Tuesday, 17 May 2005

Tuesday, 17 May 2005

Tuesday, 17 May 2005

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Islamic Republic of Pakistan—Minister of Foreign Affairs

Madam SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing members that His Excellency Mr Khurshid M Kasuri, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish to welcome him.

Committees

Business of Select Committees

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee last week, I seek leave for the Fiscal Strategy Report 2005 and the Economic and Fiscal Update 2005 to stand referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee once they have been tabled on Thursday.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

Questions for Oral Answer

Student Allowances—Administration

1. NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does he have confidence in his ministry’s administration of student allowances?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, I do. I am very pleased with the way that StudyLink has turned round the administration of both student allowances and study loans following the disaster we inherited in the year 2000. We commissioned an independent review by Karen Erenstrom Associates and committed $4.9 million in additional funding over 4 years, so that its recommendations could be implemented. Student satisfaction has risen substantially as a result. This is just one of the many instances where we have had to repair the damage done to the basic provision of Government services by the previous National Government.

Nandor Tanczos: Is he satisfied with the ministry’s position that if a student earns 1c over the allowable income limit of $135.13 a week, that student loses his or her entire student allowance for that week; if so, why?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The thresholds were last set in 1995, during the period of the student discussion document. We have heard a lot from students that they would like to see those thresholds changed. Policy is set by my colleague the Minister of Education, who, I am sure, has listened very closely to those students.

Moana Mackey: What improvement has StudyLink made to ensure a better service for students who are applying for financial assistance?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The recently introduced StudyWise pilot is helping students to make better decisions about options for financing their studies while they minimise the debt that they incur. StudyLink has also introduced a “highway to your future” information service for senior secondary students and their parents. StudyLink now enables students to apply for student loans and allowances online via the StudyLink website. During the years’ 2004-05 peak application period, approximately 40 percent of all applications received were made via that Internet process.

Bernie Ogilvy: Has he given any consideration, when administering student allowances, to raising parental income thresholds for every other child in the family who is in study, so that more students can access allowances—as proposed by United Future?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That issue has been raised consistently by students, and in the student discussion document that I mentioned earlier it was one of the major proposals put forward by the respondents. I am sure that, once again, the person who sets policy, the Minister of Education, has listened very closely to those views.

Nandor Tanczos: Is the Minister aware of the decision of the Student Allowance Appeal Authority in December last that the ministry has been wrong in applying the income limit of $135.13 on a week-by-week basis rather than as an average over the period of eligibility, and will he ensure that his ministry now abides by that decision; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The answer is yes, I am, and the ministry is looking at that decision.

Nandor Tanczos: Why has the Government for the past 5 years pursued that interpretation of the Student Allowances Regulations, described by the Student Allowance Appeal Authority as a “flawed” approach with “irrational consequences”, when it meant that people earning $2,000 over their study period could have to repay around the same amount of their allowance as a person earning $11,000 over the same period, simply because of how their payments were timed?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Because that is what was understood to be the proper legal position.

Sue Bradford: Does the Minister not understand that students who carry out casual work have variable hours and, thus, a variable income, and that it makes no sense at all to require a repayment just because that income exceeds $135.13 in one week, when it actually averages well below that; why would he support that policy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, I understand exactly the position that the member is putting. It was put very forcefully to us during the preparation of the student discussion document, and I am sure that the Minister who is responsible for administering education policy, the Minister of Education, has listened very closely to those arguments.

Nandor Tanczos: Given that the decision made by the Student Allowance Appeal Authority is very clear, will the Government now admit that it is wrong, stop pursuing students for money they do not owe, and repay those whom it has wrongly penalised under that mean-spirited and penny-pinching interpretation of the regulations?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The ministry has, of course, to administer literally billions of dollars. It does so under what it believes is the correct legal interpretation. When it receives a review of its policies in the form of the Student Allowance Appeal Authority decision that Mr Tanczos is talking about, of course it has to go back, look at the law, and change its behaviour if appropriate.

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship Exams

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: What responsibility does he take for the 2004 scholarship “debacle”, and does this responsibility conflict with his role as Minister of State Services, in charge of the body that conducted the inquiry into scholarship 2004?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I take responsibility for deferring the 1998 decision to implement scholarship because there had been inadequate preparation by the member on that member’s left. As the recent State Services Commission report noted, the Government received inadequate advice on policy risks associated with the 2004 scholarship. There is no conflict with my role as the Minister of State Services, because, as the member knows, the State Services Commissioner—or, in this case, his deputy—acts independently in discharging his inquiry function.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Sure!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am sure that the State Services Commissioner and his deputy do not like the sorts of slurs on their integrity that have just come from Nick Smith.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that late last year he was moved out of the schools portfolio because he had become a political liability, but that now he has been given back the schools portfolio, which means he is now back in charge of policies like the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA), about which even his own officials from the State Services Commission say that he and his ministry were primarily responsible for the debacle because they did not do the policy properly?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I remind the member that the vast majority of the work leading into the policy was done in the pre-1999 period. The premise of the member’s question is, of course, wrong. I was relieved of none of those responsibilities; I carried them, although I did delegate some of them to my associate.

Hon Brian Donnelly: What responsibility does the Minister take for allowing what were meant to be competitive examinations to identify our top academic students, to be run under an achievement-based assessment format that was the precise cause of the variability of results at the heart of the scholarship chaos?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I do take some responsibility for not changing the decision made by Nick Smith and his colleagues in 1998.

Deborah Coddington: How come the New Zealand Qualifications Authority Chairman, Professor Fraser, has gone, the Chief Executive, Karen Van Rooyen, has gone, and his Associate Minister of Education David Benson-Pope has been stood down, yet the Minister, who is solely responsible for the scholarship debacle, is still here refusing to accept any responsibility for the NCEA?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Personal charm!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The acting Prime Minister says “personal charm”. I think it is probably because I am a hard-working, conscientious Minister.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the leadership of our education system is in chaos, having, in the last 8 months, lost the chairman and the chief executive of the Tertiary Education Commission, the chairman and the chief executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, had the Hon Steve Maharey removed from his portfolio for incompetence, David Benson-Pope stood down because of public allegations about his behaviour, and that it indicates Labour’s desperation on education that he is now in charge of everything?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I will deal with the first two questions, I think, rather than the other seven, and the answers to those are yes, and there was not one.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware of the Prime Minister’s statement that a civil servant who loses his or her job because of incompetence will not be paid a cent; if so, why will Karen Van Rooyen be paid $50,000 by the Government after she resigns?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Because her resignation comes at the end of her notice period.

Rural Communities—Government Services

3. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to improve access to Government services for rural New Zealanders?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Heartland service centres have now been established in 30 locations across the country to help connect rural New Zealanders to Government services. This includes a Chatham Islands centre, which opened in January this year. The centres provide a one-stop shop for a range of agencies, including the Housing New Zealand Corporation, the Inland Revenue Department, the Accident Compensation Corporation, Career Services, the Māori Land Court, and Work and Income. A customer satisfaction survey carried out by Colmar Brunton shows that 96 percent of the public are satisfied with the services they get when they visit a heartland service centre, and 75 percent said that they were very satisfied. These results show that Heartland Services is delivering for rural New Zealanders, and this is further evidence of the Government’s responsiveness to the needs of heartland New Zealand.

Georgina Beyer: What else does the survey reveal about Heartland Services, and does this reflect wider satisfaction with Government policies for rural communities?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think it does. Ninety-five percent of members of the public who have visited a centre believe that Heartland Services has improved their access to Government services, and 89 percent of community organisations report satisfaction with Heartland Services. Yes, these services build on rural-friendly initiatives such as Technology New Zealand scholarships for people who commit to teach in rural areas, a rural locum support scheme and the rural practice support scheme in health and, of course, the swift action on floods in areas like the Manawatū-Rangitīkei and the East Coast.

Metiria Turei: How can the Minister possibly justify his crowing about being rural friendly when his Government has slashed rural schools so that country kids have to travel for over an hour each way each day just to get their free public education, and when his Government has supported the Correspondence School board slashing staff and cutting critical education services to New Zealand’s rural children who have no other choice; how rural friendly is that?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Easily, in the sense that I am just reporting on 30 heartland service centres, right across the country, that are restoring access to the Government services that were removed by the previous National Government. That is a fantastic policy that is well supported by New Zealanders throughout rural areas.

Immigration, Minister—Confidence

4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Has her Minister of Immigration, with regard to last night’s TV One News coverage of bogus job offers, and a reported lack of staff and funding within the New Zealand Immigration Service to deal with the problem, advised her of the case of a Mr Feng Li, from Innovatory Technologies (NZ) Co. Ltd, who allegedly uses phoney work permits for Chinese students who go on to gain permanent residence; if so, why does she still have confidence in her Minister of Immigration?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Minister has not advised her about that specific case. She continues to have confidence in him as a hard-working and conscientious Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How on earth can she possibly have confidence in a Minister who has no idea of what is going on in his portfolio, and if he did have any idea, how has Mr Feng Li, from Innovatory Technologies (NZ) Co. Ltd, now in receivership, been able to defraud the immigration authorities with ease and accomplishment by running a bogus company, propped up by counterfeit job offers, tax avoidance, and fake employees who go on to become non - bona fide permanent residents then disappear into thin air; can any Minister who allows that to go on over and over again be hard-working and competent?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: A number of the matters the member referred to are not within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister of Immigration—

Ron Mark: Nothing is!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Well, certainly revenue matters are not; I can assure the member of that. Of course, the Minister of Revenue is not able to know the actual incidents of individual taxpayers’ affairs. I am sure even Mr Mark realises that there is a good reason for that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which part is not within the purview of the Minister of Immigration: tax information in respect of people who are applying for permanent residence, fake documentation, fake employment records, and bogus company records, all of which led to a stack of people coming into this country; which part would not be the ultimate scrutiny responsibility of the Minister of Immigration and his department?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said before, taxation matters would not. The other matters, of course, were why, in fact, the department had been investigating this outfit since late August 2004, and conclusions arrived at that the number of job offers was not in fact genuine. No permanent residence applications have been granted, arising out of the work applications, since those investigations began.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Prime Minister possibly have confidence in a Minister who said that he was going to review the Immigration Act—and he ordered that over a year ago purely to alleviate his embarrassment at his incompetence, and purely to disguise the proliferation of immigration failures—and why, after all this time, has the review not even had its terms of reference referred to Cabinet?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Work is going on. That is one of the most complex areas in terms of legislation. Not all of life is capable of being summarised in a simple bumper-sticker slogan, unfortunately for the member.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In respect of the Prime Minister’s judgment that she has confidence in the Minister and thinks he is a hard-working Minister, which part of the following statement is not true or accurate: “The New Zealand Immigration Service relied too much on the honesty and truthfulness of foreigners to whom integrity is a strange concept. They do not respond to complaints from New Zealanders. Unless you write to the Minister there is no response, and then it is patronising and uninterested. The staff are uneducated about the cultures of the foreigners with whom they are dealing, and NZIS offices are staffed by foreign-born persons who can’t understand English enough to administer the Act.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it is clear that the recently appointed head of the Immigration Service is taking action to address some of the internal problems. I am sure the member is aware that there is no jurisdiction in the Western World that does not have some difficulties at times with immigration matters.

Hon Tony Ryall: Would this Prime Minister still have confidence in a Minister of Immigration who oversees a system where a refugee applicant who is facing serious criminal charges can be granted refugee status, then have all details of his background suppressed?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If those details are suppressed, I assume that that would be by way of some form of judicial, legal decision. Although I know that members opposite find it hard to understand, this Government does believe in the rule of law.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Where is the Tongan rugby team?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the current Tongan rugby team is in Tonga.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did not ask about the Tongan national team. I asked about the team that the Immigration Service lost 2 years ago and still cannot find.

Madam SPEAKER: That is a point of information more than a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Where is the Tongan rugby team that went missing 2 years ago?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not know. Its members may well be canvassing for the New Zealand First party by now.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to the last part of that answer. To attack someone, when one is embarrassed, on a totally fallacious basis is not part of the Standing Orders. [Interruption] I know that he would not know that, because he is a junior boy in this place. But that Minister should know. I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to ask the Minister to stick to the answer, embarrassing as it might be, rather than try to attack another political party that is only doing God’s work in the House.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister like to have another go at answering that question, without any interpolation.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have no advice in front of me in relation to the current whereabouts of any past member of the Tongan rugby team. I might say that we are very grateful to a number of Tongans who have been part of the New Zealand rugby team on occasion in recent years.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Which part of that last answer was within the Standing Orders, and what part was outside of them? The reality is that the Minister is not an expert on rugby, in any way, shape, or form, and he is wasting the House’s time.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for that last observation, and would merely say he is not the only one.

Legal Representation—Access

5. LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister of Justice: What changes is the Government proposing so that access to legal representation and therefore to justice is not restricted to those with the ability to pay?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): The Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) overhauls the financial thresholds and tests for legal aid, for the first time in 36 years. That will allow access by a much wider cross section of New Zealanders to legal aid if required. It will also be fairer to lower-income working families, who are currently disadvantaged in relation to those dependent on benefits. They are important changes so that access to justice is not restricted to those simply with the ability to pay.

Lianne Dalziel: What other changes are being made to ensure that the best use of public funding is being made, in the interests of justice?

Hon PHIL GOFF: A range of improvements are being made. They include regard being had in Family Court cases to any previous proceedings identifying whether the applicant has been excessively litigious. Existing provisions are amended to ensure that costs may be awarded against legal aid recipients for deceitful or misleading behaviour or misconduct. Criminal legal aid recipients will be treated in the same way as civil legal aid recipients for repayment purposes, and an extension of repayment requirements will ensure that aid recipients are more mindful of the cost of proceeding.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table an article from today’s Christchurch Press, in which the questioner, Lianne Dalziel, set out to defend those people who have been defrauding the taxpayers of this country.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled.

Taxation—Thresholds

6. JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) to the Minister of Finance: When he said on Friday that “There is little room for large new initiatives, including tax cuts,” did he mean he was ruling out changes to tax thresholds in Budget 2005?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I meant there was little room for large new initiatives, including tax cuts. For any further details, the member will have to wait until Thursday.

John Key: Why, when the Government has an $8 billion surplus, is the public in store for yet another Labour lay-by Budget, which is packed upfront with hollow promises while the real goodies get delivered in the never-never?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I have indicated, the surplus/deficit position will move to a significant cash deficit in the out-years, which will make life very difficult for a party that is promising every road and everything else that everyone in the country wants at the present time.

Gordon Copeland: Does the Minister acknowledge that if the tax thresholds are not adjusted for inflation, which has been at 13 percent since 2000, then in purchasing power terms, which have increased under his watch, an adjustment is now overdue?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Whether anything is overdue is a matter of perception. I note that the Australian Budget, which was much-lauded on this side of the Tasman by the right wing, spent US$21 billion to give a tax cut of roughly $6 a week to most Australians.

John Key: Is the Minister’s rumoured U-turn on changes to tax thresholds evidence that his rhetoric regarding the unaffordable nature of tax cuts was incorrect, or has he just been plain overruled by an ever-desperate Prime Minister?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister is never desperate, in my experience.

John Key: Is the Minister’s decision to break from tradition and refuse to be photographed with the Budget proof that he wants to be distanced from this document because he was rolled on the details of it by the Prime Minister, in the same way that she rolled him on the tertiary savings scheme that he did not want to roll out, but which was rolled out a few weeks ago?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I thank my colleague for reminding me. I was the strongest supporter of the tertiary savings scheme.

John Key: Not in the Sunday Star-Times you weren’t.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member relies on the Sunday Star-Times’ knowledge of life, he will remain as ignorant for the rest of his life as he is now.

John Key: What is the real value of the Minister’s billion dollars of corporate tax reductions when he deducts from it the following: additional revenue the Government will earn from carbon tax, the fact that accelerated depreciation does not change the amount of tax paid, but the timing of it, and the fact that the tax treatment of managed equity funds is a personal tax benefit, not a corporate tax benefit; and is he worried that corporates will see straight through the illusion of his numbers?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, to answer the last part of the question. What I do know is that those who stand by the largest companies that are foreign-owned will call for a cut in the corporate tax rate, because that is what benefits them most. Those who are interested in New Zealand - owned small to medium sized businesses will support the cost of tax simplification, depreciation changes, and other matters.

Hon Richard Prebble: Is it still the Minister’s position that the payment of over $2 billion a year of taxpayers’ money into the Michael Cullen superannuation scheme not only limits the ability of the Labour Government to offer tax cuts, but also limits the tax cuts that could be offered by a future National Government, unlike the ACT party, which has always opposed the idea of the Government saving for us and, according to Treasury’s own costing, says that we can afford to offer the people of New Zealand a low flat rate of tax so that they can save for themselves?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On the last part, the member is wrong. Treasury has never said that, and the member’s own policies would lead to borrowing of the order of size of $7 billion a year by the end of the forecast period. I do not know why he bothered selling State assets in the first place if that is now his policy. On the first part of his statement, he is absolutely correct and he might care to remind the National Party of that. One cannot have everything all the time.

Hon Richard Prebble: I seek the leave of the House to table costings that have been done by Treasury of the ACT party’s proposed tax policies, which show that they are absolutely affordable.

Document not tabled.

Banking—Interest-charging Procedures

7. GORDON COPELAND (United Future) to the Minister of Commerce: Is he confident that the interest-charging procedures of banks operating in New Zealand are subject to adequate legal scrutiny?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Commerce): Mostly.

Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister aware that Gray Eatwell and the Bank Customers Action Collective have made numerous efforts to have the interest-charging procedures of the Bank of New Zealand investigated by various authorities, including the Serious Fraud Office, the Commerce Commission, the Banking Ombudsman, and the Minister of Finance, yet, to date, a full investigation has not been undertaken; and does he think that is acceptable?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I am aware of the gentleman’s activity over many years, and I am aware of his group. I am also aware that the authorities that he has approached have pretty well universally come to the view that he does not have prima facie evidence apart from that in his own case, in which the Bank of New Zealand overcharged him and then refunded him about $20,000.

Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister aware of an overseas court finding that the National Irish Bank has been engaged in illegal interest overcharging, and given the fact that the National Australia Bank was the parent company of the National Irish Bank at the time, and is still the parent company of the Bank of New Zealand, has he considered whether the New Zealand authorities are giving this matter the amount of attention it properly deserves?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that as soon as they are presented with sufficient prima facie evidence I would be confident that they would act.

Gordon Copeland: Will the Minister consider appointing a suitable forensic accountant to conduct a preliminary investigation into this matter, so that the facts can be established and justice finally delivered to the Bank Customers Action Collective after its 10-year fight; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON: No, we already have investigative and enforcement agencies, in the form of the Commerce Commission or, if there is fraudulent activity, the Serious Fraud Office, and it is to those bodies, which are independent of the Crown, that Mr Eatwell or anyone else should turn.

Bullying, Alleged—Prime Minister's Statement

8. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, in relation to alleged bullying of students by the Hon David Benson-Pope, that the allegations are utterly reprehensible, and that “this, I think, says rather condemnatory things about both Rodney Hide and TV3.”; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: I stand by the statement I made on Friday that it was utterly reprehensible for Mr Hide to make those allegations in Parliament, and then withdraw them, as Mr Hide was reported as having done on Friday morning.

Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement: “I accept the Minister’s word. The Minister has given his word in Parliament.”, and that, therefore, the five former pupils who have spoken out are lying; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister is receiving advice from the Solicitor-General on the most appropriate form of inquiry into those allegations. She notes that the Minister continues to refute those allegations, and it is appropriate, I think, to remind members that simply raising allegations by way of question is a reprehensible practice. Any number of members in this House are open to that, not least the member himself.

Judith Collins: If the statements made by the Hon David Benson-Pope to the House last Thursday are found by any inquiry to be incorrect, will the Prime Minister confirm that she would expect the Minister to resign from Cabinet and from Parliament?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said, my Prime Minister is seeking advice from the Solicitor-General on the most appropriate form of any inquiry. There are plenty of consequences that flow from some possible outcomes of that inquiry but, equally, I would hope that that member would have the grace to apologise to Mr Benson-Pope should the inquiry find that the allegations are not demonstrably true.

Heather Roy: Does the Prime Minister find it acceptable that even in the 1980s a teacher would tie a student’s hands and force a tennis ball into a 14-year-old boy’s mouth; and what would it take for her to accept the word of the victim and his classmate over her stood-down Minister?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There will be an inquiry into those matters, and the Government has no reluctance to ensure that the truth emerges. The member may regard an allegation as sufficient proof, but I would warn that member against doing so—as I have warned any number of members in the House. I get allegations about a number of members in this House in relation to a range of issues, of which I take no notice, at all.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What is worse, or less acceptable: an over-strict teacher under section 59, of a previous era, or someone who facilitated the entry into this country of a paedophile who advocated sex with young children?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Clearly, the latter would be a very serious matter indeed, but so is the former matter—if it were demonstrated to be true.

Rodney Hide: Is it not a well-recognised tactic that bullies lash out at their victims to frighten them into silence; and why did Miss Clark use her position as Prime Minister to attack me and TV3, in an attempt to frighten David Benson-Pope’s victims into silence?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am sure that that member is aware that bullies lash out at their victims.

Rodney Hide: Is it the Prime Minister’s position that asking tough questions of George Hawkins, Parekura Horomia, David Benson-Pope, and the other failed Ministers of this Government is somehow bullying them, and is somehow on a par with attacking a 14-year-old boy in a classroom—or can those Ministers just not take it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yet again, the member rushes to judgment before any proper inquiry is undertaken. I have not done that in relation to allegations that have been raised with me about him.

Judith Collins: I seek leave of the House to table a transcript of Radio New Zealand’s Nine to Noon programme from today, an interview between Linda Clark and Phil Weaver, one of the former Bayfield High School students.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that transcript. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled.

Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just ask whether the Minister who was answering for the Prime Minister was speaking for himself when he talked about “I”, or was speaking for the Prime Minister who has not rushed to judgment.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, but that is not a point of order.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have an interesting situation here. When a Minister answers on behalf of another Minister, the views are supposed to be those of the other Minister. Mr Cullen has sort of indicated by sign language that he was actually giving his own opinions. I think he is not entitled to do that, and if he was giving his own opinions, he had better rethink and perhaps he should answer those questions again, realising that he is supposed to be giving us the Prime Minister’s views, not his views. If the Prime Minister does not have any information or allegations against Mr Hide, perhaps we should have a completely different answer from the person standing in her stead.

Madam SPEAKER: When a member is answering on behalf of another he is entitled to answer as he sees fit, on behalf of the Prime Minister in this instance, or, in any other instance, on behalf of the Minister.

Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I cannot see how it cannot be a legitimate point of order. When the Prime Minister answered the question, through her Deputy Prime Minister, she stated, or we were entitled to assume she was stating, some facts that she knew, her judgment of those facts, and her response to them. I could not believe what the Minister was saying, because the Prime Minister did, in fact, attack, without evidence, Rodney Hide, and I needed to find out whether, in fact, it was the Prime Minister speaking or the Deputy Prime Minister choosing to switch persona and speak for himself. Because if we were looking at matters of privilege, we would need to know whether there was a breach.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I make it clear that in those latter answers I was referring to my knowledge as Deputy Prime Minister, and merely making the point that the fact that allegations are made about members of this House is not a sufficient reason to go out and repeat them in the public arena, even under privilege. I doubt there is any member of this House who has not had some allegation raised against himself or herself at some time by some other person in the House.

Madam SPEAKER: I hope that clarifies the matter for the members.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to be clear about this and I ask for your assistance, because what happened then was that the Deputy Prime Minister made a sort of snide comment across the House that I should not be asking the tough questions, because either the Prime Minister or he himself had a bottom drawer of allegations against me. I was quite interested to learn who it would be, because I thought Michael Cullen himself had emptied his bottom drawer of the rubbish he had on me, when he was trying to defend John Tamihere—before he gave up. I do not think it is acceptable for a Prime Minister, or an acting Prime Minister, to stand in the House and suggest that a member should not ask questions, because of something that he or she might have and might release some day. That is an intimidatory tactic in the House, and their job, as a Government, is to answer the questions.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the Minister did answer the question.

Modern Apprenticeships Scheme—Progress

9. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Education: What progress is the Government making towards addressing skill shortages through the Modern Apprenticeships scheme?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I am very pleased to advise that 1,000 trainees have now completed the Modern Apprenticeships programme and, as at the end of March, 7,760 more were in training—a net increase of 585 since December. Our Government has pumped nearly $70 million into the scheme since 2001, and the scheme has been a huge success—even though the National Party pledged to abolish it.

Lynne Pillay: How are Modern Apprenticeships helping to address skill shortages in key industries?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is filling a vital role in addressing skill shortages. There are over 1,100 Modern Apprentices in the building and construction industry, over 900 in the electrical industries, over 1,200 in engineering, and 1,300 in the agriculture, horticulture, and forestry industries. I just wonder what would have happened if the Tories had had their way and abolished them.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the amount spent on apprenticeships is tiny—and it has been capped—compared to the $1.5 billion he spent in his time as Minister on low-value tertiary courses that were finished by only 30 percent of the students who started them, resulting in the waste of over a billion dollars, when we could have given a trade to every young person who wanted one, if he had not wasted the money?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I can accept that the equivalent full-time student funding system, which was developed when that member was in Government, has been wasteful. The answer is not to promise to abolish apprenticeships, as the previous National Government did; it is to get the money out of that system and into apprenticeships, and that is what this Minister is doing.

111 System—Adequacy

10. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) to the Minister of Police: Is the 111 system inadequate and a risk to public safety; if so, what evidence is there for his answer?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): Those were among the findings of the independent external review. The review also noted that all the problems are readily fixable. The Commissioner of Police and the Government accept the findings of the review, and the commissioner has committed himself to fully implementing the findings.

Hon Tony Ryall: Who is responsible for the damning failures identified in the 111 external review?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The Commissioner of Police undertook to bring in overseas experts for the review. The failures are operational concerns, and the Commissioner of Police takes responsibility for all operational matters.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister tell the House what reports he has seen proposing changes to the 111 system?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: In addition to the independent review report, I have also seen a report from May 1999 in which the Police Association revealed proposals of the National Government—in which Tony Ryall was a Minister—to cut 285 non-sworn staff, including those who answered 111 calls.

Ron Mark: If it was so apparent to the Minister back in 1999 that problems in the 111 system were left to him, if he had received so much advice and information from the Police Association over the last 2 years, so many expressions of concern from New Zealand First as to the failings, and so much advice from staff in the communications centre who wrote to him personally and he did nothing, who accepts the responsibility now for the failures and for the disappearance of Iraena Asher?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The police have apologised to the Asher family, and of course the commissioner takes responsibility for operational matters.

