest officials. It is extraordinary.

I will leave it at that. I cannot keep repeating myself forever. I hope the Government will see the light and support the provisions that it supported originally, and it was right in doing so. I cannot understand who asked the Government to take them out. The Greens do not support this. They have a vested interest in keeping people who have committed crimes with a term of imprisonment of more than 2 years on the committees. They voted for the amendment to this part at the select committee when we voted against it. We voted against the amendment at the select committee.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): Judith Collins has drawn our attention to clause 26, “Grounds for removal from register”. Clause 26(1)(e) states: “any person has engaged in serious wrongdoing in connection with the entity;”. Judith Collins drew our attention to that, then she said that wrongdoing is defined, in clause 4, in this way. It is: “(d) an act, omission, or course of conduct by a person that is oppressive, improperly discriminatory, or grossly negligent, or that constitutes gross mismanagement”; or, (c): “an act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes an offence;”.

I would love the Minister to speak on this bill and explain what is an act or omission that is oppressive, improperly discriminatory, or grossly negligent, or that constitutes gross mismanagement. I think we need an explanation in this Committee of what that entails, and I will give examples. The Waipareira Trust would just fold, because we know that the chief financial officer has admitted to the Serious Fraud Office that he forged six invoices to rob the trust of $80,000. On that basis he has committed a course of conduct that constitutes an offence, so the whole Waipareira Trust would be deregistered. Is that what the Government wants? I look to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Tizard, to explain that if we have someone like Mike Tolich, who has admitted forging six fake invoices to get $80,000 out of the trust while John Tamihere was the chief executive officer—

Dail Jones: He did that more than 7 years ago, so he is eligible to be on a trust now.

RODNEY HIDE: No, he did not do it 7 years ago. It was in 1989.

Dail Jones: So he can still be on a trust now.

RODNEY HIDE: OK, but that example—

Dail Jones: He can still be on a trust now.

RODNEY HIDE: But what happens to the trust itself—

Dail Jones: It’s irrelevant. This bill allows him to be on the trust.

RODNEY HIDE: —if it happened 5 years ago? I do not know why Mr Jones is voting for the bill, he has so many complaints about it, but there we go. Then I go to this provision that states “oppressive, improperly discriminatory, or grossly negligent”, and I ask about Mr Steven Ching. Is it grossly negligent, for example, that he did not reveal to the Labour Party or to the JP society that he had obstructed justice? Is that an example of gross negligence or gross mismanagement? I do not know. We need to know what it is that gets a charity deregistered. [Interruption] Peter Hodgson is laughing; he must know the answer. He is voting for this. What does it mean to have a person in a charity who is grossly negligent, whose behaviour constitutes gross mismanagement, or who is improperly discriminatory? What does that mean? [Interruption] Peter Hodgson says that if I sit down he will take the call. He will get an opportunity when I do sit down. I would love him to take the call because he is a Minister. We have a Minister in the chair who has resolutely refused to speak to this bill, or to explain a thing. So I am pleased that Peter Hodgson has told the Committee that when I sit down he will take the call.

Hon Pete Hodgson: If you sit down, I will take a call.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, I am allowed my 5 minutes; there are no conditions on that. We know that over there on the Labour benches it is rosy on the outside but on the inside it is all miserable, fisticuffs, and the rest of it.

Hon Judith Tizard: You wish!

RODNEY HIDE: Judith Tizard says: “I wish”. I can tell her that I would not want to go 10 rounds with her—no way. I would even agree to this bill if that were the prospect—fisticuffs with Ms Tizard!

But I say to members that I just want an explanation from the Minister in the chair as to what is meant, under clause 4(1), in relation to “serious wrongdoing”, of “(d) an act, omission or course of conduct by a person that is oppressive, improperly discriminatory, or grossly negligent, or that constitutes gross mismanagement”—because what we have seen in the Labour Party is that almost anything goes. With Steven Ching and John Tamihere the Prime Minister is infinitely forgiving, but when it comes to a charity, the whole charity gets deregistered. I ask Mr Copeland whether that is right.

Gordon Copeland: Not necessarily.

RODNEY HIDE: Oh, not necessarily! Well, why not?

Gordon Copeland: It is not necessarily. It doesn’t necessarily follow.

RODNEY HIDE: What does he mean when he says that it does not necessarily follow, because—

Gordon Copeland: It could be.

RODNEY HIDE: It could be. Well, this is great! We are passing law here tonight—and I wish I could vote against it twice, now—

Gordon Copeland: Read the clause.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, I am reading the clause, and Mr Copeland is saying that it might apply, it might not apply, they might be deregistered, or they might not be deregistered, and the Minister will not stand and take a call to explain what it all means.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): I was not going to speak on Part 2, but when Mr Dail Jones repeated comments about clause 15, and asked for some reason why this clause has been amended, I felt constrained to speak, as that is a clause that would have affected me personally.

He is right: I did vote for the Government’s amendments in the select committee, because I think they do absolutely the right thing—and they do what many hundreds of submitters advised the Government to do, as well. The effect of the original clause as drafted, the original clause that Mr Jones and New Zealand First are trying to put back into the bill, would have been to exclude many, many hundreds, if not thousands, of really excellent board members and trustees from taking up positions on the boards of the thousands of community groups around this country. I am more than happy to say that I am one of those people; I have been convicted of offences liable for 2 years’ imprisonment or more—offences connected with the 1981 Springbok tour. I have no shame about them. I do not want to be clean-slated for them. I am proud of those offences because they are part of my political history, and, actually, such a history is an honourable tradition of previous generations in the Labour Party.

Rodney Hide: Crooks and thieves.

SUE BRADFORD: It does not mean one is a crook or thief—to stand up for one’s political principles at times like that. I think it is a really good qualification for being in this Parliament. It is also a really good qualification for being on the board of an organisation that is following certain principles and values, as so many of our church and community sector groups do.

But that is actually a minor matter in terms of why I supported the Government’s amendments to this clause. It is not just about people like me with political convictions. I might just add that I taught governance at the tertiary level for 5 years, before I came to Parliament. I have taught many people about these things, and it is really ironic for me as a teacher of governance that this clause would have said that any group of which I was a board member had to get rid of me unless it got a special exemption. And I still am on some boards.

But beyond that, and much more important, is that a whole lot more people who have been convicted for all sorts of criminal offences, not political ones, would also have been excluded. Many, many of the organisations that do such good work in our community are like the one already mentioned by my colleague Judith Collins, the Problem Gambling Foundation. As well, there are many groups that, for example, work with prisoners, like the Prison Inmates’ Loved Ones Linked as One to Renew Strength, the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society, groups that work in the drug and alcohol addiction areas, and ones that work with all sorts of offenders and ex-offenders. Some of the best people on those boards are people who have been down that road of addiction, have been in prison, or have been a gambler. Those people are very, very valuable members of those boards, and they should not be excluded. That is the main reason why it was very important that the original clause was eliminated from the bill, and was replaced by the one we have in this draft.

As members know, the Green Party does not support the bill overall, but we are really pleased that in a number of areas the Government has seen fit to improve it. We accept the inevitable: this bill will become law. Community sector groups are going to have to work with it, and we want it to be in the best shape it possibly can be. So I certainly hope that no parties in this Committee will support the New Zealand First amendment.

I have a couple of other points while I am on my feet. I do not know that I would go as far as some of the comments from Simon Power and Rodney Hide about jackbooted armies of bureaucrats marching into the sector as a result of the Charities Commission being set up, but on looking at this part overall I cannot help but be a little afraid that so much of the focus of this bill is simply on regulation, down to very minute detail. The overarching feel we get from it is that it is about the monitoring and regulation of a sector that thrives on its individuality and its commitment to purpose, to kaupapa, to values. Somehow we have got it wrong in this legislation; it is all about regulation, and not about enabling and empowering the sector to do the good work it can do.

Finally, in terms of clause 26(e), which Ms Collins and Mr Hide have been talking about, again, I agree with them. It is phenomenally incomprehensible that an organisation could or should be punished for the misdoings or outright crimes of one person, as Mr Hide referred to. It is a situation I myself have been through with organisations, in terms of other people. Organisations are inevitably badly damaged by criminals who somehow become part of them and rip them off, and it is a curse of the community sector that it happens to us at times. Of course, it happens in the private sector and the Government sector, as well; all sectors have to deal with it. But this kind of clause simply does not make sense. If a trustee or board member knowingly commits a crime or acts against the law of this country, of course he or she should be held responsible, as should a staff member who does that. But that does not mean the organisation should suffer.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): I want to make a brief comment first of all on the amendment from Dail Jones. He asked which submitter to the Social Services Committee had asked for those words to be dropped from the Charities Bill.

I can tell him that one of the submitters was the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society, a charitable trust. It made the very sound point that, in fact, one of the things it does in terms of rehabilitating prisoners is to encourage them to give something back to the community by becoming involved in a charity. I would also point out to Dail Jones that his amendment would exclude not only Sue Bradford but also Nelson Mandela from being an officer of a charity. I for one would be very proud to have him as an officer of a charity with which I was involved.

I would like, though, to speak for a moment about clause 56, a very long new clause that has been inserted into the bill. Rodney Hide spoke a little while ago about charitable trusts as if it was simply the case that all charities are also charitable trusts. But that is not the case. In fact, one of the unique features about this bill and about the charitable sector is that charities come in many different shapes and sizes. Yes, we do have charitable trusts under the Charitable Trusts Act, but we also have incorporated societies under the Incorporated Societies Act. We have companies under the Companies Act, and we have unregistered associations of people—Catholic parishes would be an example of that. We have charities that are set up under their own special Acts of Parliament, such as the Anglican and Catholic bishops’ empowering Acts. We have charities that take the form of partnerships, and we have many thousands of charities that come into existence through the operation of wills. It is the sheer bewildering variety of shapes and sizes of charities that makes it quite difficult to write law that states exactly how they should be registered, exactly how they should be monitored, and exactly how they should submit returns.

The very innovative way of cutting through that great Gordian knot was clause 56, “Commission may grant exemptions”. Tonight I want to really commend the officials who drafted that very extensive clause, because it essentially aims to equip the Charities Commission with a whole tool-box of exemptions that will enable it to fit the way it regulates a charity to the actual legal form and circumstances of that charity. Also, in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 357 there is a small amendment to clause 56, which adds to the list of matters on which the commission can grant exemptions. It adds clause 16 of the bill to the list. If we go to clause 16, we find that it is, in fact, the registration clause. I think that completes, as I said before, some quite elegant legal drafting so that in all those different circumstances the commission will be able to be flexible, with the aim of doing a good job of fostering charities in this country, as it is bound to do, and of ensuring that compliance costs are minimised.

I really commend those provisions to the Committee.

KATHERINE RICH (National): It was very interesting to hear the previous speaker mention words like the “sheer bewildering variety” of charities. Yes, out of the 37,000 charities in this country, there are a huge number of differing kinds of charities, yet this bill is trying to squash them into regulation and registration, even though they may differ dramatically in terms of their objectives and the work that they do.

I would like to endorse the comments made by Judith Collins, and also by Sue Bradford, on the original clause 15, “Qualifications of officers of charitable entities”. It was very interesting to hear members of the New Zealand Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society when they came before the Social Services Committee. They basically said that the society would have no office holders if that part of the bill went through as it was. Is it not odd that someone like Sue Bradford can become a member of Parliament under the present law, but that under this bill, as it was, she could not have become the treasurer of her local Plunket?

Office holder after office holder said to us that this law was just nuts. The first thing they wanted to be able to indemnify themselves against was carrying the can if things go wrong and, luckily, that is one of the changes that has been made. Time and time again volunteers said that they were happy to work for their communities as volunteers, but if things go wrong, why should they carry the can? If the local Plunket group finds out that someone has embezzled money, or the local sports club finds out that some office holder committed some wrongdoing that constituted an office holder being penalised, why should the group carry the can for that? So that change made a lot of sense.

The Minister in the chair, Judith Tizard, needs to explain what mischief this legislation is trying to solve. She has not taken one call tonight to explain any part of this bill or to answer any of the questions put to her by any of the speakers.

I would like to turn members’ attention to clause 23, “Charitable entity must display registration number”, which has been struck out. One mischief that this bill was supposed to solve was the opportunity for bogus charity collectors to walk the streets shaking a tin and asking for money. This provision required all charities to display a registration number on every written communication, every piece of fund-raising material, every pamphlet, every badge, and every bit of paper. Charitable group after charitable group came before us and said that it would cost them a huge amount of money to reprint all their materials to put this magic number that they will get from the Charities Commission on to their marketing materials and signs.

One National member of the select committee piped up and said: “Hang on a minute. If people are going to try to rip off New Zealanders and pretend to be a bogus charity, aren’t they just going to make the number up? Won’t they just plonk some number on to the tin or the pamphlet and hold that out as being their official number?”. The officials and the Government members of the select committee said that—duh—that might be the case. It had not occurred to those members that if anybody did want to go and rip off some poor New Zealander, that person would just make up the number. So, thankfully, that bit has been struck out. That will save charities a lot of money and a lot of difficulties. We live in a world where people can forge passports, money, and credit cards—and paintings, in some cases—so it is not difficult to put a number on to a begging tin, pamphlets, or raffle tickets.

Rodney Hide: If Helen Clark was convicted of forgery.

KATHERINE RICH: Well, yes, if that clause had gone through, she would not be able to be the treasurer of her local Plunket, either, I say to Mr Hide.

So at least we see a few changes and struck out provisions here. But I would like the Minister in the chair to expend a few calories and get out of that chair to tell the people of New Zealand what mischief this legislation is aiming to solve, because we have not seen clear evidence of bogus charities seeking money from New Zealanders.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): I just want to have another go at looking at the two issues. I would be interested to see what Rodney Hide can find out about the Electoral Act in terms of whether, if someone has been convicted of an offence punishable by more than 12 months, it bars that person from being a member of Parliament. I doubt that very much. I think it may have something to do with being in prison, but that is another matter. But that is not why I am raising this issue; I am raising it because it is quite clear that neither the struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) nor the replacement clause 15(2)(c) is perfect. That is the obvious situation. The replacement clause 15(2)(c), which the majority of members of the Social Services Committee put in, will allow a convicted fraudster to be an office holder of a charitable entity. Of course, it does not surprise me in the slightest that the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society would want a fraudster to be involved in a society, because that would seem to aid former prisoners to get back into their wicked ways and help themselves to the charity’s money. If we want to be ironic about it, that is what a prisoners’ aid society may want. It was interesting to listen to Katherine Rich, though. She seemed, from everything that she said, to support this bill, although the National Party opposes it.

I turned up to the select committee—I am not a regular member; I was filling in on the day of its deliberation—and I could see that there was something the matter here. The struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) could have been amended to refer to an offence of dishonesty, in order to get over the problem that has been raised, quite correctly, by another member of this Committee. Those clauses were so broadly drawn in the first place that they did catch a wide range of people who might not have been involved in dishonesty offences. The select committee has tried in the replacement clause 15(2)(c) to catch people involved in crimes involving dishonesty, but that really links it to the Greens and the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act, which referred to 7 years. That is the reason why the period is 7 years—it is because of that Act and the view of this Government that it should continue with the clean slate philosophy that if one has committed an offence 7 years ago, one should be forgiven.

That is all right for offences that do not involve a person going to prison, but not when it involves offences like, for example, dishonesty within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act. That includes false accounting. So if one was convicted of false accounting 8 years ago, one can be an officer of a charitable entity. If one has counterfeited the charity’s seal in terms of section 261 of the Crimes Act, “Counterfeiting public seals”, yes, one can be an officer of the society. That also applies if one has been involved in other offences involving, for example, using altered or reproduced documents with the intent to deceive. Now, that is what one would do as an officer of a society with all that money. The offences include forgery, and using a forged document—that sounds a bit familiar. In terms of those offences, if one committed them 8 years ago one could be an officer of a society.

I just say that neither the struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) nor the replacement clause 15(2)(c) are perfect. But I think we would be better off to have the struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) in the bill at the moment, in the time that we have for this legislation, rather than letting it run with the replacement clause 15(2)(c). The Government has an opportunity to either correct it now, while the drafters are still here, or leave that clause in and correct it in the fullness of time, as soon as possible, in the next 2 or 3 months. Otherwise, we could be in serious problems. New Zealand First is not doing any deals. We will still support this legislation, because the intent is right. But I think that the way the bill is worded means we will not solve the problem of charities having dishonest employees.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs): I thank members for their very useful contributions. I think it is a pity that Mr Jones did not have more discussions with the very good New Zealand First members who were present for the submissions on this legislation. If he had, he would have heard about cases where, for example, a person helping to run an athletics club in which a charitable trust is involved may have a driving conviction or some issue of that sort. I think we want charities to be as free as possible to represent the communities for which they are working, and for a range of people to be enabled.

The point was made that many education trusts have been a means by which people have gone on into business and into self-employment in all sorts of ways. People get governance experience through community organisations. Sometimes they are trustees, sometimes they are members of charitable trusts, and sometimes they are not. The Government is satisfied that the provisions around who can and cannot be a trustee are satisfactory without prescribing exactly what people may have been convicted or not convicted of. The point was made that a member of parliament might be affected. I hope that the widest range of people will realise that working for communities is beneficial, gives people a great deal of hope and energy in life, and can often help individuals, families, and communities. The Government is very happy with the new state. I thank New Zealand First for its comments, but I assure Mr Dail Jones that those issues were considered.

On the issue that was raised by, I think, Katherine Rich relating to clause 26, I just point out that the deregistration power is discretionary—it is not obligatory. I would expect the Charities Commission to go through a range of choices and discussions with any charity before that charity is deregistered, but the commission should have the power, if it is clear that fraudulent behaviour is systemic in a charity, to deregister that charity quite quickly.

Of course, all of that comes back to the fact that the establishment of the Charities Commission is a result of working parties, discussion papers, and a great deal of work going back—as Mr Copeland has very helpfully pointed out—to the 1980s. It is a result of the voluntary sector’s desire to have a commission that is separate from the Government. In the first instance it will clearly be funded by the Government, but it will be separate from the Government. That matter was discussed in some detail and at some length in the Social Services Committee. The commission will be independent. It will have the responsibility of educating, enabling, and providing support and information to charities.

I thank members of the Committee for their useful comments. I hope that this new legislation will be what hundreds of organisations have asked for and will be of service to the thousands of charities that serve New Zealand so well.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): I should have mentioned that I have put forward another amendment. Clause 15(2)(c) ends with the words: “… and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years:”. I have put forward an amendment to remove those words so that the clause would simply relate to: “(c) an individual who, or a body corporate that, has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961) …”.

We are talking about dishonesty. We are not talking about Springbok tour protests. If someone has been involved in a Springbok tour protest, that is fine—that person can be a trustee. A person who has been convicted of driving while disqualified can be an officer of a charitable entity. Any conviction that does not involve dishonesty is fine; it does not debar a person from being an officer of a charitable entity.

If members do not want to vote for my amendment to leave struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and 15(2)(d) in the bill, I have just offered the better alternative of deleting the last few words from new clause 15(2)(c). The Government may care to think about it again. The offences referred to in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act are serious offences. We are not talking about minor crimes of dishonesty. Theft is there, receiving is there—we are talking about 7 year - type offences. I think that the final words in clause 15(2)(c) could be removed, and that members and other people who have admitted their involvement in non-dishonesty situations could still be officers of a charitable entity.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 15 be agreed to:

to insert after subclause (2)(b), the following new paragraphs:

(bb) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more:

(bc) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence:

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 15 be agreed to:

to omit from paragraph (c) of clause 15(2) the words “and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years”.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Miscellaneous matters relating to Commission and other miscellaneous matters

KATHERINE RICH (National): I would like to turn listeners’ attention to clause 82, “Minister’s role”. This is a rather disturbing clause, because it lays out the role of the Minister in relation to this new organisation and, in particular, the Minister’s role in relation to the appointment and removal of members of the commission. What I think we will see once again is the appointment of Labour Party friends to this commission, so that the commission will be a poodle before it even starts.

This part of the bill also sets out what directions the Minister can give to the commission, and the fact that the Minister can review the operations and performance of the commission. This part of the bill should send a shiver down the spine of every single charitable organisation in New Zealand. This is where the cold, clammy hand of the Government starts to interfere with the role of the Charities Commission, which in turn will interfere with the role of charities up and down this country. If this clause were not scary enough, we need to turn to clause 123, “Minister may conduct review”, which states: “(1) The Minister may review the operations and performance of the Commission at any time.” The moment the Minister wants to get in there and interfere, bully a few members, get a few decisions, she or he can review and conduct a performance investigation at any time.

So what we have here is the Minister’s ability to get involved with the commission, to interfere, to make this commission its lapdog for the Government, so that this bill can achieve its ultimate goal, which is to get Government involvement and control over 37,000 charitable groups that currently enjoy autonomy. This bill is designed to make sure that the Government can start to interfere at a level we have not seen. This is the part of the bill that introduces politics to the Charities Commission. This is where we will see people who have perhaps delivered pamphlets for the Labour Party for the last 20 years being appointed to a wee job that they can oversee, as a reward for their service to their political party.

This part of the bill is particularly disturbing. The Minister needs to explain how these appointments are to be made, that they will be independent, that the appointees will not be Labour Party friends, but people who hopefully are community representatives, people who have had some involvement at least with the voluntary sector, and that they are people who will do a good job once this bureaucracy is set up. This part of the bill introduces the costly part of the bureaucracy, because it is all about who goes on the board, what they are to be paid, how they are to be appointed, what the requirements will be, and what the Minister can do to interfere in that particular role.

The Minister must explain to the Committee what she sees as being her role, because at the moment in black and white it looks pretty extreme. Under this legislation she can give directions to the commission. She can decide what she wants the commission members to do at any point in time. If they do not play ball, she has the ability to go in there and review the operations and performance. Anybody who has been involved in an organisation knows that that is often a bullying tactic of Labour Ministers: “If you do not play ball we’re going to go in and audit you and conduct reviews until the cows come home, so that we can get you to do as we say.”

What we have seen in this part is very, very concerning. This part of the bill is designed to add additional bureaucracy.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): What we see in this part is the direct control of the Charities Commission coming under ministerial persuasion. Ms Rich is quite right. This is what should upset the charitable organisations, because we ask ourselves: what sort of direction will be provided? Here we come to the window that we have recently had on this Labour Government, the make-up of this Government, and the sorts of people who will be given this direction and making these appointments. We have learnt that they are dominated by unionists, so it is a very, very narrow sector of New Zealand that will be directing the Charities Commission.

We know that the most powerful group within the Labour Party, and hence the Labour Government, is what Mr Tamihere calls the “Wimmins Division”. I look across the Chamber and I can see all the members here tonight. We know that the people who are dominating the Labour Government do not have families, according to Mr Tamihere, and he should know. He says that they just sit around “parlez vous”, drinking their lattes, and plotting and planning. Those are the sorts of people who will be making these appointments and giving directions to the Charities Commission. We know from Mr Tamihere that the people who will be giving the directions are smarmy and have no substance. One can listen to them for 2 hours, take lots of notes, and learn nothing. We have certainly seen that in this Chamber tonight.

We have learnt from Mr Tamihere that the people who will be setting up and running this commission are duplicitous, and that they cheat the likes of the United Future party by changing words. These, again, are the people whom the commission will be stuck with—people who are duplicitous. We hear from Mr Tamihere that the people who will be setting up this commission are tossers. That is what he said.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I say to Mr Hide that that word has been ruled out as unparliamentary.

RODNEY HIDE: I am sorry. I did not realise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member withdraw it, please.

RODNEY HIDE: I withdraw. I am sorry; I did not realise.

Katherine Rich: Caber tossers.

RODNEY HIDE: A cabal of something, and we heard this from—

Hon Pete Hodgson: No Celtic history in that guy.

Jill Pettis: He would have ended up in the haggis.

RODNEY HIDE: Mr Tamihere did not make the half of it, did he. What a mean, miserable, little party it is, represented by Jill Pettis. It is no wonder poor John Tamihere rushed off to Ian Wishart, to bare his soul. What would it be like to be locked up in a room with the craven women on that side of the Chamber, and have to put up with their cheap jibes? I am not surprised that the poor fellow is under stress.

Jill Pettis: How many times have you won your electorate?

RODNEY HIDE: That, again, is the sort of fisticuffs, the intimidation, the claws that poor old John Tamihere is suffering under. Then they say that he is a red-blooded heterosexual male, and that he is stressed and in need of psychiatric help. How could he not be if he is sitting with Jill Pettis, Judith Tizard, Helen Clark, Heather Simpson, and Marian Hobbs? That would drive anyone to a psychiatric institution. I am amazed that John Tamihere lasted as long as he did. There are no other members in that party who have any red blood going through their veins.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will come back to the bill, please.

RODNEY HIDE: I am talking about the bill. I do not know why you think I am not, because I am saying that if we look at clause 82—

Hon Pete Hodgson: Don’t challenge the Chairperson.

RODNEY HIDE: There is Pete Hodgson saying not to challenge the Chairperson. He is sitting in his seat, not taking a point of order. He is useless, as usual. He said that if I sat down he would take a call. I sat down. Did anyone see him take a call? No. He does not even know what we are debating, he is so useless.

Lianne Dalziel: Talk to the bill.

RODNEY HIDE: Now we are hearing from Lianne Dalziel. The poor girl. She is stressed. She got sacked. What did she do? Actually, not much. She has not been forgiven, but John Tamihere is back in the fold. [Interruption] Now she is calling out for me to talk to the bill. If she would shut up, I would. It is no wonder that John Tamihere is in a psychiatric institution, with that sort of carry-on. I am talking about clause 82 and the sorts of people that the likes of Lianne Dalziel would be appointing to run the commission and get their sticky little fingers on 30,000—[Interruption] John Tamihere will be.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 be agreed to. [Interruption] The member will be quiet. [Interruption] The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Rodney Hide: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. How come Lianne Dalziel can sit there and call out, and the chair does nothing, but if I respond the chair jumps on me and asks me to withdraw and apologise?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): What I heard, and I certainly did not even hear another one—I could not hear it above the decibels emitting from the member—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Why do you not ask Lianne Dalziel whether she called out when you started to put the question?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on the matter.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. With the greatest of respect, I was responding to what Lianne Dalziel called out when you were taking the vote. You think it is OK to punish me—I notice that the Speaker asks a member whether he or she was calling out.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Part 3 agreed to.

Schedules

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Before I put the questions on the schedules, I note that the Minister has an amendment to omit schedules 1 to 3. I will not put the question on that amendment as it is in direct negation of a question. It signals the Government’s intention to vote against those schedules being agreed to.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I just want clarification. You said that the Minister wants to withdraw schedules 1 to 3. Is that right?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): My advice is that they still have to be voted down. I now put the question, That schedules 1, 2, and 3 be agreed to.

Schedules 1, 2, and 3 not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to schedule 4 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

Clause 1 Title

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce): I move, That the Charities Bill be now read a third time. The passing of the Charities Bill into law will allow the new Charities Commission to be established. That is a first for this country, and will further demonstrate that this Government has an ongoing commitment to strengthen its relationship with the charitable sector.

Many people in the charitable sector will remember the idea of a charities commission being floated as far back as 1989, with the release of the Spencer Russell report. It recommended that a commission for charities be established to register, advise, and supervise charities. While the timing was not right then for such a commission to be established, the sector has continued to ask Governments to provide greater support.

One of the Government’s primary forms of assistance to the sector is the provision of certain income tax benefits for charities, and for people who make donations. Over recent years the charitable sector has asked the Government to increase the level of support provided to it through the taxation system, by lifting the maximum rebate level for people who donate to qualifying donee organisations, and by making charitable organisations’ imputation credits refundable. It has traditionally been difficult for any Government to assess how much that an increase in those forms of assistance would cost. That is because robust information about the size and scope of the charitable sector in New Zealand has traditionally been difficult to collect or access. In addition to there being little information collected, there is no specific law, standard procedure, or Government department concerned with ensuring the accountability of organisations that receive donations in cash or in kind.

The reporting requirements currently imposed on charitable organisations are minimal. While some income-generating charities might need to file a tax return, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue’s role is to ensure that income not entitled to an exemption is taxed. The role is not about ensuring that the charitable sector is generally accountable to the public. Holding the officers of a charitable organisation to account for an organisation’s administration expenses, for example, is well beyond the ambit of the commissioner’s current responsibilities. It is also not the role of the Registrar of Incorporated Societies.

The establishment of the Charities Commission will significantly improve the current framework under which charities operate. It will provide the Government, the sector, and the public with more comprehensive information about the charitable sector. From the Government’s perspective, that information will be utilised to assess whether its support for the charitable sector is as well targeted as it can be or whether changes should be made

For the sector, the information on the register is likely to prove to be useful in a number of ways—for example, as a means of tracking funding trends within the sector, which may help organisations to develop more effective fund-raising campaigns, or for determining what service providers are established in a particular locality. The creation of the commission will also allow the public to undertake closer scrutiny of all organisations, purposes, and activities, and the way in which those are delivered to the public. It should help to increase public trust and confidence in the charitable sector.

The establishment of the commission is not just about increasing the sector’s accountability to the public; it is also part of the Government’s wider strategy to strengthen its relationship with the community and voluntary sectors. While the commission will have a registration and monitoring role, it will also have a range of other functions that will allow it to be active in helping to build an effective and efficient charitable sector. That includes the ability to educate and assist organisations about management and governance issues, and the ability to make policy recommendations to the Government on its own motion.

One key area of concern to the sector, as evidenced by the submissions made to the Social Services Committee, is the current definition of “charitable purpose” used across the New Zealand statute book. Once established, the commission will be able to provide policy advice to the Government about the continued workability of the definition, and whether it needs to be updated or left as it is.

Leaving that review for the commission to undertake will allow the review to be better informed than might otherwise be the case. The charitable sector is diverse, and because of that it has been difficult to gather information from and consult with all interested groups. Having a single register of charitable organisations operated by one agency will make it much easier for the charitable sector to become informed about, respond to, and comment on, issues specifically affecting it.