Stephen Franks: How on earth can the Minister or any other New Zealander hope for a turn-round in a service we now know was fatally unsafe, when the first requirement of leadership is the acceptance of responsibility, and neither the Minister nor the commissioner, or anyone else from the police, has stepped forward to accept responsibility for a disaster we have all been warning them about?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The commissioner has accepted responsibility for the report and for implementing it.

Tariana Turia: Was a 111 call activated on the morning of Sunday, 8 May to justify the arrival of a riot squad of 10 police officers, storming teenagers outside a party in Ōtaki, and what response would the Minister give to Rev. Ian Campbell, who has pointed out that the incident has not done the police relationship with the community much good?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: That raises an operational matter, which lies in the domain of the Commissioner of Police.

Hon Tony Ryall: If the commissioner has accepted the report, as the Minister has told the House, why is the Minister still in denial, describing the 111 system as adequate and of no risk to the public—the direct opposite of what the report concluded?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The report actually states that all the problems are readily fixable. The commissioner has undertaken to put those findings in place, and the Government has provided the resources for him to do so.

Hon Tony Ryall: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your intervention. The Minister has not even addressed the question. His shouting the answer that he has given to an earlier answer does not address the question, which—unlike many supplementaries—actually followed on from what the Minister said. He said that the commissioner accepted the report. I have asked him how he could stand by that statement, considering that the commissioner has told the public of New Zealand that the 111 system is adequate and that it is no risk to the public of New Zealand. That statement is a direct contradiction of the two most important conclusions of the report, which the Minister says he accepts.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister in addressing the question did make reference to what was in the report. Obviously, there was more than one point in the report, so in that sense the Minister did address that question. As we know, it may not always satisfy those who hear the answer, but it did relate to the question. The fact that it may well be repeating a previous answer does not make it any less valid in that context.

Tariana Turia: How will the Minister address the thuggish actions of the police towards the young people and their parents in Ōtaki, given their over-the-top and unprovoked response to a situation that the police had already intervened in?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I have already told the member that it is an operational matter, but if she wants to bring me some facts, I will ask the police for replies.

Hon Tony Ryall: If the overseas reviewers diagnosed major failings in the 111 system after just a handful of visits to the call centres, why did neither Mr Robinson nor his senior staff spot the problems?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The very reason that the commissioner called for a review was to have it looked at.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What form of consistency is the Minister now adopting, whereby he has just told Tariana Turia that if she gives him some information he will pass it on to the police, yet when he was offered information and the same request was made of him in respect of the McNee case, which was a murder, he refused to do anything at all, even to the extent of not passing on information to the police? What standard of consistency is he adopting now?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: There is none. All I would be doing is passing on a letter from the member to the police.

Ron Mark: I seek leave to table a report that shows that when Mr Benson-Pope needed a policeman to collect $35, he got a patrol car and officer dispatched to do so.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. It will not be tabled.

Ron Mark: I seek leave to table a further document, a speech from Helen Clark that assured the nation we would see the ushering in of a new era of accountability.

Document not tabled.

Information and Communications Technology—New Zealand Usage

11. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) to the Minister for Information Technology: What is the Government doing to ensure New Zealanders are getting the best results from their use of information and communications technology?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister for Information Technology): Yesterday I launched the Government’s Digital Strategy, which is a practical and an achievable action plan for ensuring that all New Zealanders benefit from information and communications technology. The coming Budget will provide an additional $60 million to implement that strategy, including a community fund and a broadband challenge—part of $400 million over 5 years for digital initiatives.

Russell Fairbrother: What has been the reaction to the strategy?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: There has been an extremely positive reaction from a wide range of groups. Vodafone has said that it wants to partner with the Government to bridge the digital divide. Local Government New Zealand has welcomed the strategy. TelstraClear has said that the strategy is focused on the right outcomes. The Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealaand has described it as bold, comprehensive, and achievable, and InternetNZ has welcomed it, as well. The New Zealand Herald stated that the Government has dug deep to wire this country.

Stephen Franks: Does the Minister feel just the slightest hint of shame or embarrassment at being a Minister in this Government and lecturing the New Zealand private sector on getting the best results from information technology, when three overseas police chiefs have told us that the New Zealand police have a “world class” information technology system in the 111 service, yet they have been utterly unable to meet essential effectiveness, timeliness, buy-in, governance, command, control, recruitment, and training requirements, and instead have a “blame culture” of frustration, delay, and low morale?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: No, but if I were that member, I would be embarrassed to support policies like those of the National Party, which led to a decade of nothing when it was in Government.

Sue Kedgley: Why, when the Minister stated in his press release yesterday: “The government’s goal is to enhance competition between providers …”, and to provide an “open competitive framework” for information technology, is this Government still refusing to unbundle the local loop, which would provide for just such an open, competitive framework, and which most OECD countries did years ago?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Government’s decision to accept the Telecommunications Commissioner’s recommendation on the local loop—which was to unbundle parts of the bitstream—was made on the basis of certain commitments from the incumbent telecommunications provider—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about Telecom?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —Telecom New Zealand, a company that that member failed to regulate when he was Deputy Prime Minister. The Government has—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would have thought you would bring the Minister up on his last answer, when he was asked about a certain series of facts in respect of the police and information technology. He then attacked National for doing nothing over 10 years—which is a bit of an exaggeration and is not true. Now he is attacking me for failing to deregulate the telecommunications industry, when he knows full well, if he knows anything, that I was the one who initiated the Treasury investigation and began the deregulation of the industry before I left power.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Speaking to the point of order—

Madam SPEAKER: No, I think that if the member would just stick to addressing the specific point of the question, we would all be able to move forward.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister was answering my question, and he said that “that member”—I assumed he was referring to me—failed to unbundle the loop. I wonder whether that could be clarified.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please address the question.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The phrase “that member” applied to the member who interjected—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Let us hear the member; otherwise he may have to repeat the answer again.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I would be glad to do that. The Government has accepted the Telecommunications Commissioner’s recommendation on the basis of certain commitments from Telecom New Zealand. It has until the end of the year to deliver on those commitments. The Government is monitoring them very closely, and we have signalled that we will respond in proportion to the degree to which Telecom meets them.

Fishing Industry—Employment Conditions

12. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Labour: What action has he taken, and when, in response to the 2 December 2004 report on employment conditions in the fishing industry that found that “conditions amount to little more than ‘sweatshop’ ones”, that crew were subject to physical abuse, including being hit with an open hand or fish, pieces of wood and even hit on the hands with a hammer, and that “if anyone stands against this abuse, it has been known for them to be taken to a private cabin and beaten”?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour): The report on employment conditions in the fishing industry focused primarily on whether two companies were meeting their obligations under the Minimum Wage Act and the Holidays Act. Since 2 December 2004 the findings of the investigation have been put to both companies for comment. In an appendix to the report, anonymous allegations were made, as the member has outlined. The allegations of mistreatment on charter boats are serious, and have been referred to the police, the Maritime Safety Authority, and the Human Rights Commission. I will be raising the matter of the report and related issues at a meeting with the industry shortly.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister say that he treated seriously the allegations of gross abuse, when he received the report on 2 December, sat on it for 5½ months, and referred it to the police, the Maritime Safety Authority, and the Human Rights Commission only a few days ago; and how can they possibly now take any action when both the fishing-boat and the crew are long gone?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Firstly, the findings of the report were referred to the two companies for comment before its public release, as a matter of justice. I thought the member would have understood that.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What about natural justice for the workers?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Shh, shh! Secondly, as far as these allegations are concerned, the allegations of violence on board foreign vessels were made in confidence. The workers were advised that they would be able to make a formal complaint if they wanted to pursue any matter further, and that the Department of Labour inspectorate would help. The workers asked that the labour inspector not forward the allegations unless they came back to the labour inspector. They did not do so. However, since the report has been made public the allegations have been referred to the appropriate authorities, and, as I said, I am taking this matter up with the industry shortly.

Rod Donald: Why does the Labour-led Government continue to allow floating sweatshops to fish in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone, and why does it not, instead, require all companies fishing in our territory, whatever their ownership, to pay New Zealand wages and provide New Zealand working conditions, so that there will still be a future for New Zealanders in this industry, instead of more and more foreign crews being exploited under the nose of the Minister’s Government, and more and more Kiwis getting out as their wages drop and their jobs are exported?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: There are a lot of issues there, but, firstly, the member is right: people are required to provide appropriate conditions and pay appropriate wages according to New Zealand law. That is “New Zealandisation”. Essentially, that was what that report was about—to try to look at whether minimum wages, primarily, were being paid, and the impact on immigration policy. The reality is that both those companies are now working to make sure that their practices do meet the common standard. The charter issue that the member is now referring to is the issue that was raised as part of the report around those allegations. The appropriate authority is involved, but, as well, the industry itself is concerned to hear about this, and it has some responsibility to ensure that those practices are stamped out of the industry.

Paul Adams: Will the Minister legislate to make the New Zealand companies that contract foreign charter fishing vessels liable for any breaches of New Zealand employment and minimum wage laws that occur on those vessels; if not, why not; if he will, will he accept an offer from United Future to support the urgent passage of such legislation during the next sitting of Parliament, to put an immediate stop to this appalling slavery in New Zealand waters?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Those charter company boats are required to obey New Zealand law. Essentially, that was what the report was about—focusing in the first instance, as a first step, on looking at those that were involved, whether New Zealand crew on New Zealand boats, or foreign crew on New Zealand boats. This issue has opened up the whole issue of the conditions within that industry. As I said, there are some issues around allegations that have been made—anonymous allegations—and they are being pursued by the authorities. But in the end, as far as “New Zealandisation” is concerned, the fishing industry, whether chartered or local, needs to follow New Zealand employment law.

Lesley Soper: What action is being taken involving the two companies at the centre of the report, following concerns about payment of the minimum wage?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: As a result of the report, Sealord’s has agreed to work with the department and the New Zealand Fishing Industry Guild to change its pay practice, to ensure compliance with the law, and Amaltal has agreed to go to the Employment Relations Authority to resolve its issue. In addition, the Government is working with the fishing industry to develop a longer-term strategy to address labour and skills issues, to ensure that this important industry continues to contribute to the New Zealand economy.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Could the Minister explain to the House where the natural justice is for the workers who were working in what was described by his own department as a sweatshop, who were beaten with pieces of wood and a hammer, while he sat on this report for 5½ months; what does he think the founders of his party would think about a Labour Minister treating such issues in this way?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: The Labour founders, hopefully, would be very proud of the Government actually starting to address issues that have been around in the industry for a very, very long time. But, as I said, those allegations were made anonymously. The workers making the allegations said they did not want those allegations forwarded until they came back to the labour inspector, and they did not do that.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware that if he had tabled this report on 3 December, he might not have been able to do anything much about the physical abuse, because that had already occurred, but he would have been able to stop dead in the water the 40c per US dollar that is paid to overseas agents from crews’ wages; is the Minister aware of that?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Well, it is fair to say there was discussion about the natural justice issue of giving the companies the opportunity to talk—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear that comment. Was a comment made that the member takes objection to?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Not really. A discussion around the issue of natural justice has taken place. But, as the member would know, foreign agents taking agents’ fees has been a practice within the industry for some considerable time. The only way, really, that this issue will be addressed is by the industry itself tackling the labour and employment issues, and we are working with the industry to make sure that that happens.

Paul Adams: Will the Minister legislate for Ministry of Fisheries or Department of Labour inspectors to be placed on board all foreign charter fishing vessels at the expense of the New Zealand companies that contract those vessels; if not, why not; if he will, will he accept an offer from United Future to support the urgent passage of such legislation during the next sitting of Parliament, to put an immediate stop to this appalling slavery in New Zealand waters?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: The member might recognise that putting inspectors on every single fishing-boat would be highly expensive and not likely to be supported by any Government or future Government. My having said that, it is important that we address these issues, and, in the long term, it is important that the industry and the Government work together. [Interruption] This is an important industry—one that that member relies on down in his own electorate. It is important that we get the matter sorted out, because we need to make sure that employment conditions are such that New Zealanders want to continue to go fishing in New Zealand waters.

Larry Baldock: Does the Minister agree that the argument put forward by some in the fishing industry that they cannot continue to harvest New Zealand’s fish without this appalling reliance upon foreign charter vessels is very similar to the excuses made when William Wilberforce was battling to abolish slavery in the British Empire, when it was said that the empire could not survive without depending upon slavery; if he does agree with that, will he make a commitment to the House that if these vessels cannot be cleaned up, the practice of chartering foreign fishing vessels will be banned in New Zealand?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I do not quite see the relationship between the two arguments the member has made. But the allegations that have come forward are serious. There are allegations about the industry that have been around for some time. I make a commitment to ensure that the authorities who are working on the matter take action if those allegations are proved. One of the things we can look at, for example, in the future is the issue of approval for foreign workers to come to New Zealand, if those practices are found to be as described and are not improved.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the report to the Minister of Labour and the Associate Minister of Immigration, dated 2 December 2004, released last week under the Official Information Act.

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

Urgent Debates Declined

Associate Minister of Education—Allegations

Madam SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the announcement that the Associate Minister of Education is to stand aside from his portfolios while an investigation is conducted into allegations against him. The standing aside is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility.

On 4 May 2004 the Speaker gave a ruling relating to the dismissal of a Minister from the Government in which he gave the results of his research into ministerial resignations and dismissal and their treatment in urgent debate terms. During the period 1990-99 three applications to debate dismissals or resignations were accepted and three were declined. In the period since 1999 four applications have been accepted and three have been declined. Clearly, as the Speaker said, not every ministerial resignation, let alone merely stepping aside, will justify an urgent debate.

In this case the Minister has stood aside while an inquiry is held into allegations that do not relate to official actions taken by the Minister. The matter is obviously not concluded. When an inquiry reports, members have an opportunity to raise the conclusions of that inquiry if this is warranted. Until that point, as the matter still has a way to run, I do not consider that it requires the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate today. That does not preclude an urgent debate in the future, depending upon the outcome of events. I therefore dismiss the application.

Bills

Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 May.

RON MARK (NZ First): When the House rose last Thursday, I was 2 minutes into my speech—and what a rather extraordinary series of events we had in the debate on that day. I note with interest that the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on the bill contains minority views from virtually every party in the House—specifically, every party that is represented on the select committee, except Labour.

What do those minority reports state? Consistently they oppose the bill, which raises an interesting question. How could this bill get passed through the House by the Government when even its coalition partner and—I am not sure how to describe the “Poodle Party”—its partners in sin, which give it supply and confidence, oppose it? United Future even states that it opposes this bill. Indeed, it went further. Mr Marc Alexander, in his derision of the bill, in his strong criticism and well-argued points against it, went on to say that his party supports it.

It defies logic. It is logic that defies gravity when a member stands up in this House and says that nothing about this bill is right, that everything about it insults one’s sense of fairness and insults the victims of crime, and then that his party will support it. However, he did conclude his speech by saying that if the amendments that United Future put up are rejected in the Committee stage—which is quite obvious they have been, because the amendments do not feature in the tabled copy of the bill at its second reading—then he will not vote for it. So clearly, the discussions that United Future members have had behind the scenes with Phil Goff, and with other Labour justice and law and order people, have not produced the amendments the member wants in this bill.

He is now signalling that United Future will put up Supplementary Order Papers and seek to make changes. He said that if those amendments are not supported by the Government and the Labour Party, United Future will not necessarily vote for the bill. He said further that he would not be in the House. We are all confused as to whether he means that United Future members simply will not be at work that day—that they will let the Government get away with it by just not turning up. Or will it take the poodle option? The poodle option is when all those members of United Future who disagree with this bill simply do not turn up on the day and their whip will cast their vote for them in favour, so that they can go out on the hustings and tell everyone that they did not agree with it. We all know that their party voted for it. The country deserves to know precisely where the “United Poodle Party” sits on this issue. Is it simply rolling over and letting Helen Clark scratch its tummy, in supporting the Government in making all those pointless and meaningless objections, or is it firm in its resolve? Will it do what New Zealand First is doing and vote against this bill? That we want to know.

Why is New Zealand First voting against this bill? It is clearly stated in our minority report. New Zealand First’s belief is twofold. Firstly, if the Department of Corrections, its employees, and its officials break the law they should be charged. If a man who is in charge of inmates breaks prison regulations, he should be charged. If that man is subsequently convicted and locked up in the same cells with the inmates he abused or beat up, then clearly that is tough.

The only compensation those inmates deserve is the knowledge that the man who abused them, the prison authority who abused them, is now in the cells beside them. There should be no monetary compensation; end of story. That is exactly what the Labour Party said on the hustings in 2002, and then flip-flopped on. Members should remember that. When Margaret Wilson was the Attorney-General a young man who bashed the teeth out of a barber in Dunedin was paid $40,000 compensation. He still owed $500 reparation to that poor, unfortunate citizen. Did he pay it? No. Did he give any indication he was likely to pay it? He did not. Quite the contrary, he went on TV and said that he would not pay it, and no one made him. The Labour Government gave him a cheque for $40,000 and looked the other way as he went to the pub and spent it.

Then what happened? It became worse than that. The Government ended up writing cheques for hundreds of thousands of dollars for inmates, one of whom stabbed a policeman with a screwdriver and made him a paraplegic. Government members now come to the House with this bill, which seeks to endorse the rights of inmates to get money. New Zealand First states in its minority report that if the Government is to do that, if it is to allow compensation for inmates who have had their feelings hurt—a classic example—then it should not pay one red cent to any inmate concerned. The money should go into a victims’ claims rehabilitation account, and appropriations from that account should be made to victims who need support. That is what New Zealand First says.

It is common sense, logical, and fair, and it ensures that people who break the laws of this land—be they prison officers or scumbag gang members—get equal application of the law. It makes sure we do not see the abhorrent practice of inmates who have committed murder, committed violent acts against children, and bashed the teeth out of an innocent barber on the sidewalk in Dunedin, receiving any form of compensation whatsoever for such horrendous crimes as having their feelings hurt.

This Government is spending a lot of time behind the scenes right now, trying to figure out on what day it will call an election. New Zealand First says to make its day, do it tomorrow, do it next week, do it next month, but please bring it on. This sort of legislation is sticking in the throats of average New Zealanders. As Gareth Morgan said in his New Zealand Herald column, one needs only half a brain to see what has been going wrong in this country. Clearly, the Government does not have half a brain. If it had, it would not progress this bill. It would send the bill back to the select committee. Government members would sit in meaningful discussion with parties like New Zealand First, and then they would find a common-sense way through it. This is not the way.

This legislation, as it currently stands, is unacceptable. Whilst United Future members may be dithering around, not quite sure how they will vote—up, down, for, or whatever—New Zealand First is very clear. We will be voting against this legislation. We find it absolutely unacceptable that any inmate should be paid any monetary compensation at all, for any reason, for a crime that might have been committed against him or her. After all, no victim of that inmate’s crime ever received financial compensation for the original crime committed by the offender, which resulted in him going in jail. Logic suggests that the very same principle should apply throughout the justice system, without deviation. New Zealand First will be opposing this legislation.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui): I am very pleased to take a brief call on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. There have been some good speeches on this bill. Most people in New Zealand believe that it is thoroughly wrong to compensate offenders for wrongful treatment but not to require them, in turn, to pay restitution to the victims they have harmed. This bill is a good bill. It has been thoroughly considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. It sets out, first, to ensure that prisoners can be compensated only in exceptional cases and after they have exhausted all other avenues of complaint. The second important aspect of the bill is that it provides for opportunities that have not existed before and new assistance mechanisms by which victims can pursue compensation from those who have offended against them.

There has been some interesting debate, with some conflicting views from Opposition parties that are really more interested in playing politics than in trying to resolve an issue that concerns a large number of New Zealanders. Some rather bizarre statements have been made. We have just listened to a justification from one Opposition member. Also, Dr Brash has done another of his flip-flops—he is lining up for yet another jandal award. He has had one position one day and another the very next day, literally. Between 14 and 15 September last year he changed his position on this issue yet again. So there is no surety from the National Party at all.

This bill has been well considered. It is seriously and primarily motivated by the Government’s belief that offenders should not enjoy financial compensation for wrongful treatment without first having to redress the harm that they have caused to their victims. This Government—although it is not widely acknowledged, as can be seen from some of the breathless headlines in the newspapers, which pay little attention to the facts of the matter—has paid real attention to the matter and has delivered on addressing victims’ rights through legislative means. This bill is yet another step in looking out for the innocent victims of the terrible incidents that occur in New Zealand. I clarify the point that prisoners can be awarded monetary compensation only in the most exceptional cases and that they must have pursued a wide range of avenues of complaint beforehand.

This is a good bill. I know that the public will welcome it and that a majority in Parliament will welcome it. I look forward to its rapid passage through the House and to the constructive debate that will ensue.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to.

Ayes 70

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

Noes 50

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

Question agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill be now read a second time.

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.

Bill read a second time.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We might give United Future a moment to consider. The United Future speaker said that he would vote against the second reading. I wonder whether he has been muzzled by his party.

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

Bills

Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): The Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill is an indictment on the Labour Government and its approach to science. I note that in effect the bill extends the moratorium on xenotransplantation in New Zealand until 31 December 2006, and allows that date to be extended by Order in Council if necessary. That is what is being said.

There is no doubt that a moratorium is a very crude and unthinking approach to science. I note that the Ministry of Health’s report to the Health Committee stated that in February 2002 the Government identified biotechnology as a growth sector for New Zealand in its growth and innovation framework. Here we have an unthinking Labour Government that has basically demonstrated in its attitude towards science that it has been coerced by the Greens to take an approach that is not evidence-based. That is a huge worry.

I note that the report of the Health Committee—I was not present at the time, but my views were well known—signed by the chairperson, Steve Chadwick, states: “We resolved to call for public submissions on this bill as we considered that the bill content was straightforward and uncontroversial.” That does not reflect the views of the National Party. The bill’s content certainly is controversial. For the chairperson of the select committee to state, without reference to other members of the committee, that it is uncontroversial is absolutely inappropriate.

The report goes on to state: “Some of us consider that certain organisations should have been consulted on this issue,”. I made a specific request in writing that there be consultation with the scientific community. There are members of the scientific community who are particularly interested in progressing xenotransplantation in New Zealand but who have been prevented by this Labour Government from doing so.

The report goes on to state: “Others of us would prefer to see the outcome of the consultation being undertaken by Toi te Taiao: the Bioethics Council before considering detailed legislation in this area.” We know that Toi te Taiao is, indeed, wending its way at snail’s pace through its considerations of xenotransplantation. One of the things that worry me greatly about Toi te Taiao is that it does not seem to have a sense of time in terms of the rapid rate at which biotechnology is progressing throughout the world. It is absolutely impractical to think that a moratorium in little old New Zealand will in any way affect what is going on around the rest of the world.

I note that the ministry in its submission to the Health Committee went through the situation in various countries and what they are doing. Australia may have taken a Luddite approach just like that of the Labour Government of New Zealand, but Canada has certainly taken a far more progressive view. Public consultation on xenotransplantation has occurred there, and Canada’s view is that xenotransplantation should be progressed on a case by case basis according to the merits of each case. The United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority, which was established in May 1997, has taken the stance that the authority reviews applications for clinical trials on a case by case basis.

Here in New Zealand, however, the Labour Government has taken the easy way out. It has been coerced by the Greens and has put in place a blanket, unthinking moratorium, while at the same time it goes on with the rhetoric that the biotechnology industry in New Zealand is very important for our economy. We do know that there has been one—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Before I call the next speaker, I note that the previous speaker was not really talking about the title. He was talking more about the bill as a whole.

Dr Paul Hutchison: The debate isn’t on the title, is it? It is on the part.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It is on clause 1, the title. Because members have been used to having wide-ranging debates on title clauses, I did not really want to interrupt the member’s speech to point that out. But if members so wish, they can have a wide-ranging debate and put the bill as one question. Is that what members want?

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National): This is not a very big bill; it is only a page long. The debate will probably not go for very long. I seek the leave of the Committee to have a wide-ranging debate—if the Minister is happy with that—but then vote separately on the clauses when the time comes. If you are comfortable with that, I think it would be appropriate, given the size of the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Do members agree with that? They do. There is no objection.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First believes that there are too many unknowns to proceed with xenotransplantation at this stage, and that this moratorium needs to be extended to 31 December 2006, until further research can be carried out.

Although we want to provide lifesaving solutions to New Zealanders, we believe it is wiser to ensure that medical procedures like xenotransplantation provide the best possible outcomes for everyone. The countries that we like to compare ourselves with, such as Australia, Britain, and Canada, also have moratoriums or very strict guidelines imposed upon the clinical trials for xenotransplantation. We find it unacceptable to rush in when neither the knowledge exists nor the structures are in place at this point in time in New Zealand to assist patients with any problems or challenges that they may experience after xenotransplantation. Even our closest neighbours, like Australia, would be unable to help us in this particular instance. The risk has to be weighed against possible benefits to recipients. Studies at this point in time are inadequate, and they do not counterbalance the potential risks that are involved.

Human trials do not appear to be totally justified at the present. We even have discussions over which animals will be used for xenotransplantation. I quote from the Health Canada fact-sheet: “While it may seem logical to choose animals that are genetically similar to humans, such as apes or baboons, it is becoming clear that more distant mammals may be preferred. Pigs have been viewed as the preferred choice of source animal due to the fact that they are inexpensive and easy to breed, have relatively large litters, have organs that are about the right size, and may confer less risk of infection to humans than non-human primates.”

Even this area is not clear to scientists at the present. There is a lot of ongoing discussion about the whole topic. We know already that medical science uses animal parts for various therapeutic reasons, such as replacement heart valves from pigs. These products are chemically treated, and they are not functional, living tissue. This distinguishes them from the various organs used for xenotransplantation. We believe that the risks at this point need to be resolved. There are a lot of issues, too, that need to be resolved to a far greater degree than they are at present. We need to be sure that the technology does not have an increased risk of transmission of a wide range of diseases, including viral, bacterial, and other infections known to occur in the source animals. We do not want the risk of a new infection jumping the species barrier. So until the many issues are resolved, we believe that the moratorium should remain. We support the bill.

HEATHER ROY (ACT): I rise to speak to the Committee stage of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. I reiterate some of the comments made by the National Party speaker, Dr Paul Hutchison. He commented that the Health Committee chair had noted that the bill is uncontroversial. In fact, it is not. ACT does not believe that the bill is uncontroversial. It is a very controversial matter.

This bill, which comes before Parliament in an election year, is kick-for-touch legislation, so that the Government does not have to confront the fears and the controversy surrounding xenotransplantation. The bill does not cover only xenotransplantation, as was pointed out by several speakers in the debate on the second reading. It covers a raft of issues, but the debate always seems to come back to xenotransplantation. The bill extends the moratorium so that the Government will not have to confront this very controversial issue in an election year.

The Government has persistently declared its belief that biotechnology is a main aspect of what it likes to call the knowledge economy. How often have we heard about the knowledge economy? It has been many, many times since I have been in Parliament. We hear all the buzzwords and terms, such as “bright future”, but what do they actually mean? When it comes back to the Government putting its money where its mouth is, it backs down very quickly and tries just to kick for touch, so that the moratorium is extended until 31 December 2006, which is a full 18 months away. So what are our scientists expected to do in the meantime? They are expected to go offshore, again.

The New Zealand First speaker said that further research needs to be carried out, and she used the very good example of heart valves. What we have here is a display, not just from that member but from many members. We in this Parliament are not experts on xenotransplantation, and that should be noted. In fact, I have had an email from somebody who has described exactly what Dr Elliott was doing before he was forced to move his experimentation offshore. This prominent medical researcher has developed a method of trickling insulin—cultured from the pancreatic cells of piglets—that is contained within retrievable tea bags. So the bags are a completely independent item, so to speak, and they float in the diabetic’s peritoneal liquid. The cells are coated to prevent an immune reaction, and patients’ immune systems are not interfered with, at all.

I think that the New Zealand First member’s comment of “interesting” is very pertinent, because she did not know that previously. She did not realise that a retrovirus could not get across that barrier. Firstly, there is the barrier of that coating to prevent an immune reaction, so that the patient’s immune system is not interfered with. That is a very valuable point, but it has been deliberately ignored by many members in this debate and is something that many people did not know about.

What we need, and what I am calling for in this debate, is some relevance. We should be listening to what experts are saying. We should be calling on expert advice. That did not really happen, I am afraid to say, within the select committee process, where the bill barely touched the table. We should be having a proper debate. We should not be just extending a moratorium because it suits the Government in this election year; we should be debating the real issues—those of xenotransplantation and other research.

For this reason, ACT New Zealand opposes the extension of this moratorium, calls for a proper debate, and calls for it now. We should be discussing the real issues, and it is an indictment on the members who refuse to do that. Only the members of the National Party and ACT are prepared to debate the real issues on this topic. It is a very sad day for this Parliament that we come here and want just to push things along as they are—to keep the status quo—in order to keep voters happy, so that at election time votes are not lost because of a very important issue. It is something that impacts heavily on diabetics in this country, of whom we have a great number.

ACT opposes the legislation because of this ignorance, the failure to call on expert opinion, and the failure to acknowledge that we should have a knowledge economy in this country. We think that the debate should be held here and now, not kicked for touch and then revisited in another 18 months’ time when, hopefully, we will have a completely new Government.

KATHERINE RICH (National): As we heard from my learned colleague Paul Hutchison, the National Party is not supporting this bill, for a number of very good reasons. There is no support for the bill, whatsoever. There is no basis in science to support the bill, and there is no logic associated with the decision to extend the moratorium. The decision to do that is based on absolute ignorance and on a desire, I think, on the part of Labour to push a contentious issue to one side until after the election.

We on the Health Committee were very concerned that we were unable even to call for submissions or for expert opinions to be heard so that we could find out whether the bill was a good or a bad thing for New Zealand science and for New Zealand people waiting for life-saving operations and treatments. Paul Hutchison asked for the opportunity to have submissions heard, but that was rejected. So with this bill there has been no consultation, whatsoever. Labour has just made a blanket decision to extend the moratorium, which is very much a Luddite approach to trying to deal with some very difficult issues.

At the moment many, many New Zealanders are waiting for life-saving operations and treatments. This bill does not reflect any of their concerns. It does nothing for those people who are waiting for science to provide them with, hopefully, effective treatment. Labour is continuing to ignore the human face of this issue. Members on this side of the Chamber wanted an opportunity to debate the issue at select committee level, but we were denied the opportunity to hear submissions—to hear from people about their concerns.

There are concerns among people in the scientific community, because, of course, this legislation puts a damper on a lot of areas of scientific work, particularly the work of those at the forefront of scientific endeavour; it makes it very difficult to conduct certain types of work in this country. We were also denied the opportunity to hear from the many, many New Zealanders who are keen on seeing scientific advances in those areas. We have seen some of the treatments that have been developed for people who suffer diabetes. That work cannot be done here now. Some people are waiting for kidney or liver transplants, or for transplants of other organs, but, because there are not enough human donors, they have to look elsewhere.

I think that the Government is trying to make up some of the cultural aspects that do not support xenotransplantation, but I say that people who do have concerns about those aspects do not have to go through the scientific work—they do not have to front up to be part of a trial; they do not have to try the new technology. But, for heaven’s sake, that opportunity should not be denied to those New Zealanders who do want to try different options in order either to preserve their lives or to increase dramatically their ability to enjoy their lives. My father is one of those people who are waiting for a kidney. He has no access to kidneys within the family, and, frankly, I know that if he could get a pig kidney he would be more than happy to line up for the trial.

Those technologies are developing. We are not talking about mad scientists who are putting together all sorts of weird and wonderful projects; we are talking about good, methodical science that is already being done, and about our ability to do those trials in this country. We have the brains and the people to do that kind of work. We should allow New Zealanders to make up their own minds about the risks and effects of taking part in a trial. If we look at the diabetes trial that Bob Elliot put together, we see that many, many people with diabetes said they understood the risks and the fact that some aspects might not work, but that even with those risks they felt they would be better off than they were in their current situation. But they were denied the opportunity to take part in that trial.

This moratorium is basically a slap in the face for all those New Zealanders who are facing health concerns, because it puts on the back burner a lot of the work that would have put them in a better position. The decision to extend the moratorium is not based on science or logic; it is based on absolute ignorance and political expediency. It is just an outrage that we have not been able to debate the bill at the select committee level. The whole thing has been slipped through with very little process.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future in support of the Committee stage of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. The bill is very, very small. It is really an application for an extension, and we make such applications all the time in Parliament when we need more time to work on something.

In this case, we are waiting for the introduction and passing of the human tissue legislation, which needs to happen first. That is not uncommon in law either—that sometimes one bill requires another to be passed first. My most recent experience of that was with the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. We first needed to pass Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill, the governance bill, before the settlement bill was passed a few days later. One required the other to be in place.

This legislation is in exactly the same situation. We require the human tissue legislation to be tabled and to proceed through the House and, when that is out of the way, this issue will be solved. All we are doing is keeping the moratorium in place, in the form of an extension. The fine work that is already being done on drafting the human tissue legislation—the fine work being done by the Bioethics Council—can continue.

This issue is not stalemated somewhere; it is not in some sort of freeze-frame mode; it is moving ahead, and this bill provides the extra time required. That is really all that this bill is about. Therefore I will say no more, except to reiterate that United Future is very happy to support the bill at the Committee stage.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country): I rise to speak in opposition to the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill, for a number of reasons. Firstly, I want to make it clear, as I did in an earlier debate, that xenotransplantation is not a new technology. I have a bit of paper in front of me stating that the first xenotransplant took place in 1682, when a bit of a dog’s skull was used to repair the broken skull of a Russian nobleman. There is a perception around that xenotransplantation is a new technology that has just fallen off the back of a truck, and that mad scientists somewhere in New Zealand have come up with this silly idea. In fact, the first successful transplant of an organ took place in 1963. So this is not new technology, and the science around it is reasonably robust.

I have heard a lot of arguments against allowing this bill to proceed, and I have seen no credible scientific argument to back the bill up. There are always doubts in science, and nothing is 100 percent sure. It is certainly not 100 percent certain that there will not be an earthquake tomorrow in which this building falls down and crushes us all. There is no 100 percent certainty about that, and there can never be 100 percent certainty in science. We found that out recently in the “corngate” inquiry, when contaminated corn was tested for zero tolerance. There can never be 100 percent certainty.

But at least a hundred examples have been put forward as to why this moratorium on xenotransplantation should not be extended. I think the argument that carries the most weight is that in regard to the work Dr Bob Elliot has done on diabetes, which is a major medical problem in this country. I know that the Associate Minister of Health, the Hon Damien O’Connor, who is in the chair, understands that diabetes is a major, growing problem, particularly in the lower socio-economic group—the group this Government purports to represent. We now have the science to address that problem. This technology could be described as xenotransplantation, because—as I understand from a brief explanation by my honourable, learned colleague Dr Paul Hutchison—it uses pig islets to reproduce insulin in a person’s body.

This Luddite, socialist Government is saying to people that they cannot undergo that procedure under its watch. I just ask why. It is typical of the Luddite approach of the Government to have a select committee process in which the chair says that the committee will not allow scientists with expertise in the area to appear before the committee in order to give it some advice. The Government never wants to let the facts get in the way of its bigotry. It wants to stop the scientists from proceeding, those mad loons out there in their white jackets—who, I hasten to add, have built the economy of New Zealand. This economy has been built on those people.

Moana Mackey: I thought the farmers did that.

Hon Parekura Horomia: You’re a farmer!

SHANE ARDERN: That is interesting. Government members interject that the farmers built the economy, and that I am a farmer. I tell them that the technology that has been developed in agriculture through scientific experiments is the reason why we are the most efficient agricultural producers in the world. The Minister interjecting should know that, but clearly he does not. If people put their heads far enough into the sand, it is dark and they cannot see anything. This is a classic example. So why should Parliament today stop these scientists?

Talking of farmers, I have in my electorate a leader in farming who desperately needs a kidney transplant and cannot find a suitable donor. He has told me that he would be more than happy to have a pig kidney transplant, because his condition now is such that he has no quality of life, and his illness is life-threatening. He does not know how long he has left. He has told me that, rather than live the life he is living and continue to go through the uncertainty, he would welcome the opportunity to have a xenotransplantation, provided the medical science was robust—and it is.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): I thank the Chair for a further call on the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. As I said earlier, the Labour Government has certainly taken a “head in the sand” approach to science in this country, and that is very regrettable. I am sorry to hear that New Zealand First and United Future have also taken such a similar stand as there is a clear need, by the thousands of people in New Zealand suffering from diabetes, to progress this technology. And the way not to do it is to have a blanket moratorium.

It is very important to realise that a whole spectrum of procedures is associated with xenotransplantation, and again the Ministry of Health supplied these to the Health Committee. It pointed out that, firstly, there can be whole organ xenotransplantation, an example of which is transplantation of an animal kidney. Secondly, there can be cellular transplantation—the transplantation of insulin-producing pancreatic cells. Thirdly, there is external xenotransplantation therapy—passing a patient’s blood through a medical device, such as an artificial liver that contains animal liver tissue. So it is important to establish that xenotransplantation is not one simple procedure, but many.

Heather Roy spoke earlier about the Diatranz development in New Zealand, and the fact that back in the 1990s it had carried out six xenotransplantation episodes on diabetics, by way of an intraperitoneal capsule, until they were stopped by this Labour Government. I must say that at the time Mai Chen, a hugely well-known lawyer, submitted to the select committee that she believed the Supplementary Order Paper brought in by the Government was literally a constitutional outrage. I absolutely agree with her. It gave no opportunity for Diatranz to submit its case.

But even more important is the fact that one of the problems at the time was the concern about the pig endogenous retrovirus, which was contained in the cells that Diatranz was using. Pig islet cells are now available that do not contain the pig endogenous retrovirus, and that has taken away this very important worry.

As was explained by Heather Roy, the procedure is a very elegant and innovative one, whereby the pig islet cells are placed within a capsule, which is then, by laparoscope, placed within the intra-abdominal cavity. The cells themselves are coated, so they do not have an antigen-antibody response but merely produce the insulin. In February this year, one of the patients looked again at his own pig cells and they were found to be still producing insulin. It thrilled him and it thrilled the international scientific community, yet the Labour Government is placing a blanket moratorium on a very safe, innovative, elegant procedure that will do great good for the biotechnology industry in New Zealand, let alone for the tens of thousands of diabetic patients in this country.

The point I want to stress is the fact that a whole spectrum of procedures is available. It is not just a matter of a pig heart or a pig kidney going into a human being. It can be cellular xenotransplantation. This issue should be taken on a case by case basis, according to the risks that are associated with it. This blanket moratorium will only set back science in New Zealand by many, many years.

The other interesting point that came out at the meeting in Parliament given by the Royal Society of New Zealand was that it now views the future of this technology as complementary to the technology of stem cell research. For New Zealand to say suddenly: “We are going to put a moratorium on it, and we are going to wait for the Bioethics Council, until it has consulted and deliberated on it.”, is simply not a meaningful or sensible approach to science, and it is being endorsed by a Government that says biotechnology should be one of the main focuses of the innovation initiative.

HEATHER ROY (ACT): I welcome the opportunity to take a further call on this very important matter, and I would like to thank Dr Paul Hutchison for the light that he has shed on this matter. It is unfortunate, I think, that the only serious scientific debate we are to have on this matter in the near future is taking place here today—here in a Parliament where there are no experts, in fact. Here we are, a group of members of Parliament, most of whom are not qualified to comment on this issue. Both the National Party and the ACT party are opposed to this legislation. What we should be having is a much wider debate with the experts involved, but unfortunately that has been denied to New Zealand, to the detriment of science.

The obvious question, following on from what I said when I spoke previously, is whether pig insulin is safe for humans. I think that has been answered by decades of injecting millions of diabetics with pig insulin. I would have thought that was a very good starting-point for this debate, yet that question is being ignored by most of the parties here today. The decades of injecting millions of diabetics with pig insulin have proven that, in fact, pig insulin is safe for human beings.

Here in New Zealand we do have very rigorous regulatory regimes to control research, and those too have been largely ignored by this wider debate. I would like to mention Professor Roger Morris of the New Zealand veterinary school. I am told that Professor Morris is a world expert on the transfer of animal viruses to humans. There has been much talk by various politicians about retroviruses during the first and second readings of this bill. Professor Morris is a main adviser to the UK Government on foot-and-mouth disease, and to the Hong Kong Government on duck and hen infections jumping into humans—and there has been much talk of that particular case in the last couple of years.

Professor Morris has this to say: “It is riskier going to the zoo than to have one of these pancreatic cell transplants.” That is what the expert declares. I will read that again. “It is riskier going to the zoo than to have one of these pancreatic cell transplants.” Now that is quite something, coming from somebody whom the United Kingdom Government is happy to take advice from on the issue of the transfer of foot-and-mouth disease, and the Hong Kong Government to take advice from on duck and hen infections. Professor Morris added, after he said that is it riskier to go to the zoo, that: “I don’t believe it is risky going to the zoo.” I ask members to show me a New Zealander who believes that it is risky to go to the zoo. So, there we go; that is from the mouth of an expert. But, unfortunately, despite the fact that some people at the Health Committee would have liked to see some of the evidence from the expert, the debate has been denied that sort of comment.

New Zealand, of course, has been a world leader in promoting this promising treatment for diabetics—xenotransplantation—and Dr Hutchison gave a very good overview of it just before. We have the healthiest pigs, I am told, as well as the best monitoring technology. I would have thought, as someone who has been involved with research, that those three things combined would actually mean that New Zealand was a very good and safe place for the research to take place. But, no, political expediency in this election year is much more important to the Government than that. So we will deny our world-leading scientists the opportunity to continue their research here. We will deny an opportunity to the diabetics of this country who, after being well informed, volunteered to participate in this world-leading research here in New Zealand, and some of our best and brightest scientists have been driven overseas. New Zealand diabetics will have to go overseas for these transplants, which are permitted in countries that are frequently put forward as being advanced in that sort of area. I am talking about countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, and the USA. How often, when we talk about knowledge economies, do we put those countries forward as examples to follow?

What we have are political power-seekers who have usurped the status of experts—who have usurped our scientists, our people who actually know the real issues we are talking about in this debate. But, no, here in New Zealand today we will have misinformed debate on retroviruses.

KATHERINE RICH (National): I pay tribute to the member who has just resumed her seat, Heather Roy, because she made an extremely important point. One expert, whose advice she has had access to, says that xenotransplantation—

Jill Pettis: What do you know about science?

KATHERINE RICH: I would keep quiet if I were that member. Her outbursts have put her Government in a difficult position vis-à-vis Mr Benson-Pope. The ACT member made a very important point that xenotransplantation is as risky as going to the zoo. The members of the Health Committee did not know that, because we were not allowed to call any expert opinion. We were not allowed to ask for any submissions on this point. The bill was rushed through, because the Government put political expediency ahead of the people of New Zealand who are waiting for this kind of technology. We were not allowed to ask the tough questions about—

Jill Pettis: It’s funny that the case came from Dunedin. It’s no coincidence.

KATHERINE RICH: There goes the fishwife; she is singing again. She should watch her outbursts. She got her colleagues into a lot of trouble last week. We do not know what the kidney societies think about this bill, we do not know what Diabetes New Zealand thinks about this bill, and we do not know what the Royal Society of New Zealand thinks about this bill, because the select committee was not allowed to ask them. We were not allowed to ask any of the companies involved in undertaking this kind of research. We were not allowed to ask any of the scientists undertaking this kind of research. The general public has been locked out of having any consultation on this bill at all.

The Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor, has to explain why. Can he explain to the kidney societies why they were not allowed an involvement in the development of this bill, and why people see this moratorium being extended for another 2 years for no reason? If the Government comes up with any reason, it is fear and ignorance. There is certainly no scientific backing for the extension of the moratorium. The Minister in the chair might like to explain his views on this bill. I am sure that, having travelled the country, he has spoken to many of the associations and organisations that I have just listed. I think that the public will be pretty angry that they have been locked out of this process, because it will have a huge impact not only on our scientists but also on all of those people who are waiting for the treatments and operations that could come as a result of this scientific work.

Some of the consultation being done by the Bioethics Council is odd in the extreme. It is looking, as part of its consideration, at the cultural, ethical, and spiritual aspects of xenotransplantation. I cannot think of any spiritual aspects. If there are cultural aspects, it should be noted that the individual patient has a choice about whether he or she wants to have a particular treatment or operation. These sorts of things are not compulsory, but New Zealanders who are interested in the outcomes of this kind of work should be able to choose to have access to it.

We did not hear from any of the scientists who are working in this area. What impact will this moratorium have on the work they do? If they want to continue to be at the forefront of scientific endeavour, will they have to go offshore, just as Diatranz did? What will the impacts of extending this moratorium be? Once again, the Minister in the chair is silent, because he does not know. Certainly, I am ashamed to say, the select committee does not know either, because it was not allowed to ask any of those questions. The bill was just slipped through at, I believe, a conspicuously suspicious pace.

So the public will be upset. As Heather Roy has said, the expert she was able to consult said that these processes are as dangerous as going to the zoo, and he followed that up by saying he did not think that going to the zoo was very dangerous either. So that begs the question—

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I am pleased to take a quick call on this bill, and I am alarmed to hear the Opposition speeches in the Chamber today. As the chair of the Health Committee, at the request of that committee I asked the Ministry of Health to come and brief us. Perhaps the members were absent from the meeting, but we had a very comprehensive briefing from Gillian Durham on all the aspects that members have raised in this Parliament as to why we have extended the moratorium and why we have voted to support this bill. It is for a very simple reason. All the issues that Dr Paul Hutchison raised are the very issues that are being considered by the Bioethics Council right now. It is a far more important body to listen to the very important and deeply concerning issues to do with some of the safety impacts of xenotransplantation than the Health Committee is.

All we were asked to consider was to align the dates, because the expiry of the dates currently is at the end of June. The Bioethics Council simply needs a little longer to consider all the submissions before making its report on every aspect of the issue that Heather Roy, Katherine Rich, and Paul Hutchison have raised today. I think that the members of the council are the experts. It is misleading the Committee to say that we rushed this bill through. We received a briefing from the ministry, and it is interesting that not one of those members who have raised issues of concern asked one question of the ministry on xenotransplantation at the briefing that I arranged.

In no way did I fast track this bill through the committee. The member who is raising the greatest concern was not present at the committee when we voted, so I think that it is a mere oversight that the member does not understand the workings of the Bioethics Council at all, and has again shown a distrust of the Ministry of Health. That is something I find most improper coming from the Opposition spokesperson on health.

I support this bill. It is a simple bill, simply to extend the moratorium to the end of December 2006 so as to allow proper consultation, which is what those members of the Opposition have said I was denying. We are not the Bioethics Council; we are simply the Health Committee. We were asked to put the dates into alignment. I think we have done exactly the right thing, and I move with haste to support this bill.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): I was somewhat astounded to hear the shrill attitude of the chairperson of the Health Committee towards what she stated was an uncontroversial bill. This is a hugely controversial bill. As Mai Chen said several years ago, when the Labour Government slapped a moratorium on it and prevented a New Zealand biotechnology firm—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be heard.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Thank you, Madam Chair. I am afraid that Jill Pettis carries on an avian-like cacophony of nonsense perpetually, and it would be nice for her to chirp down.

We heard from the chair of the Health Committee that one body alone, the Ministry of Health, came to the Health Committee. Well, that is fine; the Ministry of Health has to do what the Government says. We specifically asked for other submitters to come before the committee, and I can think of some very important submitters that would have helped Parliament and the members of the committee to have a much more rounded and scientific approach to this bill: for instance, the Royal Society, Diabetes New Zealand, the New Zealand Association of Scientists, the New Zealand Biotechnology Association, and interested consumers groups that have involvement with kidneys and hearts. Instead, what did the Health Committee’s Steve Chadwick do? She denied an open debate on this very, very important subject, while she underpinned it by saying in her report that the bill was uncontroversial.

Well, it is controversial and, as I said earlier on, Mai Chen, an eminent New Zealand lawyer, said several years ago that it was a constitutional outrage that this Government prevented Diatranz from putting its point of view to the Government by denying it from having its application heard through Medsafe.

We know from the Ministry of Health submission that in more enlightened jurisdictions like Canada and the United Kingdom, those applications are being taken on a case by case basis, which is what should happen in New Zealand. [Interruption] As I have been at pains to try to point out to that rather noisy chairperson of the Health Committee, a wide spectrum of techniques and procedures is associated with xenotransplantation.

The very fact that the pig endogenous retrovirus is now no longer present in some cell lines has been a massive breakthrough in this technology. It gives every reason, as was endorsed by Bruce Scoggins, the Chief Executive of the Health Research Council, that we should be endorsing and looking at this technology in New Zealand and not putting it on the back burner, through a blanket, unthinking moratorium, as this Labour Government would have us do.

Also, as I have pointed out, the Royal Society made the very important point that this technology will stand in line as being hugely important, along with stem cell technology. We should be treating it with an evidence-based, scientific approach and not with the blanket moratorium that the Labour Government is determined to have.

This Labour Government keeps talking about biotechnology being the focus with which it will gain its innovation and economic progress. But what does it do in reality? It actually imposes some of the toughest regulatory hurdles in the developed world on to this sector, to the extent that a constant stream of New Zealand scientists, and science, is going overseas every day. Only 2 months ago we heard of the tragedy of the Huntington’s chorea transgenic sheep experiment, which is being carried out through Auckland University. The university was forced to go to Australia with it because it cost too much and it took too long to do it in New Zealand under this Labour Government’s rules.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country): It is interesting to listen to the debate from both sides of the Chamber, including the contribution made by the Health Committee chair. But the question that still remains in my mind, which was raised by Heather Roy from the ACT party, is why would we not listen to somebody like Professor Roger Morris from Massey University, who is a world-renowned expert in this area? Why would we not listen to that gentleman? I visited Professor Morris in his rooms in Massey University a while ago, to talk about biosecurity issues. One of the amazing things that he said to me with regard to the Government’s complete failure to control the multi-systemic pig virus disease that took off in this country, which was a complete biosecurity failure, was that the most important part of that failure was overlooked. That was not the argument that I was putting forward, which was that it was a tragedy for an important export industry in this country, but it concerned the important medical point that was lost—that is, the pig herd in New Zealand is the first detection point for some kinds of potential diseases that may come into this country. Like humans, pigs are very susceptible to diseases of various kinds. So if something were to come into this country, we would find it in the pig herd before we found it anywhere else.

Here we are today extending a moratorium because the Labour Government believes that there is risk or danger in xenotransplantation, yet at the same time it has allowed through this country’s borders a major virus that has affected the pig herd. The argument put forward is that some of those diseases may be trans-species. Of course, that sounds like a credible argument to a layman. But why not listen to scientists and experts who have looked at the issue and come to an absolute conclusion on it? Why not listen to them? The only conclusion one can come to is that, as usual, if the Government happens to be a Labour Government, it must not let the facts get in the way of its own view of the world. Clearly, this is a classic example of that.

I question the Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor, as to why Dr Bob Elliot and Diatranz went overseas. It is a simple question. Why did they not stay here? There was a leading New Zealand scientist who had some frontier work going on—something that New Zealand is known for around the world, actually, and something that has built the economy of New Zealand. We have been leaders in a range of fields, particularly in biotechnology and in the agricultural sector, which has had the strongest growth in the economy, despite all the previous Labour Government’s protests that it was a sunset industry and that we would soon move out of that sort of nonsense into something more sophisticated. Despite those comments, that is the area where we have had the strongest economic growth in this country, based on the back of biotechnology. Why did Dr Bob Elliot and Diatranz pick up their roots and clear off overseas? The simple answer is that this Government could not see the worth of people like Dr Elliot and the work they did. It introduced silly little bits of legislation like the one we are debating today, and made it so difficult for Dr Elliot that he could not operate here.

My second question to the Minister in the chair, and to anybody else on the Government benches who would care to take a call, asks whether or not it was a recent occurrence in this country that a Seventh-Day Adventist family was actually taken to court because it would not allow its young infant to have a blood transfusion that potentially could have been lifesaving—the medical opinion was that it was lifesaving. The Ministry of Health, under the Labour Government, took that family to court and prosecuted it for stopping that process from taking place. The ministry described it as an elective option of the child. I ask the Minister which it is: on the one hand he is saying that we can stop science on the basis of culture, religion, and science—although there is no science to back up the argument in terms of the process of xenotransplantation—and on the other hand we have prosecuted a family that held to its religious and cultural beliefs to the point that it sacrificed one of its family members because it felt so strongly about the issue. The Government cannot have it both ways. Which is it? Will we have a blanket ban on any kind of science?

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 83

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

Noes 37

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

Motion agreed to.

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 37

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; 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 37

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

Clause 2 agreed to.

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

Ayes 83

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

Noes 37

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

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill

First Reading

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture), on behalf of the Minister for Trade Negotiations: I move, That the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill be now read a first time. I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, with an instruction that the committee present its report to the House on or before 3 June 2005. I also intend to move 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 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 region on a day the House is sitting, despite Standing Orders 191, 193(a), and 194(1)(b) and (c).

This bill not only paves the way for more trade between our two countries but also acts as another building block in our wider quest for an improved trading environment in our region and worldwide. The Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill amends New Zealand domestic regulations to make them conform to our rights and obligations arising from the New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership Agreement. This legislation will allow the agreement to come into force.