In concluding, I thank the members of the Social Services Committee, the officials from both the Ministry of Economic Development and the Office of the Community and Voluntary Sector, and the large number of organisations and individuals who made submissions on this bill. Charities make an important contribution to the social well-being of many New Zealanders, by providing valuable services that help to strengthen and support local communities. The Government recognises and values that work.

The Charities Bill is a significant step forward for the New Zealand charitable sector. As a means to increase the sector’s public accountability and transparency it represents a positive move toward helping to develop a culture of philanthropy and giving in this country. The establishment of the commission is one of a number of projects that the Government is advancing to strengthen its relationship with the community and voluntary sector. The passing of this bill will help to ensure New Zealand’s charitable sector is able to operate effectively and efficiently to deliver necessary and important services for the betterment and benefit of our communities. I commend this bill to the House.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): That would have to be the most boring speech of the night from the most boring member. It is no wonder that David Benson-Pope cannot keep awake. We can imagine how boring it must be in their caucus—except when Mr Tamihere turns up, upon which they all roll over and say: “Tickle our tummy, Johnny boy.”, and they go for it every single time. The great thing about John Tamihere is that he actually did, in an act of charity, give the Prime Minister the opportunity to show just how in touch with her feminine side she really is.

I have looked at the bill and I have listened to some of the speeches tonight, and we have had some really good speeches from this side of the House. I think of Simon Power’s comments on what happens when commissions are set up. He talked about what had happened to the Tertiary Education Commission under Steve Maharey, the man whom Mr Tamihere, very uncharitably and not in accordance with this bill, called “smarmy”. I have gone a bit further—I have looked at Part 3, which contains a few of the core things this bill can do. I refer to clause 70, “Core things Commission can do”, which states—guess what—“anything”! The clause states: “The Commission may do anything authorised by this Act or another Act.”

The bill goes further. I shall read clause 71, “Other things Commission can do”, because it is so exciting, so narrow and so focused. It states: “(1) The Commission may do anything that a natural person of full age and capacity may do.” That, actually, is the power of general competence. The Government, New Zealand First, United Future, and Jim Anderton’s party—whatever its name is—are giving to the Charities Commission the same power that they gave to local authorities, and that resulted in people’s rates being put up, including those of the elderly who cannot afford to pay their rates. That was all from the power of general competence.

The commissioners, who will be appointed by the Labour Government, will be able to do anything they want to do—and guess who pays for it? Well, the Minister stood up in the House and told us a really funny joke. She said that the Government will pay. The Government does not pay; the taxpayer pays. Every single cent that is signed off by any Minister in this House is paid for by the poor old taxpayer, every single time. The Minister said that the Government will pay. Well, it will not. Mr Copeland, very kindly, and trusting in the Hon Michael Cullen, said: “We know it’s going to be OK, because we will get a bigger deduction for charitable donations.

I ask Mr Copeland whether that is right. Is it something like that?

Gordon Copeland: Yes, that’s right.

JUDITH COLLINS: Well, that is his hope. Even Mr Copeland has to say that that is the hope. Did Mr Copeland check the wording? Did he check every single little word? We know just how clever the Hon Michael Cullen is. We know it because Mr Tamihere said so, and we know it because Mr Copeland has just confessed to us that that is what he is hoping. The good thing is that Mr Copeland may actually get what he wants now, because Dr Cullen will be so keen to show that he is not as clever as that, at all.

We have heard some very interesting things. What we have heard from the Minister in this third reading debate is that the charitable sector asked for this bill. Well, I do not know—I mean, the Minister does not pay a lot of attention at select committees. The Minister does not pay a lot of attention anywhere. We could see by her lack of passion and drive—and everything else that she put into this bill—that she does not really know anything about it. What she actually said was that the charitable sector asked for it. Well, not one of the submitters actually asked for it. Not one of the submitters we heard from asked for it, at all. What they said was that they are frightened they will get loved to death by this commission. They are frightened that they will be stood over by people who do not care about the voluntary sector; people who are busy sitting in cafes, “parlez vous”—that was the term, was it not, I ask Mr Hide—and drinking their lattes; people who do not care about the ordinary New Zealand mum and dad who have to try to find the money for the sports fees and sports equipment. A lot of these fees are now paid for by the charitable institutions that this Government wants to love to death—in other words, clasp them to the Minister’s bosom, and then suffocate them by regulating them out of existence.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

JUDITH COLLINS: It is true. We could laugh about that, but it is utterly true. That is what happens. We know that there are lots of volunteers who are scared of this bill. They are scared that they will get into trouble because of something someone else does. They are petrified. They came to us and said that they are not going to volunteer anymore. They do not want to, because they are scared. The Green member, Sue Bradford, said that she has heard exactly the same thing.

I have spoken tonight about what would have happened to the Problem Gambling Foundation if this bill had been in effect at the time they lost a huge amount of money to a thief. It would have been in danger of being closed down. The Minister stands up here in the House and says: “Oh well, it’s all discretionary”. I ask the Minister what it is discretionary upon. Is it discretionary upon whether one is mates with the Minister? Is it discretionary upon whether one is mates with someone in the Labour Party? We know that that is what the discretion is, because the commissioners will all be party appointees, and not one of the Labour members will actually say: “We wouldn’t do that.” When we look at the bill, we see regulation for regulation’s sake. The Minister said that we have to stop anyone using charities to rip off people. Well, we already have a law. It is in the Crimes Act. It already is an offence to rip off people, using charities. We do not need to have another law. We do not need to have a law for anything that moves.

I have taken on board some of the points that Mr Jones has made about people who have been dishonest within the last 7 years and whether they should be trustees. Well, I guess I am a bit kinder than Mr Jones. I accept that I may be an old softie on these matters, but I do actually believe that some people have the ability to be rehabilitated.

Katherine Rich: So does the Prime Minister.

JUDITH COLLINS: And so does the Prime Minister. She believes it as well, Mrs Rich says. In fact, I understand that one can be rehabilitated—

Katherine Rich: In 2 days.

JUDITH COLLINS: In 2 days. That is all it takes, as well as a bit of stress leave. In fact, one is rehabilitated even before one takes the stress leave.

I believe that people can be rehabilitated, and I do not like to think that just because someone has a criminal conviction, he or she will forever be stopped from contributing in a positive way to society. So, on that basis, I did not support Mr Jones’ amendment. We should not be convicting people before they have actually committed a crime and that, unfortunately, is what we do when we say that nobody who has committed a particular crime will be able to be in a position of responsibility in relation to a charity. It would be far more sensible to be able to say that we cannot trust that Government in spending taxpayers’ money. Fortunately, I think the people are about to say that.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The last speaker, in her opening remarks, slurred the New Zealand First Party, which did not vote for the Local Government Act 2002 and therefore was not responsible for the charges that she said resulted from that Act.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I am happy to withdraw and apologise for that in relation to New Zealand First.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): It is not often that I have the opportunity in Parliament to support legislation that, when I was in legal practice, I wanted to see introduced, as I have with the Charities Bill. As I said earlier, when I was in legal practice and forming charitable trusts under the Charitable Trusts Act for various people, I became concerned that the Act had no real means of dealing with people who robbed money from charitable trusts or who just did not operate them satisfactorily. Members will recall that in the early 1980s, when National was in Government and I was in Parliament—and in the later 1980s as well—there were all sorts of groups setting up charitable trusts under the Charitable Trusts Act, especially Māori groups for employment schemes. When I set up a few of those, I was concerned that people were getting money from the Government and there did not seem to be any control on those charitable trusts as to what would happen.

We have heard recently about ACT’s concern about the lack of control over Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. I would have thought that ACT would support this legislation in order to make sure that there are real controls over how money goes to the various trust groups, and I am disappointed that ACT is not following up some of its allegations by supporting the legislation.

I have had concerns about this issue. I wrote to the Minister of Justice in the early 1990s about it. I got a report that went back to 1979, which set out a court case from 1967 in which Justice Gresson expressed his concern about charitable trusts. In that report there was a concern from the National Council of Churches as to the way in which charitable trusts and charities were being operated.

I have had a long-felt regard and concern about the way in which charities have been operating improperly and without any adequate supervision. So I was delighted when this bill was introduced to the House, and I am even more delighted by the changes that were made in the Social Services Committee as a result of the committee giving good consideration to the bill. I mention to the Minister that New Zealand First had a subcommittee on the bill that consisted of myself and Mr Gudgeon. I spoke on the first reading and, because of my interest, he and I communicated regularly on the bill and I kept a close watch on it. So when I had the opportunity to be present for the final deliberation of the bill, I took it with both hands.

I believe that in Opposition, one does not oppose just for the sake of it. If one sees something that is good coming forward, one should support it. As Martyn Finlay would say, it is not just a question of opposing, it is also a question of proposing. In this legislation, something that I have had a great concern about for some time is being remedied. There has been a mischief—a Judge of the High Court and the National Council of Churches have said that there was a mischief—and I am sure that the Government would not have introduced this legislation if there had not been some form of mischief, because otherwise it would have been a complete waste of everybody’s time, and most Governments do not tend to waste taxpayers’ money as freely as that. So I am delighted by the bill coming into the House.

I have just one criticism of the bill that I think is important, but I was not about to spit the dummy out and throw my teddy bear out of the pram just because I did not get my way on that issue. But I think the Government will have to do something about it fairly soon. The Government had originally intended clause 15(2) to state: “(2) The following persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities: … (c) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more: (d) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence: …”. The Government and the select committee decided to take that provision out, because groups like the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society said that plenty of people had been convicted of disorderly offences—perhaps while opposing the Springbok tour or for driving while disqualified—that are not dishonesty offences, and that that provision covered them.

Then the Government came up with this alteration. In place of that provision, it would put in clause 15(2)(c), which states: “(2) The following persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities: … (c) an individual who, or a body corporate that, has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961) and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years:”. That means that anyone who has been convicted of that crime 7½ years ago can be an officer of a society. That includes people who have been convicted of receiving, blackmail, theft or stealing, theft of animals, and theft by spouse. I am referring to the sections in Part 10 of the Crimes Act regarding the conversion of vehicles, breach of trust, the punishment of theft, the power of search, etc.

When appointing someone to a trust, one wants someone who has not committed a breach of trust. But this Government will allow people who have been convicted of the offence of breach of trust 7½ years ago to be officers of a charitable entity. That just does not seem to me to be right.

Hon Mark Burton: There has to be the possibility of rehabilitation.

DAIL JONES: Yes, there has to be the possibility of rehabilitation. But, as Judith Collins said when she was being critical of a trust that may get into difficulty and she was considering what could be done, a trust is likely to get into difficulty because some fraudster, forger, or thief is a member of it and has fallen back into his or her old ways again. That is the case.

We are not talking about people who have committed minor offences. We are talking about people who have committed serious offences, and this Government is saying that those people can be officers of a trust. We in New Zealand First take a tougher line in some areas. As has been asked in this Chamber, if people steal from a trust, where is the indemnity for the other members of the trust? It all goes.

One of the concerns has been the question of indemnity. Who will indemnify the other people in a trust if that money goes down the tube? I have raised the issue. I have received no support from the Government. The Minister—as she is entitled to do—offered no support. I suggested that the words “and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years” be removed, so that clause 15(2)(c) would relate to anyone who has been convicted of an offence under section 2(1) of the Crimes Act. I did not receive support. I suggested that the original clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) should go back in, because that was the Government’s original intention. That is what the Government wanted in the first place.

So I have given the Government all the options. For the purpose of the third reading, I just record that that was what happened at the Committee stage—which is one of the reasons for a third reading debate; it used to be the case, and I am sure it still is. If something goes wrong, I will say: “I told you so.”, especially if a substantial trust has to be wound up as a result of a former criminal defrauding it.

The Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society said to us that we should be lenient, and we should make sure that prisoners who had been found guilty of forgery and suchlike had the chance to redeem themselves. But there is too much hard-earned money involved. People have knocked on doors to collect that money. They work extremely hard. There are people at the other end of the chain who deserve that money, and I do not believe that there should be any risk of it being lost. After all, the Government has put a time limit in the provision of 7 years. It considers that people should not be on a trust if they have been sentenced for a crime within the last 7 years. I am merely saying that they should not be on a trust, at all.

I disagree entirely with Judith Collins. She can be soft on this if she likes, but New Zealand First takes a hard line on law and order issues. We are concerned that people with records will be on a trust. At the moment there is a land transport bill, is there not, that relates to people who have committed offences. The Government is saying that those people should never be able to have a land transport licence and that they should have no right of appeal. That is how tough the Government can be. Why is the Government not being equally as tough on forgers, receivers, and other people who have committed dishonesty offences, particularly in respect of charities for which people go to a lot of trouble to raise money? Not only could a trust lose money but it could lose everything else, as well.

I just raise that issue. As I said, New Zealand First will not die in the ditch on it. We believe in the essential principle of the bill. We wish all charities well. We ask them to be extremely careful about whom they employ—although, once again, the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act will make it difficult for them to ensure that the people whom they employ have not previously been convicted of a dishonesty offence. There are a couple of barriers for all employers, but as far as a charity is concerned, there is an even bigger one.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui): I commend Dail Jones for his speech. We sometimes see piffle on the front page of our newspapers and in the lead stories on the 6 o’clock news that means absolutely nothing and has nothing to do with improving people’s quality of life, yet the cooperative approach that has been taken for most of this evening by all members of Parliament in trying to pass legislation that will be of benefit to the people of New Zealand will not get mentioned even on page 19. I just say to Mr Jones that I enjoyed listening to his speech.

The tone will drop now, because I will refer to those comments made by Judith Collins. I say from the outset that National members, and Judith Collins in particular, would not recognise people from the charitable or voluntary sector even if they ran over them. Judith Collins in her Jaguar—well, I do not care what she drives; I will just say that she would not recognise them if she ran over them. She is the very same member who has made comments that sole parents sit around watching videos and TV all day and smoking dope. That is an indication of how much she knows about people who are perhaps at the lower end of the economic scale, and she has no idea about people who are trying to improve the lot of others in a very humble but very effective way.

I also remind the skeleton crew on the other side of the House tonight that Nick Smith, when he was in that ill-fated National Government, threatened the voluntary sector with the removal of its funding if it spoke out about, and against, the National Government of that time. He threatened the sector with the loss of funding. A lot of those people—and a lot of people whom we on this side of the House know well—were genuinely frightened about that. That was the kind of intimidation that was brought to bear during the last National Government.

Even before then, Mr Muldoon withdrew the charitable status of CORSO because it spoke out about the evils of apartheid. Some people will not remember those kinds of things. Some people will not even remember the huge amount of international activity that took place to rid South Africa of apartheid. The mean Prime Minister of New Zealand at the time, Mr Muldoon, reacted by crawling to Margaret Thatcher, and treated CORSO cruelly. That is something many people in New Zealand will always remember. Of course, some johnny-come-latelies will have absolutely no recollection of that history, at all.

This bill is a good bill, because, firstly, it is an initiative that will acknowledge the vital contribution that the charitable sector makes to the New Zealand economy and to the well-being of New Zealand and New Zealanders. This Government, in support of this Charities Commission, has committed $9.8 million of funding to help the commission in its initial stages.

One very important aspect that has not been mentioned very much tonight is that the charitable sector has approached the Government a number of times over recent years about income tax benefits for charities and for people who make donations, and quite rightly so. The Government will be in a position to assist, because it will now be able to assess how much an increase in the form of taxable assistance would cost and how much it would assist those various organisations. It is critically important to have robust information about the size and scope of the charitable sector in New Zealand, and it has traditionally been quite difficult to collect or assess that information.

This is a good bill because it will protect the integrity and reputation of the charitable sector. I just want to pay my respects and express appreciation to the hundreds of thousands of people who go out and do voluntary work every day, in a humble but hugely important way.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): I would like to take a short call in the final stage of this debate, firstly to acknowledge everybody in the House, everybody on the Social Services Committee, and the officials who were involved in putting the Charities Bill together. Although I feel really sad about the opportunity we have missed with this bill, I feel at the same time—as we saw on the select committee and as we can see in the debate tonight—that MPs from both sides of the House have engaged with the debate and recognised the significance both of the bill and of the community sector it deals with. That is a good thing.

But I think it is a real pity that the Government, in the end, did not have the courage to accept that the fundamentals of the bill were flawed from the start and, in particular, that its very beginnings and very flawed consultation processes meant that it was not going to build at any point the kind of trust needed between the Government and the sector to make something like this really work well.

We had submissions, hundreds of them, from all parts of the sector—from what I would call the very conservative end of church groups, mission groups, priests and nuns, right through to groups at the other end of the scale, the sort of groups that I might have come from. We also had groups like the Tindall Foundation, which is probably respected by every party in this House as a very significant philanthropic body in this country. Tindall Foundation representatives came to us and said that the best thing we could do with this bill was to chuck it out and start again, and to learn from the experiences of places like the UK and not be so silly as to go ahead with a bill that, to make work, we would have to amend and amend in almost every clause. In fact, that is what has happened, so we have this piece of miscegenation, and that is a real pity.

Even after the select committee had made its rather fumbling amendments the Government restarted a small consultation process, which succeeded only in annoying a whole lot of groups around the country a whole lot more, because only a few groups were involved and brought to the table. Groups in the north of the country retained a heap of concerns, as did others in the South Island.

There were concerns such as why the meaning of “charitable purpose” had not been dealt with and brought up to date, and ongoing concerns about the threat to the independence of the sector, particularly in relation to advocacy. There were concerns about the functions of the commission and, in particular, that its potentially good role in playing a developmental role with the sector would be subsumed into its regulatory and policing role. There were issues relating to the payment of trustees—for example, in respect of bogus charities such as some primary health organisations, where trustees can receive very substantial payments but the organisations are still seen as not-for-profit. Those kinds of issues that are very real in the sector are just not dealt with by this bill.

There are ongoing concerns about the lack of detail and the information provided during the consultation processes, and I know there has always been an anxiety about what will happen once this bill is passed, in terms of its regulation-making powers and what kind of consultation will actually happen at that point. That is really getting down to the nitty-gritty.

Just recently, too, there have been changes announced by the Government about proposed alterations to the Financial Reporting Act. Financial disclosure under the Charities Bill will be determined by the Financial Reporting Act’s requirements, which are still subject to work by the Ministry of Social Development. What is all that going to mean? We do not know. None of the community sector organisations in the country know. We do not really know what we are passing tonight or what the implications are, and will be, for the financial reporting requirements of all those groups in the future.

Just this week we had an announcement by Cabinet on Monday—which stunned many parts of the community sector—of its sudden withdrawal of support for a body whose establishment the sector had spent 5 years working through with the Government. The new national entity had been backed by the Government, but in one day that support was withdrawn. I do not know how some of the groups that might have supported this bill may be feeling tonight about the relationship between the Government and the sector. It has certainly not been a fantastic trust-building process.

There has not been, at any point, comprehensive analysis of the genuine need for or real cost of the proposed legislation, nor has the Government really ever had a clear understanding of what the bill seeks to achieve, and how. What we have ended up with tonight is a far cry from what could have been a really empowering and enabling piece of legislation, supported by all the different groups and by MPs across the House. I believe it is most unfortunate that the Government still appears not quite to understand what an excellent opportunity it has missed.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): The message from this Government to the charitable sector is a simple one: “We won. You lost. Eat that!”. Here is a Government rushing through legislation under urgency that Sue Bradford, who is an expert in this area, says she does not understand and the charitable sector does not want. But what does this Government care?

We heard the Minister responsible, Judith Tizard, give a speech—actually saying “speech” is dignifying it. She stood up in this House, and gave the worst speech I have heard her give. She just mumbled into the Prime Minister’s handbag. I do not know what was going on—whether it was that she was so embarrassed by this bill. Then we heard Jill Pettis, whom John Tamihere has nicknamed “Paint Stripper” because of her voice—

Hon Member: What!

RODNEY HIDE: I know she knows. I have news for the Labour Government! John Tamihere is talking to the media again. It is going to be great. He is actually giving “on the record” interviews again about his colleagues and repeating everything, so there will be some fun in the weeks ahead. But we heard from Jill Pettis—

Jill Pettis: I think you are obsessed with me. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

RODNEY HIDE: I am not sure I can go on. Could I take a minute to recover?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, you can. I have not taken it off your time.

RODNEY HIDE: That is a shocking, shocking thing to say. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take deep offence at the comment that Jill Pettis made. I consider it to be an insult and offensive, and I ask that you ask her to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Sorry, Mr Hide. At what point did she make that comment?

RODNEY HIDE: The thought that I could be obsessed by her.

Opposition Members: Obsessed with her.

RODNEY HIDE: Oh, the thought that I could be obsessed with her! That is deeply insulting and offensive, and I take offence.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): You have taken offence?

RODNEY HIDE: Yes. I have a reputation to protect.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member has been offended by what Jill Pettis said. I ask her to withdraw.

Jill Pettis: All right, I apologise.

RODNEY HIDE: God knows, there are girls in Parnell who could be listening!

What we have heard from this Government tonight absolutely backs up what John Tamihere has been telling us and telling the nation. Mr Gordon Copeland got up and said that he does not like this legislation but will vote for it because he hopes that if he does vote for it, Dr Cullen will lift the tax-free threshold for charitable donations. That is what I understand Mr Copeland to be saying—that he would vote and hope.

Then we heard from the Minister in charge of the bill, Judith Tizard. She got up, mumbled away into the Prime Minister’s handbag, and said that the reason for this bill is so that the Government can collect information about the charitable sector. That is very interesting. What is the Government going to do with this information? [Interruption] She went on to explain, I say to Mr Copeland, that it is to figure out how much it would cost if it lifted the threshold for tax-free donations. She is nodding her head—that is exactly what she was saying. Gordon Copeland is voting for this legislation in the hope that the Government will gather up information, figure out what lifting the tax-free threshold will cost, and Michael Cullen will then reward the charitable sector with some extra tax perks. That is the basis for Gordon Copeland’s vote. It is a case of vote and hope—let us collect the data and hope. I think Mr Copeland has been duped. [Interruption] He says there is nothing wrong with being duped. Well, he may think that, but I think there is a problem with being duped.

Hon Rick Barker: That member would know about duping people.

RODNEY HIDE: Is that not great! Here is the Labour Party talking about my duping people. This is coming from a party that has Steven Ching at No. 42 on its list. Talk about being duped!

Hon Judith Tizard: Where was Donna Awatere Huata on your list?

RODNEY HIDE: She is gone—that is where Donna Awatere Huata is on our list. After the Labour Government gave her $2 million, we got rid of her. Where is Steven Ching? He is coming in, and he is a man who lies to people—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

RODNEY HIDE: —and obstructs justice.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

RODNEY HIDE: What is that, Mr Assistant Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Was the member referring to a member in the House?

RODNEY HIDE: No—Mr Ching. He lies.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): All right, but can I, in that case, explain—

RODNEY HIDE: He is a total liar and a total crook.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I ask Mr Hide to make some reference to the bill.

RODNEY HIDE: Yes—we are talking about being duped.

Hon Paul Swain: Let’s talk about Fiji.

RODNEY HIDE: Do we not just love Mr Swain! He wants to talk about Fiji. Labour’s line is this: “Let’s talk about Fiji, but when it comes to John Tamihere, we want to put a line under it and move on!”. Mr Steve Maharey says that he did not get an apology or a retraction. John Tamihere called Steve Maharey “smarmy”, and he hates that. He considers John Tamihere to be a liar, and now he says he just wants to put a line under it and move on. That is what Mr Maharey, No. 3 on the list, says.

I can understand the concern that those in the charitable sector have. They are saying that if someone comes into one of their organisations and he is a crook, that person can actually get the whole charity deregistered. I want to explain to the Labour Party how easy it is to get members who are crooks coming into a charitable organisations. The Labour Party should know, should it not? Labour has Steven Ching at No. 42, and I can tell the Labour Party members that they will learn a lot more this Sunday about their No. 42, Mr Steven Ching, the man who was selling seats to sit beside Helen Clark for thousands of dollars.

Judith Collins: They want their money back!

RODNEY HIDE: Yes. Then there was the matter of obstructing justice. Did the Labour Party know about that? Did Labour members know about the fact that John Tamihere had pleaded guilty in the High Court to two counts of forgery and two counts of uttering?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): We are debating the Charities Bill.

RODNEY HIDE: Yes, and what we are talking about—and it is right on; this is a third reading speech—is wrongful behaviour. I am just saying how easy it is for a charity to get someone on board who is less than savoury. I ask members to look at the Labour Party. It has got itself stuck with John Tamihere, and it has got itself stuck with Mr Steven Ching, who is No. 42 on its list. If that is what can happen in the Labour Party, we can imagine what can happen to, for example, the New Zealand Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society. It could happen there, and that society could end up being deregistered. I think Mr Maharey knew all along what Mr Tamihere was like. He nods his head. He knows exactly what Mr Tamihere is like.

We have a bill here that affects the charitable sector—37,000 charities. It is true that about 500 of them were set up by Mr Tamihere. But 37,000 charities are going to come under this regime with seven appointments from the Labour Party to set up the commission, and a team of bureaucrats to run around and monitor, inspect, and collate information. Those members talk about putting $9.8 million into it. That will actually be a drop in the bucket compared with what it will eventually cost.

Let us think of any one of those charities and what it could do with $9.8 million! Let us think about the good works that could be done with $9.8 million! It will, though, all go just on bureaucracy. That $9.8 million will be spent on making more work for the charitable sector. That is what will happen.

Hon Steve Maharey: What?

RODNEY HIDE: Steve Maharey yells out “What?”. I know that Mr Steve Maharey can talk for 2 hours and if one takes a page of notes, all it is is clichés and hackneyed policy words, but there is no substance. We know that because his former Associate Minister John Tamihere told us. He summed up Mr Maharey rather well—I thought it was perfect. He said he was smarmy. Do members notice how smarmy his interjections are? [Interruption] Oh, he wants to be slimy rather than smarmy. Maybe he is slimy and not smarmy. I do not really know, but I know that what Mr Tamihere had to say was not very nice—and it was the truth. I say to Government members that they should listen to John Tamihere a bit more. They should not just go around liking him because he gives 150 percent. They should not just go around saying: “When he’s good he’s really good, but he has the odd stumble.” They should listen to what Mr Tamihere is saying. He is telling Labour members that they are out of touch.

Jill Pettis: Oh, he’s scoring another 2 percent.

RODNEY HIDE: That is “Paint Stripper”—Jill Pettis from Whanganui. That is what Mr Tamihere has gone around the gallery and said tonight.

Hon Mark Burton: Oh, that’s original.

RODNEY HIDE: Mark Burton confirms that he has heard it before.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

RODNEY HIDE: It has been going around for years, according to Mr Mark Burton. Labour members should listen to what Mr Tamihere is saying.

They should think about the charitable sector, which is there to look after families, which this Government knows nothing about. They should listen to families and to hard-working New Zealanders. My goodness! As my colleague Sue Bradford said, Labour should just listen to the charitable sector. But, oh no, Labour members are sitting around supping their lattes, talking parlez-vous, and not listening—just plotting.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): I am pleased that the Charities Bill will receive its third reading this evening and become the law of the land. Let me say just for the record that the Social Services Committee, which I was on—it sounds like it was a different one from the one Sue Bradford or Judith Collins was on—actually heard 743 submissions from organisations that collectively would have represented thousands of New Zealand charities, and virtually all of those submissions said that they felt the time had arrived for the establishment of a charities commission. So the concept of a charities commission has the overwhelming support of the charitable sector.

I thought that in this third reading debate it would be worth just pausing for a moment to think about the wonderful benefit that not only our nation but the world derives from charities, and I want to refer to the tsunami in east Asia, which has occurred since the first reading of this bill. It is almost inconceivable to think of how the world would have responded to that disaster without the assistance of charities. We think immediately of organisations such as the New Zealand Red Cross Society, Unicef, World Vision, Christian World Service, Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand, and The Evangelical Alliance Relief Fund, or “Tear Fund”, for short.

Here were charities that within hours of that disaster were responding not only by asking Kiwis to help—and Kiwis are very, very generous—but also by getting people on the ground to deliver goods and services, medical care, comfort, and so on to the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives will never be the same again after that enormous event.

Kiwis are generous people. There would be many people who, in response to that tragic disaster, would have given over and beyond their regular giving to charities, yet under the present law they get a measly tax rebate on doing so of just $630 per annum, and that needs to change. Governments should encourage greater giving through higher rebate levels. We need to remember that for each extra 33c given up by the Government, the charity receives an extra $1. If, for example, the Government gives up $20 million, it will be because Kiwis have given of their own free will an extra $60 million to charities.

The fact is that such giving is an efficient and effective investment in the social development of those countries that are its recipients. If given to developing countries it has the potential to transform the lives of others, particularly in those countries that are desperately poor. I have only to mention, for example, the Fred Hollows Foundation, or mercy ships, and immediately images come to mind of the medical miracles that result for people who were blind, or near blind, who can see again, and the deformed and crippled children, often outcast by society, whose lives are transformed with life-changing and lifelong positive consequences.

Again I ask the Government to take note. It now has the Charities Commission; it is up to it now to improve the tax rebates and concessions that it gives to encourage Kiwis in their natural propensity towards generosity.

Charities are also looking for the refundability of imputation credits. On introduction, the original purpose of imputation credits was that the final tax paid would be equal to the marginal tax rate of the recipient shareholder. Well, the marginal tax rate of those charities that have shares in New Zealand companies is zero. So why do they pay 33c in the dollar as a final and non-recoverable tax because they cannot claim back their imputation credits? It is wrong and it is blatantly unfair, especially when non-resident companies—that is, commercial organisations, not charities—can now get an imputation tax refund.

Additionally, so long as charities can receive interest income without tax deduction—and there is no suggestion that that would change in any way, as is right and proper—they should also, of course, not be paying imputation tax on company dividends at 33c in the dollar, because that fundamentally distorts investment patterns by charities, so that decisions become tax-driven rather than market-driven, something that directly contradicts not only common sense but the policy advice given to the Government by Treasury. Charities will also want to see that fixed in this year’s Budget.