By way of background, I point out that the agreement provides for all tariffs applying to goods of New Zealand or Thai origin traded between the two countries to be either eliminated immediately or phased out over a scheduled period. Most New Zealand imports from Thailand already enter duty-free under New Zealand’s existing tariff policy. The agreement provides for the remaining tariffs to reduce to zero variously on implementation of the agreement on 1 July 2005, or by 1 January 2008, 1 January 2010, or 1 January 2015.

Part 1 of the bill provides for the preferential tariffs conferred by the agreement to be included in the preferential tariff column of the New Zealand tariff. The actual rates of duty as spelt out in the agreement will be added to the tariff by a subsequent Order in Council.

The agreement also provides for the use of bilateral transitional safeguards by both Thailand and New Zealand. These allow either party to address situations of serious injury to domestic industries caused by increased imports due to tariff reductions or removal under the agreement. If serious injury is found to exist, the party concerned may revert to higher tariffs for a certain period.

Part 2 of the bill provides for the application of such bilateral transitional safeguard measures. The bill does this by creating a new regime under the Tariff Act. This regime establishes the right for a New Zealand industry or company that considers that it is suffering serious injury as a result of a surge in competing imports from Thailand, to ask the chief executive of the Ministry of Economic Development to initiate a safeguards investigation.

I should emphasis, however, that the Government does not expect the agreement to have an adverse impact on New Zealand producers. The adjustment effects arising from removal of New Zealand tariffs on imports from Thailand under the agreement are expected to be very muted. There are several reasons for this assessment. First, some 65 percent of imports from Thailand already enter duty-free. Thailand accounts for only a small proportion of textiles, clothing, footwear, and carpet imports.

Second, the phase-out arrangements for New Zealand’s more sensitive sectors are very gradual. The higher tariffs on clothing, footwear, carpet, and many textile products, will be phased out over a 10-year period. For sensitive products with a lower tariff, such as whiteware, existing tariffs will effectively be maintained at current levels before being removed in 2010.

Third, adjustment assistance has been made available in the context of New Zealand’s unilateral tariff reductions to help the textile, clothing, and footwear sector build skills and global competitiveness.

Looking at the other side of the reciprocal tariff removal commitments under the agreement, this agreement offers the most far-reaching bilateral market opening for New Zealand since CER. Thailand is a heavily protected market. Tariffs are levied on virtually all imports from New Zealand; many are in the 20 to 40 percent range. Under the agreement, Thailand will eliminate tariffs immediately on over half of New Zealand’s current exports, and progressively phase out the remainder. Manufactured exports will virtually all enter Thailand duty-free from 2010.

The agreement should act as a catalyst for generating new forms of collaboration, and identifying synergies between Thailand’s dynamic, and increasingly high-tech, economy and our own. Service sectors will be brought into the agreement through a negotiation mandated to begin within 3 years. The Government will be working actively with businesses to help translate into concrete outcomes the opportunities opened up by the agreement. Following a successful high-level business mission to Thailand last month, a series of seminars is to be conducted next week with the aim of ensuring that New Zealand companies have the information they need to take advantage of opportunities under the agreement.

The arrangements on labour and the environment, concluded in parallel with the New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership Agreement, will establish cooperation programmes that support the sustainable development objectives that both countries share.

Finally, our agreement with Thailand, alongside that with Singapore, positions us well in the rapidly evolving South-east Asian regional architecture, and should serve as a building block in the ASEAN - New Zealand - Australia free-trade agreement negotiations that began in February. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has considered the agreement under the international treaty examination process. Its report to the House expresses majority support for the agreement.

To conclude, the New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership Agreement represents a significant economic and strategic opportunity for New Zealand. It enjoys strong support from the business community, and others, including educational institutions with an interest in strengthening relationships between New Zealand and Thailand. The Government would wish to see the bill enacted by 23 June in order to allow adoption by Order in Council of relevant regulations, and subsequent advice to Thailand of the completion of the New Zealand processes for implementing the agreement. This will allow the agreement to enter into force on 1 July 2005. I would expect all Opposition parties to wholeheartedly support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): Let me make it clear that National will be supporting this Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill. National is supporting it, despite a number of concerns, because we believe passionately in the importance of trade liberalisation. This legislation and this trade agreement will make some very real improvements for New Zealand.

For example, at the moment only 4 percent of New Zealand’s exports to Thailand are duty-free. Once this agreement is in place, 52 percent of New Zealand’s exports to Thailand will immediately become duty-free—an increase from 4 percent at the moment to 52 percent. That is worth supporting. Also, in the horticultural product area, products such as avocados, cherries, persimmons, and kiwifruit have a tariff at the moment of 30 to 40 percent payable on them. Once this agreement is in place, that tariff will be eliminated.

Although National supports this legislation and this trade agreement for important reasons such as that, we have real concerns. First, let us take those horticultural products. As this agreement comes into being, Thailand is already implementing tightened phytosanitary barriers, which means that New Zealand horticultural exporters will have to test for up to three chemicals on fruit and vegetable products being exported to Thailand. The problem is that the reduction in the tariff that those New Zealand exporters might pay once this agreement is in place is less than the increase in costs they will face from the testing and certification required to meet Thailand’s new tighter phytosanitary requirement for the importation of horticultural products. So we will go backwards. New Zealand horticultural exporters to Thailand will be worse off once this agreement is in place.

The Minister for Trade Negotiations, the Hon Jim Sutton, promised on 19 April, when the Government was signing this agreement with a big flourish, that the Government was going to fix that problem. I think the House deserves to know where that issue is at. Our horticultural exporters deserve to know where that issue is at. If there is to be another Government speaker on this bill, I believe that he or she should tell us where that issue—the quarantine barrier that Thailand is placing in the way of our horticultural products at the very moment that this trade agreement is being implemented—is at. It is no good to supposedly liberalise trade on the one hand, and actually make it more impossible on the other. The Government should tell us where it is getting to on that one.

Our other concerns include issues such as this. The Labour Government’s Coordinating Minister, Race Relations, the Hon Trevor Mallard, claimed last year, I believe, when he made a speech at Victoria University: “Māori have no extra rights or privileges under the Treaty”—of Waitangi, that is—“or in the policy of the New Zealand government.” That is what the Hon Trevor Mallard said last year. Yet this trade agreement states that the Government of New Zealand reserves the right under article 15.8 to put in place: “measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori … including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.”

What on earth is that doing in the trade agreement? On the one hand the Coordinating Minister, Race Relations says that it is not Government policy, at all, to accord more favourable treatment to Māori, yet on the other hand this trade agreement has exactly those words. The agreement states that the Labour Government reserves the right to implement measures that it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Māori. That is in the agreement. All I can say is that it is hypocritical in the extreme to say, on the one hand, as Trevor Mallard has said, that the Labour Government does not have a policy of more favourable treatment for Māori, yet on the other hand to include in a trade agreement such as this the policy in black and white. That is our first big concern.

Our second concern is that this trade agreement, and the schedule for removing New Zealand tariffs on Thai products coming into New Zealand, exceeds New Zealand’s commitments under APEC to eliminate all tariffs by 2010. This trade agreement allows the phase-out of tariffs on Thai imports into New Zealand through to 2015. That is a direct breach of our commitments to the Bogor goals of APEC, whereby a developed economy like New Zealand is meant to eliminate all tariffs by 2010, and developing economies are meant to eliminate tariffs by 2020. With this agreement, the Labour Government is damaging New Zealand’s international reputation. New Zealand chaired APEC in 1999. This country is one of the leaders in APEC—it was, at least, under a National Government. But this Labour Government has sullied New Zealand’s international reputation by putting out the transition to 2015 for no purpose.

The New Zealand Chambers of Commerce and Industry made a submission to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on this trade agreement, stating that it was not even in New Zealand’s economic interest to have a long phase-out of our own tariffs. So why has the Government done it? It is not in our economic interests, according to the New Zealand Chambers of Commerce and Industry, and it breaches New Zealand’s commitments to the Bogor goals of APEC. I think that a Labour member should get up and explain to the House why this trade agreement has that phase-out going through to 2015. It is totally destroying. New Zealand cannot stand up at APEC now and say that developed member economies should phase out tariffs by 2010, because we are not doing it. New Zealand is not doing it; it is not leading by example.

Finally, our general concern with this trade agreement is that services are not included. Sixty-eight percent—over two-thirds—of New Zealand’s economy is not included in this trade agreement. It is not included at all. It is simply stupid not to include services in this trade agreement. All the agreement has is a commitment to initiate negotiations within 3 years. That is not good enough. This is actually a low-quality trade agreement. As I said, National will support this legislation, because I think the benefits outweigh the negatives, but it is a low-quality trade agreement.

Specifically, in respect of the legislation, the Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, mentioned the two parts, the first part being the provision to put into our tariff schedule the preferential tariff provisions for Thailand that were negotiated in the agreement. But it is Part 2 that the select committee must look at very carefully. Part 2 implements in New Zealand legislation, really for the first time, this whole concept of transitional safeguard measures. We know that this is difficult legislation. It is difficult international law; it is complex international law. We should not forget that the United States imposed safeguard measures—tariffs—against the imports of New Zealand lamb. We had to take the United States to the World Trade Organization, and we won. There are complex issues in World Trade Organization agreements and in the original GATT agreement around those transitional safeguard measures.

I shall give an example. Article 24 of GATT—the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade—which is still in place, has certain provisions that follow the negotiation of bilateral free-trade agreements. Transitional—I should say safeguard—measures are not among the provisions in article 24. In paragraph 8(a)(1), I think it is, of article 24, safeguard measures are not included. We risk complex international law arguments with Part 2 of this bill. The select committee will have to look at Part 2 very, very carefully. I really stress that. Complex international trade law issues are involved here.

Finally, I make this point in respect of this trade agreement. The Government has not talked about annex 3 of the agreement, which provides for special safeguards for Thailand to implement against New Zealand exports—special agricultural safeguards. Labour does not talk much about that. Annex 3 spells out constraints on our exports to Thailand of beef, pork, offal—that kind of thing—all milk products, cheese, butter, and anhydrous milkfat whey products. This is a low-quality agreement. It should not be a precedent for further trade agreements. The Singapore agreement that National negotiated was a good agreement; this agreement, I am afraid, is a low-quality one. National will support it, reluctantly, for its benefits.

LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana): It is with much pleasure that I stand on behalf of the Government and also for our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to speak in support of the first reading of the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill. This is indeed an historic time for us, because this New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership Agreement represents a significant economic and strategic opportunity for New Zealand. It not only opens up more opportunities for New Zealand businesses but is an important step towards improving the trading environment in our region and worldwide. The agreement provides for all tariffs applying to goods of New Zealand or Thai origin traded between the two countries to be either eliminated immediately or phased out over a scheduled period. The agreement also enjoys strong support from the business community and others, including educational institutions.

I want to respond to Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s comments about Treaty of Waitangi interests. The relevant provision in this closer economic partnership does not have any impact on the nature of the Government’s policy in relation to Māori. It preserves the right of successive Governments to implement policies of their choice in relation to Māori and to fulfil treaty obligations. Dr Smith should remember that in the Singapore closer economic partnership agreement that he led, he agreed to support that clause. Now he has suddenly done a turn-round. The precedent of a reservation like that has been set by many other countries in their international general agreements on trade and services. For example, Australia, Canada, Malaysia, the US, and France have also included that indigenous reservation.

In response to the member’s comments on the coverage of services, I say the services sector is indisputably important to our New Zealand economy. That is why services are included in the agreement and why there is a binding commitment to enter into negotiations on trade in services within 3 years from the entry into force of the agreement. Clearly, New Zealand would have preferred a comprehensive services agreement now, but the fact is that Thailand is not in a position to do that. We have therefore reached the judgment that it was in New Zealand’s interests to schedule a full services negotiation within 3 years.

In terms of the comments made by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith on APEC Bogor declaration goals, I say New Zealand remains committed to the Bogor goals. The closer economic partnership with Thailand is a bilateral agreement, concluded in advance of the Bogor deadline. In the event that the APEC members do in fact collectively meet the Bogor goals, the agreement with Thailand will not preclude us from doing so. In the meantime, negotiating realities need to be taken into account. New Zealand is prepared to be ambitious, but if our trading partners are unable or unwilling to match us, we will not open up a one-way street. Where they want more time, we will do the same as them rather than give anybody a free ride.

I am delighted that we have agreed on this partnership. It is wonderful for New Zealand, for its economy, and for its global trade.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First’s position can be summarised very, very briefly. We have major reservations about this bill and about what could develop from it in this country. We considered it at some length in caucus this morning, and at other times, and we are nervous that this legislation will open the door to a flood of—what can I say—low-valued imports coming into this country. Those imports will be produced in—[Interruption]—conditions like those that that member has just reminded me occur on fishing boats that operate in this country. We do not share the confidence of the member who has just resumed her seat.

New Zealand First at this point in time will not support at all this bill going to a select committee. We were tempted to support its going to a select committee, but after a wider discussion we reassessed our position. We can see the door opening here to all sorts of goods and commodities. Even if they are not produced in Thailand, they may come through the back door of China and end up in this country, to the detriment of New Zealand’s employment. [Interruption] The member there believes everything this Government says it will do with regard to this sort of bill. We believe that those things are all very well in theory, but do not quite work out that way in practice. So, with quite some reservation, we are opposing this bill. I do not think I should say any more. It seems that the Government has the numbers in support of this bill, and we will follow the development of the bill with interest. However, New Zealand First is not prepared to support the referral of this bill to a select committee.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): The ACT party is an enthusiastic supporter of freeing world trade. We certainly favour multilateral agreements and endorse the work done by this Government in the Doha round, and indeed, endorse the work done by the previous National Government, and successive Governments, in pursuing multilateral trading agreements. That is clearly in the interests of New Zealand as a major exporting nation. We have here, of course, a bilateral agreement between New Zealand and Thailand. Although bilateral agreements are not as preferable as multilateral agreements, in the absence of progress with the Doha round we certainly support any initiative, whether it is with Singapore, with Thailand, or with any other existing or potential trading partner, to make moves to free up trade.

We believe that trade benefits both parties. Indeed, the evidence of that is overwhelming. Right through history, when trade has been facilitated, the prosperity of both parties has been enhanced. Not very many openly democratic nations that have traded with each other have ever gone to war. I challenge members to actually name two openly democratic nations that have ever gone to war with each other. No such example exists in the history of mankind. So not only is trade good for prosperity—

Hon Harry Duynhoven: The Second World War; Germany and the US.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Germany was not an openly democratic nation. The member for New Plymouth may have thought Nazi Germany was an openly democratic society, but I am happy to tell him that Nazi Germany was not an open democratic nation—it was a fascist State, so it does not meet the test. I am very disappointed that a Labour member of Parliament would suggest that the national socialist party of Nazi Germany was operating in an openly democratic society, just as the Baath socialist party of Iraq was not in an openly democratic society. Indeed, nor is the Mugabe socialist party of Rhodesia—Zimbabwe. My fear is that the “Socialist Party of Helen Clark and Harry Duynhoven” will not be regarded as being in an openly democratic society, if we keep on the path we are going down. Anyway, that is an aside.

The ACT party certainly supports free-trade agreements; there is no question about that. In fact, there is one party whose position we cannot understand in this House. It is a glaring example of—I cannot say “hypocrisy”, so I will not. Parties that badger Governments to increase overseas development assistance on the one hand, and then oppose freeing up trade with them, are being grossly inconsistent. I believe the greatest obscenity in the world of trade is the way the developed, wealthy nations, particularly the USA and wealthy European nations, are happy to insist on free trade when they hold the comparative advantage, but deny free trade to the developing world when the developing world has the comparative advantage. That is the greatest obscenity and distortion with regard to the lifting of living standards amongst the poor nations of the world.

I guess that in many ways Thailand is regarded as a developing nation. It is making rapid progress, and that is good. Certainly, its pay rates are a lot less than those in New Zealand, and its industrial standards are a lot lower than New Zealand’s, but the way to lift them is to actually trade with Thailand. The path to improvement in the social area and the economic wealth - generation area is through trade. Therefore, to just say that we should shovel out more overseas development assistance, but deny trade, is appalling. Yes, when we trade with Fiji or Thailand we may well find that some New Zealand industries, particularly the clothing and footwear industries, will be disadvantaged—unquestionably. That is because overwhelmingly those other developing nations have a clear comparative advantage in things like footwear and clothing. But New Zealand has huge comparative advantages in other areas. It makes sense for a country to trade, based on its comparative advantage. That is how both nations will be better off—how both will have greater prosperity—and global prosperity will unquestionably increase with that. So I just raise the incredible inconsistency that we see, certainly in the Green Party but also in other hard-left parties, and in some groups in society that rail against world trade and demonstrate at the World Trade Organization. I remember a couple of Green MPs—I think one is in the House now—demonstrated. Was it Mr Donald, perhaps?

Rod Donald: No, it was Mr Tanczos and Ms Bradford.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Mr Tanczos and Ms Sue Bradford went to the World Trade Organization meeting, demonstrated, and opposed world trade, when world trade is the vehicle for increasing prosperity.

The ACT party is a champion of free trade. We support the Government’s initiative in this area. We think it is doing too little and too late. We deeply regret the Government’s inability to establish a free-trade agreement with the United States. That is a matter for another debate, and we all know the reason for the inability to establish that agreement: it is another foolish policy of this Labour Government, which is shackling the New Zealand economy. We support this particular bill, and we will be voting for it.

ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green): It will not surprise anyone in the House that the Greens will be voting against this bill. That is because we believe it is bad for New Zealand manufacturers, bad for their staff, and bad for Thai workers as well. What should surprise the House is that the two Progressive Party members will vote for legislation that undermines everything that they used to stand for.

Even the once-great Labour Party supported the Pause for a Cause campaign to freeze tariffs on imports, but that was when it was in Opposition back in 1998. Now that it is in Government, with the power to protect New Zealand jobs and businesses, the best it can do is to put some window dressing in this tariff reduction bill. The explanatory note states: “The regime establishes the basic right for New Zealand industry, when it considers that it is suffering serious injury as a result of a surge in competing imports from Thailand, to request the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Commerce to initiate a safeguard investigation, and enables the Minister of Commerce, if warranted, to apply a transitional safeguard measure against such imports.” I guess that is better than nothing, but it only confirms that jobs will disappear—will be sacrificed—as a result of this preferential trade deal.

Indeed, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s national interest analysis admits as much. It states: “Any trade agreement involving reciprocal tariff removal can create adjustment effects for import-competing sectors deriving from increased exposure to foreign suppliers …”. It goes on to acknowledge: “The clothing, footwear and carpet sector, where the highest tariffs of 17-19 percent prevail, has traditionally been the most sensitive to tariff reductions. Concerns in relation to imports from Thailand were also raised in respect of whiteware, plasterboard, steel and certain textiles.” That is bureaucratic doublespeak for good Kiwi businesses going to the wall and good Kiwi workers ending up on the scrap heap as a result of this trade deal.

Of course, trade theory tells us that all of the jobs that will disappear were unproductive and inefficient. One should tell that to the skilled machinists in clothing factories in Levin who are working their hearts out. Trade theory also says they will get a job in one of the export-focused sectors that will expand as a result of this deal. Does that mean those skilled machinists should look for a job on a dairy farm or in a dairy factory? That is the net effect of this agreement. It will slaughter manufacturing that has depended on the protection of tariffs and it may lead to an increase in jobs in the dairy sector. But I say “may” because the national interest analysis states: “Overall effects on employment are more likely to be net positive.” Does that not fill one with optimism and make one feel excited? The Government is not even prepared to take a stand and claim that this agreement will create thousands of jobs in New Zealand.

The Government is hedging its bets in the same way that it is hedging its bets on the impact this deal will have on our trade situation with Thailand. At least with the Singapore deal the two Ministers stood up and claimed that we would have a big increase in exports and, therefore, a trade surplus with Singapore—never mind that they were wrong and we have our biggest ever trade deficit with Singapore and, what is more, our exports to Singapore have decreased. With this deal there is not even a shred of justification for the Minister to say that there will be an increase in exports, let alone a reduction in our trade deficit. That should not surprise anyone, because the trade deficit with Thailand for the year to March, which has just been published, is $355 million. That is an increase of $103 million over the previous year to March. In other words, trade is going the wrong way as this Government removes tariffs and opens up our borders, and this legislation will make that even worse. Will that help workers in Thailand? No, it will not.

The Green Party would be open to trade rules that actually do help people in the Third World. After all, I worked for Trade Aid for 6 years before I came here. I was an importer, helping people in developing countries. But we know for a fact that this trade deal will not help those workers, because we had one of the clothing workers come to visit us from Thailand last year. She in turn went to see Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials and asked them whether her wages would go up if this trade deal proceeds. The officials said: “No, it does not work like that. More of you will get jobs, but your wages will not go up.” What will happen is that more workers in Thailand will get 77c an hour to make jackets that sell in New Zealand for $160. Who makes the money? Nike with its brand on them and Rebel Sport that retails them, but not Sripai Nonsee and all the people she works with in a sweatshop in Bangkok, because they will continue to be exploited.

Will New Zealand consumers be any better off? They will not be, according to our Prime Minister. When I asked a question about whether cutting the 19 percent tariff on rain-jackets would make them cheaper in New Zealand, Prime Minister Helen Clark said that the market does not work like that and that it would be a matter for market forces.

What is the outcome of this deal? New Zealand clothing workers will lose their jobs. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade official admitted that when she said there would be more clothing sector jobs in Thailand, which can only mean fewer in New Zealand. The Thai workers will not be any better off. Even more of them will be paid less than the cost of living in Thailand. New Zealand consumers will not be better off because the products will not be any cheaper.

So what is the point of all this? As John Walley from the Canterbury Manufacturers Association said in the Christchurch Press only last week: “Sooner or later policy makers must see the New Zealand manufacturing capability as a necessary and strategic asset, even though it is made up of many disparate small companies, worthy of protection not something that drops off the radar screen when we have a few more containers full of milk powder to sell.”

However, the real issue is not just about whether New Zealand will be better or worse off in trade terms; it is what will happen to workers in Thailand. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they will be worse off. There is no benefit to them from this deal and there is every probability that Thailand will continue with its current appalling labour practices, working conditions, and human rights abuses because the Thai Government refuses to ratify core ILO conventions. That means that workers do not have the right to organise and conduct collective bargaining, which is something that we take for granted.

Thai women workers are denied the protection of the convention on discrimination, so they can be paid less than Thai men. Children in Thailand are denied the protection of the convention on the minimum wage. There is something like half a million 13 to 14-year-olds known to be working in Thailand, while an additional 1.5 million children aged 6 to 14 are not registered in schools. We know that Thailand does little to enforce the convention on forced labour, despite ratifying it, so de facto forced labour remains. If we add to that an obscene minimum adult wage of only $6.20 a day, or $31 a week, we have an extremely unfair trade deal, which the New Zealand Labour Government wants to sign up to.

This Government should be trying to level the playing field by protecting New Zealand businesses and workers from unfair trade, but instead it wants to give a preferential trade deal to a country run by a bully. There is no doubt that Dr Thaksin, the Prime Minister of Thailand, is a bully, and he wants to control not only his own economy but the economies of other countries. We say that this trade deal is bad for New Zealand. This bill is bad for our manufacturers and workers, and we oppose it.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to support the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill. We support the idea of open and free markets. This bill goes towards a bilateral agreement that helps trade between our two nations in a way that advantages us both. To hear the previous speaker, one would come away with the idea that this would somehow inhibit us. But open markets—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: It’s not a very high-quality agreement.

MARC ALEXANDER: It may not be. Some of the issues will be debated through the select committee and that is as good as we are going to get. But we need at least to allow this bill to proceed as far as that and support it so that we can improve it collectively, and not simply dismiss it out of hand because we have a prejudice against free markets and the benefits that free markets will provide.

Those benefits are increased production and increased efficiency as a result of utilising the comparative advantages of producers in each country. In the long run it will increase employment on both sides. Despite the doomsday approach of the Green Party, it will lift living standards and, most important, create wealth for all of us.

It is true that some of our manufacturers might suffer some loss in the short term. But that is because they are in industries, or have manufacturing streams, that are inefficient by world standards. It is much better to have the market recognise that and push those producers, resources, and employees into other areas where we do have a comparative advantage. The result will benefit the consumers of both countries. We will profit from it by having more efficient and cheaper provision of services and goods. It is a sad reflection that it will actually be 3 years before services are included, because they ought to have been part of this process, but, hopefully, that will be discussed at the select committee.

The important thing is that we do want to open up our markets to benefit all, and this is a bilateral agreement that puts effect to that. It is a technical bill, in many ways, which arises out of our free-trade agreement and sets up the tariff arrangements under which that will then operate. The Greens want protection for everything other than efficiency and the interests of consumers. They seem to want protection for inefficiency—protection against the best production methods.

Hon Ken Shirley: Fortress New Zealand!

MARC ALEXANDER: Exactly. I take the points that the Hon Ken Shirley made earlier about the fact that although there will be some short-term losses in both countries, there will be long-term wins for all of us. We will all ultimately benefit from an open, global, competitive environment. We do not need the short-sighted approach that the Greens seem to be pushing.

The previous speaker spoke at length about the sweatshop mentalities of some countries. Well, members should tell that to the Singaporeans of today, who have arisen out of the ashes of their country’s sweatshop background. Rod Donald did mention the 70c an hour that Thai workers were getting for producing those jackets. That is 70c more than they had before. It sets up the possibility of increasing the consumption power within the country.

Metiria Turei: Oh, what!

MARC ALEXANDER: Well, have a look at Singapore. The simple truth is that it arose out of the sweatshop environment, and it is now one of the world’s most productive economies with one of the highest standards of living in the world. We should envy the progress that it has made in a very short space of time, because it opened up its markets and used its resources as efficiently and as wisely as it could. It is the same process with this bill.

There are problems with this bill, as has been outlined before, but those are the kinds of issues that will be dealt with more correctly in the select committee. On behalf of United Future, I commend the bill to the select committee.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Labour—New Plymouth): We have listened to a number of interesting speeches this afternoon. I was particularly interested in the speech of Dr Lockwood Smith, who spoke strongly and stridently on the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill. At the end, after raising all sorts of objections and issues, he said that National would support the bill—or, at least, that is what I think he said.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I said that at the start.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: But if one had missed the start and the end, one might have been a little bit confused—as the member sometimes is. I just wanted to be sure that this was not one of those changes of position that sometimes occurs.

We have heard some very interesting speeches, particularly the speech of Ken Shirley. I remind Mr Shirley that in both World War I and World War II, Germany, which had an elected Government both times—although I freely admit to the member that it had taken a few what one might call draconian measures in the period leading up to World War II—had a considerable amount of trade with Western counties that were fighting it, right up until well into the war on both occasions.

But I take the point absolutely that where there is trade, there is much less likely to be conflict. That has always been the case. When countries build up a trading relationship, when they have a relationship based on understanding, and when they have intermeshed economic aims, then obviously the chances of conflict are much reduced.

This bill is of some interest to me personally. I took on the points of Rod Donald very strongly because, like the member, my political beginnings were in the Trade Aid shop movement many years ago. About 30 years ago, at the time of Fortress New Zealand—[Interruption] Actually, it was just before. Mr Shirley is quite right. The issue of Fortress New Zealand was an interesting one, because at that time our country had the belief—right up until about 1984—that our best way forward as a country was to ensure absolutely that we produced everything we possibly could and kept everyone else out. CER was the beginning of that change. I freely admit—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: No. CER was the beginning in 1982.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: That was 1982. That is exactly right. As I said to the House just a second ago—if the member had taken care to listen—that view of Fortress New Zealand lasted right up until 1984. But in the period leading up to that, in the last couple of years, there was an element of the then Government that wanted to change that. There were others who staunchly adhered to it.

Like every other country that embarks on a trading arrangement with neighbouring countries, Thailand stands to gain. We stand to gain, too. The way both countries may gain may be different. For example, Thailand may license technologies from us, just as New Zealand has done in past times—and, indeed, as we still do. That is very common across borders when countries have trading arrangements. We have the opportunity to enhance New Zealand’s exports to Thailand by way of the reduction in tariffs, as Dr Smith said. The select committee addressed that issue quite strongly in its report. The committee did a very thorough job on that. It looked at the issue of New Zealand’s strengths in our trade.

What are the things we are strong in? We are strong in exporting high-quality agricultural produce. To add value to that produce is always our challenge, and those are the things New Zealand has developed an expertise in. Two-way trade between our two countries is worth over $1 billion, but the market-access provisions of this agreement will open up significant opportunities for expanding our existing trade and developing new trade. The agreement will provide certainty for business planning, and it puts New Zealand on an equal footing with Thailand’s other free-trade agreement partners, including Australia, with whom we have, of course, CER.

One of the problems for us in increasing our trade into Thailand is non-tariff and tariff barriers—particularly the latter. Currently, 54 percent of our products have a barrier against them. By removing tariffs—trade barriers—we will get an increase in our trade to Thailand. [Interruption] It is 60 percent of exports. I will take the member’s word for that. I was not on the select committee, and he obviously has more knowledge of this than I do.

It is the principle of the thing that is really important. What is the use to New Zealand of having barriers in place against our two-way trade with other countries? The more we can make such agreements that are a benefit to both countries—New Zealand and the trading partner—the better.

I welcome this trade agreement. I think it will be of positive benefit to both countries. I do acknowledge that some adjustments may be needed along the way, and I say to the House that the select committee has done a good job of identifying those, as shown in the report presented to the House. I think it is worthwhile for us to seriously consider those issues and how those adjustments will be made, and ensure that our nearby neighbour benefits from us as we benefit from it. As Mr Shirley said, we should build up those trading relationships that enhance international cooperation and well-being right around the world.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): I will make it very clear for the member who has just resumed his seat, and for anybody else who is uncertain. The National Party supports the closer economic partnership agreement. Unlike Labour, the National Party supports free trade. We support free trade because it is in New Zealand’s interests to have free trade right around the world. It would be in New Zealand’s best interests if there were no barriers anywhere. Unfortunately, Labour is slow in picking that sort of message up, and it has taken Labour a long time even to make one agreement. After 5 years, Labour has finally got to a low-quality agreement.

Let me explain why this is a low-quality agreement, remembering that the National Party—and other parties in this House, I might add—support free trade. Firstly, it is interesting that Labour, after 5 years, has at least managed to get one such agreement on the books. Of course, during the election campaign we will see that Labour members will parade it all over the place and be out there banging their chests and saying: “Look what we’ve done for the nation.” Well, the fact is that this agreement is low quality, and I will explain why. There is a benefit, which is that immediately—

Hon Harry Duynhoven: What about Singapore?

JOHN CARTER: Who negotiated the agreement with Singapore? National negotiated that agreement, and Labour came in and did the final little bit of signing off. But this gentleman to my left, Lockwood Smith, and the National Government of the time, were responsible for the Singapore deal. No matter how one tries to dress it up, I tell the member, that fact cannot be taken away. It is on the record that that man and the last National Government were responsible for the agreement with Singapore, and were responsible for CER. So let us not carry on talking about those agreements; we know where credit for those lie. [Interruption]

If we want to start having some interjections, we will have to start talking about low-quality members—or Ministers, actually. Then we will start doing the list of those Ministers in this Government who have been tossed out. There is one tossed out at the moment. In fact, it makes me wonder whether he is actually out there having a game of tennis right now.

But I am off the point, so I want to come back to the benefit in this agreement, which is that 52 percent of the exports to Thailand from New Zealand become duty-free immediately. Right? So that is a plus, an absolute plus. That is great. As I understand it, currently it is 4 percent?

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: It’s only 4 percent.

JOHN CARTER: It is only 4 percent currently, but it will rise immediately from 1 July—is it?

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: 1 July.

JOHN CARTER: On 1 July it will rise to 52 percent, so that is a plus. But there are some downsides. Let me talk about those, because while the agreement is an advantage, there are some downsides. Some of them have been covered already, but it is worthwhile just putting them on the record again. There will be a reduction in tariffs on fruit—in fact, I understand the tariff will go pretty much to zero for things like avocados, cherries, persimmons, and kiwifruit, etc. However, there is a “but” about it, which is that for some reason this Government has allowed the Thai negotiators to put in a qualification. The qualification—which actually brings to my mind the issue between Australia and New Zealand as far as apples go—is that we have to have a certificate to certify that products, such as the aforementioned, are free of chemicals. Now, that in itself does not sound too big a deal, but two things are important with that. Firstly, there is a cost associated with the certification, and the cost is likely to be more than the amount of the reduction in tariff. So growers are likely to end up being worse off. I know that Mr Assistant Speaker is a man with a fine mind, so I tell him that I find it very difficult to understand how that is actually a benefit.

Something else worries me even more than the fact that the agreement is likely to end up costing growers more—and I bring members back to the Australia - New Zealand apple issue. This Government said that it would get the apple issue sorted out with Australia. Well, what has happened? Nothing—absolutely nothing! The Government tells us that because of the way it has negotiated this deal it will be able to make sure the agreement is not an impediment to our growers—to avocado growers, to cherry growers, to kiwifruit growers—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: To apple growers.

JOHN CARTER:—and to apple growers. Well, I have to tell the House—and this may come as a surprise to members—that I have my doubts about the ability of this Government to be able to manage that aspect of the certification the Government has allowed the Thai negotiators to put in there. When any deal puts a barrier up, then the pluses are negated in that negotiated deal. That is why, at best, this agreement can be described as a low-quality agreement. It is not the sort of thing that National or my colleague Lockwood Smith would have negotiated.

I want to bring the House’s attention to another thing that worries me, and it worried me when I first looked at it. It is in the report and comes under the New Zealand National Party’s minority view. It is the issue around article 15.8 of the agreement, relating to the Treaty of Waitangi. It concerns me because article 15.8 reserves the right for New Zealand to adopt “measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Māori … including the fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.” The problem with that is: what are the obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi? What does that mean? Why should we give one group more favourable treatment than others, in this country? Are their apples a different shape? Maybe they are a different colour, to need some favourable treatment? [Interruption] Oh, they are all brown. Well, that is probably why. If that is so they need favourable treatment, but I cannot see that under the obligations in the Treaty of Waitangi.

Government members, of course, are all out there wanting to give favourable treatment to one group of New Zealanders, and trapping them into welfare dependency, instead of saying to them: “Get on your feet like every other New Zealander, and make your way in this country.” This lot does not say to the Māori people of this country that they should get on their feet and make their way like all other New Zealanders. This Government puts this sort of absolutely politically correct rubbish in agreements like this—

Darren Hughes: You wouldn’t say that in Northland.

JOHN CARTER: I will say that anywhere; I am happy to say that absolutely anywhere. [Interruption] You bet! Make no mistake—if that member wants to come up and campaign on my patch, he should feel free. If he were to stand beside me in front of the Māori people up there and say that the best thing he would do for them is give them a benefit, he would be laughed out of the hall. Because that is all this Government is doing for them—but not the National Party. We are there because we know the Māori people in this country—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the members on my right that Mr Carter is making a hard-hitting speech and, although some interjections are acceptable, I want to hear what he has to say. He cannot be drowned out.

JOHN CARTER: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is unlikely that I will be drowned out, but I appreciate your support, nevertheless. It worries me that this politically correct Government is out there hankering away to a certain group of people, when it should actually be interested in all New Zealanders, and in making sure we have every opportunity for every New Zealander. The Māori people in this country are just as capable as anyone else of getting on their feet and doing things. Many of them do, and they make their contribution, so they do not need that sort of claptrap in agreements like this agreement.

Quite honestly, I also say that a couple of other things are a worry in this agreement, and I want to draw the attention of the House to one extra thing before I conclude. National members are concerned that the agreement does not include services. We should be concerned about that, because that is a huge part of our GDP.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Two-thirds of our economy.

JOHN CARTER: Yes, it is nearly two-thirds of our economy. Yet, all that is in this low-quality agreement made by the Labour Government is that negotiations are to be initiated within 3 years. What does that mean—that someone writes a letter to somebody? It will probably be in Māori, under the obligations of the Treaty of Waitangi, and over there in Thailand they will not understand what it means. This is a low-quality agreement, but I remind the House that National supports it nevertheless, because free trade is good for the country.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): As my learned colleague has just said, National supports the introduction of the bill. John Carter has wide experience in this field, as does the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith, who, as a former trade Minister, understands the protocols involved in such an important part of New Zealand’s economy. Although we say we will support the bill, we do have major reservations. My colleagues have said this agreement is low quality, but at least it is a starting point for New Zealand.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: It’s the best that Labour can do!

LINDSAY TISCH: After 5 years that is the best it could do. New Zealand is in the international marketplace. National supports free trade. We are proactive in supporting free trade. It is important for the economy, because we get a win-win situation. It is not only good for our producers, but also good for the country that we are dealing with.

I note the point made by the Hon Ken Shirley that when trade is freed up, standards rise in the country we deal with, and stability and security issues do not become a concern. Increasingly, we see that happening throughout the Pacific, where security has become a major issue. If New Zealand is able to enter into an agreement with Thailand, that is of benefit not only to New Zealand but also to the security and stability of that part of the region.

Last year I was fortunate to visit Beijing for the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum and talk specifically about trade and security in the Pacific. Of the 23 countries that border the Pacific, 20 were represented. The progress being made by those countries is absolutely outstanding. It was my third visit to China, and the progress I have seen there is amazing. If members have a chance to visit, they will see what China has been able to achieve. It has a population of 1.3 billion, and 100 million enjoy living standards equal to those of New Zealand. A lot of progress has been made, but 100 million is only a drop in the bucket. The Olympic Games will be held in China, and it wants to move into trading arrangements. So an agreement with China is something that New Zealand is pushing for at this time and it is something that should be encouraged.

Our isolation can be a competitive advantage in terms of agriculture and other export areas. But there will be some losers in our economy. It has been identified that some parts of the manufacturing sector, especially footwear and clothing, may well be disadvantaged by this agreement. But we always have to build on our strengths, and as the economies of the world start to improve their living standards and buy more goods and services from us, we achieve a win-win situation.

My colleague Dr Lockwood Smith said that unfortunately this closer economic partnership agreement with Thailand does not cover a very important service—that is, consultancy. We have major consultancy services and our expertise in certain fields is in demand around the world—in particular, in the Asia-Pacific region. Our agricultural consultants, people in the World Bank—those sorts of consultants—could be providing that sort of service. Unfortunately, that is not in the agreement, initially. But the bill says it will be looked at over the next 3 years, whatever that may mean.

National has identified that this is a low-quality tariff agreement. It is low quality, but there are some advantages. Currently only 4 percent of our products are duty-free, and that will rise to 52 percent from 1 July. Certainly, that is an advantage and National welcomes that opportunity. But we make the point about some other primary industries, such as avocados and kiwifruit, and the qualification that will be put on them. In relation to kiwifruit, and especially Zespri or Chinese gooseberries, I just mention that in the hotel where I stayed in Beijing, the menu for breakfast and other meals had kiwifruit prominently displayed, as was New Zealand butter. It is always good to see our products represented. However, I reiterate the point that in relation to some of our horticultural products, be they kiwifruit, cherries, persimmons, or avocados, a major qualification will be put on them.

So are we or are we not going to have free trade? Because as soon as one puts a “but” into the equation or a qualification on it, one has to weigh up the extra costs involved and the compliance costs involved in being able to meet those standards. Either we have free trade or we do not. That is one of the areas that I am sure the select committee will be looking at as this bill is progressed. If there is no competitive advantage, no market advantage, for us, then at the end of the day it will not be worth doing. We have said right along that we support, and will continue to support, free-trade agreements that will allow New Zealand’s living standards to rise. We have to export. We are an exporting country. If we do not sell products and services, then we cannot raise the living standards of New Zealanders. The win-win situation is that as other countries lift their living standards, they will buy more products in larger volumes and at higher prices. That helps us all. But also if we consider it beyond that, we see that the security and stability of these countries improves markedly and that is to New Zealand’s advantage in the bigger scheme of things.

So National is supporting the bill. We have some reservations, some serious points that need to be covered in the select committee, but we are happy to support the bill through to the select committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 97

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

Noes 23

New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.

Bill read a first time.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): I move, That the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for consideration, and that the committee present its report to the House on or before 3 June 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, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington region 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 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.

Bills

New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I propose that this bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration, and that it report back before 31 October 2005. This is not a large bill, it is a relatively small bill, and, in fact, if it were not for one party’s objection, it would have been included in a recent Statutes Amendment Bill. But it is a very important bill, and I refer to a quote during the first reading of the original New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Act in 1938, from a Mr Sexton: “All law is not made in this Chamber … The law of New Zealand was based upon the common law of England originally, and it has been modified during the years by statutes and by case law.” Case law, together with a doctrine of precedent, plays an important role in maintaining the integrity and fairness of New Zealand’s justice system. The application of legal principles set down in past cases to new, similar cases ensures that like cases are decided alike, and leads to greater certainty and fairness—two important principles in the New Zealand legal system.

Law reports are an essential part of case law and precedent. The law reports are the source of case law and precedent and they are where the official decisions of the courts are to be found. Aside from promoting the fair and equal treatment of citizens, the use of authorised law reports also promotes accountability by opening up the judiciary’s decisions to scrutiny. Judicial decisions are required to be accompanied by reasons. These reasons ensure that decisions are reached and determined in a legitimate manner.

The existing Act provides for law reporting in New Zealand to be carried out by the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting. The council currently records the key judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal in the New Zealand Law Reports, which are recognised as New Zealand’s only official law reports. This bill simply provides for the inclusion of the Supreme Court into the existing regime of reporting and publishing that has been provided for under the Act since 1938.

To ensure the continued value and validity of the New Zealand Law Reports, it is essential that they include the key judgments of New Zealand’s final appellate court. One of the purposes of the establishment of the Supreme Court was to improve accessibility of New Zealand’s appellate courts. The natural flow-on from this is to have access to the judgments of this court. The role of the Supreme Court is to oversee all areas of law; however, it will be able to deal only with cases that involve significant issues. Due to the ability of the Supreme Court to delve into legal analysis in greater detail than is possible in the lower courts, it is essential that people have access to its judgments. The decisions of the Supreme Court will provide invaluable guidance to the lower courts as to the application and interpretation of legal principles. Without reliable publication of the judgments, the validity of the case law and precedent is jeopardised.

The bill follows consultation with the Chief Justice, the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting, and the New Zealand Law Society. The New Zealand Council of Law Reporting will have the primary responsibility of reporting the key judgments of the Supreme Court, and these judgments will be included in the official law reports of New Zealand, along with those of the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Currently, only the Council of Law Reporting may publish the judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, with an exception that the New Zealand Law Society may authorise the alternative publication of these court judgments, if certain conditions are met. The bill will extend the exception to clarify the ability of the Law Society to authorise the publication of judgments of the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court in specialist law reports or other occasional publications. Further exceptions included in the bill give the Chief Justice, following consultation with the Law Society, the ability to authorise the alternative publication of Supreme Court judgments where appropriate.

This bill will enable the Council of Law Reporting to continue producing an authoritative and reliable set of key judgments of New Zealand’s higher courts. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom): What foolishness is this? The New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill has a report-back date of October 2005, when we all know that Parliament will not be in session in October 2005. It is an impossibility. The last date that this Parliament can sit is September. So what is the serious intent behind this bill? It is not certain that it will be carried forward. This is, on one view of it, an important bill, but the Minister starts off by telling us that it will be reported back after a date when Parliament will simply not be sitting.

I start by commenting that I think it is a sadness when we come to legislation of this type, if we look at the three Ministers responsible for justice issues in this present and dying Government—the Labour Government—we see they are Minister Barker, a trade union official; Minister Goff, a political scientist—

Dr Wayne Mapp: No, he’s not.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: Well, he asserts he is. And there is Minister Cullen, an economics teacher. Some may not judge this to be a bowel-gripping topic. I doubt, in fact, that Minister Barker would include the New Zealand Law Reports as part of his holiday reading—I would be pleasantly surprised if he did—but this legislation is important, because we need in place a consistent system of law reporting as part of the pivotal element of access to justice.

It is, as he has said, a bill that has relatively minor impact; it is all about the reporting of Supreme Court decisions under the rubric of the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting.

It is relevant to reflect just for a moment on what our history of law reporting in New Zealand has been. The current New Zealand Law Reports started in 1881, but, in history, complete sets have been deemed to start in 1861, with a number of prior series. I apologise for reminding the Minister of this because I am sure he studied the history of law reports prior to the New Zealand Law Reports in anticipation of giving his important speech.

But we did have, in the period from 1861 until 1872, the Macassey reports, a publication called the New Zealand Jurist, the New Zealand Jurist Reports (New Series), and the reports running in the 1878 and 1880s period of Ollivier, Bell, and Fitzgerald; then we grandly moved to the New Zealand Law Reports.

I would also like to comment on what might be the essence of a good law report. Of course, as the Minister would know if he ever looked, a law report is in two parts. First, there is a headnote, which is a summary of the facts and the important principles, then the body of the judgment follows. Probably the father of law reports as we know them today was W T S Daniel QC. He wrote a book called the History and Origin of the Law Reports, primarily to deal with the ills that had arisen in the system of law reporting and to produce a more suitable one.

In 1863 in England he proposed a Council of Law Reporting to act gratuitously and be responsible for the appointment of editors and reporters to undertake the management and direction of the printing and sale of reports. His plans were approved on 25 February 1865, so law reports as we know them now can go back to that date when the reporters began their work in Westminster Hall, which was the home of the superior courts, in Lincoln’s Inn Old Hall, and in the Rolls in Chancery Lane.

He made some comments that are probably worth repeating on what the criteria for law reporting are. It should not be the case—and it is not the case in New Zealand—that all cases are reported in the official reports. Some are deemed unworthy of reporting. I would say that many are deemed unworthy of reporting, because they do not hit a series of parameters that, in my view, should be found to exist in every case.

The first rule is that all cases that introduce, or appear to introduce, a new principle or a new rule should be reported—no one would doubt that. Secondly, all cases that materially modify an existing principle or rule should also be reported. In a third category, all cases that settle or materially tend to settle a question upon which the law is doubtful should be reported and, finally, we should report all cases that, for any reason, are peculiarly instructive.

Why someone would offer to be responsible for the reporting of the numerous cases of the various courts is, frankly, beyond me. It involves thousands of hours of reading and of reflecting on what the key points of the case might be or—as Mr Franks and I were taught in law school—on what the ratio decidendi of the case is and what should be more junkily classified as obiter dicta. But it is really important that reports should be accurate, they should contain everything material and useful, and they should be as concise as is consistent with those objectives.

In the bill, reference is made to a new task that the Law Society has been asked to accept, through the new section 12(6), proposed to be inserted into the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Act by clause 3. It provides that the Chief Justice of New Zealand can authorise the alternative publication of decisions of the Supreme Court after consulting the society.

Dr Wayne Mapp: She by herself.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: Why she, by herself, as my friend Dr Mapp says, should have the power to break a monopoly is not at all clear to me, but it is like so many things with this Government that are so unclear. Presumably, the Chief Justice sought to arrogate for herself this power so that she might draw extra remuneration from the already heady pay she receives, so that she could win in this publication role a greater amount of money.

Those are the issues that I sought to deal with. National will support this bill but, of course, it will never be passed, because this bill will never see the light of day in this Parliament. We are actually involved in a complete farce.

Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek to clarify to the House that I have mistakenly said to the House that we would require the bill to be reported back by October 2005. That is incorrect; I picked up the wrong draft of the speech. There will be no qualification on the report-back time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you for the clarification.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I find the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill very interesting for a number of reasons. First, it is interesting that, in the presumably limited legislative time left to this Parliament, we are actually debating this bill when one can think of a whole host of other issues that the Government might have felt that the people of New Zealand think there needs to be some law change on. I would have thought, for example, that immigration law is full of holes and that the Government might at least be saying to the people that it was alive to those holes and that it would do something about them. But, no, we are debating the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill.

Secondly, the bill is interesting because it does not have an explanation as to why the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting is to be given a power to prohibit the reporting of Supreme Court decisions. I would have thought that a Government that was proud of its creation—the new Supreme Court—would want as much attention as possible paid to the decisions of that Supreme Court. It is baffling to me why anyone would want to create a monopoly, a power to censor and prohibit, and ban the reporting of open justice.

I think one of the traditions we inherited from the British—which was in fact a glory of British justice—was the idea that justice had to be done in the open and seen to be done in the open, so that everyone could make up their own mind on the quality of the decisions. We have lost that. Successive Governments—National and Labour—decided that that was superfluity and that New Zealanders could just trust the Family Court judges, the judges in the Youth Court, and the corrections system. We could just trust the entire anointed of the legal establishment when they decided that name suppression, closing of courts, sealing of records, and the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act would wipe records of what happened.

This Government believes in airbrushing history. I think the Minister who introduced this bill could at the very least have given us some assurance that the agenda behind it was not to enable a Cabinet Minister, or other member of the Government—because we must remember that the Attorney-General chairs the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting—to make sure that undesired reports of Supreme Court decisions are not published. I am quite sure that the Minister will have some perfectly plausible reasons for this monopoly, but why did we not hear them? He could have given us the reassurance that the Attorney-General would never exercise the power that will reside in the council to prohibit reports of Supreme Court decisions, but the Minister chose not to do that.

Dr Richard Worth: Why not?

STEPHEN FRANKS: We do not know why this is being done. I can surmise that it is being done because it has always been like that and because for many years the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting has had the statutory monopoly on reporting on other courts, and maybe the Government is just bringing this court into line. But it is still puzzling because the bill states that Supreme Court decisions may be banned only if they are new series of reports. Oh no, in fact, it has covered that one. New section 12(4)(b), proposed in clause 3, states that Supreme Court reports or any series of reports of decisions, separately or in conjunction with reports of other judicial decisions, can be prohibited if the New Zealand Law Society wants it to be prohibited. Now, that is puzzling, is it not?

So I say to the Minister that the structure of this provision is that no person, firm, or company, other than the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting, may commence the publication of a new series of reports and, after the commencement of this legislation, no person, firm, or company may publish a new series of decisions or continue publication of a series of decisions without the consent of the Law Society. Does that mean someone who has already set up the publication of decisions? Is this aimed at the National Business Review, for example, which has a rather, shall we say, sceptical bent to its reporting of legal matters and the affairs of the legal establishment? Is this provision aimed at the National Business Review or the Independent? What is the purpose of a provision that states expressly that the Law Society can ban existing reports and can stop new ones from being published? We should have heard what the purpose is.

Maybe there is a view that this monopoly is essential to ensure that reports are accurate. If that is the case, why not just make it a power to sanction and to force the publication of corrections? We do not have a situation where people are avidly waiting for the New Zealand Law Reports, and at the moment that a decision is given and misreported, there is rioting in the streets. If the Government wanted to cover that kind of possibility, why was it not being open about it and targeting the news media, who can send out things that are very important and can cause rioting in the streets. Why is this not an ex post power? Why is the bill not structured so that the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting can require the publication of corrections if someone gets it wrong, or it can require that there be appropriate checking, for example, to see that suppression orders have been honoured? There is so much about this bill that requires explanation. There was a very inadequate introduction from the Minister.

After hearing National’s criticism of the bill, I am not sure whether it is saying that it will vote for the bill all the way through, or whether it is simply saying that it will vote for the bill to go to a select committee. It is hard to tell. I am sure that Dr Mapp will enlighten us on that matter.

But, on the precautionary principles so beloved by the Greens, and on the principle of letting one hundred flowers bloom, biodiversity, and all that sort of thing, ACT will have to vote against this bill to signal that we think we should not be setting up monopolies without a very, very clear justification, and we certainly should not be setting up restrictions on publication.

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

STEPHEN FRANKS: I think the best thing I can do is to recap the concerns that I hope will be addressed by the select committee if this bill gets through and to explain why ACT believes we should vote against it—if only to make a statement that this kind of legislation should not come in with very bland, non-explanatory explanations.

The bill states: “No person … may, without the consent of the New Zealand Law Society, … publish, a new series of reports of decisions of the High Court or Court of Appeal …”. That creates a monopoly for the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting. The bill further states that all of that applies to the decisions of the Supreme Court, and that they cannot be published separately or in conjunction with other reports. It does not explain why that is such a good idea. There may be a view that the decisions of the Supreme Court—or of any court—should be published only with the approval of judges, but that does not fit with the idea of open court. A reporter is able to go into a court and keep the public informed about what is going on.

The bill does not deal with the situation of partial reports, of, perhaps, reports of one judge’s decision, of the leading decision, or of the decision that prevailed. It does not deal with the conditions the Law Society should apply. It does state that the Law Society can grant other publishers the rights if it considers there is not enough competition or if there is delay. But why the monopoly in the first place? Why the prohibition? Why not give powers to require someone to correct if it is thought that the Supreme Court decisions have been wrongly reported? Why not give some reassurance that the Government has given at least perfunctory attention to the principal of free speech, because this bill seems to be a bar to it.

I trust we will get an Attorney-General’s report as to whether this legislation complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the principles of free speech within it. Sadly, of course, the Attorney-General is the chairman of the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting, so we will get an Attorney-General’s report on a bill that gives the Attorney-General the privilege of blocking reports. It does not really reassure that the Government is taking seriously either openness in the courts or the principles of free speech.