In conclusion, the passage of this bill is a landmark in the evolution of the New Zealand charitable sector. It is a sector that has served this country well, since the foundation of our nation. My hope is that it will continue to flourish in the years ahead, that there will be an increasing appreciation by New Zealanders of the valuable work that it does, and that the Government will do its bit to encourage that to happen.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Charities Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Public Records Bill

Second Reading

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand): I move, That the Public Records Bill be now read a second time. The Government Administration Committee has heard submissions and has proposed amendments that bring greater clarity to the bill. The Government will support those amendments.

My thanks are extended to the select committee, with special thanks to the chair, Dianne Yates. I also thank the archives and record-keeping community, firstly, for its focus in seeking legislative change and, also, for its knowledge and input during the development of this bill. In particular I note the efforts of the late Ian Wards, who I hope would have been very pleased with the progress of this bill to date.

This bill replaces the Archives Act of 1957, which will be safely archived after many years of stalwart service, and the documented archives provision contained in the Local Government Act 1974. The objective of this bill is to improve the standard of Government record-keeping. It will improve the accountability of Government organisations, enhance democratic participation in Government, and contribute to New Zealand’s national identity. Good record-keeping underpins those outcomes and is an essential part of efficient government, as it supports day-to-day operational, legal, and administrative requirements. Put simply, it is good business practice.

Legislative changes such as the Official Information Act, the emergence of new Government agencies and activities, and changes to the day-to-day methods of documenting business have required a change to the tools available to the Chief Archivist to ensure those purposes are met. The impact of email and the Internet, which have eroded traditional record-keeping practices and increased the complexity of recording business transactions, has particularly brought home the need for the change that this bill provides. The bill establishes the record-keeping requirements of public offices and local authorities, and enables the Chief Archivist to help with those requirements by issuing standards of record-keeping.

I would like to touch on some of the amendments recommended by the select committee. The committee has accepted the policy and approach of the bill, but has suggested some valuable amendments. These changes will clarify the requirements of public offices in managing their public records. One amendment is that the Chief Archivist must establish an appropriate framework for the management of public records. Some concern was raised in submissions that the Chief Archivist could consider the management of public records only when making decisions under the legislation, but in requiring an appropriate framework the bill now clarifies that the Chief Archivist must consider good management and compliance costs for public offices in setting the record-keeping framework.

A further amendment clarifies when public records need to be created. Public offices do not need to create and maintain a record of every single happening within the conduct of their business. The amendment notes that the requirement to create records is in accordance with normal, prudent business practice. Although a phone call to a Minister changing the venue of a Cabinet meeting is not required to be recorded, the minutes of the Cabinet meeting are required to become part of the public record. The Chief Archivist will be able to provide standards and guidelines to assist public offices in determining when a record should be created.

Several submissions noted that the penalties contained in the bill were unlikely to deter offenders, and it is good to see that the committee has recommended an increase in the penalty provisions. In response to concerns from the tertiary sector, the committee has recommended clarifying the definition of “public record” to prevent academic and student records from being covered by the bill unless they relate to the business of the university itself.

I would like to address the question of access to records under the bill.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

Tuesday, 12 April 2005

(continued on Thursday, 14 April 2005)

Bills

Public Records Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand): Continuing from last evening on the second reading of the Public Records Bill, I will address the question of access to records under the bill.

With the passage of the Official Information Act back in 1982, Parliament established a clear intention that Government information is to be open unless there are good reasons to withhold access. This bill clarifies the relationship between the Official Information Act and archival access mechanisms, and confirms that the principle of availability is maintained, unless there are good reasons to withhold access—and some of those reasons can be about privacy. It also ensures that the Ombudsman will continue to be the final arbiter of access to Government information for members of the public. I expect that open access to the vast majority of records held by Archives New Zealand will continue.

I am very happy to commend this bill to the House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): I rise to contribute to the report back. At the first reading National was pleased to support the bill going to the Government Administration Committee, but we raised the point that there were some issues of concern to us. As the House will see, National has a minority report in the report back.

We certainly support the underlying principle of the bill in terms of creating a record-keeping framework for Government records. We also support the idea that it has become much more important to us as New Zealanders to make sure that we keep a proper record of our history and archives and that we properly recognise the things that are distinct and unique to us and to our identity as New Zealanders.

But my colleagues who sat on the select committee during the submissions process found that the provisions of the bill that is now before us impose unnecessary and substantial extra costs and compliance costs on all affected parties. In particular, they heard some fairly robust objections from State-owned enterprises and universities. One would have thought that universities would be the first to see the need for the provisions. They did, but there is also underlying concern about the cost that will be added in terms of the record-keeping provisions. National does not support the report back, for those reasons.

In the part of the report back relating to the application of the bill to State-owned enterprises, we see that the view of the State-owned enterprises was that the bill does not address the position they hold in terms of their legal and commercial obligations. They were concerned that by including them within the ambit of the bill, they would have to fulfil a number of obligations that private sector companies do not face, and that their ability to compete successfully would be reduced. National thinks that that is a major flaw in the bill and we ask the Government to give serious consideration to the objections that were raised.

There is also the issue of commercial sensitivity. A number of State-owned enterprises were concerned that their inclusion in the bill would damage their ability to protect commercially sensitive material. They commented that State-owned enterprises might not be able to assure customers that sensitive commercial information would remain confidential, because it could be released into the public domain after 25 years. In the scheme of things, 25 years is a very short space of time.

The other issue relates to compliance costs. Some State-owned enterprises saw that they would incur excessive compliance costs under this bill. Although they commented that good management was not a major requirement under the bill, they said that it did have implications for good business practice when decisions were to be made about record-keeping.

I was not present when the Minister gave her address, which began last night, and I am not altogether certain whether she addressed the concerns of the State-owned enterprises. The next speaker, Dianne Yates, might take it upon herself to address those issues, if they have not already been addressed. I was not able to be present when the Minister spoke last evening.

In any event, National has some major concerns that bring us to the position whereby we cannot support this bill. We think that the submissions put forward by State-owned enterprises have merit and need to be considered very carefully by the Government, which prides itself—wrongly, I might say—on being business-friendly and on understanding the needs of business. In terms of the costs that have been added on to business since the Government’s tenure, both in the previous term and in this current term, this is just another impost on those organisations that we have certain commercial expectations of. That is National’s position.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): As the chair of the Government Administration Committee, I am pleased to speak on the Public Records Bill. I will read from the report back because, although the previous speaker may have read the minority report from National, I want to read what we said as a committee: “We also note that State enterprises can withhold access to records on the basis of commercial sensitivity under the Official Information Act 1982 (subject to a public interest test) and they will continue to exercise this discretion under the bill. We also note that the Chief Archivist can provide advice or issue standards to assist public offices in determining whether there are good reasons to restrict access to their records.” I think that covers the point. The National Party has said that it is unable to support the bill and that matters are unresolved, but that is only in its opinion. We are talking, of course, about records that will be released after 25 years. The committee was generally satisfied that there was no commercial sensitivity. We have found that records have not been kept, in some cases, when it has been necessary for the history of New Zealand that they should have been kept.

I thank the select committee for the work it did on this bill. It was a very, very interesting bill that we enjoyed working on. With regard to universities, they already keep more records than are required by this bill. The bill does not apply to academic research or to individual student academic records, and that has been made very clear. We asked for definitions around local authorities to be tightened up, and we also tightened the legislation regarding the records of public and private schools so that it is very, very clear.

I thank Archives New Zealand for arranging for the select committee to visit. We had a very interesting tour. We were shown the records there, how they were kept, some of the new processes—Archives New Zealand is coming online—and the new computer system that will increase access to those records. I am very impressed with the work it is doing and with the work it has done on this legislation. I was also very impressed with the way that Archives New Zealand staff worked with the select committee. When we had queries and matters that needed to be tidied up, they did that very well.

As a committee, we made one alteration—we recommended that the fine be increased. We thought that the fine recommended, which was $2,000 for those who might like to “disappear” a record, was not enough of a deterrent, so we recommended that the sum be increased, because we felt that New Zealand archives are very, very important to this country. We discovered that the fine had just been carried over from previous legislation and had not been revised for some years. So that was one alteration the committee initiated.

Once again, I thank everybody on the committee, Archives New Zealand in particular, and officials and ministry staff for helping us with this bill. I also thank the Minister. The legislation is long overdue; these things do need updating. Mistakes have been made in the past in New Zealand, and let us hope that this bill will rectify those mistakes.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): New Zealand First was not represented on the Government Administration Committee for consideration of this bill. It is one of the bills for which we just do not have enough members. Of course, that situation will be rectified after the next election, and we look forward to a greater representation on all committees and elsewhere. The keeping of records is a sign of a civilised society. Our knowledge of what happened in ancient Greece, in ancient Rome, and throughout the history of Britain, is all based on keeping records. The Domesday Book was known to many of us at school. It was kept by William the Conqueror mainly as a means of gathering tax—which is why people used to keep records in the old days—but it was part of the tradition of maintaining records. I am disappointed that the National Party will oppose this bill, because New Zealand First intends to support it. It is clearly a means of bringing the public records of New Zealand up to date, and of bringing them into the 21st century.

We do not expect the National Party to come into the 21st century; we have seen that from its education policy. I tell Mr Mallard that I was waiting to get that in first, as I saw the member sitting there! I ask him please to let me do my own lines; I do not need any support. But on reading that education policy I thought, gosh, we are going back once again into the past, and that seems to be the role of the National Party—even on something as simple as maintaining public records. That party cannot get into the 21st century.

We need this legislation so that new technology, new legislation, and new record-keeping practices can be reflected in the way in which archives are maintained. But, here we go, National opposes that. When will National get into the 21st century? When will it realise that things have changed?

I am really disappointed that Georgina te Heuheu was the spokesperson for the National Party to oppose this legislation, because it has really been a feature of this Parliament that the records of the Māori people of New Zealand have been brought up to date and maintained, so that future generations can know what happened in the past. But here we have a Māori member of Parliament, who should be supporting that sort of record-keeping, opposing something that would ensure that future records will indicate how the Māori people of New Zealand developed. It is very, very disappointing to see Georgina te Heuheu wanting to keep us back in the past, in this legislation.

Hon Dover Samuels: The births and deaths column.

DAIL JONES: Well, that might be of interest to that member. I was interested in clause 3, which talks about the purposes of the Act. Paragraph (f) states that its purpose is: “to encourage the spirit of partnership and goodwill envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi … as provided for by section 7;”, and Georgina re Heuheu opposes that. It is hard to believe, but then, one knows that one just cannot understand what the National Party is all about today.

I was really interested that the words “the spirit of partnership and goodwill” were used, and not the “principles of” the Treaty of Waitangi. I think that even the Government is now starting to learn a lesson or two from New Zealand First. We do not accept that words like “principles of” should be inserted. We can talk about “the spirit of partnership and goodwill envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi” and understand what the legislator is getting at, because those ideas are set out in greater clarity. But just to use the phrase “the principles of”, well, that makes it anybody’s guess. In this particular case, the courts and anyone interested in this legislation will have to look—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is this a bid to be a coalition partner?

DAIL JONES: Well, if the Labour Party wants to be a coalition partner in a New Zealand First Government, we will consider that, depending on the will of the people of New Zealand after the next election. But it is good to see that the Labour Party is getting up to date, as well. We cannot expect the National Party to get up to date, but Labour is at least getting up to date with the views expressed by New Zealand First, because if the words “principles of” had been inserted in this bill in clause 3(f), we could not have supported it. Obviously, Labour is getting up to date, as well, so New Zealand First is giving consideration to it.

Again, I look at clause 7, relating to the Treaty of Waitangi, and to the various instructions given: “In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the Treaty of Waitangi …”, and I see a greater explanation of what is required. Once again, I am disappointed that the National Party put up Georgina te Heuheu to oppose legislation that is taking further steps to ensure that all New Zealanders’ records are maintained, including those of the Māori people of New Zealand in such a specific way.

Hon Dover Samuels: Outrageous!

DAIL JONES: As Dover Samuels says, it is absolutely shocking. This bill is a straightforward piece of legislation. I read the select committee’s report, and I saw the provisions relating to private schools and private training establishments—how they were not involved, and the suggestions made there. In relation to the references to the application of the bill to universities and to the commercial sensitivity figures, I have to say that I would expect that any State-owned enterprise should be happy to release its records after 25 years. I would have thought that they would all move on from there and a lot would happen in 25 years’ time. There would be nothing that one could expect to be commercially sensitive 25 years from now, say, in a prosperous, successful business. But knowing the way Governments and Parliament operate, I doubt whether any State-owned enterprise that exists today will exist in exactly the same form in 25 years’ time. We have such a habit of interfering in the way things are run in this country, and every new Government seems to feel that it somehow has to improve what the previous Government did.

It is a straightforward bill, and New Zealand First will support it. I really cannot see any need for speaking on it again during the course of this morning’s matters.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): It is quite clear that the member who just resumed his seat was not on the Government Administration Committee, as he conceded, and it is regrettable that he did not study the bill a bit more, because I actually support Georgina te Heuheu. Everyone obviously recognises the importance of maintaining public records. That is important. It is important that we apply new technology to those elements of the bill that, as Georgina te Heuheu of the National Party said, are accepted. But this is classic Labour Government legislation. There is a massive increase in compliance costs for everyone, and that is what the submitters said. A number of key questions were raised at the select committee by universities and other groups. They were aghast at the increased compliance costs associated with this legislation.

The Labour Government is determined always to bump up compliance costs in central bureaucracies that do not work. In the modern world, we apply new technologies to get cost savings. Most applications of new technology bring substantial savings, but somehow this Labour Government—supported by New Zealand First in Mr Dail Jones—can introduce new technology and actually increase compliance costs. The digital revolution makes it much easier to keep records, and much easier to record and recall, but somehow this Government, supported by New Zealand First, is managing to apply new technology and increase compliance costs. That just beggars belief.

The other point I would like to take up in response to Dail Jones’ comments, is that he drew to our attention the fact that there is no reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in clause 3. I support that—that is good, because no one ever knew what that meant. It was confusion. But I say to him that in this legislation we have something that is even more dangerous: “the spirit of partnership”. That is new in legislation, is it not? No Government has ever accepted that the treaty is a partnership. David Lange would not accept that.

Dail Jones: It’s the spirit.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Oh, indeed—“the spirit” is just like “the principles”. They are weasel words. Someone has captured the agenda here, because the Treaty of Waitangi is not a partnership. It is a deal that the Crown made with the iwi of New Zealand. We are all covered by the Crown—one cannot be in partnership with oneself. I ask Dail Jones whether New Zealand First, having campaigned so strongly against the principles, now promotes the thought that the treaty is a partnership, because we know there is a very big agenda for calling it a partnership. It has got right out of control, but no Government has accepted that concept. The elected Government of New Zealand is the elected Government of New Zealand. The Crown is all of us; we are the Crown. The concept of partnership is fundamentally flawed. But it would seem that New Zealand First is actually heralding and praising that concept, and this is the first time I have seen it in legislation.

Is that not interesting? It is in the Public Records Bill, and that is how it starts. It slides in under the radar screen, under urgency, in the Public Records Bill. There is reference there to the spirit of partnership. I suspect that the Government has not realised the ramifications of that. The chair of the Government Administration Committee suggests that it is deliberate. I seek confirmation of whether that is the case.

Dianne Yates: I didn’t say that.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: No, she is now denying it. Well, that is helpful. So if it is not a deliberate attempt made by this Government to introduce the concept of partnership—[Interruption] Oh, there is the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Trevor Mallard, I think, now. Does he not have some new responsibility, and did the Government not take a lot of portfolios from him? Well, I think that someone from the Government should stand up and tell the House whether this is the new thrust of the Government and whether it is now saying that it will promote the partnership concept, because, unfortunately, that concept, like the principles of the treaty, is right out of control. Local authorities up and down the country believe that there is this partnership concept and we are seeing some of the problems associated with that. We need to wind that belief back. I would like someone from the Government to tell us whether that concept is what it is now promoting, whether this will be the first time that we see it in legislation, and whether it will be a progressive trend between now and the election. I certainly hope not.

So the ACT party is opposing this bill. We recognise the good intent of it, and the need for good records and the application of new technology, but we just cannot understand how the Labour Government has managed with this legislation to massively increase compliance costs when applying new technology.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party is supporting this bill as a step forward towards making the deposit of public records in the National Archives more systematic and comprehensive. The bill imposes on public bodies, including local bodies, the obligation to create and preserve records and pass them on to the archives. The bill also rightly gives the Chief Archivist wide powers to make sure that public bodies are compliant, including significant powers to check files and advise deposit. It is also clear from the bill that the Chief Archivist is statutorily independent, which is good.

The bill gives the Chief Archivist wide powers to help overcome problems with agencies, either through the agencies’ lack of competence or because the agencies are too reluctant to give over materials. However, there are still too many let-outs for Government departments, which under this bill still have fairly unrestrained powers to stop the public seeing material by either deferring deposit for a long period or even indefinitely, or restricting access over a similarly long period. There was a lot of controversy over this issue in submissions made to the Government Administration Committee, but the committee’s report does not even mention that fact. That is not acceptable. The committee is not required to agree with submitters, but it does have a responsibility to at least refer to their significant arguments. This is particularly the case when submitters are informed people such as Dr Kathryn Patterson, the head of the National Archives from 1991 to 1998, and—separately—Dr Brad Patterson, a university academic who has been president of the Archives and Records Association of New Zealand. The issues they raised are critical to the successful use of the archives. They are issues that are important to all archivists, historians, academics, journalists, family researchers, and even politicians—anyone who is doing serious research with a historical dimension.

The bill gives too much power to heads of departments, as if they were benign and would not restrict access unnecessarily. As Dr Kathryn Patterson said of her time heading Archives: “My experience has been that administrative heads have a tendency to regard restrictions as the rule rather than the exception. The Chief Archivist requires a stronger role in these clauses as the referee or arbiter.” Clause 22(1)(b) does give heads of department the power to defer transfer to the archives “on any conditions that the administrative head and the Chief Archivist consider appropriate;”, but Dr Kathryn Patterson writes that, in her experience: “There can be difficulties reaching agreement with administrative heads of controlling public offices and it is possible that a stalemate may be reached.” She states: “The Chief Archivist’s view should carry weight.”

Then there are the general powers under clause 44 for heads of public bodies to restrict access to records, in consultation with the Chief Archivist—and, again, what will happen if there is disagreement between the two? It is true that clause 50 provides for a review by the Chief Archivist 10 years after a deferral of a deposit, but, despite that, there is nothing to stop the head of department extending the restriction for another period. As Dr Brad Patterson stated: “There would seem to be no curb on the indefinite renewal of restrictions. Surely, there should be some bottom line.” It is also true that under clause 29 the Chief Archivist does have inspection powers, but he or she cannot look at any materials “that carry security classifications or are restricted by other legislation …” without the administrative head’s permission. There are so many outs in this legislation that are unwise and unnecessary. As Dr Brad Patterson submitted, the Chief Archivist is a “very senior statutory officer” and should be able to be trusted.

The Official Information Act will apply to individual requests for information already in the archives, as the Minister has just stated, but individuals generally want to search through a whole lot of stuff in the archives, and it can be costly and very difficult to ask for a huge archive to be made available under the Official Information Act. It needs to be written into the bill that the Chief Archivist has the power to apply an Official Information Act test when inspecting archives, and that he or she can be like the Ombudsman and override heads of departments and force the deposit of a whole archive or a section of an archive.

The Official Information Act is not mentioned in this bill in this particular respect and the Greens will be moving an amendment during the Committee stage to have it put in. There should be a clear onus on heads of departments to deposit. Dr Brad Patterson submitted: “There should be some sort of strong statement in these provisions that public records of more than 25 years old will be open access, save in those few instances where good reason for withholding can be demonstrated to the Chief Archivist’s satisfaction.” Clause 22 also has what is in practice a very loose security excuse for deferring the deposit of materials in the archives. Under clause 22(1)(d)(ii) any Cabinet Minister has powers to defer transfer “for a specified period.”, and the period is not limited if the transfer would, as is stated in clause22(6)(a), “prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of the Government of New Zealand;”.

In practice, this means embarrassing material is withheld not because it is of any security nature whatsoever but because it is politically embarrassing for the agency concerned. We have seen a graphic example of this in the Hugh Price case covered recently in the Dominion Post. Mr Price, a retired Wellington publisher, has spent 2 years squeezing material out of the SIS, bit by bit, by going back time and time again to the Ombudsman. The material, which was at first withheld and later released under pressure from the Ombudsman, clearly had nothing to do with the security of New Zealand, although security was the reason that SIS director, Richard Woods, gave for withholding it. The matter relates to security police harassment of Mr Price and his colleagues 52 years ago, when Mr Price was a young student. The SIS director’s actions in this case have not been governed by public interest in the slightest. Clearly, Mr Woods’ only concern has been to protect the service from embarrassment at the disclosure of the wrongdoing of one of his predecessors, even though this wrongdoing, which destroyed the careers of several innocent New Zealanders, was committed by agents over 50 years ago and is the sort of thing that is of historical interest to researchers today—something that New Zealanders can learn from and should be in Archives.

One of the security grounds for withholding material under clause 22(6) is that it would: “ (b) prejudice the entrusting of information to the Government of New Zealand on the basis of confidence by—(i) the government of another country or an agency of such a government;”. This means that not only does the New Zealand agency concerned have a veto over the release of the supposedly security-sensitive material but that all kinds of foreign agencies do, too. Take, for example, official material regarding the Viet Nam War or East Timor, where the New Zealand Government and its overseas allies did disgraceful and deceitful things that would be in the records. Such material would be embarrassing to release, both for the New Zealand foreign affairs ministry and for those of the United States and Australia—not to mention the embarrassment of the SIS and its overseas counterparts like the FBI, the CIA, and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I have seen historical material on East Timor withheld by our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade purely because it would embarrass the ministry and the Government of Indonesia.

Under clause 22(7) any deferral of deposit on security grounds can be renewed by a “responsible Minister”. The bill contains no specified period for which the deferral can be renewed, and no limit on the number of deferrals—and, of course, the SIS actually does keep rolling over the deferral of deposit of virtually all its archives in 25-year blocks. The Chief Archivist is shut right out of this process regarding material defined as security sensitive, even though we know—and I have given examples—that security agencies will misuse the security let-out in this bill. There has to be an independent look at whether security-sensitive material should be withheld from Archives. It could be done by the Chief Archivist or, as is proposed by the Australian Law Reform Commission, by a separate independent body that looks at classified materials to stop their being withheld illegitimately. The Australian Law Reform Commission also proposes that security-sensitive material be re-reviewed every 5 years.

On another matter, the committee had an interesting submission from historian Charlotte Macdonald, who was worried about the present destruction of census materials making it much more difficult for future historians to analyse the material in their own way. The fact that individuals’ personal details should not be disclosed—and this is right—does not mean that the census forms and all the information itself should be destroyed. The other challenge before us, Archives New Zealand, and the National Library that was mentioned by submitters is how to preserve digital records. We may have to discuss that matter further.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to support this bill. People have kept records since the days of the woolly mammoth, when pictures were etched into cave walls with a dab of paint administered by the finger of a successful hunter. If Dail Jones could cast his mind back to his early childhood, he would no doubt attest to that fact. The Public Records Bill will repeal the Archives Act of 1957 and the document and archival provisions of the Local Government Act 1974. The changes flowing from the bill are a reflection of the changes in technology, legislation, and record-keeping that have occurred in the last 47 years. The bill aims to improve the accountability of Government organisations, enhance democratic participation in government, and contribute to New Zealand’s national identity. Improved record-keeping practices will underpin those outcomes, and are seen to be an essential part of efficient government as they support the legal and administrative requirements of day-to-day operations. The policy implications arising from the bill are threefold: firstly, to create a framework to ensure that public records are appropriately managed, secondly, to achieve broad coverage of the activities of the Government within that framework, and, thirdly, to provide for the preservation of the accessibility of public archives.

The key recommendations by the Government Administration Committee were also threefold. The first was to strengthen the bill and require all public officers to create and maintain full and accurate records, by linking the requirement to create and maintain full and accurate records to prudent and normal business practice. In order to remove any possibility of misinterpretation, the second recommendation was to minimise the confusion amongst academics and students about the scope of the definition of “public record”. Submissions from some tertiary education institutions questioned whether universities could properly be regarded as part of the public sector, and their records as public records. The third recommendation was to provide for a fine of not exceeding $5,000 in the case of an individual or $10,000 in every other case. That will strengthen the current $2,000 ceiling, and satisfy the concern expressed by submitters that the penalties currently provided for in the bill are not adequate as a deterrent, and do not reflect the seriousness of any wilful or negligent act.

The increasing costs some members have talked about will certainly arise, but in the interests of our archival heritage they ought to be borne nevertheless. However, I will say this: there is a very good argument for asserting that if the Government imposes costs on individuals or institutions, perhaps it should also pay those costs. Unfortunately, that is something this bill does not properly address. I am also comfortable with the fact that material of commercial sensitivity will be withheld for at least 25 years. In most circumstances that is more than adequate, and it is a reasonable provision.

The bill is a very great step forward in implementing a much-needed update to the maintenance of our public records, and United Future wholeheartedly supports it.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): Firstly, I want to acknowledge our very informative visit to Archives New Zealand, and to thank the staff there for showing us around and for the lunch they put on. National appreciated that opportunity to see their operation.

National is not opposed to the keeping of records. What we are opposed to, and the reason why we are not supporting this bill—and that is in our minority report—is the inclusion of State-owned enterprises in the bill. We think that there is a clear demarcation between the role of a State-owned enterprise and what one would expect of a Government department. I think the question that needs to be answered quite clearly is whether the bill will enhance the operation of State-owned enterprises under the State-Owned Enterprises Act.

It is our view that this bill will erode the principal objectives of the State-Owned Enterprises Act. Section 4(1) of the Act states: “The principal objective of every State enterprise shall be to operate as a successful business and, to this end, to be—(a) As profitable and efficient as comparable businesses that are not owned by the Crown;”. That is the key objective of a State-owned enterprise. Yet this bill undermines that role because of the prescriptive nature of what will be required in terms of record-keeping. In fact, State-owned enterprises will be both operationally and financially disadvantaged as a result of this bill’s obligations, compared with private sector organisations that are not subject to such rigorous record-keeping and requirements.

A classic example that was given to us at the Government Administration Committee relates to the energy sector. We have two privately owned operators: Contact Energy, which operates geothermal power in the Taupo region; and TrustPower, which operates in the Bay of Plenty. Then on the other side we have three State-owned generators, two of which are in my electorate. In the North Island, Genesis Power operates the Huntly power station and Mighty River Power operates the dams on the Waikato River. Meridian Energy operates in the South Island. So there we have three State-owned enterprises in the energy sector that will have to compete with two private commercial entities. [Interruption] Well, members on the Government side have no understanding about commercial sensitivities and about how those businesses operate.

The point we make is that State-owned enterprises, which operate under the State-Owned Enterprises Act, will be compromised. It is quite clear they will be compromised. We heard from Meridian Energy, from Mighty River Power, and even from Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd—which also operates in the Piako electorate, with regard to coalmines—and they were very clear in their view that State-owned enterprises would be compromised.

Hon Marian Hobbs: How?

LINDSAY TISCH: The bill adversely reflects on the flexibility they will have in being able to contract and undertake business in the future.

It is our clear view that the role of State-owned enterprises is already clearly defined. The reporting procedures they have to carry out are quite intense now, and I point out to members that under existing law there are enhanced reporting requirements for them compared with private sector companies. They have to provide information to their shareholders, as outlined in their statements of corporate intent. That is a requirement. They are required to provide half-yearly reports to their shareholders within 2 months after the end of the first half of their financial year. Their shareholders, of course, are the Minister of Finance and the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, and they have to report quarterly to the shareholding Ministers.

Dianne Yates: They do in any case.

LINDSAY TISCH: That is the point I am making. They are already doing that sort of thing, so to have to keep records on top of that will add huge compliance costs, and it is unnecessary. In fact, there is no compliance cost impact statement in this bill, and the extra costs and the extra burdens will be quite excessive, unnecessarily.

I will finish on a couple of points about what State-owned enterprises are required to do. Members on the Government side do not actually know how the corporate sector works.

Phil Heatley: They don’t care.

LINDSAY TISCH: Correct—they do not care. They want to interrupt all the time, but they have never been involved in that sort of process.

State-owned enterprises must have a draft business plan for shareholders, provide half-yearly reports, annual reports, and auditors’ reports, and table their statement of corporate intent in the House of Representatives. Their financial performances and operations are scrutinised by select committees, and they have company and tax legislation reporting requirements, and requirements under the Official Information Act and the Ombudsmen Act, all of which fall into that regime. Further, State-owned enterprises are monitored by the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit, so that there are actually no surprises in the approach of that unit to State-owned enterprises.

National’s view is very clear. We are not opposed to record keeping, but we are opposed to the excessive burden that will be placed on State-owned enterprises when they are in the marketplace. They are there, as the State-Owned Enterprise Act states, to be competitive in their markets—especially the energy sector—but now all those extra requirements will be burdens on them in the way they do business. At the end of the day, costs will go up and consumers will pay, and that is the point we have already expressed.

So the question that needs to be asked is why all records and documents produced by commercial companies should be kept for 25 years, and we also question whether such records and documents produced by commercial companies are of such a nature to warrant placing them in the public archive. It is our view that State-owned enterprises, with all the other requirements currently placed on them, should be exempt from that requirement.

Another area, which has not been mentioned this morning, is in relation to the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act. I will quote from a document that was tabled at the select committee, because I think it shows just how stupid this whole thing will be. It states: “The Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act of 2004 has major implications for access to the following types of records.” It mentions a number of them, about 10, but I will not say what they are. It goes on: “The above records could potentially contain the names of peoples whose convictions have been clean-slated. We will not be able to allow access to them. The new Act means that people who currently have access letters can no longer view these records. Only records 100 years old or more remain open, except for all records of trials and punishments which have a blanket restriction, irrespective of age, under the Archives Act of 1957. People can obtain a transcript of an individual register entry less than 100 years old if it is their own record and they can provide photo ID, and if they can provide a copy of the death certificate of the person they are researching.”

So there we have an example under the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act. No one has mentioned before that some provisions of that Act will not be applicable and that some records will not be accessible, under this legislation. National is opposing this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Government Administration Committee by majority be agreed to.