I suspect there are simple explanations for that; I suspect it is just legislative laziness. But these matters should have been addressed in the explanatory note that the Government introduced this bill with.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): As my colleague Dr Worth indicated, National is supporting this bill, although we do so with significant reservations. Some of those have been raised by Mr Franks and, indeed, by Mr Worth himself. It is noteworthy that we are at the dog-end of the 47th Parliament. I guess we can tell that we are at the dog-end when the best the Government can do is present to Parliament bills of this nature for consideration. Is this the harbinger of its sense of an agenda for the nation? Does this indicate that it has no ideas at all, anymore? If this is the quality and nature of the bills the Government is presenting, then one would have to say—paraphrasing, I think, Sir Winston Churchill—that it is time it went.

In terms of this bill, it is important to think about what the bill is not, as opposed to what it is. It does not authorise the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting to make the reports. Nowhere does the bill mandate or require the council to make the reports of the Supreme Court. The reason is quite simple—it does not need the authority of Parliament to produce reports. It is a kind of inverse approach, if one likes. The bill stops others from producing reports without the permission of the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting. But it then goes on to state that in a whole series of circumstances other entities can make reports, so long as it is with permission.

We have to ask ourselves, therefore, why this bill is necessary. Why is this Parliament spending up to 2 hours on a first reading debate to say that people cannot report decisions of the Supreme Court? Why on earth would we want to stop them? Why does this Parliament have even the remotest concern about stopping people from reporting the decisions of the Supreme Court, unless authorised by the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting?

Even more extraordinarily, section 12(6), inserted by clause 3, states: “the Chief Justice may, after consultation with the New Zealand Law Society, authorise any person, … to publish … decisions of the Supreme Court.” Does that mean that newspapers will require the Chief Justice’s permission to publish decisions of the Supreme Court? When we think about it, that cannot possibly be true—at least, I certainly hope it is not. Journalists can go along to the court, hear a decision, and report it. I would have thought that that was known as free speech. I would have thought that any rational Government in New Zealand—and at least for this purpose I include the current Government—would think that was axiomatic.

I conclude on the point that this legislation is unnecessary. That is why National supports it with reservations. The most substantial comment I would like to make on this is that the Government had a choice today. It could have put forward this New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill, or it could have used this valuable House time to continue to advance the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. I suggest that the Law Society would have rather more interest in that bill, but the Government chose not to use Parliament’s time to debate it. The Government itself is saying that Parliament has a limited amount of time—not enough time to pass the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. That is what it is saying. It has said that to the nation at large and to the Law Society. Yet it has put this bill into the face of the Law Society. Now it is saying to the Law Society that there is no time for the Committee stage of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill—that it could not possibly be done in the time that Parliament has. I do not think that is true.

Dr Richard Worth: It’s not true.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: It is not true. Instead, the Government is saying to the Law Society that, in contrast, it does have time to spend hours and hours of House time dealing with the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill—a bill that, as I have indicated, actually is unnecessary. The council does not need legislative authority to publish the Supreme Court reports, anyway. The bill is merely designed to stop others from doing so without permission—as if that were an important thing to do, in any event.

I say to the Government that it has a warped sense of priorities. It is not willing to deal with issues of importance to the Law Society. That is cavalier treatment, in fact. It will not allow this House to deal with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill—it is denying the House time to debate the Committee stage. My colleague Dr Worth has made it abundantly clear that he is perfectly happy to have a reasoned and reasonable debate on that, but the Government is simply saying no. It is wasting the time of Parliament, which is valuable, by having it deal with legislation that is, like this bill, in a sense unnecessary.

Well, when a Government has reached the stage in the parliamentary year that the best it can do is put forward before the House a bill of this nature for its first reading, then I say to the Government: “Go, you’ve used up your time. You’ve used up the nation’s time. Let’s have an election and get rid of you.”

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I will begin by making the Green position clear, which is that we are supporting this bill, just so there is no confusion about that. I would like to address some of the comments made by Mr Franks. I listened with a great deal of interest to his speech before the dinner break, and I think he made a number of interesting and useful points that are actually worth giving some consideration to. I was not quite so interested in his speech after the dinner break, because it was a bit of a stained fag-end of it, but I think he did raise some important points about monopolies and the development of a statutory monopoly.

The Greens are generally opposed to monopolies, which is one of the reasons we express such concern about corporate capitalism, which is all about, of course, creating monopolies. We listened to Mr Franks’ speech with some interest to see whether there were points so important that it would change our view of the bill. But I have to say that, in my view, in relation to judicial decisions and the implications for the wider society, it is important for there be a clearly authorised publication that can accurately report the courts’ decisions. I think really, quite simply, that is what this is about. Both the current status quo and this amendment are simply extending those provisions.

Mr Franks questioned whether this would mean that the standard media would not be able to report on courts. He talked about the National Business Review, I think it was, and its cynical view of the judiciary. Of course, that is fine. People are free to choose whatever propaganda they wish to read. I do not mean that in a derogatory way to the National Business Review. As far as I am concerned all media is propaganda, and people choose which flavour they are going to follow, whether it is the New Zealand Herald, whether it is al-Jazeera, Television One, Scoop, the Dominion Post, Indymedia, or the Guerrilla News Network. People are free to choose their sources of information, and that is quite right. And, of course, literate people in particular will mix it up on the basis that the more varied the sources of information, and the more varied the sources of propaganda, the broader and possibly more accurate picture that they will have.

But I have to say that I would not, personally, rely on any of those publications I have mentioned to give an accurate picture of a judicial decision by the Supreme Court on an issue of public interest and debate that people get passionate about. I would be very interested in their interpretations, their views, and their analyses, but I would not rely on it as an accurate report. I would want to have something that was more reliable. That is why I think that in this area of reporting judicial decisions it is important that there is clearly an authorised publication that people can rely on to accurately report the judicial proceedings. That is not to say that no other media should, or could not, report or comment on those decisions. I do not think that that is what this bill is at all intended to achieve.

If we go to the “General policy statement” in the bill, which is a good indication, it states: “The New Zealand Council of Law Reporting is responsible for producing an official series of reports of the key judgments of the higher courts in New Zealand. The New Zealand Law Reports provide the authoritative set of reports of key judgments of New Zealand’s higher courts—”. It further states: “The law reports assist judges, lawyers, and the public in gaining access to key court judgments.” That is really what this bill is about. It is very simple. We do not need to get too worked up about it, but that is really what it is about. If we go to the actual wording in the bill, clause 3, “Functions of the Council”, talks about the restrictions on publishing a series of reports. It does not say “report”, it says a “series of reports.” I think that is quite important because clearly it is not intending to cover a one-off article, or even, perhaps, a regular article. It is a series of reports. I think that is the key to this whole thing. Now it may be that we need to explore what that means. Is that sufficiently defined to ensure that it cannot capture the kinds of reporting that we would not want it to do?

I think that we can resolve these questions. It is really about simply extending the provisions that already exist in law in relation to the higher courts to our Supreme Court. I am very pleased that it does that, because the decisions of the Supreme Court are, of course, extremely important. This is our highest appellate court, so it is important that its decisions are publicly available in a way that people can rely on. And, of course, it is good because those decisions of the Supreme Court are of a very high quality and of an enormous precedent value.

I have to say that one of the things I am extremely proud of during my time in this House is the opportunity to support the establishment of the Supreme Court. I think it was a major progression for New Zealand. It was an excellent step. It was something that was not before its time, at all, and I am very proud that the Green Party played a key role in the passage of that legislation. I think the Supreme Court has already shown itself to be both independent and rigorous in its findings. The whole country noted with some irony that the first case heard by the court was the case brought by the Hon Richard Prebble and the ACT party. That was a cause of some humour around the country. Another key decision in that court has been in relation to Ahmed Zaoui. That decision demonstrated that this country upholds the rule of law and basic human rights.

So I am pleased that the Supreme Court has, by the decisions it has made, proved the virtue of the position of those of us who supported its establishment. I am very proud of the Green Party’s support for that, and I am pleased to see this bill, which will now provide for the authoritative publication and reporting of its decisions.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I stand on behalf of United Future to take a very brief call on the first reading of this bill. We are happy to support this first reading. We believe that any issues of concern are well able to be addressed at the select committee, and we look forward to being part of that process.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): I wish to speak on this bill, and reiterate, as the Minister has done, that the existing Act for law reporting in New Zealand to be carried out by the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting is limited. The council currently reports the key judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which are recognised as New Zealand’s only official law reports. This bill will simply provide for the inclusion of the Supreme Court into the existing regime.

Dr Wayne Mapp: No it doesn’t. Read the bill.

DIANNE YATES: Mr Mapp has had his turn at speaking, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Indeed.

DIANNE YATES: Publishing has been provided for under the Act since 1938.

To ensure the continued value and validity of New Zealand law reports it is essential that they include the key judgments of New Zealand’s final appellate court. The decisions of the Supreme Court will provide invaluable guidance to the lower courts as to the application and interpretation of legal principles. Without reliable publication of the judgments, the validity of case law and precedent is jeopardised and, as has been mentioned before by a previous speaker, there is the matter of access. This bill will enable the Council of Law Reporting to continue producing an authoritative and reliable set of key judgments of New Zealand’s higher courts.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): The New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill is not the hugest bill to come across our desks. It has a mere 3 clauses and some subclauses, and it is very difficult to think why it is getting such precedence at this stage when some other bills, such as the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill, need to come through the House significantly more quickly—as my colleagues Dr Richard Worth and Dr Wayne Mapp have already said.

The previous speaker from the Labour Party, despite her comments that this bill was all about ensuring that all sorts of reporting would be done in relation to the Supreme Court, seemed to have the very strange view that the decisions of the Supreme Court could not be reported without this bill, which, of course, is absolute rubbish. The fact is that anybody can do that, anyway—except once this bill is passed. One of the things I find quite strange about this bill is that it is not particularly empowering; it is all about what cannot be done. It is very disempowering. It goes on to say that the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting has this fantastic position of being able to report on Supreme Court decisions. Well, a lot of people will be saying: “So what?”. A lot of people will be saying: “Well, who else would want to do it, frankly?”.

Hon Member: Who says that?

JUDITH COLLINS: A lot of people say that. But, apparently, so many other people want to do it that now nobody will be able to unless the New Zealand Law Society says he or she can.

Stephen Franks: What about the website?

JUDITH COLLINS: Of course, that raises the issue of websites, and also of why other people cannot report on Supreme Court decisions. If anyone happens to look at the website of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, our former highest court, one can see that the Privy Council, very carefully, and obviously, in a very modern way, publishes all its reports on its website. So we do not need to have anybody else doing anything; those judgments are right there on the website available for those of us in New Zealand who want to read some really good decisions in the way that they are phrased, the way that they are succinct, to the point, do not muck around but get on with it—the way we like our decisions, really. Those decisions go straight on to the website; they do not need to have the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting in what amounts to a de facto monopoly situation.

So the bill seems very strange to me. I guess in this country we still have the idea that if we do not legislate for something to happen, then maybe it will not happen. It is a very strange way of looking at things. If the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting feels it is so in need of this bill, then I guess it can have it, but for the life of me I cannot understand why we are saying that the New Zealand Law Society may give its consent for someone else actually to publish the reports. It goes on to talk about the continuation of “the publication of a series of reports of decisions”, and these may be done by only the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting. What about all the people who report as they do now, for instance, on what is happening in the Employment Court, or the Family Court, or whatever? This bill says that they cannot do that without the permission of the New Zealand Law Society.

So, although we in the National Party have decided we will vote for the bill to go to the select committee, I am sure that our representatives on the Justice and Electoral Committee—which I presume it is going to—will be very interested to know why no one else can commence, or continue, the publication of a new series of reports of decisions. I can understand why there must always be an official version of judgments. That could be dealt with now by a website, or by the Supreme Court simply publishing its own reports. After all, as I understand it, the people over in the basement of the Supreme Court are not particularly busy—

Dr Wayne Mapp: A slim volume.

JUDITH COLLINS: As Dr Wayne Mapp says, they have a somewhat slim volume at the moment. Thank goodness for Mr Richard Prebble; otherwise, there would probably not be much in it at all. One has to wonder who is actually racing in to try to stop the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting from doing its job. The council could actually do the reporting anyway; it does not need permission to do so. This is a very archaic term. Parliament is spending a huge amount of money—about $1 million, no doubt, to put a bill through to become an Act—to give the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting the right to publish. I find that bizarre. Obviously, we want it to do the job so there is always an official record, but I see no reason at all why we would allow a bill that says nobody else is allowed to publish a series of reports to continue on from the select committee.

If we look back at the history of law reporting, particularly in the English courts, where all sorts of different reports came through—no doubt the lawyers in the House will be able to confirm this for me, and I see Dr Worth nodding his head—we see that we used to have the Elizabethan reports and different things. There is a history of different publications, sometimes for the same cases. But there was the freedom to allow the market to decide that people would have these reports.

This bill seems to be unnecessary. With that, I have to say that National will support it going to a select committee. However, I am sure that Dr Worth and our other representative will look very closely at why we need to have this bill.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I rise to support this bill. It is obvious that tonight in the House I am surrounded by lawyers of some repute, who have come flocking down because this bill has really got them going. These provisions, as I have heard others in the debate tonight mention, could have been in a Statutes Amendment Bill or an omnibus bill, but they happen to be in the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill. I was amazed to hear learned lawyers in the House tonight say that it is not important to have decisions of courts published.

Judith Collins: Don’t misrepresent us.

STEVE CHADWICK: I am not implying that the previous speaker said that, but it has been mentioned in the House tonight. This bill is very important as it includes the Supreme Court findings in those that are to be published in a set of reports from the law courts. That is a very important fact, and I support this bill going to the select committee.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): It was not really the intention of New Zealand First to take a call on this bill. We saw it as being a relatively straightforward bill to go to a select committee, and we will be supporting it going there. But from listening to the Government speakers, I changed my mind. First of all, the Minister told us that the report-back date was to be October 2005, but within a few minutes he stood up and said he had made a mistake, that he had read the first draft of his speech, that the second draft did not contain the report-date of October 2005, and that the report-back date was open. So that gave us the impression that there is a degree of confusion in the Government ranks in terms of this bill.

Steve Chadwick: He amended it.

PETER BROWN: He amended it, but basically it was quite an amendment to stand up in his opening speech and say that the report-back date was October 2005, then 10 minutes or so later stand up and say that there is no time on the report-back date.

I want to make it quite clear that New Zealand First did not support the Supreme Court concept. We thought that the Privy Council, based in London, served this country exceedingly well over many, many years, and there should have been—

Dr Wayne Mapp: There should have been a referendum.

PETER BROWN: —as my colleague has just said, a referendum is needed if we want to change these sorts of things. New Zealanders should have been asked whether they wanted to change from having the Privy Council to having our own Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will cost a lot more, and this is a case of the nanny State thinking it knows a good deal more than the average New Zealander.

Ron Mark: They think that, in Labour.

PETER BROWN: My colleague, who has some quite close insight into how Labour thinks, is telling me that Labour knows better than everybody, almost all the time. But in many, many cases recent legislation has proven—and the forthcoming election, whenever that is, will prove even more—that New Zealanders resent being taken for granted. They like to have their wishes, to some degree, adhered to. We have heard all the legal arguments from our lawyer colleagues on this side of the House on the merits and some of the concerns about this bill. One of the concerns that has been raised with New Zealand First is whether, when the reports come out, they would ever cover a person who might well be protected by the Clean Slate Bill. Would that leave an opening for employers to say: “I want to look at High Court judgments and Supreme Court judgments to see whether Joe Bloggs”—or whoever it is—“has been had up.”? It is a reasonable question, certainly from a sea captain. I am not a lawyer, like my colleagues. We would like to know whether this legislation will keep this thing opened up and transparent or whether there is some devious move to stop that sort of information from being tabulated and kept on some databasesomewhere.

This is only a two-page bill. New Zealand First sees that it is an issue that should go to a select committee, and we feel we would be unwise to restrict it. On that point New Zealand First will be supporting this bill to a select committee, although we have some concerns.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State): I stand along with my colleagues on this side of the House to support this bill going to a select committee. I congratulate the Minister in charge of this bill on bringing it to the House. It is a long-awaited bill and I am sure that the legal profession has been waiting some time for it. I heard earlier on—if I am not wrong—that Dr Richard Worth and his colleague Wayne Mapp would ordinarily support a move of this kind, had it not been for National Party policy.

I also feel it necessary to respond to the previous speaker’s comments about the Supreme Court and the Privy Council. He said that the Supreme Court would be a lot more expensive to run than the Privy Council. But I am sure he is aware that the cost of administering the Privy Council is met by British taxpayers—his countrymen. I think that he would not want the British taxpayer to meet the cost of access to our highest court of appeal, and I am sure that he was not being very serious in making those statements.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is quite simply this. When the Hon Rick Barker, who is in charge of this bill and this process, stood to speak at the commencement of this debate, he said the bill had to be reported back by 31 October. I made some comment about that, because certainly this Parliament will not be here on 31 October. He then rose on a point of order to say there was no report-back date. In the short time that has been available, I have not trundled through the Standing Orders to determine what the position might be, but there is not, in fact, a default position, when a Minister says there is no report-back date. So we face an issue here that I think calls for your wise and considered judgment. I raise that issue, with the opportunity of being heard further when you have given some early indication of how you consider these issues.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that issue. It is a procedural one and, accordingly, a valid point of order. The point is that the Minister does not have to adhere to the statement that was made; he was simply incorrect. The 6-month Standing Order limit is the default position.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): A fresh point of order?

Dr RICHARD WORTH: Yes, a fresh point of order. The Minister has abandoned the default position by saying there is no report-back date. It is not a question of there being the default report-back date; he has made it very clear that there is to be no report-back date.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I cannot make it any clearer. That is in the Standing Orders. The Minister was incorrect. The default position is 6 months. That is in the Standing Orders. It is for the Business Committee to extend the time if necessary.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: Mr Assistant Speaker, before you finally come to a view on that, may I ask you what the relevant Standing Order is. We have this interesting position—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Can I interrupt the member. The Minister was incorrect in his statement. The Standing Orders are quite clear on the issue. Standing Order 289(1) states: “A select committee must finally report to the House on a bill within six months of the bill being referred to …”. Despite the fact that the Minister said there was no report-back date, there is a report-back date, it is within 6 months, and it is the one we will adhere to. It is the one that I take was the intention of the Government. It was its intention that that date apply.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you just clarify, then, exactly what the motion is that we are to vote on? If the motion is to refer the bill to a select committee, then I think that is unexceptionable. If the motion is as the Minister mentioned it, which was to refer the bill to a select committee with no report-back date, impliedly it would be suspending the Standing Order for this bill, and I do not think that was intended. So we simply need to know that the motion is not exactly as the Minister moved it; it is as modified by deleting the words “no report-back date”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Yes. As I said before, the Minister was incorrect. The motion is simply to approve the first reading, and in doing that he covered the fact that he wanted the bill referred to the Government Administration Committee. No doubt, that will be moved by the Minister in due course.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just been looking at Standing Order 289(1), which, as you quite rightly stated, states a bill must be reported back to the House within 6 months. The issue that has been raised by Dr Worth is not so much whether it is 6 months or the October date; the difficulty is that Parliament will have an election no later than 24 September this year, so it would seem that the Minister has to provide a date inside that date. It cannot be later than that. Of course, if the matter has not been dealt with before the election, there are, obviously, the carry-over procedures. The Minister cannot just provide no date at all. It seems to me that he has to provide a date that is inside 24 September, which is the latest possible date for the existence of the forty-seventh Parliament.

Dr Richard Worth: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, I do not need any assistance on the point made by Dr Wayne Mapp; I am quite clear on that. I thank him for raising it. It is hardly relevant. Those issues will be a matter for the new Parliament. No Minister is under any obligation to provide a date. If he or she does not provide a date, the relevant Standing Order applies, and that Standing Order is quite clear that the due date is 6 months later.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Except that 6 months is beyond the election.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I have just told the member that that is not relevant. The new Parliament will decide that, in any case. It may not make sense, but it does not mean that it cannot be done—I put it that way. In the view of some it might not make sense, but that, too, is not relevant.

A party vote was called for on the question that the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification on behalf of National. Are we voting for this bill to be referred back to us within the default period of 6 months? Is that a substantive part of the motion?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is a Standing Order of the House.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: I know we are voting for it to be referred to the Government Administration Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Dr Worth, we are not voting on that matter at all at this point, as you well know. You know what the motion is. What you are referring to was simply an indication from the Minister of his preference for the report-back date of the committee, and he was required to indicate that when he spoke. This motion has nothing to do with that. This motion is that the bill be read a first time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 111

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

Noes 9

ACT New Zealand 9.

Bill read a first time.

, on behalf of the Associate Minister of JusticeHon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): I move, That the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I missed the committee. The preference of the Minister who moved the first reading was the Government Administration Committee.

, on behalf of the Associate Minister of JusticeHon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): In which case, I move, That the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you. The question—

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): You are interrupting me again when I am in the midst of a vote, but I will take your point of order.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: I am very much obliged. Is a report-back date proposed by the Minister for the referral of this bill to the Government Administration Committee—which comes to National as a bit of a surprise?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No. The report-back date is something that should be indicated by the Minister moving the first reading motion. We have covered that ground, and we know when the bill will be reported back, which is 6 months hence—that is the outside date.

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I recall that when the Associate Minister of Justice made his opening announcement, he not only tabulated a date but also stipulated a select committee. He also outlined the days and weeks that the committee would work. We now know that the date was wrong, and we have heard from the Hon Phil Goff that there is confusion over the committee. Do we take it that we now have to work every hour that God has made, to get this bill through, or has that changed, as well?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that, but I think we are quite clear on where we intend to go. Minister Goff has correctly moved that the bill be referred to a select committee.

SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Initially, the Hon Phil Goff indicated that the select committee was the Justice and Electoral Committee; then he changed his mind and corrected the motion to make sure it was the Government Administration Committee. I seek clarification from you as to how that process works. Would the Minister of Justice have to seek leave of the House to change the committee that the bill is to go to, given that he indicated initially that it was to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee? Or do we simply change the select committee, based on the Minister’s instruction?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Minister Goff was in error, but he had not finished putting his motion. You may have noticed that I tried to clarify a matter with him, which, indeed, probably assisted him. We have arrived at the correct position where he has put a motion.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.

Bills

Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. It is my intention that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration, and that the committee has 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 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).

The Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) aims to ensure better access to legal representation and therefore to justice. It updates the criteria for eligibility for legal aid and introduces a new repayments and debt management regime. More people will qualify for legal aid. The costs of additional grants will be partly offset by requiring a higher proportion of legal aid recipients to repay some or all of their grant.

Reform of the legal aid scheme is overdue. The Legal Services Act 2000 sets out the framework for the existing legal aid scheme. It outlines the criteria for determining who is eligible for legal aid, and provides for the administration of the scheme by the Legal Services Agency. Eligibility for legal aid depends on a number of factors, such as the applicant’s financial circumstances. The present eligibility criteria are not inflation-proofed and have not been revised since 1987. The income limits are no longer realistic and have resulted in many lower-income working people being ineligible for legal aid, even though they cannot afford legal representation. This Government is committed to ensuring that inability to pay is not a barrier to justice. We are also committed to ensuring that public funding is used responsibly. The reforms introduced by the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) effectively balance these objectives. I turn now to address the key features of the bill.

Financial eligibility thresholds will be updated. This measure will increase the pool of those eligible for legal aid from 765,000 to 1.2 million New Zealanders. Funding in Budget 2005 will enable an estimated additional 25,000 grants of aid to be made each year. The bill also builds in inflation-proofing by linking the thresholds for financial eligibility to movements in the quarterly consumer price index.

A new, simplified gross income test is established. Benefits are included in the definition of “income” to correct an anomaly whereby some beneficiaries have been granted aid when those on equivalent working incomes are not eligible. The definition of “disposable capital” makes provision for those assets that are not readily disposable, and excludes assets, such as the car, and an allowance of equity in the home. Regulations made after the bill is passed will also enable better assessment of assets held by trusts, and assets that are disposed of immediately before aid is sought.

The bill makes two minor changes to the eligible proceedings criteria. It clarifies that people outside New Zealand cannot be granted legal aid for immigration-related proceedings when people in New Zealand would be ineligible, and that legal aid is not available for commissions of inquiry.

The bill retains merit tests to ensure that aid is provided only when there are good grounds for a case to proceed. There will be a new merits test for certain Family Court and Youth Court proceedings when the existing “prospects of success” test is difficult to apply, particularly in relation to vulnerable people, such as children. The applicant will still have to show reasonable grounds for taking or defending the proceedings. The bill also clarifies the criminal legal aid merits test to ensure that those facing criminal charges have representation when it is necessary because of the seriousness of the offence or the complexity of the proceedings.

It is fair and reasonable to require those who can afford to pay to contribute to the cost of their legal aid. The current repayment scheme is complex and does not enable applicants to determine the costs that they may face. In addition, civil and criminal legal aid are treated differently, meaning that there are very few recipients of criminal legal aid who are required to make repayments.

The bill addresses those problems by introducing a new repayments regime that corrects the anomaly between criminal and civil aid recipients, and is transparent, easy to understand, and administratively simple. Under the bill, approximately 22,000 legal aid recipients will be required to repay their legal aid grant, either partially or in full. This is an increase of 14,000 in the number of recipients required to make payments under the current regime. The same proportion of repayments will apply to criminal and civil legal aid, thereby increasing the proportion of criminal aid recipients required to make repayments. Applicants will know from the outset the maximum repayment that they will face, and, with the assistance of their lawyers, they will be able to obtain an estimate of the likely total cost. The amount of repayment will be determined by regulations. Aid recipients who are successful in their proceedings and who receive funds in settlement will repay the cost of the grant of legal aid. Those who do not receive funds as a result of their proceedings will repay the lesser of the amount of repayment set by the regulations or the cost of the grant of aid. The new repayment requirements are not intended to be onerous and there will still be a group of low-income legal aid recipients—approximately 74 percent—not required to make repayments. By addressing the requirements for repayment of legal aid grants in some cases, the bill ensures that increased access to legal aid is affordable.

The bill will empower the agency to better manage and recover debt. The agency will have powers to adjust payment requirements as people’s financial circumstances change. It will be able to require repayments from the time that the aid is granted, to request financial information from debtors and seek verification of that information, to charge interest on debt if there is a default in payments, and to register a caveat against property to secure debt. It will also be able to write off debt in cases of serious hardship. There will also be changes to the offence provisions for failure to provide information and for knowingly providing false and misleading information.

These changes confirm and support the obligations of the aided person. These changes contribute to the goal of ensuring that public funding of legal aid is responsible. Access to justice is a fundamental principle. The Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) will help us to achieve this objective by ensuring that people are not denied legal representation through the inability to pay, and will ensure that public funding of legal aid is used responsibly. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom): In the dying days of the current session, with a Government poised to change on September 17, there is only one thing I can really agree with in what the previous speaker said. He said that access to justice is a fundamental principle. There could scarcely be any doubt about that.