Ayes 84

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

Noes 34

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 83

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

Noes 35

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Māori Party 1.

Bill read a second time.

Instruction to Committee

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Public Records Bill that it take the bill part by part.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

Part 1 Purpose, other preliminary provisions, and key administrative provisions

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

Ayes 83

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

Noes 35

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Māori Party 1.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Recordkeeping requirements

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): I want to speak to clause 17, “Requirement to create and maintain records”. I want to articulate further the reasons that I mentioned in the second reading debate as to why it is my view and National’s view that State-owned enterprises should be exempt from that requirement. Clause 17(2) states: “Every public office must maintain in an accessible form, so as to be able to be used for subsequent reference, all public records that are in its control, until their disposal …”. The definition of a public record includes records created or received by a public office in the conduct of its affairs. Clause 4 states a public record could be: “ … (without limitation) a document, a signature, a seal, text, images, sound, speech, or data compiled, recorded, or stored, as the case may be,—(a) in written form on any material; or (b) on film, negative, tape, or other medium so as to be capable of being reproduced; or (c) by means of any recording device or process, computer, or other electronic device or process”, or other electronic means. I suggest that when we look at the requirement under clause 17 that all public offices need to create and maintain full public records, we can see that it will be very difficult, in fact, for a State-owned enterprise to be able to comply with that.

Most State-owned enterprises work on the basis that when material comes in, if it is not necessary it is destroyed. In fact, the staff in State-owned enterprises are actually encouraged to get rid of material that is no longer relevant, is no longer of use, and cannot be used in the future. So, in relation to the requirement here to be able to maintain that material, I ask who is to say what will actually be required. Who is to make that determination? The point I have made about the commercial sensitivity of State-owned enterprises needs to be reiterated. State-owned enterprises have a commercial focus; that is what they were set up to have. The State-Owned Enterprises Act, which I referred to in the second reading, is very clear. State-owned enterprises are commercial businesses that are not focused on public policy-setting. Their activities have limited short, medium, or long-term public interest. That is how they were designed to be set up. The bill already recognises that there is a need for flexibility for local authorities. The bill actually allows that, as they have a degree of autonomy from central government, and a community, rather than a national, focus. State-owned enterprises have greater autonomy than local authorities and are further removed from the public arena, yet this bill actually constrains them. So on the one hand there is greater flexibility for local authorities, but on the other hand, however, State-owned enterprises are brought in and will be constrained.

It is National’s view that when we are talking about commercial operations, there will be some commercial risk associated with the storing and release of material, even though it will be released after a period of time. The point is that the Chief Archivist is not able to waive the requirement to create and maintain records. There is actually no discretion in that provision, whereas we are saying that it should never have been included in the first place. We are very concerned about clause 17 because of the requirement to create and maintain records, which we believe is not necessary for State-owned enterprises.

Clause 27 is another clause that we had great difficulty with—and there were certainly submissions on it. That clause looks at what the Chief Archivist can do, and on looking through it I see that there are no checks and balances on the archivist. Nothing in that clause controls what the Chief Archivist does. Subclause (3) states: “The Chief Archivist must ensure that every standard issued under this section is published in a manner that the Chief Archivist considers appropriate.” Well, when we look at that requirement, who do we see actually controlling and overseeing the archivist? Where are the checks and balances that will be required under that particular subclause? There is absolutely no accountability there at all.

Dianne Yates: At this stage?

LINDSAY TISCH: Well, we argued that issue at the time, and we are not convinced that there have been any changes that allow us to have confidence that the position will be safeguarded, particularly for State-owned enterprises.

If we look at clause 29, “Inspection powers”, we see there is a requirement for some modifications to be made for local records and local authority archives. I do not know what those modifications will be. Clause 33 is where the compliance costs have come in, and I mentioned earlier that there is no compliance cost impact statement in this bill. There will be huge compliance costs associated with this legislation, yet there is no compliance cost impact statement. Clause 33(2) states: “The Chief Archivist must commission and meet the costs …” of an independent audit of record-keeping practices in every public office. But there will be other costs. My question is: who is to pay for those? Well, I tell members that it will be the organisation that is required to keep the record. There are huge compliance costs there. When we look at the financial reviews, I will ask the departments that come before the Government Administration Committee how much it will cost them to comply with the provisions of this legislation, where there is to be an independent audit of the record-keeping practices of every public office. It will be an interesting exercise over the next 12 months just to see the extra compliance costs that will be associated with that.

Those are the points that National has concerns about, and we mentioned them in our minority report. The reason National is not voting for the bill is that we are not satisfied that the answers that were given, in particular regarding the issues pertaining to State-owned enterprises, have been adequately covered. For that reason, National is opposing this bill.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand): I just want to take up a few issues that have been raised by the National Party in the last wee while. National’s concern is that State-owned enterprises are being treated differently from private enterprises. That is absolutely correct—they are State-owned. This is a matter of the public record of the State. I think it is a tremendous shame to New Zealand’s history that when the Bank of New Zealand became privatised those records were lost. When the railways were sold those records were lost. That was our history of New Zealand. That was a history of many people’s lives and it was lost. There is no intention that the history of the State-owned enterprises—of hydroelectricity and its development in New Zealand—is to be lost, if we are to have any pride in the fact of how we manage power in this country, and I could go on.

Mr Lindsay Tisch raised a point, and he used a lovely phrase. He said: “Businesses like to get rid of material that is no longer relevant.” Now the difference between a private business and a State business is that the State determines that the State’s story is relevant, and it is relevant for generations to come because the State business is not just about making profit. Yes, it is about being profitable and efficient, but it is also a State business, and it is important that its story remains to be told. Who will determine what gets kept? Obviously, that is the job of the Chief Archivist.

We have been doing an extraordinary amount of work in actually bringing up this whole philosophy again and putting it into the minds of State services through the practice of having a continuing education programme called Continuum. That programme has been really positively accepted by State servants, and all power to the archivists who have been treated as a little branch tucked off at the side, but whose job is so important that they are now accepted and understood. Their work has been taken on by public servants and, as we will see, it will be taken on by State-owned enterprises.

Mr Tisch also raised the point that there are no checks or balances on the Chief Archivist. I remind Mr Tisch that in a Westminster democracy—be it the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, or even, I think, Canada—a chief archivist is a statutory officer. The archivist must stay within the objectives of the legislation. As such, in the archivist’s report to the Parliament, if the parliamentary committee thinks the archivist is not staying within the objectives of the Acts, then that is where the power of Parliament lies. It does not lie with the State Services Commissioner and certainly not with the Minister. If the Minister starts to interfere with which records should be kept and which records should be destroyed, we will not have a safe public record.

I really wanted to make those points clear. I do not see how there will be any additional costs where a business is keeping good records. I would also remind the National Party that I cannot see the huge problems of competition being troubled by a decision made 25 years ago that has now become public in the august debates of today. What happened in 1980 truly does not affect the market in electricity in 2005.

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

Ayes 83

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

Noes 35

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Māori Party 1.

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3 Public access

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

Ayes 83

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

Noes 35

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Māori Party 1.

Part 3 agreed to.

Part 4 Appeal process and miscellaneous provisions

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

Ayes 83

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

Noes 35

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Māori Party 1.

Part 4 agreed to.

Schedule

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

Ayes 83

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

Noes 35

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Māori Party 1.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

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

Ayes 83

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

Noes 35

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Māori Party 1.

Clause 1 agreed to.

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

Ayes 83

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

Noes 35

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Māori Party 1.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand): I move, That the Public Records Bill be now read a third time. This bill will repeal the Archives Act and the document and archives provisions of the Local Government Act 1974. At this point I note that the Hon Michael Cullen tried to amend this Act the last time he was in Cabinet. This has had a long gestation. The amendment to that Act is almost an archival gestation. However, we are here.

This bill will improve the standard of Government record-keeping across the wider public sector. An improvement in record-keeping improves the accountability of Government organisations, enhances democratic participation in government, and contributes to New Zealand’s national identity. If anyone thinks that State-owned enterprises are somehow away from being accountable, talk about that with the Waikato people who are so concerned about the possible actions of one State-owned enterprise. They will want to know how accountable that enterprise is to their livelihoods.

Record-keeping is an essential part of efficient government as it supports day-to-day operational, legal, and administrative requirements. Information is a valuable resource, and good management of it through record-keeping is simply good business practice. Taken together, and over time, those records ensure that accountability, participation, and national identity are advanced to the benefit of all New Zealanders. I stress again that record-keeping is simply good business practice. Often we are accused by the other side of somehow not understanding those business practices. If one talks to people in business, the difference is that they will destroy a record, not keep it. If they keep the records in the first place, it is the archiving of those records. There is no extra cost in that particular job.

The role of the Chief Archivist, which is to assist public offices and local authorities to achieve good record-keeping, has been strengthened in the legislation. She will be able to set standards across the public sector, including mandatory standards that will ensure that the key outcomes are achieved. Reporting and auditing provisions in the bill provide more information on record-keeping, which will enable a more effective assessment of how public offices are meeting their accountability requirements. The independence of the Chief Archivist, when making disposal decisions, has been continued from the Archives Act, which is an important check on the powers of Government officials. I really understand and respond to the comments that have been made by a previous archivist that there may well be a stalemate—a matter raised by the Green Party. This is a question of working with people to achieve, in the end, a mediated solution.

An advisory body, the Archives Council, will be established to work with the Chief Archivist, and will include two members with in-depth knowledge of tikanga Māori. This council will provide me with independent advice concerning record-keeping matters.

The bill also clarifies the relationship between archives legislation and the Official Information Act. Again, the Official Information Act is that additional safety for individuals, who can apply to the Ombudsman—as was stated in the Hugh Price case—to have those records released.

This bill confirms and extends the coverage of the Archives Act to State enterprises, local authorities, and all Crown entities, including tertiary education institutions. This will mean that full and accurate records are required to be created in all areas where public resources are used. This will enhance the accountability for such spending, both for agencies to the Government and for the Government to the people. The flexibility of using a framework allied to the standards issued by the Chief Archivist enables the single piece of legislation to stretch across all the activities within the public sector. This will ensure that the needs of people and Governments for records are met by using an appropriate and effective process.

A full and accurate record of government—one that is preserved over the long term—is very important for future generations of New Zealanders. They will be able to see how and why Governments made particular decisions, and how Government agencies implemented those decisions. They will be able to see the recording of, and the protection for, individual rights and entitlements, and, where necessary, those records will be able to right old wrongs. They will also be able to see how their families and whānau interacted with the Government. The records give us crucial evidence about who we are and how we came to be as a nation.

At this point, I want to say that I find it rather sad the Māori party is not supporting this legislation. It is extremely important in terms of righting old wrongs. An important outcome of this bill is that we continue to preserve this story of government, of individuals, of communities, and of New Zealand, for our future generations.

Again I would like to thank the select committee, and Dianne Yates, the chair, for their amendments, which have aided the clarity of the bill. I know that the archives and record-keeping communities of New Zealand have been waiting some time for new legislation, and will warmly welcome this bill’s enactment. This is a very special day for a very special New Zealand community that is dedicated both to keeping our story alive and to accountability.

I also want to pay special thanks to a colleague. Even as a history student, archives were not something that I was much aware of, but in the Deputy Prime Minister we have a friend of the archival community. When he entrusted this job to me, he helped me along the way as we sorted through the issues around archives. There are many in the archives community today who will join with me in thanking Dr Michael Cullen, who has finally—through me—been able to give birth to this legislation. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): There is only one issue in this bill that National has contention with, and I have articulated it very, very clearly. That is the issue of State-owned enterprises being included in the scope of the bill. We have no problem with Archives New Zealand. I am very impressed with what I saw during our visit there. I echo the views and the comments by the Minister about the role that Archives New Zealand plays. However, when it comes to looking at including State-owned enterprises in the scope of the bill, that is the difficulty we have. There is a direct conflict between the State-Owned Enterprises Act and the archives bill.

Let me state clearly, again, that section 4 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act states: “(1) The principal objective of every State enterprise shall be to operate as a successful business and, to this end, to be—(a) As profitable and efficient as comparable businesses that are not owned by the Crown;”. That is the key. We are now going to require extra burdens and accountabilities that are already covered in the list of requirements that State-owned enterprises have to go through before the scrutiny of this House anyway. This is an extra component and an extra compliance cost that is not necessary. Holding State-owned enterprises to the same degree of obligation as central government agencies confuses the identity of State-owned enterprises, and their role in the public and private spheres.

The commentary states that the policy underlining the bill is concerned with Government accountability, the enhancement of democratic participation in government, and the preservation of important public archives that contribute to New Zealand’s national identity. That is great. I have no difficulty with that at all. We support that. This being the case, it is areas of Government influence only for which recording and archiving obligations should be necessary. That is the difference between our position and the Government’s position on this legislation. Given those few points National, unfortunately, cannot support the inclusion of State-owned enterprises in this bill.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): I thank the Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand once again for her comments on the Public Records Bill. The Government Administration Committee was pleased to work on the bill, which is about the history of New Zealand, and about the necessity of keeping good and accurate records of what happens in this country. As the Minister mentioned, archives have been a wonderful source for researchers and those who have been writing and researching the history of this country. It is up to us to secure and maintain records, and to keep them in a modern and accessible way. It was a pleasure to work on this legislation.

I think the member opposite Lindsay Tisch is tilting at windmills. I certainly hope the records kept of State-owned enterprises will show a good deal about windmills, power, and the role of State-owned enterprises in generating the energy of this country. Let us hope the windmills do show up in the history of New Zealand.

He also mentioned the issue of the accountability of the Chief Archivist. I refer him to other parts of the legislation that provide for appeals to be made if people do not agree with decisions of the Chief Archivist. There are certainly checks and balances, and audit checks, on the Chief Archivist, and the select committee did rewrite and tighten up some of those clauses.

I thank my fellow members on the select committee. I particularly also want to thank the staff of Archives New Zealand, who arranged for us to visit their facilities to show us how records are kept—particularly the very old records, including copies of the Treaty of Waitangi and the New Zealand coat of arms. It was very interesting to view Archives New Zealand, and to realise how important those records are for this country, how important it is that they are well kept, safe, and in modern conditions, and also how important it is to develop computerised records, which will enable better access for New Zealanders to those records. Once again, I issue a big thankyou to everybody who has been involved with this legislation. I commend it to the House and to the public.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): I will take a brief call on the third reading of the Public Records Bill. New Zealand First supports the bill.

To be in Opposition is also to be responsible. It is quite specious to oppose the bill for one trifling issue, which has not even been accurately stated by the National Party. State-owned enterprises have to keep records, because they are in business. After 25 years, those records can be made available. I was in Parliament 25 years ago, in 1980, and I cannot even remember what we debated then. [Interruption] Yes, one or two members might not have been born at that stage. To say that something that was done commercially 25 years ago by a State-owned enterprise, by an organisation that has Government input, should not be released is really trifling with the House. It shows the irresponsible nature of the National Party in Opposition. New Zealand First is in Opposition. We want to be in Opposition responsibly, and any responsible Opposition should support a bill of which 99.9 percent is required by New Zealand if we are to maintain ourselves as a civilised society.

I touched on the Māori aspects of this legislation at the second reading. I was staggered that the Māori Party should vote against this bill. There was slight confusion when the vote was taken on the second reading, but it has become clear that the Māori Party opposes it. How can anyone in New Zealand—European, Māori, Chinese, or whatever—oppose legislation that relates to the history of New Zealand? I would have expected the Māori Party especially to let us know why it opposes a bill that states in clause 3: “The purposes of this Act are—…(f) to encourage the spirit of partnership and goodwill envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi …”. We are not talking about partnership; we are talking about the spirit of partnership, and the Māori Party opposes this bill. Clause 7 has a lengthy exposition on the Treaty of Waitangi: “In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the Treaty of Waitangi …”, followed by four different paragraphs, and the Māori Party opposes it. I would have expected the Māori Party to take a call to explain why it opposes this legislation. I am very disappointed; that, after all, is what we are paid to do—to be here and explain our views. I would have expected the Māori Party to do just that, in the same way that New Zealand First is doing.

We in New Zealand First are here for the future. This bill is taking us into the future. We have heard today about an education policy that will take us into the past. I have seen Rod Oram’s article in the Sunday Star-Times that discussed a certain political party’s economic policy, which will take it into the past. We in New Zealand First are here for the future. Together with the people of New Zealand, we can achieve things, and we are doing that in supporting this bill today.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Records Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 83

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

Noes 35

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Māori Party 1.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. The bill, with amendments moved by the Law and Order Committee, updates the sexual offence provisions of the Crimes Act. In particular, it introduces the principle of gender neutrality; makes sexual connection, rather than sexual intercourse, the basis of most sexual offences; and improves the law’s protection of vulnerable groups from sexual exploitation.

Ensuring that sex offences are expressed and applied in a gender-neutral manner meets the fundamental principle that everyone should be equal before the law. The one exception to gender neutrality in the redrafting of the law is the retention of the offence of rape as a category of sexual violation. Submissions to the bill were divided over that issue. In the absence of any consensus, the majority on the committee has recommended continuation of the status quo, whereby rape remains as a male on female offence and as a separate category of sexual violation. Both I and the committee, however, accept that all unlawful sexual connections have as serious a consequence for victims as rape as traditionally defined, regardless of their gender or the gender of the offender. All such offences are subject to the same penalty under law, and they should be treated by our courts as equally serious in terms of the sentences imposed.

New section 98AA, inserted by clause 6, is headed: “Dealing in people under 18 for sexual exploitation, removal of body parts, or engagement in forced labour”. That offence has been created to facilitate New Zealand’s compliance with the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. Amendments recommended by the committee further clarify what sexual exploitation means for the purposes of that provision, so that the offence does not impact, for example, on artistic or cultural performances or on medical or health education and information matters. The amendments also provide a defence when the defendant can demonstrate a belief on reasonable grounds that the other party was over 18 years old. An amendment that the under-age person cannot be charged as a party to the offence ensures that the ability to prosecute older offenders is not compromised by persons under the age of 16 being exposed to criminal prosecution. That avoids those people being pressured by the risk of prosecution into not pursuing a complaint.

Section 131, inserted by clause 7, deals with sexual conduct with a dependent family member. It is designed to provide protection for young persons from sexual abuse within the family, and to promote the family as a sanctuary in which young people can grow up without being subjected to such abuse. That clause has been strengthened by not requiring the Crown to prove that the young person consented, or that the defendant knew that the family member consented, to the sexual conduct because of the defendant’s use of power or authority. The committee’s recommendation also clarifies the boundaries of the offence by qualifying the phrase “if they are living together in the same household;” to mean persons living in the same household as members of the family. Recommendations further require the person to have a responsibility for, or a significant role in, his or her care and upbringing. That will ensure that the offence cannot be applied, for example, to flatmates.

In respect of sexual conduct with a young person aged under 16, the bill significantly toughens the law. The loophole protecting women against being charged with sexual offending against children is removed, and women can now be liable to prosecution for predatory conduct. The penalty for sex with a young person aged 12 to 16 is significantly toughened, with the maximum term of imprisonment increasing from 7 to 10 years. The current 12-month time limit within which a person having sex with an under-16-year-old can be prosecuted is repealed.

The targets of those changes are those who behave in a predatory way towards those under the age of consent, rather than teenagers of a similar age in a consenting relationship. No one believes that prison sentences are an appropriate response in the latter situation; in fact, police as well as schools and parents have rarely sought to bring prosecutions when a sexual relationship is between two young people of a similar age. Many Western countries, including Canada and states in Australia and the United States, actually include a defence of similarity of age. However, because of the intense politicisation surrounding this issue, which wrongly portrayed that defence as lowering the age of consent, that provision has now been removed from the bill. That avoids any misconstruing of that defence as condoning under-age sexual relationships. As prosecutions are not sought in those situations, that should make little or no difference in practice.

Better provision is made in the bill to protect persons whose mental health condition and/or physical or intellectual impairments may mean they are vulnerable to unwanted sexual advances. The current provisions are inadequate. They rely on an outdated definition of mental subnormality. They apply to certain types of sexual contact only, and there is no allowance for consensual sexual relations with or between those persons. The difficulty was in finding a workable balance between the rights of persons with impairments to express themselves emotionally and physically and to make decisions about their lives, and protecting persons who are likely to be vulnerable. The proposed offence is framed around the notion of exploiting a person’s vulnerability in order to engage in sexual activity. The aim is to focus on exploitative conduct, so that the law does not catch situations where a person with these disabilities wishes to have a genuinely consensual sexual relationship with another person. The committee clarified that the Crown will be required to prove only that the accused had sexual connection with an impaired person by taking advantage of the impairment. The committee also agreed to expand “significant impairment” to include impairment to the victim’s capacity to understand the nature of sexual conduct.

Finally, in the Committee of the whole House I will be proposing by way of a Supplementary Order Paper a new offence dealing with what is termed as “sexual grooming” of any under-16-year-old. In particular, I thank Marc Alexander of United Future, who raised this issue with me and helped the Government in advancing the legislation. This offence will extend the protection of young people from sexual predators, by covering situations where a person contacts and arranges to meet a child—for example, over the Internet—with the intention of sexually abusing him or her.

I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty): I seek leave that Government order of the day No. 12 be discharged and that the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred back to the Law and Order Committee for further consideration.

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

Hon TONY RYALL: The National Party opposes this bill. There has been insufficient public involvement in, and discussion of, many of the bill’s proposals. Major changes are being made to the rules around “sexual conduct”, with minimum public consultation. The bill provides significant changes affecting consent and sexual activity involving minors, family members, and people with particular disabilities. The National Party fears that because of this insufficient consideration the bill may lead to serious unintended consequences and risk disturbing settled case law and legal concepts, and believes this could have been avoided if the select committee had spent more time on the bill.

We are also concerned about the politically correct agenda that promotes part of this legislation. Official documents show that the Government’s advisers wanted to legalise brother-sister sexual relationships for those over 20.

Opposition Members: Oh, no!

Hon TONY RYALL: Official documents show that the Government’s advisers wanted to legalise brother-sister sexual relationships for those over 20, and they also suggested that this might mean that a pregnancy arising out of a brother-sister sexual relationship would no longer be grounds for a lawful abortion.

This is part of a politically correct agenda that has colonised the public service under the Labour Party. Fortunately, those proposals did not make it into the bill. I do not know why Mr Goff and the Government would allow such a proposal even to be considered. With Labour, anything goes. Ask Mr Tamihere! I ask the House whether it is prepared to have this legislation, which was not sufficiently considered by the select committee, go through the House knowing that the people who advise the Government wanted to legalise brother-sister sexual relationships for those over 20.

Hon Phil Goff: Not in the bill. It was rejected.

Hon TONY RYALL: Is the Parliament sufficiently confident to know that? It may not be in the bill, but why did Mr Goff approve the release of the discussion paper?

Hon Phil Goff: Because it was an issue.

Hon TONY RYALL: Oh, because it was an issue! The fact is that this Minister approved the release of a discussion paper showing that the Government’s advisers wanted to legalise brother-sister sexual relationships for those over 20, and he did not rule it out.

The National Party and the public forced this Minister to drop his controversial similar-age defence for under-age sexual activity, and this would have given a defence where there was consensual sexual activity between 12 to 15-year-olds. Officials advised the select committee on 19 March that this defence would have “effectively decriminalised some under-age sexual conduct but is seen as the best option”. This proposal was opposed by mainstream families, the Law Society, Crown Law, the Chief Justice, and the Commissioner for Children. It was supported by Phil Goff, the Labour Cabinet, the AIDS Foundation, the Ministry of Social Development, and Te Puni Kōkiri.

The bill proposes penalties for sexual conduct with a dependent family member under the age of 18. The equivalent existing provision is, however, for the age of 20. The Government’s proposals mean that it will no longer be an offence for foster parents to have consensual sexual conduct with their 18-year-old foster child, for whom they have cared for many years. It would be more appropriate, in our view, to maintain the prohibition until age 20 to allow sufficient time to lapse and the dependant’s relationship to wane. The Government is passing “sexual grooming” amendments, which we support, but this provision grants an immunity to such groomers if they live with the victim. Most submitters wanted 20 years, but the Government dropped the age to 18 to be consistent with the—wait for it—Care of Children Bill. This clause could lead judges to a much wider—unintended—view of dependent family members when one considers the differing cultural perspectives on the role of the wider family in child rearing.

The commentary on the bill states that a person is a dependent family member of another person “if they are members of the same family, whanau or other culturally recognised family group … that has a responsibility for … his or her care or upbringing.” I think this could lead to some unintended consequences. In fact, officials themselves were confused. One described a whānau as: “people who live on a marae”. The bill proposes a far-reaching “reasonable belief” defence for sexual conduct for all people over 12. If a person believed that the other person was 16 or over, and that person had taken reasonable steps to obtain the age of the person, and the conduct was consensual, then a defence would apply. Currently, a similar provision exists only for an accused under 21. At present, a 45-year-old man has no defence in law for sexual conduct with a 15-year-old girl. Under the bill’s proposals he will have a defence in law, provided he reasonably believed she was 16 or older, and, for example, checked her—false—ID.

No committee consideration was given to alternatives for addressing the “genuine mistake” situation that the Government wanted to fix. Nor has there been sufficient discussion in the public about the merits or otherwise of the effect of this far-reaching proposal on protecting young people from predatory behaviour. In fact, official papers show that Ministers themselves did not even want to do this, until they were told it would be against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act if they did not.

At present it is a crime to have sexual intercourse with a woman or girl who is “severely subnormal”. In seeking to modernise this provision the bill risks creating confusion and uncertainty through new and unproven wording. The Law Society, in particular, warned of a “forensic lottery” as judges are confronted with arcane evidence from opposed camps of experts attempting to argue concepts like “understanding the nature and consequence of sexual conduct”. We do not believe that the proposed amendments will do anything to remedy this. Indeed, officials advising the committee suggested leaving it to the courts to address the issue.

Whereas “consent” has a settled meaning in common law, the bill deems certain conduct as not amounting to consent. Concern was raised by submitters as to the lack of precision of some of these subclauses. For example, submissions noted that certain types of drugs associated with drug rape can lead to persons appearing completely in control and rational, and that they may consent to sex in situations where they would normally withhold consent. The definition of what is not consent risks causing more confusion than clarity.

The National Party opposes this bill. There are parts of it that we support, but we believe that the matters we have raised in our report are sufficient to say to Parliament that this bill should be referred back to the select committee. We heard earlier from Mr Tamihere that this Government is very good at changing one word to change the entire intent of a piece of legislation. We think that this bill should be referred back to the select committee. We do not think that Parliament should be rushing the passing of this legislation when we consider the politically correct agenda that is behind much of what has gone on in this paper. The Minister approved the release of a discussion paper that would decriminalise sexual activity between 12 and 16-year-olds and put it the bill. The Minister approved the release of a Government discussion paper that would have legalised some brother-sister sexual activity when those parties are over the age of 20. Fortunately, sound minds in Government departments and agencies across the country said that this was ridiculous, and even the Ministry of Justice wrote that it is not likely that this would be consistent with public opinion.

I have to tell the House that in no way is it what the public wants, and, fortunately, it was removed from the bill. But the fact is that the PC agenda that has colonised the public service under Labour is alive and well in this bill, and should be sufficient reason for this Parliament to send this bill back to the select committee to be sorted out.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): I think that the previous speaker loves to latch on to anything that is lascivious in each little piece of legislation. He said that the matters he referred to were withdrawn from the bill—they were never in the bill. They were never in the draft bill and they were never in the final bill that went to the Law and Order Committee.

I have from time to time sat on the select committee, which gave long and careful consideration to some very delicate issues, about which there are some long and complex case studies. I particularly want to speak on the area of consent, because the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) has incorporated a member’s bill I had had before the House on the issue of drug rape.

I commend the select committee and the officials. My member’s bill was a short bill on consent, of basically one sentence. That has now been transferred into at least 2 pages in the bill, and defines the areas of consent. It states that people cannot consent to sexual activity if they are asleep, unconscious, or so affected by alcohol or drugs that they are unable to refuse or to give consent. It refers to those who are affected by an intellectual, mental, or physical condition, and it refers to mistaken identity. I will concede that it gives a much better definition of consent, and one that is more likely to guide the courts in the area of rape than the present law. Many and varied opinions were received on that.

One of the difficulties in many of these crimes is that they are witnessless crimes. Nobody is there to see what happens and to give evidence, and we rely on individual cases coming to court. We rely on the evidence of the victims and those who are before the courts. Those cases are very difficult and often about very delicate areas, and much case law has informed the select committee. Having sat on that committee at various times, I know that it agonised and worked backwards and forwards, over and over, in rewording and reworking to try to get the best decisions and the best wording that would stand up in court.

I commend the legislation to the House, but I am very, very wary of those people who want to make political points about other people’s misfortunes. What we have to ensure is the safety of New Zealanders of all ages, and that is the intention of this bill. It concentrates on the safety of young people and of people who might fall foul of others. So I commend the second reading of the bill to the House and look forward to its progress.

RON MARK (NZ First): I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on this bill. As my colleague Dail Jones has already said earlier today, New Zealand First has, on a number of occasions, reaffirmed the view that whilst in Opposition we seek to be responsible and support legislation that we think is good and, overall, to the betterment of the country’s well-being, and oppose legislation that we believe does not advantage New Zealanders at all.

This bill is a mix of both. Its overall intent is meritorious. It is probably appropriate to congratulate Dianne Yates, whom I have described before in this House as probably the luckiest MP in the place, given the number of members’ bills she has had drawn out of the ballot. I congratulate her on the work she did with her member’s bill, and on the part she played in seeing her legislation incorporated in the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), as her Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill was passed over. The issue she sought to deal with is one that New Zealanders are increasingly becoming worried about, concerned about, and angry about, particularly in this day and age when certain politicians in this House chose to lower the drinking age, and put more young women at risk in nightclubs and bars where the doping of drinks with party drugs regularly occurs. Such acts are carried out by despicable men who quite clearly do not have a social life and find that the only way they can actually get a relationship with a woman is to drug her into a state of unconsciousness, then take advantage of her. New Zealand First abhors that sort of behaviour, and would like to see these people reduced to what they actually are—and that is nothing more than pet food—and disposed of. But, of course, the only way we can do that is with this legislation, by ensuring that the penalties are there for the justice system to be able to deal with them. This bill reflects Dianne Yates’ concerns, and appropriately incorporates the necessary changes to the Crimes Act.