Does it not highlight for us that this triumvirate of people—I call them people—who are involved in the justice portfolio in the present Government know nothing about where it is at? Three Ministers are involved in that great task, and it is a great task. The rule of law is a critical underpinning of our society. Who are those three people? They are the Minister of Justice, Phil Goff, who was a political science lecturer; Rick Barker, who was a trade union official of some standing in the community on the East Coast; and Michael Cullen, who was an economics and history teacher. Those are the people who stand before us and propound that the rule of law is important, and that access to justice is a fundamental principle. It is absolutely disgraceful, because in Parliament on the opposite side of the Chamber, where the Minister of Justice is sitting, there are lawyers of repute who are silenced. They are not prepared, apparently not able, and not supported sufficiently to make a contribution on these critical issues.

Stephen Franks: Or Russell Fairbrother.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: Russell Fairbrother is a criminal lawyer of substantial experience. These are matters that he would know about in the context of criminal legal aid. He has been completely muzzled. I call upon Mr Fairbrother, as he sits there in the body of the Chamber, to make some comment to Parliament, and to people who may be listening, on what he thinks about these truly important issues.

Hon Phil Goff: He could say anything and it would make more sense than this member’s contribution.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: The Minister in the chair, Phil Goff, is entitled to interrupt, and the public can judge whether his interruptions are worthwhile.

A line that Mr Goff has probably never heard of is: the courts are open to everyone, like the Ritz Hotel. It is a very sad statement, because what it is all about is that those who are wealthy can afford the provision of legal services, and those who are less wealthy—“underwealthy”, if that is the current expression doing the rounds in the Labour caucus—can secure legal aid, but, unfortunately, those in the middle cannot afford access to the courts. That is why National supports the reference of this bill to a select committee. But we are doing so with reservations, because part of our policy is that there should be a sweeping review carried out on issues such as the eligibility for legal aid and, also, the excesses of the current system—something that Mr Goff, Dr Cullen, and Mr Barker have done nothing to deal with. Why would they deal with it? They know nothing about it. That is the tragedy of the whole, sorry event.

National supports the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) going to a select committee, with the reservation that those on the Government side of the House who speak in support of doing that really do not understand the issues.

Hon Phil Goff: This member hasn’t read the bill. I can tell.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: Mr Goff is interrupting to say that I know nothing about the bill.

Hon Phil Goff: I’m saying that the member hasn’t read the bill, because he hasn’t referred to it in the first 5 minutes of his speech.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: I hope those comments are recorded in Hansard, because I have had a substantial involvement in legal aid. I have read the bill.

I hope that the Minister has read the bill, because he will know that it touches on three really important issues. The first issue is that of eligibility. In the explanatory note the Government states that there is the prospect of wider eligibility in the bill. I tell the Minister that National hopes that will truly be the case. That is the first point about the bill. The Minister told me I had not read the bill. What a foolish comment! How would the Minister know that?

The second point is that the bill looks at the issue of merit testing, which is something that National is particularly interested in. The Minister will not know, because he does not know much about legal aid, that two standards are appropriate in the context of granting legal aid. One is for civil legal aid and one is for criminal legal aid. There is a fundamental difference, which, if he had read the bill, the Minister might have some appreciation of. We are keen to explore that issue more closely.

The third issue is the issue the Minister briefly touched on, and members of the House, who will have observed what the Minister had to say on the bill, will know that he read poorly from a close script. The third issue concerns the question of repayment of legal aid, which touches the question of whether legal aid in a particular case will be a grant or be something more in the nature of a loan. If it is to be something more in the nature of a loan, then we are talking about a debt-management regime. If the Minister had taken the trouble to find out—but I am sure he has not—he would have found that one of the Legal Services Agency’s concerns was about the issue of what is known colloquially as the legal aid charge.

Legal aid is an important element in the context of providing human and civil rights; it is all about access to justice. But there is no doubt that the present system is subject to significant rorting. If the Minister had been following what has been occurring in the media, he would have come across—but he did not choose to refer to—a number of instances where there have been significant rorts. National is on to that. We want that issue looked at closely, because substantial public funds are involved in the provision of legal aid, and it is really important that there be transparency in the system. I have to say—and I would not say it unless the Minister had interrupted with his foolish comments—that the time has come for legal aid to be looked at critically, and for the Government to become involved in providing, as it can do, lawyers of competence on its side of the House to speak about these legal aid issues.

There is also an issue of eligibility of legal aid, which I touched on briefly in response to the Minister’s comments. People cannot get legal aid for a number of things. They cannot get it for divorce, for example. They cannot get it in situations where a lawyer is needed but no court case is involved. They cannot get it where there are not good reasons for taking or defending a case, and they cannot get it to go to the disputes tribunal. They cannot get it for most immigration matters, excluding those concerning refugees. They cannot get it for court cases outside New Zealand. They cannot get it as employers nor in relation to companies or groups, except for limited cases such as class actions and Waitangi Tribunal claims. I am a bit surprised that the Minister did not find it appropriate to talk about why there is no case for looking at those issues, but I guess that ignorance was for him the watchword, and that those issues were not considered.

One of the things I think we have to consider very carefully as a Parliament is the issue of eligibility for criminal legal aid. There is no doubt about it that in a legal aid setting in a criminal context, legal aid is granted in circumstances where many would say that it should not be granted. I hope—and I trust, too—that the Justice and Electoral Committee will look at that issue when this bill is referred to it.

I think that a good thing the Government has done—well, it would not have been the Government; it would have been its policy advisers, probably—is the introduction of the new merit tests. In the case of criminal legal aid, it should not be the case that it will be a gravy train for lawyers who choose to specialise in that particular area. This is an access-to-justice issue; it is important that it be properly dealt with.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State): I will take a brief call on the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2), and start by congratulating the Minister, the Hon Phil Goff, on bringing the bill to the House. As clearly stated earlier on today, the bill will put in place a new legal aid requirement to extend eligibility for legal aid, and it will also put in place a repayment regime. I heard the previous speaker make his comments and, although I think I heard him saying that he was supporting the bill, I was not quite sure from the tone of his comments whether that, in fact, was what he believed.

Some important aspects of the bill need to be highlighted in this, the first reading, and one of those issues is that the bill aims to ensure better access to legal representation and, therefore, to justice, as this Government believes. As well, the bill is based on the principle that access to justice ought not to depend on a person’s ability to pay. It is, again, a matter of access to justice. The bill also updates the criteria for eligibility for legal aid, and introduces a new repayments and debts-management regime. Of course, more people will qualify for legal aid as a result of this bill.

A final point to be also mindful of is that the cost of additional grants will be offset by the requirement for a higher proportion of legal aid recipients to repay some or all of their legal aid grants. Those points are very important in terms of allowing all New Zealanders access to justice.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I have been listening to the debate this evening, and I will comment on a few other matters before I get stuck into this bill. First, I listened to the Minister, the Hon Phil Goff, who gave a good, workmanlike speech—read, prepared clearly by someone else, and full of the sorts of words that Labour loves, words like “empowerment”: “This bill is going to empower a better legal aid system.” The next thing I thought he was going to start to talk about was partnership between criminals and the Government.

The fact is that this Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) is unfortunately a bill that will not do what the Minister hopes it will do. However, National will give the bill the benefit of the doubt, and is very much supporting it going to a select committee, because legal aid needs to be looked at—not once, not twice, and not with just a little cursory look, as this bill takes, but with a really good look.

Legal aid in this country is not available to an awful lot of people it should be available to, and it is available to an awful lot of people to whom it should not be available. Legal aid in this country is not available for various reasons, and when I hear the Minister talk about access to justice—and the previous speaker from Labour also mentioned it—I know they are right, there should be access to justice. But if they cared so much about access to justice, why did they put the court fees up to the most appalling levels, so that it costs about $1,000 to get anything filed in the courts these days? Of course, they do not care about access to justice, or else they would not have made it so difficult for people who are owed money, or people who want to bring a very legitimate claim—people who are paying their own way—to actually be able to afford to file the documents, let alone do anything else.

This bill serves two purposes for the Labour Government. It lets the Government tell people that it is doing something about the legal aid system, which a lot of people think needs an awful lot done to it. The second thing it does is tell an awful lot of people that maybe they might be eligible for legal aid when, really, some of them might be but some will not, and they will be disappointed.

The system of legal aid in this country has been very much abused, and it will continue to be very much abused. That does not mean to say that we should not have it, and I am one of those people who believes that, in relation to criminal matters where a term of imprisonment is likely to come about if someone is found guilty, legal aid must be available if the person cannot afford to defend himself or herself. But I do say to the House that some people who get legal aid are drug-dealing heads of gangs. They do not have money to pay their legal fees but they do have money to buy their Mercedes or limousines. They do have money to buy, through their trust, houses and all sorts of other operations, but they do not have money to pay their own legal fees. Really, if we are to have any sort of system of legal aid that looks at issues about people who wrongly get legal aid, we should be able to look closely at what assets these people own, what they control, where they live, and the whole circumstances. There are some situations where, in fact, legal aid should not be granted but currently it is.

Legal aid is one of the areas that is very vastly abused in the Family Court system. Six percent of matters that go to the Family Court are likely to end up in a defended hearing. In my view a tremendous number of matters that are filed in the Family Court are never intended to go anywhere, other than a filing in the court. That is because so much of Family Court work that goes on is, in fact, driven by the need for legal aid fees. Speaking as a lawyer of some experience, I believe that one of the great tragedies is that we have a system in the family service whereby so many people are pushed into an adversarial situation, when all they really need to do is to sort out access and custody in relation to their children, and who takes them to sport on Saturdays. They do not need to go to court. Unfortunately, from what the Minister said, and having read the bill, I see very little in there—in fact, nothing—that will deal with those sorts of issues.

There is a good little point in the bill about what we could do in relation to merit, but actually the existing system already requires there be some merit in civil legal aid cases in order for legal aid to be granted. Yet in my time on the legal services subcommittee at the Auckland District Law Society, I saw matters go through that I was somewhat uncomfortable about.

Hon Phil Goff: That’s why we changed the system in 2000.

JUDITH COLLINS: I thank the Minister. I was very, very concerned about some of them. I see instances still, and just the other day I talked to those who operate in the family law area, where so much of it is being driven by legal aid. Most family matters do not need to go anywhere near a court. In most family matters, if they have lawyers who actually understand that and want to keep their clients out of court, they will stop those things from happening. But when some Family Court lawyers get all or a majority of their income from legal aid, we are liable to get a real abuse of this system. I know that many family lawyers out there will hate the fact that I am saying this, but unfortunately it is true. We will see an awful lot of that sort of abuse, as we do now.

One of the things that has always guaranteed someone to get legal aid is to accuse the partner, or former partner, of violence. Of course, anyone who is subject to violence needs to have that matter dealt with, but it does not make it right to accuse one’s partner, or former partner, of violence in order to secure legal aid. That is another of those tragedies and travesties, because the person may well be able to get legal aid for a particular matter, and may well think they will not need to pay for this, or, if they do, they will have to pay it back later, but without interest, and they can afford it. They are told by people at particular women’s refuges, or by particular lawyers: “This is what you do …”. But the people who ultimately suffer are the children, and the person’s own self-esteem and honesty.

So legal aid is one of those thorny issues that sensible people try to deal with and think how they can ration this to the point where the people who receive legal aid grants get it, because they need it, not because they simply want it. Yet when we look at some of the decisions—no matter what it says in the rhetoric—that have come out over the years in relation to some legal aid, we have to wonder. I have looked at some and been surprised they have not been granted legal aid. Sometimes it is because the person is taking a test case, and sometimes that test case is against the Government. I am a little concerned that the requirement is always that there is a “reasonable chance of success”. Sometimes it is actually important for the law, and the development of the law, that test cases be brought. Sometimes those test cases are, by their very nature, very, very risky ventures. Just sometimes it is important that they happen; that they actually go on the public record; that they are not like the majority of civil cases these days, which simply go through mediation or adjudication and avoid the court process for various reasons—such as the costs involved, lack of privacy, and, of course, court filing fees and the time involved. That is what happens.

It is concerning that we are getting some sort of piecemeal legislation. But I am pleased we have some legislation. I hope the Minister is not planning on sending this bill off to the Government Administration Committee.

Hon Phil Goff: Justice and Electoral Committee.

JUDITH COLLINS: I think that is a good decision, and shows that the Minister is taking this issue seriously.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I take it that the Legal Services Amendment Bill embodies 6 years of work by the Government on its eligibility review. I doubt that anyone in the House would not remember the Government’s promise to all those groups of activists that supported Labour in 1999 that a review of eligibility for legal aid would be one of the first things it would do in office. In fact, a major legal aid reform had been introduced, I think by the National Party, and was carried on by Labour. That bill ground its way through the House and eventually resulted in the establishment of the Legal Services Agency.

Throughout that process the select committee dealt with submissions from people who quite rightly complained about eligibility conditions for legal aid. We heard from people who were very, very concerned that cases that should have been pursued were not pursued. We heard from environmentalists who gave examples. Community groups said there should be assistance for representation on matters affecting their community. Then, of course, people on the other side of the argument put forward examples of the worst injustices that occur in this country. Some of the worst injustices are suffered by people who are sued by legally aided plaintiffs, and those victims are absolutely driven to bankruptcy or ruin because the plaintiff does not give a toss about costs. These cases are often driven by lawyers who do give a toss about costs, and are quite comfortable on the relatively meagre but nevertheless certain payment they get from the Legal Services Agency.

Those people told us they wanted the Government’s promised eligibility review to protect them. Well, the eligibility review did not turn up. The select committee asked for it whenever we reviewed Department of Justice estimates. I asked the Legal Services Agency, when we reviewed it, how much was being paid out to the poor victims of people bringing unfounded cases; and of people with unmerited claims who were funded through their cases by the Legal Services Agency. The agency did not know. It was so rare, no one had ever heard of it. We questioned the officials and they could not think of instances where they had reimbursed some poor victim the costs of a meritless case brought and funded by the Legal Services Agency.

The Minister plainly does not give a toss about the men who have been driven to absolute distraction by the type of cases that Judith Collins spoke about, whereby false allegations of violence had been made against them, to justify an automatic grant of legal aid. The Minister does not care about that—

Lianne Dalziel: False allegations of violence, Judith Collins said. Very interesting.

STEPHEN FRANKS: I said false allegations of violence—absolutely false. This bill is far from ensuring that the State is not a party to this kind of injustice.

The bill makes it harder for someone who has been hounded by legally aided actions. There used to be something called “maintenance”. It used to be a tort. Someone who pursued, promoted, or continued proceedings, when the real party to it would have stopped, was found liable in maintenance and could be made to pay all the costs that the poor victim of those proceedings had suffered. There was another one called “champerty”, which was where someone took over proceedings and pursued them when otherwise they would have died. We now have a State that is cold-bloodedly fostering and paying for proceedings that, by any ordinary, rational calculation, would have died—and the State is immune.

When we look at the provisions dealing with costs we see that clause 26 replaces the existing section 40 with a new section 40. The existing section 40 at least leaves some faint hope that a person who is hounded by a legally aided plaintiff can go to the Legal Services Agency and say: “If I had not been facing a legally aided plaintiff, the court would have done justice by awarding costs to me. They are not permitted to award full costs, so please refund the difference.” What we now have from Mr Goff—this champion of justice—is the new section 40(2) in clause 26, which states: “No order for costs may be made against an aided person in a civil proceeding unless the court is satisfied that there is misconduct by the aided person in the course of proceeding.”

Misconduct! Well, the courts consider that a pretty high standard to pass. So the normal rule of British justice, and of New Zealand justice, that the costs follow the result—in other words, if people win their case, the loser should reimburse them all the costs they have been put to, or at least a part of them, because they were facing an unjustified claim—is out the door for the vast majority of civil proceedings in New Zealand courts. Mr Goff is now saying that no full order for costs may be made against an aided person. In other words, the State will involve itself, the State will sponsor unjustified proceedings, and the State will then tell the court that it may not order costs unless there has been actual misconduct.

That is a high standard. It is failure to comply with the rules, deceitful or misleading behaviour, unreasonable pursuit of one or more issues, or an unreasonable refusal to negotiate. Those are matters that are more than just “You were wrong and your lawyer should have told you that you were wrong.” The court is going to have to find actual misconduct before it can order costs, and, when it does, it can order only a very limited amount. The poor victim who has won his or her court case, then has to go to the Legal Services Agency and ask for the difference. Bear it in mind that if the person does not get any costs awarded, he or she cannot do that. For the vast bulk of cases where there is no misconduct, the poor victim of the failed proceedings just wears whatever he or she has been driven to. I ask the Minister to explain that. Is that just? What is that doing to the rule of law in this country? What is that doing to the enormous number of people who are confronted by plaintiffs who do not care whether they have a meritorious case, or plaintiffs who may not have even wanted to take proceedings, but have been persuaded by their lawyers to promote them? That is Dickensian; that is the modern Jarndyce v Jarndyce.

Before I finish, I want to mention one other thing. This bill maintains the patronising race discrimination that has always been evident in the legal aid system. We have all heard about Donna Hall’s little windfalls—the wife of one of Her Majesty’s judges, who has made a very fine living out of Waitangi Tribunal cases. That is despite the fact that this bill, for most New Zealanders, says that the only people who can benefit from legal aid are individuals—not corporates, not trusts, just individuals. There is an exception. New section 15(5) in clause 9 expressly states that the provisions that relate to one’s means—one’s disposable income and capital—cutely, do not apply to applications for legal aid under section 42 in respect of certain proceedings before the Waitangi Tribunal. In other words, the parties that want legal aid for Waitangi claims do not have to show they are needy. They do not have to show that the proceedings would not be brought but for that help. Every other New Zealander, no matter how meritorious his or her claim, no matter how badly he or she has been wronged, will be refused legal aid if his or her financial circumstances are not shown.

But we find that in relation to Māori claimants—and this is patronising; it is treating Māori as if they cannot cope—the agency is not able to apply the rule that disqualifies, in new section 9(4)(a) in clause 5, if: “the Agency is unable to obtain full information concerning the applicant’s financial affairs because of the default or failure of the applicant:”. In other words, Māori claimants on legal aid can simply say: “I haven’t got books. I don’t believe in keeping books.”—as Donna Awatere Huata did not—“I want legal aid and you can’t even require me to show what my means are.” This is a disgrace in a justice Minister’s bill. This alone should have the National Party saying: “We won’t vote for this kind of nonsense.”, and the New Zealand First Party, which at last will make a majority in the next Parliament that says: “Enough of race discrimination in our law.”

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I begin by thanking Mr Franks for reminding us of the Government’s promise of an eligibility review. I remember those days. I remember when Mr Franks and I, and a few other members, sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee. In some ways, I think the only thing that kept us going was the promise of an eligibility review. We sat through long, tedious hours while we gutted and rewrote the Legal Services Bill, which had been introduced by National and transmogrified by Labour. The only thing that kept us going was the promise that one day we would be able to do the really exciting work of considering changes to eligibility.

It is a wee bit of an anticlimax to be dealing with this bill today. There was real interest among the select committee members in addressing those issues—both stopping the abuse of legal aid, which we all acknowledge does happen, and, also, expanding the provision of legal aid into socially and ecologically useful areas, which is the issue I was more interested in. For example, we could expand it to include community and environmental legal aid where there is a clear public interest but little private interest. We see numerous examples around this country every week where the only thing standing between an ecologically sensitive area and a rampant developer is an impoverished hapū or community group. So extending the provision of legal aid into those areas is something the Greens very strongly support. It is part of Green policy, but, unfortunately, this bill does not address it, at all.

We will support the bill because we think it does a number of useful things. It extends eligibility. It raises the income threshold, which is something we strongly support. A number of people who are not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination have been excluded from eligibility for legal aid because of those unadjusted thresholds. The provision to allow those thresholds now to be set by Order in Council is something that we think is eminently sensible. It is crazy that legislation has to be brought to this House every time members want to adjust those thresholds, so we support that change.

The Greens support the ability for better assessment of assets—for example, those held in trust, or those disposed of quickly just prior to an assessment. It is distasteful to all people, and it is distasteful to justice, to see people getting legal aid when they have significant hidden assets. The cases that caused the most offence to people, as Mr Franks said, were those where people got significant support from legal aid when it was plain to see they had assets stashed away where they could not be got at. So we support that.

We support the debt management provisions. We think that where a debt exists there should be effective mechanisms to recover it. That makes absolute sense. But we also like the fact that the bill clarifies that those debts can be written off where they are causing undue hardship. But alongside our support for the clearer debt management provisions, we are concerned that there is an increasing focus on getting repayments of legal aid. We have to remember that it is the poorest people whose access to justice is reliant on legal aid. We think it shows a kind of mean-spiritedness to have too much focus on repayment, when that is not really where the concern is.

As well as the funding for private mediation, which is also something the Greens support, I note that the new section 23A(2), proposed to be inserted in the Legal Services Act by clause 13, is somewhat restrictive. It states: “(2) This section applies to an aided person who seeks funding for private mediation as part of an existing grant of legal aid.”, so it is very restrictive. I am not sure that those restrictions should be there, and that is something we will look at in the select committee.

But, as I say, we are disappointed with the bill. It is an anticlimax. One of the key areas that we would like to see provision made for is community and environmental legal aid, and that is something that Mr Goff had indicated would be included in an eligibility review.

Dr Richard Worth: He promised it.

NANDOR TANCZOS: Mr Worth says that he promised it. I cannot remember whether that is exactly true, but it may well be. It was certainly my understanding that it would be in there, but it is not, and that is unfortunate.

Of course, provision was made for some environmental legal aid—a very limited amount of money—to be granted through the Ministry for the Environment, but that is not really the place to put it. It should be administered through the Legal Services Agency. That is where the proper administration can take place and that is where the criteria can be properly applied. I am not sure whether the Ministry for the Environment is particularly well-equipped to do the kinds of evaluations that are standard practice for the agency, so that aid should be provided through the agency as part of the legal aid scheme.

The other thing that I will touch on is that we would like to see greater provision of restorative justice in particular. I was in Christchurch recently talking to the community restorative justice group there, which was very concerned because it had had numerous requests to do restorative justice procedures. The procedures would have been extremely helpful, first of all, for the victims, and that has to be the No. 1 priority; they would have been enormously helpful for the victims. They would also have been helpful to offenders in the sense of their establishing remorse, and in developing processes for those people to move away from a life of crime. That is the kind of situation where restorative justice is the perfect solution. It does not work in all cases, but there are situations that are calling out for the provision of restorative justice, and it is unable to take place, simply because of the victim’s inability to access it. That is a real tragedy. I think that is the kind of area that legal aid could quite usefully be extended into. Again, those people are some of the most vulnerable people, some of the poorest people, and some of the people most in need of that support, as victims. That is something we think the select committee should also look at.

So the Greens support this bill. We support it going to a select committee, and we look forward to addressing a number of those issues there.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I confess from the outset that I am not a lawyer, so I have had no specific dealings with legal aid and I certainly have not applied for legal aid. So I have sat and listened with quite some interest to the debate on this bill thus far. I was intrigued by what the Minister said. He stated quite categorically that more people will require legal aid. That is borne out by the explanatory note to the bill, which states: “The changes introduced in this Bill are estimated to make legal aid available to 1.2 million New Zealanders (up from 765,000).” That is a very, very significant increase. I then listened with interest as other members spoke, and I was particularly intrigued by Judith Collins.

Dr Richard Worth: A very intriguing woman!

PETER BROWN: She is a very intriguing woman when it comes to the law. I am not being critical of Judith Collins; I listened with interest, from a layman’s perspective. I just want to put on record what I understood her to say. She said that legal aid is not available to a lot of people in this country to whom it should be available. She then went on to say that it is available to a lot of people to whom it should not be available. Further, she said that legal aid in this country has been very much abused, and that drug dealers and gang leaders can, in certain circumstances, receive legal aid. That is a very damning statement of the situation in this country—very damning, indeed.

I think it was Judith Collins who also made the comment that legal aid is vastly abused in the Family Court system. I thought: “My goodness! Can anybody tell us anything worse than that?”. I am not disputing what Judith Collins said, at all. To me, she comes across as being a very competent lawyer, and I do not doubt that she knows what she is talking about. But then Stephen Franks took a call and made a great play in terms of the new section 40, “Liability of aided persons for costs”, which is proposed to be inserted into the Legal Services Act by clause 26 of the bill.

Section 40(2) states: “No order for costs may be made against an aided person in a civil proceeding unless the court is satisfied that there is misconduct by the aided person in the course of the proceeding.” That provision simply says to me that somebody can go along, get legal aid—never mind whether that person is telling the truth to get it—go forever—

Stephen Franks: And appeal

PETER BROWN: —and appeal, and get away with virtually pushing the other person, metaphorically speaking, into the ground, and that other party has no chance of a claim against that person or the State. In other words, the State, in these circumstances, could be underwriting crooks. I notice that the honourable member is nodding.

Stephen Franks: Win by exhaustion—merits don’t matter.

PETER BROWN: And the State is funding it. This is terrible—absolutely disgraceful! I do not doubt those members. They are competent lawyers who have been in practice for many, many years. I am just a simple sailor, and I am quite horrified to learn what I am hearing now. So from that perspective, New Zealand First supports this bill going to select committee because we want the whole lot tidied up and addressed.

Further, I think it was Stephen Franks who said that false allegations of violence have been made in order to receive legal aid. The Government members are looking at me with blank faces, but I ask whether that is true.

Hon Phil Goff: It’s a criminal offence to make a false allegation.

PETER BROWN: But has that been happening?

Hon Phil Goff: In this bill, costs will be awarded against the person who does that.

PETER BROWN: Could the Minister tell me which clause that provision is in because, as I have said, I am a simple sailor. I have read the bill but, in this context, I do not know or understand the actual current law in terms of legal aid. It seems to me that it is better than a Lotto ticket.

Hon Rick Barker: The member’s all at sea.

PETER BROWN: The member is not all at sea. The member who said that should take note that there is one member in this House who is taking a legitimate concern about where taxpayers’ money is going.

Hon Rick Barker: Then that’s all right. We’re not all washed up. Mr Goff can fix it.

PETER BROWN: Well, I hope that he will. He is a Minister who is willing to help. I hope his intentions with regard to this bill are sincere and genuine.

Hon Phil Goff: Absolutely!

PETER BROWN: “Absolutely”, he says.

Hon Phil Goff: You can take my word for it.

PETER BROWN:Well, I will not take it too far, but never mind. Maybe members are having an unofficial question time now, Mr Assistant Speaker, so I hope you are understanding about the questions that are flying across from one side of the Chamber to the other. But as I make the rounds on behalf of New Zealand First—and I know that this is true of my colleagues—we are asked how much taxpayers have paid in terms of legal aid towards Zaoui’s case.

We have been told—I think from answers to questions in the House—that it is something like $2 million.

Ron Mark: It’s up from that now.