But this bill also stands as a testament to what John Tamihere said. Do members remember John Tamihere? He said that men’s problems are dealt with by the criminal justice system, and that women—and I will try to quote him as accurately as I can—“get a bloody Cartwright inquiry and millions of dollars thrown at their breasts and cervixes.” That was what he said, and the one thing that stands out in this bill is that the politically correct, feminist, sisterhood brigade that is alive and well—and which John Tamihere spoke of so vehemently and passionately—decided in the Labour caucus to keep rape as purely a crime that can be committed only against women. That is amazing, given the Labour members of the select committee who disagreed with that.

The Greens said that rape is a crime whether it be committed against a woman or a man. For every woman who can tell us how violated a woman feels by rape, it is just as possible to find a man—we need only visit some of our prisons—who feels precisely the same way about being violated. The Greens argued that rape should be defined as a crime against a man or a woman, New Zealand First argued the same point, United Future argued the same point, the Labour caucus members who were on the select committee agreed on the same point, and National agreed on it, yet they were overrun by the very women in the Labour caucus whom John Tamihere so aptly described.

That is an indictment, and is clear evidential proof of what John Tamihere was saying about his own colleagues. It is clear evidential proof of what John Tamihere said so publicly, so vehemently, and so forcefully to the nation about the women in his own caucus. They despise men. They hate men. They do not like men. They spend every day they are breathing, thinking of ways in which they can denigrate men and put them in their place. This is one little victory they have scored. Rape, by legal definition in this day and age, should be recognised as a crime that can be committed against a man or a woman.

Judith Collins: Men can be victims.

RON MARK: Men can be victims, and it would be nice if some of the women in the Labour caucus—I am meant to say “wimmin” to be politically correct in this day and age—would accept that, or come out of the closet and tell the country why they do not. It is sad.

At the select committee we worked closely together, struggling to come to terms with some of the very complex and detailed issues. The Hon Tony Ryall was quite correct when he said that this bill should have had more consultation. New Zealand First stated in its minority report: “Whilst the aim and intent of the bill is meritorious, New Zealand First believes that the vast majority of the concerns expressed in the minority views of National, the Greens, and United Future are valid and as such, New Zealand First is disappointed that the Government did not accept the need for wider community and legal consultation.” We cannot be fairer than that. We are saying here that the Government is trying to do the right thing. We are saying that it has recognised and identified some issues that must be dealt with. But what we are also saying here is that it is damn arrogant.

The Labour Government is arrogant because it believes it has all the answers to everything. Despite what it says out there on the hustings about being a broad church and being inclusive and committed to consultation, the one thing that this Government just did, not 10 or 15 minutes ago, was deny the opportunity to have this bill referred back to the select committee for further discussion. How can Helen Clark tell the nation that she is a believer in a broad church and wide community consultation while her Minister Phil Goff turns down and rejects such a proposal? How can Labour members say that they do respect men, they respect the views of men, they recognise crimes against men, and that John Tamihere is wrong, when they sit there and jealously hold on to one definition so that rape is a crime against women only? They ignore the fact that they have just passed legislation legalising same-sex marriages, and that within those same-sex marriages a situation may well be happening now, or have happened yesterday, or might happen tomorrow, where one homosexual man rapes his partner. But, of course, it is not rape, because Jill Pettis says that men cannot rape men.

Jill Pettis: When did I say that? I have not opened my mouth.

RON MARK: The member is saying that by voting for it. She is saying that by what she said in her caucus. She is saying that by endorsing every one of the other Labour women who rejected the pleas of Mahara Okeroa and Georgina Beyer, who said that the definition should be broadened. The Labour women—

Jill Pettis: Oh, you’re jealous of us.

RON MARK: Jealous of them! Well, that is one for the books, is it not? John Tamihere just about summed it all up.

There is one other area I will touch on. The Minister said that the bill takes into account a United Nations convention that seeks to provide protection against child exploitation and child prostitution. How rich is that, given that we have child prostitutes walking the streets in Christchurch? Ever since this Government decriminalised prostitution, it has not done one thing to get those child prostitutes off Manchester Street. There has not been one prosecution. Not one man has been convicted. A task force team has not been put together. This is a Government that talks about protecting children and stopping the exploitation of young women; that talks about preventing children from going into prostitution; that signs up to a United Nations protocol, enshrines it into this legislation, and expects to be applauded and patted on the back for it; yet turns a blind eye to the child prostitution that is going on in its own streets in Auckland, Christchurch, and Wellington. It has done nothing about that whatsoever. There is a word for that. We cannot use it in this House. It applies to so many of the things the Government has allowed to happen in this Chamber.

It is with regret that New Zealand First has to criticise the Government on these points. We will support the legislation by voting for it. We will seek amendments in the Committee stage, and we hope that the Government will be true to its word, that it will listen and work with other parties and recognise that it does not have a franchise on what is right and on intelligence.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): The Green Party is pleased to see the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) back in the House today, and we will be supporting it through all its stages. It is the sort of legislation that deserves, and I hope will get, cross-party support right across the House, dealing as it does with some really sensitive but unavoidable issues around rape, incest, and other forms of sexual offending.

The genesis of the bill lay partly with Dianne Yates’ member’s bill on drug rape. I would like to acknowledge her, as others have done, for her role in helping to push her own Government further, not only to improve on her original bill and to extend it as needed but also to take the extra steps necessary to update the original 1961 Crimes Act for our 21st century mores and realities.

The Green Party also notes Minister Phil Goff’s very recently introduced Supplementary Order Paper, which creates the offence of sexual grooming as part of this bill. We will support that, as well, given that it has become such an inescapable and recognisable part of the pattern of behaviour of paedophile offenders.

Sadly, sexual violence and offending of all sorts continue to be a problem of significant proportions in our society. In its submission to the select committee, the Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation suggested that research shows that up to one in four girls may have had an unwanted sexual experience before the age of 12, that one in seven boys may have had such an experience before the age of 16, and that around one in 16 women may be sexually assaulted each year. Just from my own experience of life, I am also aware that far more women, and for that matter, men, have been raped in some way than ever becomes known in either the public or private arena. Even though support services and police awareness are much better now than when I was young—thank goodness—I believe that the vast majority of victims still go unrecognised and unsupported, thus sustaining lifelong trauma.

The Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation and other submitters noted the way in which reporting rates remain low. One international research project found that maybe one in 10 survivors makes a formal report, while a local project found only one in seven victims had ever reported sexual violence against him or her to an official body of any sort. It is clear that even now the cases that make it to the courts are still the very small tip of a very large iceberg.

At least in improving this legislation, as we are doing here today, I sincerely hope that we will be widening and strengthening the ability of the police to prosecute, and the courts to convict, on a broader range of sexual offending than currently applies. We still live in a society where all too many people, particularly men, think that date rape or taking advantage of people when they are drunk or under the influence of drugs, or because they have asked for it, so to speak, is still OK.

Unfortunately, we have even a number of adults who still think it is acceptable to have sexual relations with children—related to them or not. That is despite the societal and religious norms, shared by all of us, that abhor such behaviour. I am glad that this bill strengthens the laws against incest, the last great taboo. It remains a taboo partly because of the code of silence around it, but unfortunately it remains a living reality for all too many children and young people.

The existing Act is too narrowly focused. We support the widening of the crime of incest to become gender-neutral and to recognise that all children and young people need protection from exploitation from older family members who have power over them. The Greens certainly do not share National’s concerns over definitions of family in that respect. It is an extremely complex area, and I think the new bill does a good job of trying to modernise and to define more clearly the range of possible relationships involved.

Another area of the bill in which I have taken a particular interest is that which deals with sexual offending in relation to disabled people. I have totally supported Government moves to recognise the right and ability of people with impairments to make their own informed sexual choices, while at the same time recognising that they can be particularly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.

I am glad that the majority of the select committee saw fit to agree with the CCS submission that the use of the word “severe”, in that part of the bill as originally drafted, was inappropriate. That kind of negative value judgment comes from an era in which service providers, and the families of people with intellectual disabilities in particular, felt that they had a right to control and determine every aspect of people’s sex lives. It is good that we are finally moving beyond that, and I congratulate organisations like People First, IHC, and CCS on the courageous steps they have taken in this area, including their influencing and informing the amendments we are making today.

However, despite the Green Party’s overall support for this legislation, there is one area where I, like other members in this House, think it has not gone far enough—that is, in relation to the definition of rape. In putting the bill forward, the Government stated that its purpose in making reforms in that area was to ensure that the law relating to sexual offences reflected changes in social attitudes, that the law should be streamlined as much as possible, and that offences provided for all victims of sexual abuse, regardless of their sex and the sex of the offender. Despite that, and despite a number of submissions on the matter, the old definition of rape has been retained in the bill. It is not gender-neutral in that it states only women can be raped, not men, and that women cannot rape. It does not accept that rape can happen through penetration with an object, and it does not accept that oral rape is rape. Those offences continue to be called unlawful sexual connection.

The Green Party believes that the old definition retained in this bill is outdated in terms of society’s perceptions of what constitutes rape. It does not respect how victims feel about the reality of what has happened to them, and it is also out of step with the latest definition used by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. That definition itself was the result of a broad review of rape laws across many jurisdictions.

I will therefore move an amendment, which is available on the table now, in the Committee stage of the bill today. It is aimed at defining rape as acts on men as well as women, acts by women as well as men, and acts that include anal and oral penetration, and penetration with objects. Currently, rape is vaginal only.

I know that this is a viscerally difficult topic for us to talk about. Most of us do not find it easy to discuss these matters around the dinner table at home, much less in our caucus rooms or in a public arena like this House. However, given that the Government has given us the opportunity to update the rape laws, we should have the courage to deal with this issue and not to run away from it because it is too hard to talk about.

Some submitters found the strength inside themselves to talk to us at the select committee about these things. We should honour that and have the strength to deal with them properly ourselves, too. Male on male rape does happen, as does female on female, and female on male. Many people who have been raped with an object will say that, in fact, the experience of that is even worse than rape with a penis. The idea that oral rape is not rape is equally incomprehensible to me. People to whom that has not happened may not understand how it can happen, but I can assure them that it is a reality and that the impact is physically and psychologically profound.

From my own experience, and from talking with others who have had such experiences, I do not understand how rape can be graded and coded so that it applies only in the limited way defined in this legislation. I do not think it honours women, or our experience of rape, to keep rape as a man-on-woman offence only. It flies in the face of reality to say that only women can be raped, that only men rape, or that anal and oral penetration are not rape. It is time that people in society, even those who are lucky enough not to have gone through any of those experiences, matured to the point where it can be more broadly understood and accepted that rape is rape. That offence should not be divided or lessened by a legal definition that makes some forms of rape seem less serious than others.

I know there is some sympathy for our view from other MPs and parties in this House, including Mr Ron Mark in New Zealand First, and I hope they will support the amendment the Green Party is putting up today. I would love to see the Government supporting our amendment. I believe that many members of the Labour Party support it. Let us name rape for what it is—an act of power by one person over another, committed through an act of violence in all the various ways by which that act occurs—and turn our legal definition into one that accepts that reality rather than takes the easy route out by leaving things as they are.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I rise for the ACT party in the second reading debate on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill recasts quite a few of the definitions and provisions related to under-age sex offences. ACT was not represented on the Law and Order Committee, so we have to rely on the committee’s report for the description of things that the committee considered. We listened carefully to the introduction given by the Minister and to the Minister’s media statements. I am not sure whether this is one of those situations where the Minister has announced his policy three or four times before Parliament even saw it. It could well be. Certainly, “grooming” has been mentioned twice and still no words have been seen. I see that Marc Alexander has filled that gap, or does the Minister have a Supplementary Order Paper?—[Interruption] There is. I am glad to see that.

We will have a lot to say on specific words during the Committee stage, but in the second reading members should be taking an overview. My concern is that Parliament, in giving this the attention that it is, is wallowing in a form of insincerity. The effectiveness of the law really depends on what we do when the law is broken, not on how carefully and elegantly, or clumsily, it is defined, or on how much difficulty the odd offences at the margin—the ones out of the ordinary—give the courts. What will happen in the community and what the offenders take as the message that the community wants to send to them relates to how likely they are to be caught, how likely they are to be convicted when they are caught, how likely they are to get a serious sentence when convicted, how likely they are to have to serve that sentence, and whether anyone is enforcing the parole conditions at the end of the sentence. In other words there is a whole lot of parliamentary activity, yet the police are not even investigating some rapes. Hundreds of files are not being forwarded, because instead we are spending in this Parliament the time and money that the police need to look at the bad people.

We make a whole lot of pious statements in Parliament about our anxiety. We hear the Greens urging everyone to pass all these laws, knowing that the law is unlikely to be enforced. In a lot of family situations these laws will make absolutely no difference, because the police, quite rightly, are prioritising. They are saying, as any of us would, that as they cannot investigate everything they will go for the obvious, outrageous, stranger crimes. Some murky situation inside a family where the evidence will be awfully contested, and where even at the end of it the police will not be sure whether they are doing good or bad, has to go on the back burner. Members of Parliament are standing up, one after the other, and taking seriously a bill for which the Government by its actions is showing a real lack of concern. What matters is enforcement, penalties, and whether the law means what is says; what we do matters hardly at all.

During the Committee stage I want to hear Mr Goff explain why he has suddenly acquired such a concern about under-age sex when he pushed through, against the proposed amendments of the ACT party, prostitution legislation that increased the age of prohibition from 16 to 18 and then expressly prevented the police from enforcing it. He took out the power we had proposed for the police to be able to ask people’s ages. How can the police enforce a law concerning under-age sex when they are not allowed to ask the age of people involved in the offence?

Ron Mark: They want it as a career option.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Mr Marks says that Labour wants it as a career option. Labour wants to be able to pass laws, make foaming speeches about how tough it is, and make sure that Labour and its mates are not affected when the offences occur.

Express amendments were proposed to that bill. The police brought forward their concerns about that legislation and their lack of ability to enforce it. We have since seen that their fears have been justified in spades. This bill was an opportunity to remedy it. In fact, this bill expressly refers to the Prostitution Reform Act and says—cutely—that it is being monitored and will be left for a bit more experience. We know what is likely to happen when a bill says something is an offence, but then expressly makes sure that the police cannot ask the obvious question about whether an offence is occurring.

This bill also shares something else with the Prostitution Reform Act. It shares provisions saying that someone involved in under-age sex cannot be charged in a number of those circumstances. In other words, it pretends that people are not responsible, and do not know the law, until they are 18. That is nonsense. I was glad to see that part of the National Party’s crime policy is to reduce the age of criminal responsibility to 12. I think that is New Zealand First’s policy, too—and ACT’s. If we get the sort of Government that this country deserves after the next election, there will be a very quick reduction. But there must be consistency. If we are treating children as being able to be responsible for their actions, they should also be responsible when they are deliberately involved in breaches of this kind of law. Yet here is the Government solemnly pretending to be tough on under-age sex, then it sticks in a provision that says that a party, right up to the age of 18, cannot be charged in connection with one of those offences.

What about cases in relation to the new formulation of defences that have been put in this legislation—where someone is misled, deliberately misled, and misled with complete calculation, as with false documentation? There is no charge available. That shows whether the Government is really serious. That shows that this law is essentially slogans. The provisions may be better than what we have now, which is why ACT is likely to vote for the bill, but they are only marginally better, and there is so much additional twaddle around them, and so many threats to longstanding principles, that it is a very close call. Indeed, I will be listening to the debate in the Committee stage to decide whether my personal vote can support some of these measures.

I was glad to see that Mr Tony Ryall’s participation on the Law and Order Committee meant that some notice was taken of the Law Society’s warning of a forensic lottery “as juries are confronted with arcane evidence from opposed camps of experts.”

The Justice and Electoral Committee, as Mr Goff will know, is wrestling at the moment with some very dodgy convictions based on “arcane evidence from opposed camps of experts.” A law change rushed through in 1989, again by a Labour Government, and again in response to a hysteria and in trying to look as if it were concerned about fending off well-merited suspicion about its real social agenda, put through section 23G of the Evidence Act to give those experts a weight that traditional law would never have given them.

This bill, according to the Law Society, will confront juries with “arcane evidence from opposed camps of experts.” Well, the theories about sexual conduct are as various, probably, as the types of sexual conduct. The theories in my lifetime about the nature of rape—whether it is a power relationship, an inherent sex drive, people’s bad behaviour because there is not enough punishment, or something everyone would do if he or she had a chance—are all just theories. Liberating the experts to determine the outcomes of trials is not the way our law should be going. Our law should be based on the observable evidence of acts. For example, by eliminating—and I am not sure whether it does eliminate; the Law Society may have said—the ability to take into account whether there was a protest or objection, we may well see a whole new category of unfair convictions, and when we do that, the law loses credibility. If people really want to undermine the horror that people feel about sexual offending and rape, the quickest way to do that is to create more convictions that people believe may be unfair or unreliable. That is a sure way to undermine the social consensus that is essential to the enforcement of the law.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to address the debate on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), with some preliminary remarks before I get to the substance of the bill. The bill deals with a lot of sexual offending, rape, and so on, and I will talk about that a little later in relation to grooming legislation. It addresses paedophilia in a number of respects as well. It is clear that the rate of offending, particularly for child molestation and paedophilia, is grossly under-reported. We hear bandied about regularly that rehabilitation is so wonderfully successful for those individuals that the reoffending rates are comparatively low in relation to other crimes. But that is actually not true. A study has shown that reoffending rates for sex crimes, particularly for paedophilia, can rise as much as over 70 percent, over a 22-year period. What that seems to suggest is that a lot of the people who commit those crimes are smart. They learn from their mistakes and they do not get caught again in a hurry. So anything we can do proactively is, I think, a positive move, because it is such an insidious crime and leaves its mark for decades on the victims.

There are positives in this bill. First of all, we welcome the Government’s decision to drop the “similar age” defence, even though there was a lot of hubbub about what it might have meant, could have meant, and so on. A bit of mischievousness played along with that, and we are glad to see that that part of it has gone and we can concentrate on the main strengths of the bill. We also welcome the strengthening of the current section 134 of the Crimes Act, so that not only sexual intercourse but also sexual connection and indecency engender mutual penalties. That provision will be captured in clause 7, which amends section 134. Penalties will significantly increase to 10 years. We hope, however, that the parole process will not undermine that intent—which is something that tends to happen all too frequently.

An amendment to clause 7 in relation to new section 134A is to be welcomed also, because false and fraudulent representation will be added to the grounds for negating defence. The lifting of the under-21 age limit for the “reasonable belief in age” defence is to be applauded. It makes no sense arbitrarily to restrict such an offence to a particular age subset, when it can easily be argued that the practical ability to differentiate age may actually diminish with age rather than increase. The “reasonable belief in age” defence may sound waffly, but when we consider that the test is whether a reasonable person took reasonable steps to determine the age of the young person, where there are no exclusions based on alcohol consumption, use of drugs, or any other self-induced impediments, then no more can reasonably be expected, I think, from anyone.

We also welcome clause 6, which inserts new section 98AA. It inserts a number of new offences relating to the exploitation of persons under 18 for sexual purposes, the removal of body parts, and what I consider to be slavery provisions. However, we recognise a number of difficulties with this bill. I will talk about some that have already been addressed. Although supporting the bill’s purpose and intent, United Future considers a number of its provisions to be somewhat problematic. Most important, the aim to modernise the law in support of a gender-neutral approach has not been totally achieved in respect of the sexual offence of rape. I note that the previous speaker from the Greens also mentioned that.

Rape remains a discrete form of sexual violation, which only a male is seemingly capable of committing against a female by penile penetration of the female genitalia. That option is not compatible with the overarching gender neutrality underpinning the bill, and United Future’s own policy. Given that the bill does at least address gender equivalence in terms of penalties applied for comparable offences—and for that reason we will support it—it is regrettable that widening the definition of rape was not supported. I have a member’s bill to that effect, and I hope that that will be supported around the House.

United Future also takes exception to the definitions of “family member” in section 131A(1)(a)(iv), which provides for an offence of sexual conduct with those under 18 where consent is given because of use of power or authority. The terms considered in the section include “members of the same family, whanau or other culturally recognised family group”, with specific reference to the responsibility for, or significant role in, the care and upbringing of the victim.

There is neither, in my opinion, a clear definition of what is meant by “whanau”, nor any ring fencing of what constitutes a “culturally recognised family group”. For example, it is unclear whether flatmates, boarders, or others not living as dependent family members are specifically excluded from the parameters of the offence. Similarly, an exchange student brought into a family as a family member, where the host family is expected to provide and care for that young person as parents, would almost certainly be covered. However, a foreign student paying board may not be covered, depending on the arrangement and understanding entered into. The bill remains unclear as to how to determine one but not the other, and I would ask that the Minister actually address this matter when he has the opportunity later on.

We consider that if our criminal justice system must apportion a sanction to reflect under this provision the degree of responsibility commensurate with recognition for the significant role in the care and upbringing of the victim, then the barometer of that measure should at least be better defined.

During the course of this bill’s progress through the Law and Order Committee, I lamented what I considered to be an important omission in it, which was provision to include sexual grooming as a specific offence. It was with that in mind that I drafted my Supplementary Order Paper 299 to amend the bill to include exactly such an offence. I am extremely pleased that the Minister of Justice has seen fit to pick up that initiative. I was invited to a series of consultations to help draft the initiative, and I also went up to Auckland to meet some of the Minister’s advisers along with other interested parties. This has been brought about in a very constructive and collaborative manner. Of course, my Supplementary Order Paper, at least for that part, has now been overtaken by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 351, but I do not mind one bit. In fact, I am pleased that the Minister has seen fit to raise the penalty from the 5 years’ imprisonment that I suggested to the 7 years’ imprisonment that he has put forward. I happily support that move.

So I guess that my Supplementary Order Paper has served its purpose in the sense that it has been the architect of the grooming laws that we will debate later on. I applaud the Minister for picking up what I consider to have been a serious omission from the original bill.

The fact of the matter is that paedophiles are incredibly underhanded. They weave a web of deceit, building a trust with their intended victims, and we should not have to wait until the body drops until we can go after those parasites. I am pleased to see that the grooming laws, based on a United Future initiative, that are being brought in by the Government will be one such measure to help the most vulnerable members of our society—our kids.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): As the chairperson of the Law and Order Committee, I will take a reasonably short call. I take this opportunity to express my thanks to all the members of the select committee. I accept that such is the nature of our democracy here in the Chamber, that some robust views will be expressed in terms of the processes around the committee. In terms of the interaction with officials, the constructive comments, and the constructive observations, I thank all members of the committee. I particularly thank the officials, some of whom are present in the Chamber, for their excellent work and assistance to the committee and for their very tireless efforts in terms of doing their job in assisting the committee to draft what we obviously hope is good law.

I take this opportunity to single out three people in particular who have played a very constructive role. One is my good colleague the member of Parliament for Hamilton East, Dianne Yates. I thank her in terms of the initiatives she took on the issue of law reform in relation to drug rape, which this bill implements. I think that the expertise Dianne Yates has in that area has been considerable and profound. Thanks to her efforts, we will hopefully have better law in that area. I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the deputy chairperson of the Law and Order Committee, Marc Alexander—who is not always charitable when it comes to certain aspects of Government policy, and that is the nature of it—he is a very hard-working member of that committee and a hard-working MP.

I want to acknowledge Mr Alexander’s Supplementary Order Paper, which proposes a new offence—that of meeting a young person under the age of 16 in order to undertake an exercise of sexual grooming. As the Minister has said—and I certainly reiterate it—we thank him for pursuing that particular issue. As a result of, in part, the work that he has done, there is a new offence, and the provision in the bill will extend the protection of young people from sexual predators by covering situations where, for example, a person contacts and arranges to meet a child over the Internet with the intention of sexually abusing that young person. So I compliment Marc Alexander on his work on that issue.

Finally—[Interruption]. I say in response to that interjection that, as chair of the select committee, I will take at least 2 more minutes, maybe 3 or 4 minutes. I also praise Sue Bradford. I personally express appreciation to her for her very insightful and very deep understanding of the issues raised in this bill. I think that she made a tremendous contribution in the select committee. It was a privilege and a pleasure to work with her. I also want to praise the speech that she has just made in this House, which, I assure her, I listened to very, very closely, and I thank her for her insights.

People have raised the issue of whether this bill needs to be referred back to the select committee. I want to highlight very succinctly one of the many examples that show why we need to get this bill through—and maybe the bill is not 100 percent perfect, but it is 100 percent better than what we have. Under the current law, a woman is not committing an offence if she has a consensual sexual relationship with a boy under the age of 16, but, obviously, a man who has a sexual relationship with someone under the age of 16 does commit an offence. Clearly, that law is not gender-neutral. Even Ron Mark, in the light of his robust contribution, would be really keen to sort that anomaly out. That is just one example of the anomalies that this bill corrects.

I also take this opportunity to honour and praise those people who gave private submissions to the committee recounting their very painful personal circumstances. To sit in front of a group of people whom one does not know, takes amazing courage and perseverance, and those submitters’ courage assisted members of the committee to look into the eyes of victims and to gain an insight. For those of us who do not have experience in that area—which, by the grace of God, is our good fortune—in terms of dealing with and talking to victims, that certainly gave us some very, very valuable insights, and I thank those people for that. I look forward to participating during the Committee stage and the third reading debate. I look forward to the reasonably speedy passage of this bill.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I have been listening to all the speeches given on this bill this morning, and I have to say that they have been very considered and very sensible. But they have actually left me very confused as to why all those speakers, who have talked about the inadequacies of the bill, are in fact putting their principles to one side and voting for it. That is despite the fact that, although the bill contains some very good things, it has some very, very poorly addressed matters, as well.

When I listened to previous speeches, I thought there must have been a huge rush to get this legislation through. Then I found out that the bill came out of the select committee in October 2004. It is now April 2005, so the bill has been sitting around in the office of the Minister of Justice for the last 6 months, and he has done nothing. He has had 6 months to talk to each of the parties represented in this House about the very sensible changes that they have asked for—changes that he no doubt agrees with. So what has he been doing in that time?

What he has not been doing is listening to the very, very sensible suggestions made in the House today. This is why my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall asked the House this morning for leave to refer this bill back to the select committee in order to get that work done. Instead, we had Mr Gallagher say that the bill was better than the current law. Well, he has to say that, because he is only a man in the Labour Party, and he knows his place. He is putting his hands up in horror; I say to Mr Gallagher that I am sorry but I do not believe that all men are evil. I actually believe that there are a lot of really good, decent men, so Mr Gallagher is OK with me and I say good on him for standing up.

Of course, the ladies in the Labour Party are very staunch on protecting women, all right—until it is not in their best interests. Then what do they do? They roll over every time a good-looking bloke bats his eyelashes at them. They say: “Tickle my tummy, John.”, and he does.

There are a couple of reasons why the National Party will not just give in to that sort of behaviour. We will not support the bill in its current form, for various reasons, but we do say good on Dianne Yates for bringing the issue of drug rape into this arena. And I also say good on my colleague Simon Power, who, I need to tell Mr Alexander, back in 2001 was calling for that offence of the grooming of little children to be dealt with by the Minister of Justice. But in 2001 and 2002 that Minister of Justice completely dismissed that view. It was too politically correct—we could not have that!

There are a couple of reasons why National opposes the bill. One is that under this bill it will be all right for some bloke to sexually groom a foster child—a child who has been living in the foster parent’s home or who has had the foster parent living in his or her home—until that child is 18 when, miraculously, that child will be able to consent to a sexual relationship. So he may not be able to groom the child on the Internet, but by goodness he can groom the child in his own home or in the child’s home. He can do that, and that is OK for Mr Goff—as long as the kid is 18. If that child has been brought up to think of that person as either a father, or almost a father—his or her closest friend—that child will be in a very vulnerable position.

Some people are children in many ways at 18, and are very, very vulnerable. Many of us, thinking of all the 18-year-olds we have known and thinking back to the time when we were 18 ourselves, know just what a vulnerable time it is. An 18-year-old is often just as vulnerable as a 17-year-old, and sometimes just as vulnerable as a 16-year-old. We have pointed out to Mr Goff that those are problems, but he has just sat back for the last 6 months, done nothing about them, and said that he must know better.

But this is, of course, the same Minister who thought it would be OK to allow 12 to 16-year-olds to have what he called “consenting sex”, while ignoring the fact that under-16-year-olds cannot consent, because they do not have the legal capacity to do so. He thought that that provision would be OK. It was only the work of my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall and other members of this House that stopped that nonsense in its tracks.

One of the other reasons why we are opposing this bill concerns the “reasonable belief” provision. I am shocked to hear that Mr Alexander is going to agree to that sort of nonsense. I am shocked to hear that New Zealand First will support a bill that says a 45-year-old man can have sex with a 15-year-old prostitute who happens to be wandering around Hunters Corner, Papatoetoe, in George Hawkins’ electorate, and that he can in fact get away with it if he has a “reasonable belief” that she is 18, or even 16. Of course there will be “reasonable belief”, because, supposedly, under the Prostitution Reform Act she must be 18 or else she could not be a prostitute! So there will obviously be a reasonable cause of belief. Any lawyer could tell the House that—and I do. I understand that Mr Alexander thinks the prostitute will have an ID with her. Oh, come off it! The police cannot even ask for an ID of a girl who is prostituting herself on Hunters Corner in Mr George Hawkins’ electorate. What makes the member think that that 45-year-old will ask to see her ID?

I normally agree with Mr Ron Mark. Most of what he said today I agree with but I do not understand his statement that he is going to support the bill; Mr Mark must be far more generous than I am. He has pointed out that child prostitution is happening in Christchurch. Taking that on board, I went down the other week to Christchurch to talk to members of the Prostitutes Collective about child prostitution. What did they tell me? I say to Mr Alexander that they told me they had talked to Tim Barnett about my coming to visit; they had to get their orders from Mr Tim Barnett. They said to me they did not like the fact that we had made it public there was child prostitution, and the reason they gave was that it had brought more people into the area. The other thing they did not like about it was that it had really brought down the value of prostitution. Apparently, prostitution is not very good as a living in Christchurch now that there are so many young prostitutes on the streets—because of this hopeless Government’s attitude toward child prostitution and child abuse.

Ron Mark: It’s a career option.

JUDITH COLLINS: Of course it is a career option, as Mr Ron Mark says. It is a disgusting situation when we have 14, 15, and 13-year-olds wandering round the streets in places like Papatoetoe in George Hawkins’ electorate and prostituting themselves with 45 and 55-year-old men, yet we are being told that this bill means that those men will stop and ask for ID first. What a load of nonsense!

Sometimes in this House we have to say that a bill is mostly OK. But the Government has had a 6 months’ opportunity to fix this bill, and it has sat on its hands. The parties that are supporting the bill when they know they should not are weak. They have given in—they have forgotten all their principles, and all they are doing is rolling over because Mr Goff has asked them to. I just think they are hopeless, and they should not even bother to waste this House’s time by telling us anything.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Law and Order Committee by majority be agreed to.

Ayes 91

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Noes 27

New Zealand National 27.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

Ayes 91

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Noes 27

New Zealand National 27.

Bill read a second time.

Instruction to Committee

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) that it take the bill part by part.

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

Ayes 71

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

Noes 47

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty): Part 1 is the substantive part of this bill. It covers the significant changes that are being proposed to the rules around sexual conduct. The National Party view is that these changes are being made with insufficient public consultation, and we do not think that sufficient consideration was given in the select committee process, either. We are worried that there may be serious unintended consequences and the risk of disturbing quite settled case law and legal concepts. We think that some of the provisions in the bill are meritorious, and we are disappointed that the part by part motion means we cannot support the Minister’s amendments in the areas we think are particularly important.

Much of this legislation is based on a discussion paper that was approved by the Minister in 2002 and released to a number of Government departments and groups. I wonder whether the Minister would take a call and tell us which organisations and departments received copies of the 2002 discussion paper on the proposals in the bill, and what sorts of submissions were received, particularly on the proposal to effectively decriminalise some under-age sexual conduct. Who was in favour of that and who was against it, and did the Government really have to carry on with it? Could the Minister take a call and explain why he approved the release of the discussion paper, which included a proposal to legalise brother-sister sex for those over 20? I know that the Minister does not support that, but I do not know why he allowed it to remain in the discussion paper. Surely Mr Goff should have said to the Ministry of Justice: “That is not Government policy. Don’t put it in there. It’s not going to happen.” Maybe the Minister could take a call to explain that.

We are also looking for an explanation from the Minister about the issue of dependent family members and protecting young people from the predatory behaviour of those who may have some sort of power or influence over them. Essentially, his proposals mean that it will now no longer be an offence for foster parents to have a consensual sexual relationship with an 18-year-old foster child for whom they have cared for many years. I wonder whether the Minister could explain why the current prohibition relating to age, which is age 20 at present, should be dropped to age 18.

Could he also explain, in relation to his proposed sexual grooming amendments—which we would have liked the opportunity to support through the bill—why he would allow that sort of grooming to happen, if it ever were to happen.

I would also like the Minister to answer some questions about the potential unintended consequences of what a dependent family member is. I think there is some confusion about that, because section 131A(1), in clause 7, states that family members are “… of the same family, whanau, or other culturally recognised family group …”. One of the Minister’s own officials told the Law and Order Committee that a whānau was people who lived on a marae, and I am wondering how on earth that sort of advice could form the basis of this legislation.

So there are, I think, quite considerable matters that the Minister needs to address, and over the next hour or two of this debate members from this side of the Chamber will be seeking an explanation from the Minister on a whole lot of issues, including the “dependent child” matter and the “reasonable belief” defence for sexual conduct. Right now a small provision exists for accused persons under the age of 21, whereby if they believed that the other person was 16 and they had taken reasonable steps to ascertain that person’s age, and the conduct was consensual, then there is a defence. The Government is proposing that that defence apply to everybody. It now means that whereas at present a 45-year-old man has no defence in law for sexual conduct with a 15-year-old girl, under the bill’s proposals that chap will have a defence in law, provided he reasonably believed she was 16 or older and he had, for example, checked her false ID.

The reason we wanted this legislation to go back to the select committee is that no consideration was given to alternatives for addressing the situation of a genuine mistake, which I know that the Minister has considered, such as having it included as a mitigating factor at sentencing. The select committee did not look at any of that, and there has been insufficient discussion with the public about the merits or otherwise of that provision.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): I appreciate that members of the public may be wondering why National is voting against this legislation. I have to say that we cannot possibly support legislation that would allow—and this is the reality of it—a 45 or 50-year-old man to approach a child prostitute, then claim he had a defence. That is not possible under the existing law. That is the important point: it is not possible under the existing law.

That prohibition—that the defence does not apply to those aged over 21—has never caused a problem, but now the Government seems to think it should be extended right across the board. Government members then wonder why New Zealanders are deeply worried about the values of this Government and about the direction they are taking this country.

We saw that in the John Tamihere article. He merely articulated the concern of mainstream New Zealanders that this Government simply has no idea what people think. It runs its narrow agenda based on, I guess, the common rooms of the universities—the discussions that occur there and that essentially should stay there. But no, this Government wants to make those minority agendas the widespread views.

One of the features of that, frankly, is sexual liberation. That has always been one of the fundamental agendas of the politically correct. It undermines family life. That is the reality. The Government will look at each and every part of the law. How does it undermine family life? How does the politically correct agenda undermine family life? Well, these are some of the ways: by allowing broader defences, by allowing more licentiousness, by allowing prostitution, by making it easier for predators to escape punishment, and by allowing defences. That is what the Government has done in this legislation.

The Government may say that we are simply exaggerating. But we have seen since the Prostitution Reform Act a huge increase in child prostitution. The Government has only to ask the simple question of who preys upon those child prostitutes. My colleague, who lives in south Auckland, sees the problem on the streets. She knows the answer. Ironically, the Minister of Police, living in the same place, was not even aware that that police district had 1,000 uninvestigated cases, including 11 cases involving rape. That indicates the complete disconnection of this Government from the real problems facing our country. When we see these kinds of amendments being put into the law, we know that this Government is totally driven by a narrowly focused, politically correct agenda that it intends to foist on the entire country.

I would like to think that the other parties in this Parliament that are supporting this legislation will, at least in respect of this particular provision, say no.

Ron Mark: What about the amendments?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I tell Mr Mark that my colleagues have been doing amendments. This is the sort of thing that should be stopped. The law, as it exists at present, is satisfactory. It takes into account the difficulties that young people may have. That is why the application of the law is limited to those aged under 21, and that is where it should stay. That is why we are voting against the bill.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT): I am pleased to take a call on this legislation, which ACT is supporting. It is not perfect; there are flaws in it. I would like the Minister to take a call to explain some particular points to me and the reason why those issues are in the bill, because ACT did not have a representative on the Law and Order Committee.

I am always supportive of anything that goes anywhere towards protecting children against sexual abuse by adults. There are two main areas that concern me. Firstly, I am pleased that the definition of “family” has been extended. I recently went to a tangi in south Auckland. One of the Māori women there sat down beside me, because she knew about the books I had written. She said that at a meeting at the marae a few weeks earlier the women had been discussing how not one child on that marae would not have been sexually abused by other people on the marae, and how they could not do anything about it.

The thing that concerns me about extending the definition of “family” is that it could extend the ability for perpetrators to get name suppression. One of the reasons why name suppression is sought is to protect the victim. It is usually given automatically if the victim is “a family member”. That is often the fault of the media, because when a person has interim name suppression the media will report, for example, that the victim was a 12-year-old niece. If the media did not report that, and stated that it was a 12-year-old girl, then it could report the name when name suppression was lifted. But when name suppression is subsequently lifted, the media cannot report it, because that would identify the victim. I argue that we should have something in this legislation, or it could come in at a later date—and I urge members to consider this—stating that name suppression can be given only when victims specifically request it, or when victims are under the age of 16 and could be identified. By extending the definition of “family” there is a danger that more accused people will get name suppression.

I would like the Minister to explain why the age of consent has gone from 20 to 18 when family members are concerned. I have some difficulty over that. In the case of doctors, for instance, if a doctor has a sexual relationship with a patient, no matter what age the patient is, that doctor can be struck off or will go before the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee. For a doctor to have a sexual relationship with a patient is a real no-no, no matter what age the patient is. Could the Minister take a call to explain why the age of consent has come down from 20 to 18? For me it is not a reason to oppose the bill, but I am curious as to why that provision is included.

I do not agree with the National Party about the defence for a 45-year-old man having sex with a 14-year-old girl. I do not believe that the way the legislation is drafted is as loose as that. I would like the Minister to explain it. As far as I can see, leaving aside this issue of whether the girl is a prostitute, section 134A(2), in clause 7, states that it is not a defence if “the consent of the young person concerned was obtained by a false and fraudulent representation as to—(a) the nature and quality of the act concerned;”. To me, that does cover areas. That is used a lot in sexual abuse cases where stepfathers, foster parents, or someone who is known to the victim has said: “All fathers do this. This is what love means. All families do this. Don’t tell.” That is obtaining consent on a false representation.

Finally, I was recently in the United States. I just remind the Committee of the effects of child molestation. From some research done in the United States it has been estimated that the annual direct costs—admittedly it is not a definitive figure, because of the under-reporting and under-prosecution of child abuse—in the United States, including medical, police, court, and welfare costs, of all child abuse is $24 billion. If we look not just at the financial costs, we find that 26 percent of abused and neglected children become juvenile delinquents, and that 13 percent of violent crime can be linked to earlier child maltreatment. If we are serious in this country about getting tough on crime, we have to be serious at looking at why—

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): I would like to take an early call just to answer some of the questions that have been raised by, in particular, Mr Ryall, but also to note the comments that Deborah Coddington has just made, and to thank her for her support on a number of those issues.

The first issue raised by Mr Ryall, and something he proposed during the second reading debate, was that the bill should be referred back to the select committee because it had had insufficient consideration. I draw to the attention of the Committee that this bill was introduced to Parliament more than a year ago, and was referred to the Law and Order Committee more than a year ago. A total of 21 hours and 36 minutes were given to consideration of the bill. It was in the hands of the select committee whether it wanted to ask more questions and to take more time over those who made submissions. I received no complaints from people that they did not have the opportunity to be heard or to have their points raised with the committee. The select committee had every opportunity to cross-examine and ask questions of anybody appearing before it. That was in the committee’s hands, not my hands. The concept that this bill has been rushed through is just bizarre on the facts of the case that I have just explained.

Secondly, Mr Ryall raised his concern that there was a discussion paper that raised the question of the status of incest, and he rightly—to be fair to Mr Ryall—acknowledged that I was against narrowing the definition of incest. I think we need to maintain incest as an offence, not because of the classical reason of preventing inbreeding but because children in a family who are dependent have to be protected, regardless of whether there is a blood relationship or any other relationship. In fact, what we have done is much strengthen the definition of incest. At the moment, incest covers not simply sexual intercourse but any form of sexual connection. The member will be aware that under the old law all sorts of sexual abuse could have occurred if the child was over the age of 16, and it was totally lawful. Now we are providing greater protection.

Mr Ryall asks why we allowed a different point of view to come out in a discussion paper. I have to say that if a discussion paper was to reflect only everything I believed, and I did not tolerate it including anything I did not believe, it would not be much use as a discussion paper. That is why one has a discussion paper. One has within it different, and sometimes controversial, views. That is exactly what the Australians did, and other jurisdictions. Of course, after seeing the discussion paper and hearing some views, our Cabinet made a very clear cut and unanimous decision that, yes, of course, not only would we retain the law on incest but we would strengthen the law on incest.

I thank Deborah Coddington for her comments that she is pleased that the definition of family has been extended. Mr Ryall was having some trouble with the definition of family. New section 131A in clause 7 sets out the classical family membership in terms of parents, step-parents, foster parents, siblings, etc., then refers to members of the same family, whānau, or other culturally recognised family group. As Deborah Coddington rightly pointed out, that broadens out the definition to provide protection where it is needed. The section goes even further to include a situation where the child is living with the other person as a member of the other person’s family, and that other person has power or authority over him or her. Yes, of course we have broadened the definition, because our kids deserve the protection that that wider definition gives. Every child should be able to grow up in this society in a family that protects him or her—where the family, however it is defined, is a sanctuary—and not be subject to the sorts of appalling things we know have happened in the past, and, regrettably, still do happen.

In relation to the “reasonable belief” provision, once again we have toughened the law. I refer to the defence of “I reasonably believed that she was over 16.” It is too easy to say: “I reasonably believed that to be the case.” Now a person has to go through the steps that that person took to ascertain whether the person was 16 or over. So this law is, again, tougher in protecting those who are under age.

Mr Ryall raised the question of a particular change that will be made. Under the previous law, if a person was 1 day over the age of 21, there was no defence at all, even if one could demonstrate that one had reasonably and genuinely believed that a person was not under age—say, one had asked for her driver’s licence, had checked it, and it had stated that that was so. Unfortunately, there is the situation—and I think Mr Mark agrees with me on this—where some young women, some girls out there, can look a lot older than 16 and do use false identification. If a person acts in good faith, but is conned by an under-age person, why should there be no defence to protect that person? Of course there should be a defence, and it should not be arbitrarily restricted to those who are under the age of 21.

I have no better authority on that than David Farrar, who is the co-chairman of the liberal group within the National Party—with Katherine Rich, I think—a former staffer of Don Brash, a long-time member and supporter of National, and a worker in the office of Leader of the Opposition, who made the point that I have just made. It is nonsense to say that a person who is 21 years and 1 day old has no defence at all, if the young woman concerned looked like she was 18 and presented the person concerned with a driver’s licence that stated that. That is why the old law did not make sense—not just the fact that the arbitrary threshold was contrary to our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

RON MARK (NZ First): I want to go through a couple of points, and I also start by thanking the Minister for taking a call. Members come into this Chamber so often for the Committee stage, and the Labour Ministers tend to sit there and do nothing. I actually saw one here one evening doing her knitting at that table, as opposed to doing the work she is paid $140,000 a year to do. I congratulate the Minister on taking a call. It is a welcome change.

I have gone through some of the aspects of Part 1 that New Zealand First cannot vote against. As difficult as some of those clauses may be to read for some of us, we have had to deal with that in the 21 hours the committee sat. I take issue with the Minister when he said we had enough time. Twenty-one hours to consider the bill, particularly as the debate unfolded, and we had more and more questions, was not sufficient time. Twenty-one hours is less than 2 days. Yes, the bill has been in the House for a year and it has had 21 hours—less than 2 days—for discussion, analysis, and taking of submissions. As we got deeper into the bill, and further towards its close, most parties here said they needed more time. Unfortunately, the Government chose to use its strength and numbers and run over the top of people, and that was sad.

What is good about this bill? If members look at the new definitions of what is legally recognised as genitalia in clause 3 in Part 1, they will find that the Government has simply done what it has had to do. We have recognised transsexual and transgender situations that have occurred. Ironically, the law has never protected those people. Georgina Beyer’s view at the select committee was valuable and important to us. I do not think, looking to my right here, that my colleagues in the National Party can seriously say that they object to rape being made unlawful against people who have had sexual reorientation surgery. Certainly, they cannot vote against that. To be raped has to be abhorrent for a person who has had sexual reorientation surgery as for anyone else in New Zealand. So, clearly, one has to agree with that part of the law change.

What we do take issue with is the definition of sexual connection that rape with an object is not rape. I have to ask the Government, again, whether those young boys in Hamilton who took to the young boy with the broom handle, raped him. This Government, and the Labour ladies, except for a couple I know who obviously argued against the commonly held view in caucus, say that raping men with a broom handle is not rape. They say that it is a lesser crime. They say that the young boy in Hamilton who was violated with a broom handle, who was raped, was not raped. Why? Because the Labour ladies want rape to be an exclusive crime that can only ever be perpetuated against a woman—not against a male—with a bodily part and not with an object.

Ask the young woman who laid complaints against the police that she was raped with a police baton. Is that not rape? No, according to the Labour ladies, whom John Tamihere so accurately described in the media, they do not think that being raped with an object is rape.

We have tried to argue that. We have tried to get them to change the legislation. I guess it just means that in a future coalition Government that New Zealand First is leading, we will have to come back to that issue and amend the bill. I know there are members in the Labour caucus—Georgina Beyer, Dover Samuels, and Mahara Okeroa, I believe—who do not agree with the Minister’s view and definition of rape. Yet they are being forced to accept their party’s decision and sit there quietly. At least they know how to display unity; Mr Tamihere does not seem to be able to. But they know that their party is wrong, they know that it is taking a politically correct approach to this, and they know that rape with a broom handle, a beer bottle, or rape with a police baton is rape—end of story. But this legislation states that it is not.

Let us look further down in the legislation at all the information and the detail that pertains to dealing with people under 18 for sexual exploitation. We will support those law changes. I make no bones about it, we will support the Government in passing this bill. But now I have a question from New Zealand First. This Government has a habit of passing laws and imposing more workload on the police but never doing a risk analysis or an assessment of what extra resources will be required for the police force, and giving the police those resources.

It is one thing to pass this legislation here today and say it is a crime to exploit young people under the age of 18, to put them into prostitution, or to hire them—to use them. But this Government does nothing about resourcing police so that they can get young women who are being exploited as prostitutes or as child prostitutes in the Manchester Street area in Christchurch off the street. It does nothing. Ask the police how many extra policeman they will get to reinforce this law, they will say that they will get nothing. They will have to do this, plus 2.7 million hours of traffic duty.

If one asks the police whether they ever got extra resources to police the lowering of the drinking age, they will say no. If one asks whether the police got any extra resources to police the decriminalisation of prostitution, they will say no. Then how will the police do this? The Minister in the chair, Ruth Dyson, should look at the great list of new sections in the bill. Clause 6, “New section 98AA inserted”, is a page and a half of what the Government will make illegal when it comes to exploitation of under-age women and under-age men. Where are the resources? This means absolutely nothing if the resources are not given to the police to enable them to get out and police the law, to prevent the crimes, to catch the perpetrators, to prosecute them, and to put them in jail.

What this becomes is lip service to preventing child prostitution. The Government can say that it is complying with the United Nations charter against exploitation of children and it can preach that all over the country, but it means nothing if the police do not get the resources to put this law into effect. What it tends to do is to reinforce our view that it quietly condones it, that it thinks it is OK, and that it actually does not care. It gets away with telling the public that it does care and that it is going to stomp it out, because it passed a law. But it means nothing, because it does not allocate resources to bring the law into effect, and that smacks of the “h” word, which we are not allowed to use in parliament.

I move to clause 7, “New sections 127 to 138 substituted”, which inserts new section 128A, “Allowing sexual activity does not amount to consent in some circumstances”. Subsection (3) is Dianne Yates’ contribution—and a good contribution it was: “A person does not consent to sexual activity if the activity occurs while he or she is asleep or unconscious.” That gets to the heart of the issue that Dianne Yates brought to the House, and those are the aspects of the bill that New Zealand First wants to support and see passed into law. But, again, we want to see the police and the resources put into the justice system to enable prosecutions against people who break this part of the law to be brought to court, and to enable these people—whom I describe as pet food, because that is the only purpose they serve in this life—to be put in jail.

It means nothing. Dianne Yates’ good work for all those years means nothing if the Government does not resource the police accordingly, and if the Government continues to insist that what the police should be doing is issuing traffic tickets. They have spent 2.7 million hours doing that—386 hours per policeman and policewoman, regardless of whether they are sitting in police headquarters shining their seats or are out on the road, dedicated to doing traffic duty and not this kind of stuff. This is real, hard-core crime.

We will be looking with interest at the Budget to see just how many dollars and how many policemen and policewomen will be devoted by this Government to ensuring that clause 6 is enforced—not just passed and enacted. There have been no prosecutions for exploitation of child prostitutes in Christchurch. I am looking forward to hearing next year that there have been 15, 20, or 30 prosecutions, particularly in the Minister of Police’s electorate, because the bottom line is that if there are child prostitutes in his electorate, how many more are there throughout the rest of the country?

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom): I will start by saying that reform of the criminal law is always serious and significant work. The Hon Tony Ryall, in his comments in the Committee stage, said there were a number of questions that the Minister of Justice, Phil Goff, should properly explain, and he elaborated on some of those questions. But I doubt that the Minister has the ability to provide the answers to even a few of those questions. In the one outburst he did deliver, he described incest as a defence. Even a first-year law student would know that incest is, in fact, a crime. It is also a pity that the Government wants to bolt through this bill in urgency, and has not accepted the view of the Opposition that it would be appropriate for the debate to be taken on a clause by clause basis. If that had been possible, National could have indicated where it supported particular provisions. Instead, we are having a part by part debate on a bill that has only two parts.

The reality is that this bill is like the curate’s egg—good in part and bad in part. The current minority Labour Government expresses a nominal commitment to law and order, but that commitment is long on rhetoric and short on action. If members of the Committee are wondering whether that is fair comment, I would say that it is because political correctness seeps through the agenda of the Government in this area as it does in many others. I will give four quick examples in the short time I have.

We have already heard that the Minister approved a discussion document legalising brother-sister sexual relationships. Now, it is quite correct that that discussion document and the specific proposal did not find its way into the bill. But a wise-thinking Minister, in this particular area of the criminal law, should never have allowed that proposition to emerge in a Government discussion document. [Interruption] Because I am being interrupted, I say again what it was that the Minister approved. He approved a discussion document proposing to legalise brother-sister sexual relationships for those over 20. In the end, the Government backed off. That proposal should never have been advanced.

Another example, a timely one in the context of one member sitting in this House, is the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill—a member’s bill, albeit sanctioned by a majority of the Labour caucus—that would permit, on a basis that would not permit discrimination, cross-dressing in the police, the military, and classrooms.

The third example relates to the similarity of age defence for under-age sexual activity. National and the public forced the Government to drop that highly controversial clause. It would have given a defence when there was consensual sexual activity between 12 to 15-year-olds. It was opposed by mainstream groups, but supported by the Minister in charge of this bill, Mr Goff, the Labour Cabinet, and the AIDS Foundation. If I take a final, fourth, example, it is the proposal to scrap rape as a gender-based offence. In the result, the Government has backtracked on that, because a majority of the committee endorsed: “… the offence of rape being retained as a gender-based (male-on-female) form of sexual violation effected by penile penetration of a woman’s genitalia.” But there was a proposal to cast away that offence of rape and instead merge it into a wider grouping of sexual offences.

I would like to speak for one more minute about what troubles me about this legislation in a broad way. It is well identified in the general policy statement that lies behind the bill. The general policy statement reinforces the view: “… that people are entitled to enjoy a fulfilling sexual life with other persons of their choice, irrespective of their sex:”—I am reading from the general policy statement in the explanatory note. Most of us would think that what we are really about is significant reform of criminal law in the area of sexual criminal activity. To paint the legislation as being an entitlement for people to enjoy a fulfilling sexual life with other persons of their choice, irrespective of their sex, is incredibly irresponsible.

This is supposed to be criminal legislation. It is intended to deal with offences that violate community standards and are abhorred by right-thinking members of the community. It should not have policy objectives of that particular type. National has said repeatedly, in the short period the Committee stage has occupied, that the bill should have been subject to more consultation. There should have been far wider community and legal consultation. The Government had an opportunity to do that. It chose not to do so. I believe that there will be, as a result of that decision, significant unintended consequences.

We see in so much of the legislation that has been before Parliament in this session instances whereby significant errors have occurred through inadequate consideration. This bill will prove to be one of those examples. Another illustration is the Foreshore and Seabed Act. As that legislation was originally enacted there was a provision that vested all the reclaimed land of the Wellington City Council in the Department of Conservation. That all had to be undone at the rate of knots in legislation passed a few days later. Again, we see obvious multiple flaws in the Building Act.

The problem, in simple terms, is this: when one goes about reforming criminal law, it should not be done on a patchwork basis. Why do I say that? Because chunks of work should not be taken out for separate consideration. Criminal law in general terms should be seamless. If it is broken up in the way that this bill has done, with different parliamentary counsel engaged in different sections of the work, the result, obviously, will be that errors are likely to creep in. And so they will.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa): I am pleased to take a brief call on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) in the Committee stage. I first of all acknowledge what Ron Mark said in his speech and refer to some of the matters he raised. I have to say that I agree with him regarding rape. I am certainly glad that we had the possibility to include the transgender and sexual reassignment provisions in the bill regarding that issue. I did take a universal view that rape was rape, whether by bodily penetration or with an object, but there is a difference between rape and sexual violation in the law. I was informed at the Law and Order Committee that sexual violation still held the same punitive penalties; it is just the title that differs. So I did, obviously, end up supporting that view, although I was uncertain about it at the time.

I will just refer to Mr Richard Worth who—kindly or not—raised the issue of my member’s bill, the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill. He seems to be going on with this mantra about cross-dressing. I would remind the member that, decades ago now, it used to be against the law for men to wear women’s underwear. That was absolutely ridiculous; the law is long gone from the statute book of this country. I have known people who were arrested for that. I know of transgender people who used to have to go to Mojo’s drag nightclub in Auckland dressed as a man, they could dress as a woman and do their entertainment show there, and they had to change back into men’s clothes again when they left. That is absolutely ridiculous. The Government of the day obviously thought so 30 or 40 years ago, and it repealed the law. The way that Mr Worth made reference to cross-dressers with that real “Ew, yuck!” flavour to it really shows just how minimal his knowledge of cross-dressing is.

Of course, one thing I remind the Committee of is the famous photograph of a former member of the National Party, John Banks—who now hopes to be the leader of the ACT party—in his tutu when he was a Minister in this Parliament, I understand. He was a great example, but would we have wanted him discriminated against for doing that? Some may say “Yes”. There was also a very celebrated police commissioner by the name of Rob Moodie who wore kaftans. He was celebrated and famous for it. That could be termed cross-dressing. Should he have been discriminated against? No, I do not think so.

Anyway, I will not continue on that line, because it is a little off the bill. But I look forward to the debate when my Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill has its first reading, hopefully after the next election.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): It has been a very interesting morning listening to all the contributions. I will take just a moment to correct the member who just spoke, Georgina Beyer. Rob Moodie was the president of the Police Association, as I recall, not the police commissioner, which is quite a different role altogether. I cannot quite imagine the current police commissioner in a kaftan, but one never knows. As long as it does not hurt other people, it is fine with me.

I come back to the more serious issues. I have been wondering why the Government has not changed this bill, given all the very good contributions from members about the deficiencies in it. Even members who will support the bill have pretty much the same complaints about the deficiencies. I wondered why the bill had been on the Minister’s desk for the last 6 months, and then the answer came to me, as clear as a bell. Mr Tamihere told us what it is. It is because the Labour caucus is so split down its politically correct lines that it cannot get the bill back to caucus for agreement. Obviously, that is the answer.

The Hon Tony Ryall mentioned some of the offending parts in the official documents on this bill. I will read them out for the benefit of the Committee: “The ministry proposes, however, that any brother-sister sexual connection involving abuse of trust, authority, or dependence, where one of the parties is under 20, be covered under the proposed offence of sexual connection.” In other words, for anyone over the age of 20, brother-sister incest would be just fine.

This is the sort of nonsense that a politically correct Government, driven by various special interest groups, would go along with. How many people who voted Labour in the last election—nice decent people who look after their kids and pay their taxes—would have signed up to that sort of nonsense? But we should say: “Good on you!” to the Minister, because he did say, eventually, that he would not go for that—we know he did not agree with it. But, by goodness, we know how this Government works. It puts up these ideas, then we come out and say: “That’s shocking.”, then the Government sees what the people want to do, then it looks at the polls, and then it decides whether it will go ahead with the idea. This Government has a real problem making any negative value judgment—that is what it calls it; a “negative value judgment”—on any sort of lifestyle issue.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Anything goes.

JUDITH COLLINS: Anything goes, and the only time it makes a negative value judgment is when somebody stands up and says: “No, actually, it’s not OK to do that to our communities.”

I say again to the parties in this House who are voting for the bill that I cannot understand what in the bill they could possibly vote for. Indeed, there are some good things in it but they are so small compared with some of the bad things in it. My colleagues Dr Wayne Mapp and the Hon Tony Ryall have both put forward substantial amendments to try to make the provisions in this bill a little more sensible. But the Minister will not vote for them. We know that. He will not vote for anything like that, because it is a bit too sensible. He does not want this bill to go back to the select committee. He talked about how the committee had spent 1 day—24 hours—on this particular provision.

Ron Mark: It was 21 hours—less than a day.

JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, it spent 21 hours on it. It spent less than a day’s hearings on it, spread over 2 days. That is nothing compared with how important these provisions are. It is a remarkable thing that the Minister can say the select committee had plenty of time. I certainly sensed from the plaintive little cry from Martin Gallagher, the chair of the committee—the plaintive little male cry from the back benches of the Labour Party—that there was not sufficient time. He certainly came across that way when he made comments like: “We really did have a lot of good discussions.”, and “I’d really like to sort of thank everybody.”, and “There were lots of issues that we couldn’t quite resolve.” He came across as saying: “There are lots of issues that aren’t particularly right but I got bullied into it, because I can’t take it back to caucus.” Poor old Mr Gallagher! What else can we say.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT): The previous speaker said she did not know why some parties were voting for the bill and, no, it is not a perfect piece of legislation, but it has been around for a year. In my view, a consideration of 12 months is not indecent haste.

If the bill goes back to select committee and if it goes on with more public consultation, more children will be abused while that happens. While we delay and kick the child sexual abuse issue around like a political football, more and more children are abused, and the effect on those children for the rest of their lives is absolutely appalling. This is not a crime like any other crime. The effects are far-reaching and they affect all of society.

Victims of child abuse do not care about whether crime legislation is being overhauled on an ad hoc basis or on a perfect basis; they do not take those sorts of things into account. All they think about is what they are going to do next—even how they are going to get out of bed in the morning. Children do not have the vote. It is our responsibility to protect them; they do not march down the street and demand better laws.