PETER BROWN: Is it something like that? What is it—$1.5 million, $3 million?

Hon Phil Goff: I think it’s about $300,000.

PETER BROWN: Oh!

Ron Mark: Rubbish! We’ve had that in questions already.

PETER BROWN: We have had questions about that.

Hon Phil Goff: So far, grants to Mr Zaoui are $375,248.86.

PETER BROWN: Is that legal aid—$370,000? That is 10 times the average wage.

Hon Phil Goff: It’s only a tenth of what the member estimates.

PETER BROWN: No, we have been told the total cost. I was going to say that the majority of the total cost was going to be—

Hon Phil Goff: The member asked and I responded.

PETER BROWN: I thank the Minister for that. That is reassuring. I have read this bill, and I ask whether it excludes or includes a person who may fly into this country, tear up his or her documents—whatever they are—put them down the toilet, and come into the country with nothing. Will that person get legal aid? Subsection (4) of section 9, “When legal aid may be granted: civil matters”, inserted by clause 5, states that the agency may also refuse legal aid to an applicant in any of the following circumstances: “(c) the applicant is not resident in New Zealand”—that sounds pretty good—“and the Agency considers that the proceedings might reasonably be brought in a jurisdiction other than New Zealand:”. I cannot see that occurring anywhere else. If the person has come in, torn up his or her documents, put them down the aircraft loo, and is now standing in front of an immigration person in New Zealand, I cannot see that that would be applicable. So it seems to me that we are not closing a door on anybody who wants to abuse the system.

Ron Mark: They’re all Labour voters.

PETER BROWN: They are all Labour voters. Nevertheless, the legal aid system is so much in need of repair that we need a bill to address the flaws. If this bill is the best we have, then New Zealand First says that, with reservation, we will support it to the select committee. But New Zealand First will take a very keen interest in this bill, and we hope to tidy it up.

Lianne Dalziel: Who’s on the select committee?

PETER BROWN: My colleague Dail Jones will be on the select committee. The member cringes; I can see it on her face. That horrifies her. That is good news.

Lianne Dalziel: I’m delighted.

PETER BROWN: That was not the expression that came through on the member’s face. The fact that the member is worried that Dail Jones will be there delights me. We will be taking a keen interest in this bill, and we will be fixing it. Members have heard the old saying: “Can we fix it?”. Yes, New Zealand First can. We will be doing that.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): I am pleased to take a call on the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2). As my colleagues have indicated, National will support this bill going to the select committee, largely because we realise that this area has been in need of a bit of an overhaul for some time. I think that the current Minister, Phil Goff, when he was campaigning to get into Government, used to promise to address this area quite quickly. I guess that 6 years is quick enough for him—but I would not have thought it was.

National certainly understands the need for provisions that make sure that those who deserve to be legally aided in respect of their court actions are so aided. There need to be some clear rules that set out eligibility for legal aid, and also some very robust provisions for the repayment of legal aid where that is proper. Overall, we should ensure that people who deserve legal aid receive it but, on the other hand, we should ensure that people who, for a variety of reasons, ought not to have legal aid, do not receive it.

The explanatory note puts much emphasis on the issue of access to justice being the underlying theme for proper legal aid provisions. In a way, National certainly agrees with that. In our democracy, none of us would want to think that when people had a legitimate claim or case to bring, they would be debarred from doing so because they had no means.

It seems a little ironic that this Minister and other speakers, including Mita Ririnui, have come to the House tonight to promote access to justice, when quite early in Labour’s stewardship of the Government coffers it lifted court fees and put access to justice out of the reach of a whole lot of New Zealanders. In doing that, one clearly has to look at provisions for legal aid. I think that under the current Minister, access to justice has been an ambivalent sort of thing.

Hon Phil Goff: What does the member mean by that?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: It has been said that the raising of court fees—sometimes by hundreds and thousands of dollars—has had a severe impact on the ability of New Zealanders to access justice in the courts. In terms of the bill before us, however, National sees the point of raising income thresholds. On the face of it, given that these provisions have not been updated since 1987, it is understandable that there has probably been a reduction in eligibility. It seems sensible that this bill at least acknowledges that.

The explanatory note states: “The changes introduced … are estimated to make legal aid available to 1.2 million New Zealanders (up from 765,000). In 2003/04 there were 60,277 legal aid grants … this is estimated to increase to 85,000 grants.” That is all good and well, as long as the eligibility rules are clear, can be applied consistently, and will ensure that those who can meet their own legal costs certainly do meet them. This should not be a sort of pre-election thing that supposedly shows the Government cares about access to justice when in reality, maybe, the provisions of the bill do not make it any clearer as to who should and should not get legal aid.

The issue of repayments is another underlying theme. Yes, we ought to make legal aid available when it is meritorious that we do so but, by the same token, those who have been granted legal aid should engage in some form of repayment, where they are able to, as well. That is important. We should not just give and make payment available. Claimants have to realise—particularly if they are successful—that at some stage the taxpayer is entitled to some form of reimbursement. As with the eligibility criteria, there must be some clarity and robustness around the area of repayment, as well.

I want to make a comment in support of my colleague Judith Collins, who, like Richard Worth, has been in practice more recently than some of us. I agree with the previous speaker from New Zealand First who raised the issue—as Judith Collins did—of where drug leaders and gang leaders are able to prove some sort of eligibility for legal aid. Yet, as a lot of us know, often there are times when those same people have assets that, quite frankly, should make them ineligible. That shows a slackness in the rules that clearly needs to be tightened up.

I hope that when the select committee examines the bill it makes sure that that sort of situation is not allowed to continue. But I guess we have also seen some corporate types in the past who have become eligible for legal aid. We thought that those people were running huge corporate empires in our community, yet, when they were before the courts, suddenly they were eligible for legal aid. That does not seem to be right, either.

Hon Phil Goff: Usually only after they have gone bankrupt.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Exactly! The reality is, though, that the rules need to be tightened. The rules need to make sure that only those who should have legal aid receive it, and that those who ought not to receive it do not. That, of course, raises the issue of abuse of legal aid, which we have all seen over the years. Obviously, it has raised the need for a revamp of the rules relating to legal aid, which makes it proper for this Parliament to send the issue to a select committee.

I was interested when Nandor Tanczos reminded us—and he is probably the right one to do so, as he has been on the Justice and Electoral Committee—of the Government’s eligibility review, which now seems to be in the long lost, distant past. So I think the best thing that could be said for that review is that at last, 6 years later, we now see something before the House that supposedly embodies some of the thinking that was in the review. But given that this Minister has spoken loud and long on the abuses inherent in the legal aid system and also on the need to ensure proper entitlement for a long time, I guess we can be thankful that this bill is now before us.

As I have said, National supports this bill’s referral to a select committee. Our members on the select committee will be looking at the provisions very closely because the matters raised by speakers in the House tonight are serious matters. A lot of money is spent in this area and, equally, there is a lot of abuse. That must be weeded out. The rules must be clear. They must set out very clearly who is eligible. Proper provision must be made to ensure that people who have assets hidden away should not be able to avail themselves of taxpayers’ funds to fight their cases—they should do it themselves—and there must be proper rules for repayment.

Bill read a first time.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, 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).

Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Were the conditions suspending the Standing Orders notified to the House at the beginning of this debate?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes, I can confirm that. If the member was here he would know it.

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

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Oaths Modernisation Bill

First Reading

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Oaths Modernisation Bill be now read a first time. It is my intention to move that this bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration. Members of Parliament, as well as many other public office holders in New Zealand, are required to take an oath that asks them to acknowledge who they undertake to serve, or give loyalty to, and to make promises about how they will behave and conduct themselves when they are performing their duties. Oaths in New Zealand have not been reviewed for nearly 50 years. Ad hoc amendments to the law applying to oaths over the years have led to the situation where many of the oaths are now outdated, are inconsistent, and use language that is old-fashioned and difficult to understand.

As oaths are a matter of public record it is important that they are easy to understand by everyone, are relevant, and reflect the values and beliefs of all New Zealanders. Most of the oaths in New Zealand are set out in the Oaths and Declarations Act. However, several other pieces of legislation also contain rules about particular oaths, such as the Citizenship Act, the Constitution Act, the Education Act 1964, the Police Act, and the Local Government Act 2002, as well as the Summary Proceedings Regulations and the Defence Regulations, all of which are amended through this bill.

The bill updates and modernises the language of a range of oaths set out in statute, as well as one declaration, and the words of affirmation that may be used instead of an oath. The bill inserts a new Parliamentary Oath, and substitutes modernised forms of the Oath of Allegiance, the Judicial Oath, the Executive Councillor’s Oath, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary’s Oath, the armed forces oath, the citizenship oath, the local government member’s declaration, the police oath, and the special constable’s oath. Some people choose to take an affirmation instead of an oath, and the bill amends the Oaths and Declarations Act to make the wording of written and oral affirmations consistent. Some oaths are not set out in legislation, for example the Governor-General’s Oath, which is set out in the letters patent. That oath and other non-legislative oaths are being amended separately in line with the changes in this bill.

The bill provides Māori language versions of the oaths set out in legislation, and ensures that an oath or affirmation given in either English of Māori is acceptable. The bill also prescribes a Māori language version of the words that an affirmation must begin with. Setting out Māori language versions of the oaths in the bill acknowledges the official status of the Māori language. Members in this House can choose to take their oath in Māori in order to reflect their identity. The process of modernising and updating the oaths has been achieved by removing archaic language and redundant words or phrases, simplifying the language, removing or replacing words that lack clear meaning, and ensuring consistency of language where appropriate. Currently particular references and ideas are expressed in a variety of ways across different oaths. For example, there are several permutations of the reference to the Sovereign, which the bill replaces with one consistent reference.

Oaths symbolise tradition, history, and continuity, as well as loyalty and commitments. This should not mean that the language and values cannot reflect modern society while retaining the traditional and historical aspects of the oaths. This bill does just that. As far as possible, the essential meaning or substance of each oath, and the formality and solemnity of the oaths, are retained.

An important part of the process of modernising and updating the oaths was to ask members of the New Zealand public, through a discussion document released last year, whether they felt the oaths reflected the values and beliefs important to New Zealanders in the 21st century. The views of the public were also sought on whether the language of oaths required modernising, and on various options for changing, modernising, replacing, or removing the oaths under review. Although there was a limited response, there was clear support from public submissions for retaining the current values and beliefs, particularly loyalty to the Queen, reference to religious belief, and promises as to how an office or role should be carried out.

Additional values and beliefs have been incorporated into two oaths. A new Parliamentary Oath and the citizenship oath will include loyalty to New Zealand, respect for New Zealand’s democratic values, and respect for the rights and freedoms of the people of New Zealand. The new Parliamentary Oath better acknowledges the actual role undertaken by members, and more accurately reflects that members owe loyalty to New Zealand and that they will respect the rights and freedoms of the people of New Zealand. This change is consistent with the desire expressed by many members of Parliament over the years that the oath we take should better reflect that we serve the people of New Zealand. The new Parliamentary Oath also includes promises to uphold democratic values that are fundamental to our duties and responsibilities as members of Parliament. The same elements that are included in the new Parliamentary Oath will be incorporated in the citizenship oath. This will allow new New Zealand citizens to better express their loyalty and commitment to their new country.

It is important that the public can have confidence that when those people holding public office take an oath, the principles and expectations that go with the promises being made in the oath are understood by everyone. This can better be achieved if the oaths are easy to understand, use modern-day language, and reflect the values and principles of New Zealand in the 21st century, all of which this bill provides for. This is a straightforward bill. It reflects common sense, and I believe that it should win a consensus of support across New Zealand and this Parliament. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom): National opposes this bill. Let me explain why. When there is legislation of merit, then National’s support will be readily forthcoming, but as Minister Philip Goff has said, oaths reflect tradition, history, and continuity—

Dr Wayne Mapp: This Government betrays that.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: —and this Government betrays that. It is very interesting to reflect on the history of oaths. In the fifth century BC we had the Hippocratic oath. I do not think that any doctor today would say that that historical oath should be changed. It does not need modernisation. It contains in itself an oath that those who follow the tradition of medicine, although they are not asked to swear to it, believe that it still contains the quintessence of the medical obligation.

Lianne Dalziel: They don’t take it any more.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: If Lianne Dalziel had listened, she would have heard me say that they do not take it any more. She quite clearly did not hear those comments and chose to interrupt.

These are timeless oaths, and in a country like ours with a short history we should not move to change them without good reason. I would say that political correctness is not a good reason. I would say that those in the Labour Government who are hell-bent on a path to republicanism should not, under that guise, seek that these oaths be amended. I just note the opening words of the Hippocratic oath in the 5th century BC: “I swear by Apollo the physician, by Aesculapius, and Health, and All-Heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and my judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation:” There follows, then, the substantive wording of the oath, which concludes: “While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life in the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!”

I do not think it was without significance that when the planned provisions of this bill were made known, members of the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand were quick on their feet, and they strongly endorsed this modernisation. And why did they? They did so because they saw in it a change they substantively seek to secure. So they said in their press release of 10 May 2005: “We wish to support the Government’s move to modernise the oaths and affirmations.” They were referring to statutory legislation, the Oaths and Declarations Act, within which a framework of law is set out both in respect of oaths and in respect of affirmations. We see in this Parliament, as old members go and new members come, the form in which an oath may be administered and the right to make an affirmation instead of an oath. We also see, as part of the words associated with an oath, the phrase: “So help me God.” That may be uncomfortable for Labour members, but it is retained in this oath. I think the next step we see will be the removal of those words. I think—to advance that argument just one tad further—we will see the removal of the Speaker’s prayer, because these things are uncomfortable for a Government driven by political correctness, driven by a need to make change where no real change is required.

Let me give a very simple illustration of that. One of the things that this legislation does in pursuit of the claim for modernisation is that the words “honestly and impartially” are to be replaced by the words “faithfully and impartially”. Does that represent modernisation? I do not think so. Why are we making that change? Here is another example. The plan is to replace the word “divulge”, which most people know, with the word “disclose”. That is somehow, in some curious way, seen as an advance. It is not an advance at all. It is playing around with our language for no good reason, except in pursuit of what some have called the “Goff agenda”. I have hesitated to use those words, but the Goff agenda is not an agenda that leads to better outcomes, nor is the Oaths Modernisation Bill.

It is quite interesting, actually, because within the legislation has been produced a comparative table, under a number of headings. There are changes to be made to the Oath of Allegiance, which is misspelt, but that does not matter; it is just a little technical slip. Changes are to be made to the Judicial Oath, Executive Councillor’s Oath, the current oath, the armed forces oath, and the citizenship oath. I shall just take an example.

Hon Phil Goff: What part does the member object to?

Dr RICHARD WORTH: Phil Goff is calling for an example, and what an invitation that is to accept readily, because there are multiple examples. Here, to meet the special needs of that particular citizen, is an example. It is the Oath of Allegiance, which is one we will all be familiar with. The current form of the Oath of Allegiance is: “I … swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.” That is to be changed. This is priority legislation! As this Parliament moves to a dying close, Minister Goff has decided that this is important stuff, and we must get it through. We can abandon the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. If members watch the place of that bill on the Order Paper, they will see that it has slipped down to No. 15.

However, I was comparing the Oath of Allegiance to the proposed oath. It is interesting, and we are looking at the English version, which is helpful. I will not be dealing with the Māori version unless there is a proposal that I have extended time to speak in this debate. The proposed oath is: “I … swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of New Zealand, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.” Is that a really important change? Is it not something that some might say is not deserving of the priority?

That is why so many of us see in all this unnecessary legislation—[Interruption]; with the constant interruptions of Mr Goff—the stealthy march towards republicanism. We saw it when they scrapped the Privy Council. We saw it as Minister Goff, who will fail in this quest, sought to abolish Queen’s Counsel, and now we see it here. That is a tragedy, because Parliament should be focused on real things and real issues. As this Parliament runs down, what are we spending our time on? The Oaths Modernisation Bill. We are fiddling around with the Oaths and Declarations Act, which is, in fact, in really good order. The interesting thing that is also relevant is that the Government has decided not to deal with some of the more abstruse oaths. Maybe it has not discovered them. Maybe it does not know what its obligations are in respect of particular society sectors. We oppose this bill. Who on earth would support it?

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): Members will have been interested to hear from the shadow National Party spokesperson on justice, who has just resumed his seat—a man, of course, who sits at the lower end of the National Party shadow Cabinet. After that speech, it will be very clear why he is at No. 14, and bound to sink even further than that. The irony of Dr Richard Worth—a man who likes to use his title, which comes from a wānanga in a certain country other than this one; he did not quite qualify for the acceptance standards in this country, so he raced off to another one—complaining about an oath to the Queen is that no sooner had he sworn allegiance to Queen Elizabeth in this Chamber than he scuttled off across to Europe to find another monarch to pledge his allegiance to, in the form of the principality of Monaco. Of course, it was not enough for Dr Worth to be loyal to only one monarchy; he wanted to make sure that he could find another country that he could cosy up to in that regard.

The Minister of Justice introduced the Oaths Modernisation Bill by saying that it was needed to make sure that words that were redundant, that lacked clear meaning, or that were antiquated were changed, and I thought that he was giving a dissertation on the National Party manifesto for the current election. There could be no better example of words that are redundant, that lack clear meaning, or that are antiquated than the kind of flip-flop 1980s nonsense members get from that side of the House. Finally National has put out a policy position. It is very difficult to get a policy on tax, and it is very difficult to get a policy on education, but it is easy, it seems, to get a policy on oaths and allegiances. I thought so, except that on 18 February 2004, Dr Richard Worth, fresh from his holiday—no, actually on 18 February he still would have been on his holiday and this release would have been sent by remote Internet access from the principality of Monaco—put out a statement entitled “Oaths and affirmations: the march to republicanism”. It carries a photo of him from his graduation from Auckland University’s law school, circa 1967. Dr Worth stated: “The removal of old and archaic language from the wording of oaths and affirmations is one thing …”, but added that the removal of references to the Queen in such oaths was another.

In the bill presented by Mr Goff, how many oaths remove references to the Queen? One? Two? Three?

Hon Phil Goff: Not one.

DARREN HUGHES: Zero oaths remove any reference to the Queen. Furthermore, the Hon Phil Goff has made sure that it is very clear that we refer to the Queen of New Zealand. That is the very point, if one can bear to read further down Dr Worth’s media release, that Dr Worth makes when he states Mr Goff “needs to be reminded that she is not only the Head of the Commonwealth but Queen of New Zealand.”

Hon Phil Goff: But didn’t he just say that was a change that wasn’t needed?

DARREN HUGHES: He has just said in his speech that that was a change that was not needed.

Hon Phil Goff: He flip-flopped!

DARREN HUGHES: He has flip-flopped on the Oaths Modernisation Bill. The New Zealand National Party is now flip-flopping on the bill. This is an extraordinary development in New Zealand politics. It is an election year, and National cannot hold itself together even on these matters.

The Labour-Progressive Government has done all the things “Lord Worth” said we should do in the four paragraphs of the media release that he put out at the midpoint of his summer holidays on 18 February 2004. Yet he was forced to come down here tonight, after having been rolled by the conservatives in the National caucus like Simon Power, to oppose the bill. He himself said that we should be making it clear that Her Majesty is the head of the Commonwealth. Dr Worth had the audacity to start off by quoting the Hippocratic oath and talking about the 16th century—which was, I understand, the time of Dr Brash’s original dissertation. He mentioned the Hippocratic oath, and Lianne Dalziel pointed out that no one actually physically says it any more. No one verbalises that oath. So all National’s arguments were quite wrong. The arguments that it has used to attack the bill are wrong. The arguments that it has used to counter the arguments it originally put forward as its policy in the middle of its summer night’s dream in 2004 are wrong. The situation is an absolute farce.

For Dr Worth to criticise the Government for bringing this bill to Parliament to modernise the oaths and make it clear that the Queen is the head of New Zealand is a little bit ironic, given that he is the man who, when we debated the Civil Union Bill last year, put up 7 hours’ worth of amendments in the Committee stage. I am not allowed to refer to the absence of members from the House, so I will not, but I will say Dr Worth did not take the call on any one of the amendments during the 7 hours of voting that he put New Zealand through. I know Dr Worth is a man on the move in the National Party, because every week in the Independent newspaper he is quoted as the next deputy leader. Of course, in a caucus of 27 that does not say much. I know that he is a man on the move, and that is why he needs to get up in caucus every Tuesday and defend his position on these oaths. He cannot have the classical laissez-faire conservatives like Simon Power doing him over every Tuesday. Richard Worth is an endangered species in Parliament. The Labour Government is prepared, once it has passed this law, to try to protect him as well, because antiquated things like him have a role, maybe, after all.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Let me make it quite clear: New Zealand First will support the Oaths Modernisation Bill going to the select committee.

Hon Members: Oh, no!

PETER BROWN: Yes. When we first saw this bill, we thought that if the Government were mucking around with the oaths, then the Queen would have no chance of surviving, and God help God. But they both survived. In many ways—and I have to agree with the honourable member—the Queen’s position in terms of her role has been strengthened, if I have read this correctly.

Hon Phil Goff: Absolutely. She’s enshrined in her present position.

PETER BROWN: We are grateful for that, because New Zealand First is a keen supporter of the monarchy, and we certainly believe in God. We think that by even introducing a bill like this, that position is strengthened for some time to come. The next thing will be to keep our flag, and we are working on that, too.

I have read all the current oaths and the proposed oaths—in the English version; I have not managed the Māori version, as yet—and to a very large extent I personally believe that this bill has simplified the oaths and made them clearer. I cannot readily find fault with any of the proposed oaths so, speaking personally, I cannot find anything particularly wrong with the Oaths Modernisation Bill. That is not to say that my colleagues totally agree with me, but by and large we are supportive of this bill going to a select committee.

When I am looking at the citizenship oath, I am reminded of the time I sat in a little TV studio a few years back with the honourable Lianne Dalziel, the Minister of Immigration as she was at that time. We were debating the issues of immigrants and people who come to this country and get citizenship. I, being a blown-away Englishman, outlined my concern about this country going down the same road that the English have gone down—that is, of providing legal access for people to go around wearing burkas and hiding their faces. That situation is occurring in the UK, to some degree of concern. But the Minister, as she was at that time, assured me, and she assured the people who were watching that TV station, that that was not occurring. I ask the member whether she remembers.

Lianne Dalziel: Some people’s appearances might be improved by wearing a burka.

PETER BROWN: And I might be one of them.

Lianne Dalziel: No—I’m one of them.

PETER BROWN: Oh, the member is one of them! The point I am making is that that practice is creeping into this country. Yet I recall that Stephen Franks tabled a letter in this House a few months ago from the Land Transport Safety Authority, as it was at that time, stating that not many people have had their photograph taken for their photographic licence while wearing a burka.

I think the citizenship oath as it is now written strengthens New Zealand First’s case. The second part of the oath—stating allegiance to the Queen comes first—states: “I will faithfully observe the laws of New Zealand and fulfil my duties as a New Zealand citizen. So help me God.” That will be replaced with the words: “I will be loyal to New Zealand, will obey the law, and will respect the democratic values of New Zealand and the rights and freedoms of its people. So help me God.”

The law in this country states that if a person is going for a photographic licence, that person does not cover his or her face. The law in this country is based on my having the right to see someone without anything covering his or her face, and that citizenship oath strengthens that. I can see that the honourable Lianne Dalziel feels a little bit uncomfortable, but it has strengthened the case—

Lianne Dalziel: I haven’t heard you argue against the oppression of women for a long time. It’s great!

PETER BROWN: If it comes to women being forced to wear burkas and covering their faces at the demands of men, I will join that member any day of the week in arguing against that, and against various other things that some men in some countries compel women to do. My wife will tell members that I am a very fair-minded person when it comes to women. She says “Jump!”, and rather than say “How high?” I say, “Will you tell me when to come down?”.

Hon Phil Goff: Keep it clean!

PETER BROWN: I do not want to give members any ideas, because they might bump into my wife one day and give her a few clues on how I might react. I do not want that to occur.

Darren Hughes: The microphone is live—

PETER BROWN:—and she might be the only listener!

We do not see the harm in this bill that the National Party does. I regret that that party sees it as harm. I do not share that view, at all. We think that the bill might need a bit of tidying up, but it is a move in the right direction.

We also ask why the bill is being brought in now, only so many weeks before an election, but I suppose there are reasons. If there are any concerns, though, New Zealand First will be back, much stronger than currently, and we will tidy them up then.

In closing, I want to correct the honourable member about the Hippocratic oath. It is now totally voluntary in this country. Some universities, I believe, do not have the Hippocratic oath, but it has been modernised immensely from what it once was, so it is not a good example—

Hon Phil Goff: No, the member was wrong on everything he said.

PETER BROWN: The member was wrong in everything, I have to say.

New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee.

LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to take a very brief call to congratulate my colleague the Hon Phil Goff on introducing legislation that I think is overdue in many respects, but it is welcome indeed, and it will be welcomed by people who make submissions on it at the select committee.

I wrote to the Prime Minister about this subject a few years ago, because I had visited Australia and had seen the Australian oath on the wall. In fact, new Australians take a pledge of commitment now, and I want to read to the House the pledge of commitment that they take when they are becoming citizens: “From this time forward, under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.” I asked the Prime Minister to compare that with the existing oath, and Phil Goff has managed to combine the existing oath with modernised words that mean something to people who are becoming new citizens of this country.

I congratulate that Minister on finding the balance that most ordinary New Zealanders are looking for. They are looking for a reflection of the old oath that maintains that commitment and allegiance to the Queen. The bill maintains those aspects, and retains the element of making reference to God, obviously, if one is swearing the oath. It maintains all the elements of the old oath but, in addition, it modernises it and brings it up to date. I congratulate the Minister on a job well done, and I look forward to being on the select committee that reviews the detailed submissions I am sure we will receive.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): National has chosen to vote against this bill for quite deliberate reasons. The circumstances in which this bill is now introduced are those where the Government has had a complete agenda culminating in the establishment of a special select committee on constitutionalism. National deliberately chose not to be part of that select committee, and there is a reason for our having done that.

Stephen Franks: Why?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Mr Franks, who is on that select committee, knows the conspiratorial theories that are abounding there to drive New Zealand down the road of republicanism without the consent of New Zealanders.

Lianne Dalziel: Oh, nonsense!

Dr WAYNE MAPP: That is the truth of it, and the Government—particularly Lianne Dalziel—hates hearing that fact.

I am disturbed, in fact, that New Zealand First has chosen to be duped by the Government with its plans. Those members stood out from that particular select committee, knowing full well that it had the intent of republicanism. So right now, when that select committee is deliberating and considering, what has the Government done? As part of its agenda, it has introduced a bill on oaths and declarations—ostensibly to modernise and to make a minor titivation, but really to condition and get New Zealanders used to change in their constitution and on the fundamentals. That is the truth of it.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.