I support what Ron Mark said, that men who use child prostitutes should be prosecuted. They should have the full force of the law brought down on them. But who can say that being a child prostitute is a lifestyle choice? The reason those girls are child prostitutes is that they have been sexually abused in the past, usually by family members or someone known to them. That is how the majority of child sex crimes occur; they are committed by people who are known to the victim. The people who snatch the Teresa Cormacks off the street are rare. Those offences are usually committed by clergyman, teachers, doctors, JPs—respected, honoured members of society. If we go on delaying legislation like this just because it is not perfect, those children will continue to be abused.

ACT will be supporting the amendments on sexual grooming. That is an insidious crime, and we need only to look at the actions of one Peter Liddell to see the destruction that that man has brought about. For example, with regard to Jenny Anderson’s talkback show on Radio Pacific, when Peter Liddell had name suppression lifted in the Court of Appeal, that came on the news at 1 o’clock. At quarter past one a woman rang. I will not say her name, but she did say it on air. She was crying, and she said she had just heard the news that the name suppression on Peter Liddell had been lifted. She talked about her son, who had been counselled by Peter Liddell. He was a young Māori boy, and Peter Liddell favoured vulnerable young Māori boys. Her son kept coming home saying that Peter Liddell was sexually abusing him, but the woman said: “We didn’t believe him. Peter Liddell was the man in the white coat, the trusted counsellor.” This woman had just found out that her son had been right. Jenny Anderson asked: “Where is your son now?”, and the woman said: “He killed himself, because no one would believe him.” That was the most damning indictment I have heard on sexual grooming.

I also support the amendment that makes rape gender-neutral. I do not see why men should not be convicted of raping other men.

The matter that concerns me in this legislation is that we seem to be over-addressing issues that are already taken into account by the courts. For instance, there are already convictions for mistaken identity.

If we look at some of the cases in my books, we see that there are cases of men who have been prosecuted because they have climbed into bed with a woman when she has been asleep. She has often gone to sleep because she has drunk too much, but that is no excuse for someone to get into bed and start having sex with her, pretending he is her husband. When she has woken up and discovered the person is not her husband, the person has been prosecuted and sent to jail. The same outcome has applied to cases concerning drugs. Judges have taken the view that those people could not consent because they had drunk too much or been drugged.

We have moved on so far in this country when it comes to the prosecution of sex crimes, because once we would have had the attitude that those women deserved it. Thank goodness we do not have that attitude any more, and that we do take the attitude that no matter what a woman does—whether she goes out wearing a short skirt and a low cleavage, whether she drinks too much, or whatever—she does not deserve it, just as a man who walks down the street in an Armani suit with a wallet-full of money does not deserve to be robbed. We do not take that attitude.

The other irony, while I am on that subject, is to ask why it is interesting that when men wear skirts they are cross-dressers, but when women wear trousers they are not.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty): The National Party in Opposition has been highlighting what we think are a number of deficiencies in the bill. We have a very real fear that the Government’s intentions in this bill could very well backfire. We think there could be unintended consequences based on changing definitions and settled understandings in case laws. We think there are likely to be problems because of some of the new legal concepts being brought in, particularly regarding dependent family members and people with disabilities. We are very concerned about those matters.

I was on the Law and Order Committee. I know that we were working to a time line. I know that we had Government members forcing our considerations at every opportunity. Throughout that time the New Zealand First, National Party, and United Future members were saying that we should have more time on the bill, that we should be calling for more submissions, and that we should be making sure that we get it right. Many people, including members of the Law Society, lawyers involved in other matters, and sexual abuse workers, came before the committee and made the point that there could be new uncertainties created because of this legislation, so the committee must get it right.

We are genuinely worried that this bill will not achieve what the Government wants. We have no confidence that the officials’ advice is necessarily right, nor that the Government has got it right. We asked one of the officials what the word “whānau” meant in the bill. Do members know what the answer was? It was: “People who live on a marae.”

Ron Mark: That’s right.

Hon TONY RYALL: That is what they said. Mr Mark confirms it.

That is why we are so worried about the consequences of this legislation. Richard Worth was right when he said that many changes to the criminal legislation in New Zealand are done like a patchwork quilt. That is why we are saying that this bill should go back to the select committee and be worked on again.

We are worried about provisions about dependent family members such as the age limit that prohibits sexual contact between those who have been in a care and protection type of relationship being dropped from 20 to 18. The reason why it was 20 was to allow for sufficient time to elapse and for the dependence relationship to wane. By the age of 20, most people will have moved away from home, or had a couple of years of being away. Alternatively, there are some issues about kids who come home from university study and about what sort of relationship that will be. So we cannot understand why the Government would drop that to age 18 and allow a situation where, for example, a foster parent will be able to have consensual sexual contact with an 18-year-old foster child for whom he or she may have cared for many years. The Government is also passing sexual grooming amendments, but it seems to me that the potential of this provision needs to be looked at. Most submitters wanted the age kept at 20, but the Government chose 18 and we have not had a proper explanation of that from the Government. We do not know what impact this new definition of “dependent family member” will have. A dependent family member is someone who will be prevented from sexual conduct with members of the same family, whānau, or culturally recognised family group that has responsibility for his or her care or upbringing.

The Māori members of our committee were also very concerned about this, because Māori have a different view from that of the nuclear family that people are more aware of—depending on their background—on the role of relatives in the upbringing of children. I thought that was a valid point. We tested the officials and the Minister’s advisers as to what that would actually mean, and I have to say that we were not comfortable with the answers we were given. We think there is quite a risk that judges may end up taking quite unintended views on what those matters are, and that is why we raised those points. We are quite worried about them.

We have not had an explanation from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Phil Goff, about the changes that have been made concerning people with disabilities. Currently, it is a crime to have sexual intercourse with a woman or girl who is severely subnormal. It is understandable that the Government would want to modernise the language and concept in light of the much better attitudes people today have towards those with disabilities. But there is a real risk that this bill will create considerable confusion and uncertainty through its new and unproven wording. Frankly, I do not think the select committee has done a very good job in getting to the bottom of what that wording is. We did not spent a lot of time on that, and we should have spent more.

The Law Society warned the select committee that there would be a forensic lottery—that is the term it used; a “forensic lottery”—as juries are “confronted with arcane evidence from opposed camps of experts” attempting to argue concepts like “an understanding of the nature and consequences of sexual conduct”. That is new. We are not sure how that will be applied in the courts—and one cannot be, until it happens—but no member of that committee can stand here and say that he or she is confident that the intention of Parliament is enshrined in those words. Indeed, the officials advised the committee that leaving it to the courts to address the problem would probably be the best course of action. Parliament should not be operating on that basis.

The Minister also needs to have a discussion with the Committee on the issues relating to the changes made in the area of consent. Consent has a very settled meaning in the common law, but this bill takes the step of deeming what does not amount to consent—and if one was going to take an approach, I presume that would be it. Concern was raised by a number of submitters as to the lack of precision in these provisions. Although the Minister may not be aware, submissions noted that certain types of drugs associated with drug rape can lead to a person appearing completely in control and rational, and consenting to sex in situations where consent would normally be withheld. Lawyers came before us and said that the definition of what is not consent may cause more confusion than clarity. Again, we think that referring the bill back to the select committee and calling for expert evidence would get that right. There are some arguments for pressing ahead with even flawed legislation, but we fear that the risks associated with this legislation do prevail upon us to raise these questions and express these doubts about this bill.

We think there are many meritorious provisions in this bill. We would have liked the opportunity to have a clause by clause debate and a vote on each clause. By doing so we feel we might have been able to make some progress in improving the bill and in getting to the core of the Minister’s motivations in the various parts. But we have been denied that opportunity.

We are very worried about those unintended consequences and the changes that are being proposed in this legislation. We know that a discussion paper was released in 2002. We know that that discussion paper included proposals to decriminalise some sexual activity between 12 to 16-year-olds. That paper was approved by Cabinet.

Dr Wayne Mapp: By Mr Goff.

Hon TONY RYALL: It was put in the bill by Mr Goff, and frankly—

Hon Phil Goff: It was never put in the bill. It was a discussion paper.

Hon TONY RYALL: Decriminalisation of sexual activity for 12 to 16-year-olds? The officials’ advice is here.

Hon Phil Goff: No, no, you were talking about the other issue.

Hon TONY RYALL: No, I was not talking about that. I am very well informed about what is in that discussion paper.

Mainstream New Zealanders do not support the decriminalisation of some sexual activity by those between 12 and 16 years. Ordinary people were outraged by the suggestion that that activity could be decriminalised. But what worries us more is the issue of what other little word changes in the bill there are that may cause trouble. I think that sending the bill back to the select committee for a few extra weeks would have given this Parliament a much better piece of legislation.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): I listened carefully to the member who has just resumed his seat, and by and large he was, of course, repeating comments he made in earlier calls. I have answered a great many of those so I will not repeat myself in that regard, but I raise just the question of the age of consent. I think every member in this House believes that the age of consent should be at least 16. Children who engage in sex under that age risk doing real damage to themselves emotionally rather than simply physically, because they are not ready for the emotional side of that sort of relationship. So naturally I would take offence if the member was intending to say that any other member of this House believed that under-age sex was a good thing—we do not.

What I have done in this legislation is considerably toughen the penalties for having a sexual relationship with somebody under the age of 16. We have increased the penalties. The maximum jail sentence has been increased from 7 to 10 years. We have removed the protection that people had before, whereby if one did not bring a case within 12 months, then the offender would escape scot-free even if there had been a predatory relationship between a much older male and a young girl. So we have taken the law further than it has ever been taken before. But we also made the point that of course it was not our intention to see two 15-year-old teenagers, experimenting in a sexual relationship, locked away for 10 years. Nobody in the House thinks that that is a sensible idea. Nobody in the country thinks that that is a good idea, and that can be taken from the fact that the police simply do not bring prosecutions. Parents do not take kids to court because they are indulging in under-age sex. Schools do not try to take this matter up through a pathway of prosecution.

Originally, the bill contained the same defence that California has, that Victoria has, that Canada has, and that a great many Western jurisdictions have, which is to say that if there is a close similarity of age, then that would be a defence that might prevent imprisonment. I would have stuck with that defence if I had thought it was necessary, because I do not want to see 15-year-old kids who are experimenting in sex locked up in jail—nobody does. Nobody in this House wants to see that. I know that basically the police will follow the same practice as they did before and they will not take that action, but the “similarity of age” defence was a protection against that happening. That was deliberately misconstrued.

I have a quote here from Russell Brown, a well-known media commentator, who says: “I’m afraid Ryall knows very well that what he is saying is untrue, and scurrilously so.” I think we all know that that was politics, but the politics played out its role. We have removed that provision, and kids will not be prosecuted when they should not be. The member should not pretend to the Committee that this was anything other than simply a bit of grubby politics, because that is obvious to all of us.

The member raised a question about unintended consequences. I thought Mr Ryall wanted answers to his questions, but clearly he does not. He has walked out, so I will not bother with him. I would like to come back to the point made by Deborah Coddington.

Hon Tony Ryall: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. A member— particularly a Minister who has been out of the debating chamber during most of the debate on his own bill—cannot refer to the absence of a member,.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson, I was answering the member’s questions in good faith. I have a list of the questions he has raised and I was going to go through them point by point. Surely under the Standing Orders it is grossly discourteous for a member who has asked questions, and taken up the time of the Committee, then to walk out as soon as the Minister gets to his feet to answer them.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It may be discourteous, but it is wrong and against Speakers’ rulings to refer to a member leaving the Chamber. We will just proceed as we were.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I was about to address my comments to Deborah Coddington, who I thought made some very sincere and good points about the legislation, what it intends to do, and about the appalling situation that occurs in our community, including the case of Peter Douglas Liddell, whom I tracked earlier in my career in Parliament. I was appalled at the incredible damage done by a man like that. In my opinion no law can be tough enough to deal with a man who blights people’s lives and, in the incident she referred to, led to the suicide of a young man who was offended against and then disbelieved. People who act in this way as predators act in a way that gives them credibility. They are often respected figures. He was a counsellor at King’s College, and a child would not be believed against a man in that position. I deplore that sort of behaviour, and this legislation, in so far as it toughens up the penalties against those people, is well merited, and I will be pleased to have the support of members for it.

Deborah Coddington raised a question about suppression orders. Suppression orders generally should not be relied on. In fact, only in about 0.4 percent of cases suppression orders are issued, and they are largely in cases where it is the intention of the court to protect the victim. However, I think that Ms Coddington made the fair point that sometimes the victim does not want that form of protection, and the court is imposing it against the will of the victim. That is why I amended the Criminal Justice Act back in 2002 to require the court, when seeking name suppression for the accused, to take into account the views of the victim.

Clearly, that was a message to judges. If the victim says: “Look, I might be the daughter of this person who is supposedly a respected pillar of society, but I want the world to know what he has done, and if the price of that is to expose me as the victim, I am prepared to pay that price.”, then the court should heed the views of the victim. I think that that is very important.

Finally, I will just touch on the question of the definition of rape. I know that a number of members—Sue Bradford, Marc Alexander, and I think Ron Mark has indicated support—have, in good faith, said that they wanted a change to the definition and that a variety of other things should be regarded as rape. The select committee considered that very carefully, and I have no fundamental opposition to what each of the members is asking for, but each of the solutions has inherent in those solutions its own problems.

The fundamental point is that whether it is rape or sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, the penalties are exactly the same, and I think everybody understands that. I want to put on record for the courts, which do refer to the Hansard of the debates, that this is the intention of Parliament, and whether it is a male sexually violating another male, or whether it is oral, anal, or vaginal, the penalty should be the same regardless of the gender of the offender or the nature of the penetration that is committed. The law provides that the offence is the same in every case. So we get down to what terminology we should use. We thought about extending the definition of rape so that it could include male on male, and I looked very carefully at Sue Bradford’s amendment, but then I am left with all the questions at the end of it. Yes, I could live with all of that, but then what about penetration with an object? Should that be rape? That is not covered by the member’s amendment, which I have looked quite closely at. Maybe it was intended to be covered.

Sue Bradford: Yes, subsection (1)(a).

Hon PHIL GOFF: I will take the member’s word for that. But in the end there was not a consensus on this matter at the select committee, and in an area where I believe we should try to find a consensus, if we cannot do so we stick with the status quo. I am comfortable with the status quo in the sense that it does not affect the penalty that applies to any of the forms of offending that have been discussed by members and in their amendments. I respect their points of view. I am not strongly opposed to what they are advocating. I have searched for a consensus. The wider consensus at this stage that I have found is around maintaining the status quo. I accept that, and for that reason I will, with some regret, not be advocating support for the amendments moved by various members on that issue.

RON MARK (NZ First): I wish to take just a minute to reply to the Minister, whose sincerity I accept. I actually know him personally and I think I have a very good understanding of his views, but I have to say that it is not good enough to say there was a majority in the select committee that supported the status quo. If one looks at the party situation, the Labour Party members were the only members on the entire committee who held that view. The select committee is made up of members of the United Future Party, the Green Party, the New Zealand First Party, the National Party, and the Labour Party, and it is on record that four of the five parties said that this definition should change.

Labour can get away with a little bit of fudging here, but the fact remains that it has stacked the committee with its numbers. It has stacked the committee so that it gets the outcomes it wants and it is bullying its way through this. The Minister should take a wider view. If four of the five parties in this Parliament can agree that generally what the Government is doing is right, but that on this particular definition it is wrong, then why can the Minister not be magnanimous, accept defeat, and go with the majority party view?

We know that the Government has the numbers and can force its way. It does not have to, because when we get outside this Chamber it will be dealing with it, anyway, because United Future, the Green Party, the ACT party, the National Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the Māori Party will all be out there during the election saying that Labour was wrong. There will be only one party that says that the definition is right, and that is the Minister’s party. The tragedy is that within his own caucus we know there is a difference of opinion, and he should listen to it.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

Visitors

Republic of Vanuatu—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Madam SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing members that His Excellency Mr Sato Kilman, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs from the Republic of Vanuatu, is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish he be welcomed and accorded a seat to the left. I am sure that members would also like to welcome members of his delegation who are present in the gallery.

His Excellency Mr Sato Kilman, accompanied by the Associate Minister of Pacific Island Affairs, entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.

Tabling of Documents

Jim Peron

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to table the following documents. One is an article from the Sunday Star-Times, dated 3 April 2005, in which Jim Peron states that he is being crucified over the interpretation of opinions that he expressed 20 years ago and no longer holds.

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to table two articles written by Jim Peron entitled “The Claptrap Over Child Porn”, parts 1 and 2, written in May 2003.

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to table a series of pictures of naked boys retrieved from Jim Peron’s Auckland bookstore, Aristotle’s Books, just 3 weeks ago.

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

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Foreign Investment—Approvals

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Why did she say in the House on 30 March 2005 in response to my questions about New Zealand’s growing net debtor position, rising current account deficit, and the continuing sales of New Zealand assets to foreign buyers, “It is the same economy with the same current account deficit as was recorded when that member was the Treasurer in September 1997.”, and “I do note that the highest-ever number of net land sales by hectare occurred when Mr Peters was in charge of the overseas investment legislation.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: Because that is what the figures show.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the figures possibly show that, when the deficit when I was Treasurer was just over $6 billion and there has been a 57 percent increase under the Prime Minister’s administration to $9.4 billion, and when will she and her Minister of Finance stop coming up with random figures that they have decided to pluck from the air?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am sure that the member who was Treasurer would know that he should relate the current account deficit to the GDP. While he was—[Interruption] It is a bit cute to do anything different! The current account deficit peaked at 6.9 percent while that member was the Treasurer.

Gordon Copeland: Does the sale of New Zealand assets to foreign buyers have a positive or a negative effect on New Zealand’s net position and its current account deficit?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In general terms, it should have a positive effect given that it meets a net national interest test in terms of land and a business test in terms of physicals. Of course, in some instances one could argue that that has not necessarily always been true in specific cases, but that is often being wise after the event rather than before.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What was the current account deficit in 1998 during the Asian economy crisis, and is it not a fact that the sale of 199,131 hectares—which allegedly took place, according to the Prime Minister’s words, under my stewardship—was purely a result of a US company by the name of International Paper exercising its pre-approved rights to increase its shareholding in Carter Holt Harvey, a sale that was made possible only by, and occurred during, the ruthless and relentless policies of the 1984-1990 Labour Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I note that the member is now shifting his ground. Yesterday he claimed that the bulk was accounted for by the Forestry Corporation sales, which are not the same thing. In fact, the Forestry Corporation assets that were dealt with in September 1996 and that were referred to yesterday—in terms of land as opposed to area of forest—comprised only some 2,674 hectares. The Carter Holt Harvey acquisition he refers to was a deal agreed to in 1991. In terms of extending the shares it required approval for the extension of the time limit, which had long since run out. That member gave approval for the extension of that in December 1997. He did not have to do so.

Rod Donald: Does the Prime Minister agree with the recent comments of the Governor of the Reserve Bank that “We have had higher current account deficits than that before.”—this is referring to the most recent one—“Nevertheless, I think it’s an undesirable feature and it’s probably the one area of our economy that you would say is not in a broad balance at the minute.”, and what steps will the Government take to get the deficit into a better balance, particularly in the light of the Reserve Bank’s view that the risk premium on the high current account deficit is costing borrowers—whether it is homeowners or businesses—a risk premium of 1 to 2 percent?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think we have to distinguish between two elements. The first is the long run current account deficit, which in New Zealand has been higher than in many other countries. I think that we have never run a surplus on the current account, and certainly not for anything more than a very short period of time. That is clearly a reflection over the long term of the fact that we have been a capital-acquiring country, as an expanding country, but also of a relatively low savings rate—even some years ago when our savings rate was higher than it is now. The second element is the cyclical element. Whenever we have the economy moving strongly, we tend to accumulate a current account deficit because increased incomes lead to higher imports, the dollar tends to rise, which tends to reduce export income in New Zealand terms. That tends to be self-correcting. The concern at the moment is that, because of the weakness of the US dollar, that phase may last longer than is normal.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why will the Prime Minister not answer the question as to what the current account deficit was in 1998, despite the Asian crisis, and does she not understand what a pre-approved right is, which was exercised by International Paper a long time before I ever became Treasurer, as she and her Minister of Finance well know.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In answer to the last point, the pre-approved right in 1991 had long since expired by 1997. It had to be renewed on a number of occasions. The member did not have to approve that extension. [Interruption] There was a time limit on the exercise of the pre-approved right. It had long since expired by 1997. On the other matter, yes, the current account deficit was beginning to improve. It usually does when the economy slows down, as it did under that member as Treasurer.

Electricity Commission—Alternative Fuels

2. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Energy: Does he expect that the Electricity Commission’s “thorough investigation of alternatives” to Transpower’s proposed 400kV transmission line between Whakamaru and Ōtāhuhu will include the investigation of alternative fuels to reduce the need for electricity at peak hour in Auckland; if not, why not?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Energy): Yes.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can he confirm that 70 percent of the peak electricity demand in Auckland is from households, and consists largely of power for cooking, space heating, and lighting on cold winter evenings; if so, does he agree that any other fuel that could supply these needs in sufficient quantity would be a valid alternative to the 400kV line?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Off the top of my head, I cannot confirm the figures, but I would tend to say that the experience of Christchurch is such that we would not want to shift to wood burners.

Russell Fairbrother: What is the role of the Electricity Commission with regard to the proposed transmission upgrade?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The commission is expected to assess Transpower’s proposal thoroughly, in comparison with other alternatives. It is important to have security of supply, but the commission will look at non-transmission options, such as additional generation and improved energy efficiency, as well as alternative transmission options.

Hon Roger Sowry: Will the Government ensure that Transpower is able to purchase properties along the preferred route that Transpower intends announcing next month, or will the Government expect property owners along the route to continue to live in uncertainty until the commission reports back—conveniently, after the election?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: We certainly will not stop Transpower from buying properties on a willing seller - willing buyer basis.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister accept that fundamentally we have a simple choice to make, and that is basically that we can transport power to where it is needed, or transport fuel to localised power stations; if he does accept that, will he tell us which his preference is; if it is the latter—transporting fuel—which is his preferred fuel?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No.

Peter Brown: By answering “No” to that question, is the Minister saying he thinks he can solve Auckland’s problems by introducing things like diesel generators to be on standby to run at peak times, by having households switch to gas, and by having energy-efficiency measures like low-energy lighting in every home?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister confirm, then, that there will be a proper investigation of the extent to which peak electricity demand could be reduced by using gas as a direct fuel for household cooking, heating, and hot water, rather than burning it inefficiently in power stations and then having to transmit the power north?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Without necessarily having the negative bits at the end of the question, yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How will any of the proposals presently before the Government be affected by the decision to float New Zealand’s largest energy network company, Vector, on the sharemarket within the next 6 months; and is this just another Labour sell-out?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: From memory, that set-up was done when that member was in Government. But I want to make it clear that I do not think ownership is actually a factor in this.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister confirm that the Green Party has been calling for just such an investigation of alternatives, including energy efficiency, direct use of gas, cogeneration of heat and power, and smarter peak-load management, ever since the lines were first proposed?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It has not been quite to the forefront of my mind, but if the member gives me that assurance, I of course accept it.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What is the Minister doing right now to educate people in Auckland about the opportunities to use energy much more efficiently, to keep their power bills down and avoid the construction of transmission lines?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think at this particular time I am involved in a negative experience so far as climate change and the production of hot air go.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Is it true that none of the parties now expressing in the House support for the transmission lines did so before the Government announced that the Electricity Commission was looking at the issue?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I can confirm that—I think it was quite the opposite. But, then, flip-flop is the way the “Jandal Party” goes.

John Tamihere—Public Retraction

3. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does her Government believe that John Tamihere should issue a public retraction in the interests of all New Zealanders?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: Mr Tamihere expressed personal opinions that the Government has condemned, and dissociated itself from. He has publicly acknowledged that his comments are unacceptable, and he has offered a full apology. That is in the interests of all New Zealanders.

Gerry Brownlee: Why cannot the Prime Minister understand that whatever took place during the 15 minutes that John Tamihere was in the Labour caucus room does not constitute an apology and retraction to the thousands of New Zealanders who were offended by his comments about women and the Holocaust?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Mr Tamihere has actually stated his apology publicly.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Prime Minister’s judgment, then, that no public retraction is needed, mean that in her opinion a man who has been struck off for forgery, who publicly lied about a golden handshake, and who has offended women, Jews, gays, the union movement, and his own caucus colleagues, is a good role model for Labour members of Parliament?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister made clear that the views expressed by Mr Tamihere do not have any support within the Labour Party or the Labour caucus. But views similar to those on a number of those issues—certainly in relation to gays and members of the union movement—are expressed frequently by members opposite.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Are the statements in relation to accepting pain over pleasure when duty calls—statements included in a Latin media release sent out by Gerry Brownlee—a reference to Mr Tamihere or to a deputy leader under Dr Brash?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Although I have seen that material, the Latin is so good I refuse to believe that it came from Mr Brownlee.

Rodney Hide: Is it not a fact that Clayton Cosgrove was the managing director of the Mike Moore supporters’ club, that the Prime Minister publicly named Clayton Cosgrove as orchestrating phone calls and demonstrations outside the houses of members of Parliament, and complained of “a campaign of fear and intimidation” including “hate calls” to members of Parliament; and is that not the reason that the Prime Minister is not demanding a retraction, because what John Tamihere said was the truth?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister made it clear that she does not accept the accusations made about Mr Cosgrove’s action, and she and Mr Cosgrove are of one mind on this matter.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How does the Prime Minister intend explaining to her hosts at Auschwitz, when she visits later this month, that she did not require John Tamihere to retract his statement on the Holocaust?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister has made it clear that the party and the Government dissociate themselves completely from those remarks. This party has a long, proud history of opposing anti-Semitism.

Rodney Hide: Was the Prime Minister then talking fantasy when she named Clayton Cosgrove as orchestrating phone calls, pamphlet drops, and demonstrations outside MPs’ houses, in the National Business Review on 3 December 1993, and of claiming in the New Zealand Herald on 29 November 1993 that there was a “campaign of fear and intimidation” against her, including “hate calls to MPs”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am happy to answer the question, but what prime ministerial responsibility is there for statements made as Leader of the Opposition in 1993 about internal party matters?

Gerry Brownlee: Madam Speaker, if you were to rule that there is no prime ministerial responsibility for statements that the Prime Minister retracts as Prime Minister, having made them as Leader of the Opposition, then certainly the question asked by Mr Mallard earlier should not have been allowed to proceed, either. I think that what Mr Hide has done is to point out that the Prime Minister said one thing when she was Leader of the Opposition and now, conveniently, faced by a political difficulty around John Tamihere, she is trying to say another thing.

Rodney Hide: The issue is this, and it goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s credibility. We have heard that the claim by Mr John Tamihere that Clayton Cosgrove organised hate calls was fantasy and that it did not happen, and we have the Prime Minister saying, admittedly before she was Prime Minister, that that is exactly what happened. What I am doing is drawing it up, and the point of it is that what she said as Prime Minister is what we are discussing.

Madam SPEAKER: I shall rule on the point of order. No party leader in the House is answerable for statements made in that capacity. I think that Mr Hide did not tie those statements back together at the time. However, given the content of the debate, I would ask the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to address that question.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I could rephrase it and help the Prime Minister.

Madam SPEAKER: No, that is fine. I think that the Minister can remember what the member said.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister stated that the allegation that Mr Cosgrove had called her home on a number of occasions in the middle of the night was completely incorrect. Mr Cosgrove denied that. Those are the facts.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Prime Minister think that the silence of Joris de Bres, the Race Relations Commissioner, on John Tamihere’s derogatory comments about Jews, and the silence of Ros Noonan, the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, on John Tamihere’s derogatory comments about women, confirm John Tamihere’s allegation that the ninth floor has apparatus, activities, and influence in everything related to the Government, and that those two commissioners are silent because the Prime Minister wants them to be?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that her comments in the National Business Review are totally at variance with her recent comments on mystery phone calls from Mr Clayton Cosgrove, which of these statements is true: the recent one, or the one she gave back in 1993?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said, Mr Tamihere claimed that Mr Cosgrove had phoned the then Leader of the Opposition—in fact, she was not the then Leader of the Opposition; it was before she was even leader of the Labour Party, when she was the deputy leader of the Opposition—and her husband at night. The Prime Minister stated that, in fact, that was not the case, and Mr Cosgrove said that that was not the case.

Education—Funding Review

4. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Education: What reports, if any, has he received on possible changes to education funding?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I have seen a report advocating the reintroduction of bulk funding for schools. Under the proposal, targeted funding for things like teacher professional development, literacy and numeracy programmes, and teaching resources would be eliminated. School boards would have to negotiate their own employment agreements with teachers, and the only extra funding would be available through wage cuts. Schools that got into financial difficulty would be cut adrift and their students abandoned by the Government. Those approaches, which are so last millennium, come from Don Brash.

Lynne Pillay: What feedback has he received on the proposed reintroduction of bulk funding?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I would like to quote someone who is an eminent former secondary principal. He stated: “If bulk funding of teacher salaries is imposed on boards of trustees and the teaching profession, I believe it could be the most divisive and possibly the most destructive change in our education system.” That eminent former principal of Hamilton Boys High School is Tony Steel, the ex-National member for Hamilton East.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm the statements behind the paper from the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) titled Bulk Funding: a Retrospective, which stated: “The Minister of Education, Trevor Mallard insisted that the ‘flexibility’ that bulk-funded schools had come to expect had to be retained … The solution was to allow schools to continue the practice of employing teachers from the operations grant.”, and can he confirm that New Zealand schools currently employ thousands of individual teachers from their operations grant; what is the difference, and why is he against that?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: What I can confirm is that the PPTA agreement is, in fact, a minimum rate document. Teachers can be paid more than that if schools choose to do it, and many, many schools do. But I can also confirm that there is considerable doubt about this recent proposal. I note, from the speech of Don Brash, that the copy has been issued with all his doubts in it. For instance: “Bill, what value will these have?”, and “Check with Bill. Is this really greatly different from what happens now?”, asked Don Brash. I will just say that until those members can do information and communications technology, they cannot do education.

Bernie Ogilvy: Does the Minister agree that one potential problem with giving outwardly successful schools complete control of funding as trust schools is that they may become personal fiefdoms under a charismatic principal, and that in the case of a school like Cambridge High School the inability of educational authorities to intervene would be disastrous?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member has a point, although I would have thought that Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, run by Don Brash’s mate, would be a better example of that.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please withdraw that last comment about mates.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I withdraw.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although you have asked Mr Mallard to withdraw for making that scurrilous and totally untrue allegation in the House, I think that it is a light punishment for him to simply stand up and say: “I withdraw.” The reality is that he has just lied to the House. He should be dealt with in a much harsher way than the simple request that he withdraw a comment.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The member did, in fact, withdraw, and the other member, Mr Brownlee, has accused the Minister of lying. That member cannot accuse a Minister of lying in this House. I would suggest to you that he now has to withdraw and apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: I had ruled on the point of order. The member had withdrawn. I now have a separate situation whereby one member has called the other a liar. That is not acceptable. I would ask him to withdraw that comment.

Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It was inappropriate to call the Minister a liar because of the Standing Orders that we operate under. I think it is appropriate, though, to say that he was being extremely reckless with the truth.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting Mr Trevor Mallard’s comments about bulk funding, I seek the leave of the House to table the Hansard of the third reading debate on the Education Act 1989, which made bulk funding compulsory for every school, and for which Michael Cullen and Helen Clark voted.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection to the tabling of that document? Yes, there is. The document will not be tabled.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I note that Mr Mallard seemed to quote from a document, albeit a draft document. As is traditional, he should therefore table that document, because we all need a good laugh.

Madam SPEAKER: I do not think that is a serious point of order.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is very hard to describe the document as an official one, and therefore I have to seek the leave of the House to table it. I so do.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection, so it will not be tabled.

Hon Bill English: I seek leave to table a paper from the Post Primary Teachers Association entitled Bulk Funding: a Retrospective, which cites Trevor Mallard as advising schools to pay teachers out of their operational funds in order to keep the flexibility.

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

Question No. 3 to Minister

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I do apologise to the House; I meant to do this after the last question, but I got carried away in the excitement. I seek the leave of the House to table a National Business Review article dated 3 December 1993 by Dr Vernon Small, in which Ms Clark is quoted as criticising Clayton Cosgrove for organising demonstrations—

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is objection.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I seek leave to table a document dated 29 November 1993 in which Helen Clark “hits back” against a campaign of fear, intimidation, and hate calls to MPs.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I seek the leave of the House to table a document dated 30 November 1993 describing how Mike Moore supporters stood outside Ruth Dyson’s house and demonstrated with some foul placards.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is. It will not be tabled.

Women’s Affairs—Annual Expenditure

5. DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) to the Minister of Women’s Affairs: How much is spent annually on women’s affairs and what is achieved by this?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Women’s Affairs): I presume that the question refers to direct expenditure by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, in which case the answer is $4.665 million for the year ending June 2005. The outputs that are required as a result of that expenditure are outlined in the annual report, and I will seek to table that annual report at the end of this question.

Deborah Coddington: How can the Minister claim that that spending has any effect and that the ministry has achieved anything, when a senior Labour MP can dismiss leading women in his own party as butch lesbians simply because they do not have children—casting a slur on all childless women—and not have to retract his statement?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I very much regret that the Minister and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs do not have responsibility for the comments of that member. Further, though, I note that my colleague has apologised to the Labour caucus, which severely censured him for the comments he made. The caucus said that those comments were grossly offensive. It is time, in my view, to move on from that matter.

Dianne Yates: Has the Government improved choices and opportunities for the women of New Zealand?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As a matter of fact, yes, there is a long list of Labour-Progressive Government - introduced initiatives that create more choices and opportunities for New Zealand women at home and in paid work. They include paid parental leave, which increases to 14 weeks this year; increased childcare subsidies; a significant boost to income support through the Working for Families package; and a programme to introduce pay and employment equity in the public sector.

Judith Collins: How does the Minister explain the stunning silence from the Ministry of Women’s Affairs following the abusive statements made by John Tamihere when describing his female colleagues and New Zealand women, in light of the ministry’s stated goal to “draw attention to and provide advice to advance the status of women in Aotearoa New Zealand …”?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As the member should know, the people from the Ministry of Women’s Affairs are not inclined to become involved in matters that are party political, because they are public servants. That would be entirely inappropriate. Further, there was no need to receive any sort of advice, given the very clear comments of the Prime Minister that those statements were grossly offensive and unacceptable to the New Zealand Labour Party.

Judy Turner: Can the Minister actually point to a decrease in the number of women who have been battered or even killed as a result of domestic violence every year; and when we have her ministry, the Ministry of Social Development, the Department of Justice, the New Zealand Police, and the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services all working on New Zealand’s violence prevention strategy, what assurances can she give that actual progress is being made on its implementation, rather than it being just a massive talkfest?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I agree with the feeling behind the member’s question that domestic violence, including situations where women are killed, is totally unacceptable. I support the role of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs in ensuring that when violent situations are analysed a gender analysis is part of that—because, tragically, it is still true that in the majority of cases of domestic violence it is women who are the victims of that violence.

Judith Collins: What steps has the Minister or her ministry taken to obtain from her Government colleague Mr John Tamihere a full retraction for the women of New Zealand, whom he so firmly and forcefully put in their place?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member may not be aware of the fact that on Tuesday this week John Tamihere came to the Labour Party caucus and offered an unqualified apology for his comments. The Prime Minister, on behalf of the caucus and the Labour Party, issued a severe censure, which has been made public.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Does the Minister recall that last week in the House the National Party asked a number of questions and made a number of speeches attacking the Prime Minister for being a childless woman, and does the Minister see this as another example of that party’s ability to flip-flop from one week to the next?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Absolutely. Not only on this occasion but over many years the National Party has demonstrated its total lack of support for New Zealand women.

Deborah Coddington: Does the Minister think there are two standards in terms of policies on attitudes to New Zealand women when John Tamihere gets away with his sexist language without issuing a retraction, but she herself had to retract and apologise for calling a National woman MP an “irresponsible tart”?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The comment I made was totally inappropriate, and I am pleased that I apologised for it. John Tamihere came to the caucus and gave an unqualified apology for his grossly offensive comments.

Deborah Coddington: How can the Minister claim that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs has done anything to reduce the stereotyping of women as weak and inferior, when John Tamihere does not have to retract his sexist dismissal of the Prime Minister as “emotional” and someone who “goes to pieces” whenever she has to confront a problem?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I assume that underlying the member’s question is support for the continuation of the role of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Clearly we have not been 100 percent successful yet.

Rodney Hide: What really has been achieved, when the Labour Party itself has in its midst Mr Clayton Cosgrove, who organised placards outside that MP’s office questioning her sexual orientation simply because she had not had children; and has she ever had an apology from Mr Clayton Cosgrove for his doing that?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The protest that the member refers to, which consisted of three or four people, was actually outside my home. It was before I was a member of Parliament, and I did not see Clayton Cosgrove there.

Rodney Hide: Does she find it acceptable that the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee would organise a protest outside her home, accusing her of being a dyke—and I can say that that has been confirmed by Mr Ron Mark, who says that is exactly what happened, and that Clayton Cosgrove organised it—

Madam SPEAKER: The question is getting well away from ministerial responsibility, unless the member can pull it into context really quickly.

Rodney Hide: —and if the Ministry of Women’s Affairs was really doing its job, would not Clayton Cosgrove have had to apologise to her, or are there two standards?

Hon RUTH DYSON: If Mr Hide is relying on Ron Mark for his sources of information, then I am not surprised he is so often way off the mark.

Rodney Hide: I seek the leave of the House to table a series of documents about these placards being outside Ruth Dyson’s home.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes. They will not be tabled.

Hon RUTH DYSON: I seek leave, as indicated in my answer to the primary question, to table the Ministry of Women’s Affairs annual report for the year ended 30 June 2004.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is. It will not be tabled.

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table the front page of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs website, which shows that not one statement has been issued by the ministry about Mr Tamihere’s comments.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? It will not be tabled.

Rodney Hide: In response to Ruth Dyson’s claims, I seek the leave of the House to table a report showing that there were actually 40 Mike Moore supporters protesting outside her house.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? It will not be tabled.

Ron Mark: I wish to make a personal explanation about comments made by Mr Hide and denied by the Minister. I want to confirm to the House that I did confirm with Mr Hide that Clayton Cosgrove was intimately involved in running Mike Moore’s offensive and defensive campaign during the leadership coup, that he did organise the campaign outside the honourable member’s home, and that there were placards, as shown on TV that day, that had on them slogans such as “dyke”, questioning that member’s sexuality. This is a matter of record in the media; it is not something I have made up. I do take offence at the rather humorous slight of me that the member made by suggesting that the things I bring to this House are untrue. It is fact that when I said that a person on home detention was on P and died of it, it was proven eventually to be true, which the Minister admitted. A number of things that this Government has denied have proven to be true. This incident that Mr Hide is referring to is a matter of public record, and TV3 and Television One records will show that.

Madam SPEAKER: Is the member seeking a withdrawal and apology from the Minister for her comment?

Ron Mark: No, not at all.

Justice System—Relevant Facts Before Courts

6. MURRAY SMITH (United Future) to the Minister of Justice: Is he satisfied that the justice system allows for all relevant facts to be considered when a case is brought before the courts?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): Generally, yes. But, as the member is well aware, there is nevertheless a range of limitations on what evidence may be placed before the court. That includes, for example, information that is subject to lawyer-client privilege and spousal privilege, and the restrictions on the use of hearsay evidence, to name a few. Some changes to the rules governing admissibility of evidence will be proposed by the Evidence Bill when it is brought before the House.

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to point out that during my colleague’s question there was a great deal of background noise, and I would like to enter a plea for his supplementary questions to be heard in silence.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I agree. The level of chatter rises from time to time during some questions. I ask members to respect all questioners and give them silence when they are asking their questions.

Murray Smith: Does he think it is acceptable for the New Zealand Army to hide vital evidence from a coroner’s court, then present submissions that it knows to be lies, as it did when it hid a report showing that defendants Keith and Margaret Berryman were not responsible for a bridge collapse on their property; if not, will he give an assurance that he will act to ensure that all the facts of the case are brought to light; if so, how does he plan to do that?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The member is a lawyer and he knows that the decision in regard to the admissibility of that evidence was made by the High Court. The way to change that is not by raising a question in the House or, indeed, by acting in contempt of the court; it is by appealing the court’s decision, if he or any other member thinks that decision is wrong.

Tim Barnett: Will the proposed Evidence Bill codify common as well as statute law, and when does he expect to introduce it to the House?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes, the Evidence Bill will do that. It has been 10 years in the making, from the time that the Law Commission began work on it to the time of its report. The bill arising out of the Law Commission’s report has now been substantially drafted, and I would hope to see it introduced before the middle of the year.

Murray Smith: Does the Minister agree that it is only proper that a couple who have endured 10 years of legal battle and have lost everything, including their health, as a result of a decision based on an abuse of process by the New Zealand Army are properly compensated and vindicated; if so, will he commit to the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the circumstances of the Berryman case in order to help that to occur?

Hon PHIL GOFF: That matter has been before an inquest and the High Court, and it may well be back before the High Court. That is the appropriate way of dealing with the sorts of issues the member has raised. I would like to point out that although the member claimed that the Army has concealed the report, the report, in fact, was made available to the Berrymans’ lawyers, who at the time were Buddle Findlay. That is hardly concealing the report.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When will the Prime Minister show some leadership on this issue and direct the Minister of Defence to have that report published, as is fully within her power to do so, instead of ducking and diving around behind legal process, which has cost this family a fortune already; when will she back up what she said back in 1998 in the Taranaki - King Country by-election?

Madam SPEAKER: I would note that that is within the responsibility of the Minister of Defence, but if the Minister of Justice has a comment, he may make it.

Hon PHIL GOFF: It is just the obvious comment: the Prime Minister always shows leadership on every issue. That is why she is so far ahead in the polls above anybody else, including that member.

Murray Smith: Does he support a review of the Defence Force rules of disciplinary procedure, to ensure that reports or other evidence, such as the Butcher report on the Berryman case, are disclosed in other relevant proceedings; if not, what assurances can he give that the Berryman situation will not happen again?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I draw to that member’s attention that the High Court’s decision was based on the principle that the armed forces courts of inquiry are not intended to apportion blame but, rather, to establish the facts and what can be learnt from them for the future. The High Court made its decision on the basis that utilising evidence gathered in this way for proceedings that seek to establish blame would jeopardise the ability of future courts of inquiry to operate effectively. So the answer to the member’s question is no.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that in 1998, during electioneering in the Taranaki - King Country by-election, Helen Clark, along with MPs Mark Burton and Harry Duynhoven, visited the Berrymans, then went on the record as saying: “It is an issue of National having lost touch with its traditional constituency. These people were persecuted by the Labour Department. They have constantly sought some relief from the Government, and they have never had it.”; and when does she intend to show some leadership and direct that the Minister of Defence have that document published?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I do note that the Government made the Berrymans a settlement offer of $150,000 in June 2001, and that offer is still open for acceptance.

Education Vote—Increased Spending

7. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: Can he confirm that between the 1999-2000 Budget and the 2004-05 Budget spending in Vote Education on administration of education regulations has nearly quadrupled, spending on policy advice has increased by 63 percent, and spending on administration of education sector resourcing has doubled?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): There have been across-the-board increases in education expenditure since Labour became the Government, and we are now third in the OECD in school expenditure as a percentage of GDP. Specific departmental, as opposed to school, increases have included some things that are technical issues. For example, there have been major property revaluations, which have resulted in increased capital charges and depreciation. Some of the matters have not been technical, such as the $153 million relating to services to students with special needs, and $10 million relating to early childhood departmental payments. I tell Mr English that that is in the departmental area.

Hon Bill English: What benefit have students and parents received from the following increases in Ministry of Education spending: $18 more per year on policy advice, $10 million more per year on the administration of education regulations, $37 million more per year on the administration of education sector resourcing, and, in particular, $2 million more per year on ministerial servicing?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: One of the things that this Government has done is to be transparent in the area of spending. The fact that we are straightforward and honest about what is spent is why we are doing so well in the polls and the Opposition is in free fall, as will be shown tonight.

Helen Duncan: Has he seen any proposals to do away with any particular elements of education funding?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes. I have seen a suggestion that the entire allocation for teacher professional development and curriculum support should be scrapped. That would affect thousands of teachers who are benefiting from professional development aimed at improving how they teach maths, reading, and writing, with the ultimate benefits going to the kids they teach. There would be no laptops for teachers, no programmes aimed at reducing truancy, no high-speed Internet access, no software licences, and no help for gifted children. That is the policy of the National Party.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have drawn to Ministers’ attention before that they do not have ministerial responsibility for National Party policy. In that case this Minister cannot have such responsibility, because that is absolutely not National’s policy, no matter how often he repeats it.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister was asked to comment on any reports. Although he is not responsible for National’s policy he did name the report, so the answer came within the scope of the question. The Minister did not assert a responsibility for that policy.

Bernie Ogilvy: Does the Minister agree that one way of cutting down on education bureaucracy would be to merge the three agencies concerned with educational quality—that is, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, the Education Review Office, and the New Zealand Teachers Council—into a new educational standards authority, which would also help to reduce the compliance costs facing schools; if not, why not?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member has consulted with the Minister of State Services, who has some experience in this area. Unfortunately, sometimes one and one and one actually cost four, rather than two and a half.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the funding for the core activities of the Ministry of Education now costs $132 million more per year than when he became the Minister, which means that for every $1 that he has put into school operations grants, he has put $1 into more bureaucracy?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is absolutely incorrect.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister answer the question this time that I asked earlier—that is, what value do parents and students get from the following increases in Ministry of Education expenditure: $18 million more per year on policy advice, $10 million more per year on the administration of education regulations, and $37 million more per year on the administration of education sector resourcing; what did any of that do for any of our students?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I know it was the policy of the previous National Government to have under-resourced and unregulated schools, and we saw the results slipping away as a result of its policy.

Madam SPEAKER: Could the Minister address the question that was raised more specifically. It made reference to increases.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: This Government believes, for example, that we should have property resourced properly. We have put a lot of money into that, and spent—

Hon Bill English: I didn’t mention property.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, the member did mention resourcing. What the hell does he think property is, if it is not a resource? [Interruption]

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is one of the conventions of this House that members do not issue threats to other members, in an attempt to influence them. Mr Mallard just pointed at me across the House and said loudly: “You’re gone.” That is out of order.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I was referring to a number of National members at the next election.

Madam SPEAKER: If the member would just withdraw his comment, please, we can then move forward.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I withdraw.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday you were extremely stern—and, in fact, over the last couple of days—and required a Minister, in the case of Annette King, and a party leader, in the case of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, to leave the House for exactly the sort of exchange that Mr Mallard attempted to engage in.

Madam SPEAKER: That exchange was before, and not during, that point of order. But I do want the Minister, please, to rise and withdraw that comment, and to apologise if the member took offence.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I withdraw and apologise.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you have missed my point. Mr Mallard did exactly what Mrs King did. On the other hand, Mr English showed considerable restraint, given the provocation from Mr Mallard. If there is to be the convention that there is not that byplay across the House before, after, or during questions, Mr Mallard should be asked to remove himself from the House.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I heard and saw exactly what happened. After the answer was finished, in the time in between, when no questions were being asked, Mr English first said “You’re pathetic.”, which was itself out of order, because it was in the second person. Then, for some peculiar reason, after Mr Mallard said “You’re gone.”, Mr English felt that that was being a bully.

Madam SPEAKER: That was my recollection, as well. It was not during the actual giving of the point of order. Could we please move on.

Education Act—Free Enrolment and Education

8. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Associate Minister of Education: Is he confident that the Government is fulfilling its obligation under the Education Act 1989 that every child is entitled to free enrolment and free education at any State school; if so, why?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education), on behalf of the Associate Minister of Education: Although there has been some confusion on the part of a principal, I can now answer yes, because we will continue to have a Labour-led Government, and therefore members opposite will not be in a position to privatise schools.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That answer cannot be acceptable. That Minister talked about a Labour-led Government. Labour will be climbing over cut glass to get to other parties after the election. He should not be giving a hypothetical answer like that. He was asked to respond in terms of this term, and this term alone.

Madam SPEAKER: The Standing Orders do allow for hypothetical questions and hypothetical answers. I listened carefully. The Minister did address the first part of the question, so the question has been addressed. Hypothetical answers are permitted under the Standing Orders, as are hypothetical questions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Madam Speaker, it might be what you think is a hypothetical answer, but unless you are clairvoyant you cannot come to that decision, although it may be that you know something that we do not know—for example, that there will be an election shortly. The Minister’s answer appeared to go beyond that, and, clearly, that is not what this term of Parliament is about—the term for which he is responsible. He will have to have his ministerial warrant renewed after the next election, if he should be so lucky. Surely, he should be asked to constrain his comments to this term, and this term alone. If you think any old hypothetical answer is satisfactory, well, I do not, and I do not believe that the Standing Orders cover that, at all.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The ban on hypothetical questions was removed from the Standing Orders in, I think, 1996—certainly, it was a considerable number of years ago. If hypothetical questions are allowed, there must be hypothetical answers, although personally the re-election of a Labour-led Government I do not regard as hypothetical. But dealing more substantially with the point raised by the member, I suggest that if a Minister cannot answer for anything that might happen after the election date this year, which may be no later than 24 September, that will be a very huge constraint on the kinds of questions that can be asked for the remainder of this session of Parliament.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the member has made his point. Could we please now move on.

Metiria Turei: Can the Minister guarantee that today’s special-needs funding announcements will provide teacher-aide support to enable every special-needs child to attend school for a full school day, or will parents still have to pay up to $10,000 each year to enable their child to access his or her legal entitlement to a free education in a State school?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is not appropriate for a parent to have to pay $10,000 to access a State school.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Has the Minister heard of any reports or proposals to privatise any State schools?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes. I have seen a proposal effectively to privatise some schools by transferring those schools to trusts, so that they will be able to enrol whomever they want, to exclude the child next door, to charge whatever they want, to be subsidised by the Government, and to be sold.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware of increasing anger among parents that they are now paying $200 million per year in fees and donations for his so-called free education, and that one reason parents have to pay $200 million in fees for free State education under Labour is that for every new $1 he has given schools for operations funding he has given another $1 to bureaucrats, with the result that there are 1,200 more of them in the education field?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am quite willing to offer a briefing to the member so that he can better understand education accounts, and stop making such mistaken comments.

Tariana Turia: What response would the Minister give a teacher who rang my office concerned about the pressure placed on that teacher’s school when an Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme student was mainstreamed for 30 hours a week but funded for only 15 hours?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: A lot of Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme students in schools are funded for much fewer than 15 hours. They are funded for the amount that is appropriate.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister aware that the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme grant disproportionately affects low-decile schools, because of its very narrow criteria—both the school and the parents of the child must provide extensive written applications, and any educational assessments of the child must be paid for by the parent—and when will this Government change the system, to enable the 2 percent of all children who have very high needs to be properly and fully supported in their legal right to education?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member is not correct when she says that all assessments of children applying for the Ongoing and Reviewable Resource Scheme grant have to be paid for by the parents. That is just not true.

Tariana Turia: What response would the Minister give to a parent who rang my office who had been told by a teacher at the local school that the child would be considered a drain on that school’s funding, and that it would be better if that child was enrolled elsewhere?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I would invite the member to give that case to me. The person who made that comment, especially if he or she were a principal of a school, or a teacher at a school, acted particularly unprofessionally.

Metiria Turei: What is the Minister’s response to the 97 percent of schools reported in the Quality Public Education Coalition report on special education that stated last year that the bulk-funded special-education grant is inadequate to meet the needs of their children, in light of today’s failed announcement there would be no increase in the said grant?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I would treat the Quality Public Education Coalition report with the respect it deserves and put it in the rubbish bin.

Metiria Turei: How many special-needs children are currently being sent home at lunchtime because their schools simply cannot provide teacher-aide support for their special needs, and how many will continue to be sent home at lunchtime because today’s announcement funding increase will not provide them with the funding and support they need to get the education they deserve and are legally entitled to?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Since I have become Minister of Education funding for special-needs children has increased by over $90 million the year. The latest increase of $30 million, announced by my colleague David Benson-Pope, will make an enormous difference in making sure that some of the most vulnerable children in our system get the support they deserve and need.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the 1997 Budget, which demonstrates that New Zealand First added another $200 million in respect of the funding that Mr Mallard talks about, in half the time he boasts about.

Document not tabled.

Bridge Collapse—Butcher Report

9. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Has she received a copy of the report by former army engineer, George Butcher; if so, does she have any concerns with its findings?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister advises that her office has been sent a copy by a member of the public. She has not personally seen that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has the Prime Minister allowed a member of her caucus to stop the tabling of this report in Parliament despite the understood constraints that it go to members only, as happened yesterday; does she remember herself saying these words: “It is an issue of National having lost touch with its traditional constituency. These people were persecuted by the Labour Department. They have constantly sought some relief from the Government, and they never had it.”, and when does she intend to show some leadership and direct the Minister of Defence to make this report public?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There are three questions there. I will deal with the second and third. On the third matter, the Prime Minister has no intention of ordering the Minister of Defence to act in breach of a court order. Secondly, the Berrymans were offered some $150,000 in January 2001, and that offer is still on the table.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister understand that the court order was made in favour of the Army, which sought suppression; why does she not direct the Minister of Defence to start telling the Army to behave in a responsible way and give these people some justice, which is what she promised on the campaign trail in 1998 but apparently does not wish to go forward with now?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On the second part of that question, as I said, an offer is still on the table for compensation of $150,000. I have also been advised that, in terms of the legal costs of the occupational safety and health case and the High Court appeal, the Berrymans’ legal costs were settled by agreement, the difference being only some $2,500, approximately.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What farm can one buy, of the size the Berrymans once had, for $150,000 in this country; when will she start showing some leadership and tell the Minister of Defence to get the Army to stop behaving in this most despotic way when she promised this couple justice; and when will she show some leadership in this country?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The coroner’s inquest decision stands. The appropriate act by the Berrymans is to seek to overturn that. Speaking as Attorney-General, I am advised that there is no new information in the report that would enable the Solicitor-General to exercise his discretion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the Butcher report with the constraints on its publication as agreed with the Clerk yesterday, so that it will go only to 120 members of Parliament.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table an article dated 28 April 1998 from the Daily News, outlining Helen Clark’s visit to the Berrymans’ farm whilst on the campaign trail, and all the promises she made.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the Dominion Post editorial of 29 March 2005 in which Harry Duynhoven describes the Berrymans as having had “a [expletive deleted] raw deal”.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled.

Bail Act—Offenders on Remand

10. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Justice: What increase, if any, has there been in the number of alleged offenders remanded in custody since the passage of the Bail Act 2000?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): The most recent forecast of the prison population confirmed that prior to the passage of the Bail Act, there had been a decreasing trend in the proportion of defendants remanded in custody. In the period since the passage of the Act, that trend has reversed. The forecast shows that in the last 2 years, there has been a 31 percent increase in the male remand population. Bail is now being denied to more than 1,000 more offenders every year who are likely to reoffend while on bail, and community safety has been increased as a result.

Martin Gallagher: What changes were made by the Bail Act to help ensure that bail was not granted to those who were likely to reoffend?

Hon PHIL GOFF: This Government substantially rewrote the Bail Bill that was introduced to the House by Tony Ryall in 1999, because that bill, frankly, was weak and ineffectual. The Government toughened the law to ensure that defendants with a history of repeat offending, including burglars and property offenders—whom the previous National Government was apparently not concerned about—now face a reverse onus, meaning that they have to persuade the courts that bail is justified, rather than the onus falling on the police to prove that it should not be.

Health and Safety in Employment Act—Stress Provisions

11. Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) to the Associate Minister of Labour: What will the Government do to prevent an influx of court cases as a result of the new stress provisions in the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, as feared by Phil O’Reilly, Chief Executive of Business New Zealand?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Labour): It is important for the House to note that there has been only one prosecution of this type to date. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of New Zealand employers want safe and healthy workplaces. In this case, there had been numerous complaints, and the matter had, on many occasions, been brought to the employer’s attention. The problem was that the employer had failed to act on those complaints. There is nothing to suggest that there will be a large number of such cases in the future.

Dr Wayne Mapp: How does the Government justify the union representation in the occupational safety and health legislation, and the ability of unions to bring private prosecutions, or is this just another example of amendments to industrial law that, in the words of John Tamihere, the Government “f’ed up”?

Hon RUTH DYSON: It is internationally regarded as best practice to have worker participation in health and safety issues. I would prefer to rely on that sort of evidence, rather than on the information the member seems to be relying on. No wonder he is so hopeless about health and safety issues!

Hon Mark Gosche: What does the Department of Labour do to assist employers in providing safe and healthy workplaces?

Hon RUTH DYSON: In specific relation to the stress issue raised in the primary question, immediately after the clarification was made in the amendment to the Act, comprehensive guidelines were published by the Department of Labour, including helpful information for employers to ensure that they would avoid the very situation that Nalder and Biddle recently became party to. In the meantime, the Occupational Safety and Health Service has received a number of queries from both employers and employees, and the fact that there has been only one prosecution to date indicates that that information has been sought and used.

Stephen Franks: What moral authority has the Government to sick on the lawyers for dud employees claiming stress, when that Government has desperately pressed an honest whistle-blower to resign without due process, and has pressed him to agree that he is affected by stress and to take 2 weeks’ unsought stress break on full leave, when he is tormented by shared responsibility for running the “biggest sweatshops” in the nation, and when he has blown the whistle on a working climate that is “If you’re a free and independent spirit, very dangerous.”; what has the Minister done to protect him from having to toady to union bosses who are “always about threats and intimidation, and ‘we’ve got big balls, what have you got?’ ”

Hon RUTH DYSON: I think it is important, and should be well supported by colleagues within the workplace, that every employer ensure that when any person in any job is showing signs of stress, that person be supported to relieve him or her of that stress.

Dr Wayne Mapp: How does an employee who is ordered by his or her boss to take stress leave nevertheless seem to have enough time to appear on television programmes and to negotiate talkback shows whilst on that leave; or is being told to stay away from work simply a way of keeping the employee out of the Government’s hair?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I guess that various people respond to stress in different ways, and respond to relieving stress in different ways. Time will tell which is the more successful.

Primary Students—Compulsory National Testing

12. LESLEY SOPER (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education: What reports, if any, has he received on attitudes to national testing of primary school children?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education), on behalf of the Associate Minister of Education: I have seen reports that England will dump compulsory exams for young children because it is too stressful for the children. A survey of parents in England showed that one in ten 7-year-olds was reduced to tears and that many lost sleep over the tests. I agree with Bill English, who said that National would not introduce a pen and paper test. It is a pity that he could not convince Don Brash.

Lesley Soper: What are the alternatives to compulsory national exams for primary school students?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: An alternative would be the asTTle approach to testing young people—a very good system, well supported by Bill English. But as he recently explained to a visiting person, Terry Price, he got rolled.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that he is making all that up, that National is not proposing national testing, and that, in fact, our policy represents another logical step on top of his policy?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I know that imitation is the best form of flattery, and that the member is pretending to do that, but compulsory tests for 7-year-olds with pencils and paper are exams, and we are not doing it.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are having trouble today with the Minister making up National Party policy and pretending it exists when it does not, so that he can then attack it. What kind of opportunity within the Standing Orders do I have to correct that?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think there is a very easy way of doing it—that the document I have been using as my source document be tabled in the House. I seek leave to do it.

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

Bernie Ogilvy: Does the Minister agree that it would be beneficial for schools that already use diagnostic tools such as asTTle to test against national standards, to report the results to parents, as it is currently not a requirement to do so; if not, why not?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I expect that because the relevant clauses on planning and reporting in the Education Standards Act are coming into effect, at some stage we will reach the point whereby the profession will take responsibility for reporting to all parents their children’s asTTle tests.