Wednesday, 5 April 2006

Wednesday, 5 April 2006

Wednesday, 5 April 2006

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Working for Families Package—Childcare Assistance

1. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has he received on the uptake of childcare assistance under Working for Families?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I am advised that 1 year after the Working for Families childcare changes were introduced 30,300 families with 36,900 children were receiving childcare assistance. That is an incredible 29 percent more families receiving assistance since October 2004.

Georgina Beyer: Has the Minister received any reports indicating how much better off people are as a result of these changes?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Yes. Data to the end of January 2006 shows that the average weekly payment to families receiving childcare assistance was $71 per week. I am also informed that 20 percent of the families receiving childcare assistance at the end of January this year would not have been eligible for any childcare assistance from the Government under the pre - Working for Families income thresholds.

Judith Collins: How much taxpayer money has he spent so far in writing letters to, and phoning, people who clearly do not qualify for welfare, and does he think that such a scattergun approach in providing welfare is a good use of taxpayers’ money?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Yes, this Government is not focused just on developing good policy; it is also keen to make sure that people are only too aware of the opportunities they have.

Question time interrupted.

Points of Order

Government Announcement—Media Embargo

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would have raised this matter at the start but we seemed to get under way fairly quickly today. This morning there was an announcement by the Government that was embargoed until 4 minutes past 1, which meant that it could not be referred to the House by the Opposition for urgent debate—although that could still be the case tomorrow. The moment, obviously, of importance in this report is reflected by the fact that there was a 2-hour lock-up, we understand, for the media. In these circumstances, would you not expect the Government to make some sort of ministerial statement about the need to have such extraordinary security around what must be a very, very important Government announcement?

Madam SPEAKER: This is a matter not for the Speaker, but for the Government. As you said, if it is a matter of urgency then obviously tomorrow you could make application for the matter to be heard as an urgent debate.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there not a question for the Speaker, though, about the appropriate use of mechanisms to prevent Parliament from discussing these things? This matter was so important that journalists had to be locked away to hear what the content of the announcement was. The embargo on it was not lifted until 4 minutes past 1, making sure that the House could not have its say on the matter. We, of course, all now get the report. It is incredibly bland, absolutely barren of anything that is of great moment—

Madam SPEAKER: Mr Brownlee, you are repeating the same matter that I have ruled on. As the House is aware, it is for the Government to decide when it releases its publications. It is also up to the Government when it utilises the ministerial statement provision. It is not a question for the Speaker.

Question time resumed.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister—Comments on Deputy Prime Minister

2. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Did she respond “I don’t know” to a media question about the prospect of her Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, delivering the next three Budgets because she wanted to give him a strong hint that he is now a serious liability to her Government, or because she expects that her Government will lose its majority in the Parliament inside that 3-year period?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Neither. I am pleased to have a loyal Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, which is a happy situation not shared by the Leader of the Opposition.

Gerry Brownlee: Can she then explain to the House why Dr Cullen refused to make any media comment on his intentions on Monday, and yesterday explained that his silence was the result of him “waiting for certain matters to be clarified”, and can she tell the House just what matters between her and her deputy required all of Monday and Tuesday to get clarified?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It would be a very foolish politician who took any media report at face value.

Gerry Brownlee: Can she confirm the report in the Dominion Post that Dr Cullen was “annoyed by her comments”, given that the author of the article, Dr Vernon Small, is widely known to have an open line into Dr Cullen’s office; would she now like to take this opportunity to publicly apologise to Dr Cullen for his hurt feelings over this matter? [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Would the House please just settle. Every member in the House is entitled to hear the answer to the question.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I cannot confirm that report, but I can confirm that the Christchurch Press reported that the National Party caucus would not recognise unity if it tripped over it on the way to Bellamy’s.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Government intend to have weekly votes of confidence in the leader and deputy leader, which is clearly the recent practice of the National Party?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do note that in stark contrast to the cohesion of the Government, the National Party leader, at the first caucus of the year, was forced to lecture his caucus on discipline and unity after the finance spokesperson, John Key, accused a colleague of spreading rumours about the leadership challenge—a very common state of affairs in the National Party.

Gerry Brownlee: Can she confirm the further report by Dr Vernon Small that she and Dr Cullen “met on Monday to clear the air”, and can she tell the House what it says of her Government when it took 2 whole days for the Prime Minister and her deputy to negotiate a form of words offering support for her deputy?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The deputy leader of the National Party may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I dealt with that matter on Monday morning.

Gerry Brownlee: If the Prime Minister dealt with the matter on Monday morning, why was Dr Cullen not prepared to talk about it until late on Tuesday?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Because the Prime Minister had adequately dealt with the issue.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Prime Minister seen Dr Cullen’s statement reported in this morning’s media—Wednesday—“What Helen was doing was leaving me space.”, and can she tell the House why Dr Cullen just does not take the hint?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: What I can tell the House is that the longer the Deputy Prime Minister and deputy leader of the Labour Party stays in Parliament, the happier I will be. I do not think Mr Brownlee’s colleagues would say that about him.

Rodney Hide: Why did the Prime Minister undermine her loyal deputy and Minister of Finance on Monday, and leave him hanging for 2 days—because no other conclusion can be drawn—and is it not her practice to shoot her own colleagues not by sitting down and talking to them but by talking things up in the media?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: To the contrary, I have expressed my full confidence in, and support for, Dr Cullen. As I have said, the longer he stays, the happier I will be. Frankly, the shorter the stay of Mr Hide, the happier I will be.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Prime Minister confirm that her expression of confidence in Dr Cullen came only after they had had a meeting to clear up certain matters, and that the reality is that Dr Cullen now joins Russell Fairbrother and Dianne Yates on the “managed exit” list?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Dr Michael Cullen has been a colleague and friend of mine for about 34 years. He has presided over a very strong economy. He has my total support. That is not something Gerry Brownlee’s colleagues would say about him.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It was quite hard to hear the Prime Minister’s answer. I thought I heard her tell the House that she has been friends with Michael Cullen for 35 years. Is that what she actually said?

Madam SPEAKER: Members have the matter of barracking in their own hands. I have warned members about it. I could certainly hear the answer to that question. I do not think the answer needs to be repeated on this occasion.

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

Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled on that matter. If it is a new point of order, then that is fine.

Rodney Hide: My new point of order is to clarify whether it is now a ruling of the House that as long as the Speaker can hear the answer, it does not matter about MPs on the cross benches. And actually the matter is not in our own hands, because we on the cross benches are trying to hear and are not making a noise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Hide’s complaint would have some integrity if he had not been one of the principal barrackers at the time the answer was being given by the Prime Minister. He shouted “Who?” three times. He knows full well that he did. So if he could not hear the answer, it was because he had his mouth open.

Madam SPEAKER: I noticed that some barracking was going on, and I had warned members about that, but I felt that on that occasion the answer was perfectly audible. I have ruled on the matter; I do not want it to be raised again.

Benefits—Single Core Benefit

3. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is the Government still committed to delivering a single core benefit, given his statement in The Jobs Letter yesterday: “I can’t say that we will be delivering a single core benefit”; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, the Government remains committed to delivering a new and simplified benefit structure. My comments referred to ongoing discussions about whether the new and simplified benefit structure will be called a single core benefit. The details of the new and simplified benefit structure, including its name, will be the subject of Cabinet decisions later in the year.

Sue Bradford: How does the Minister reconcile his comments in The Jobs Letter that he is trying to minimise the number of “losers” created by the 1 April instalment of Working for Families, with Steve Maharey’s categorical statement to the House in March 2005 that no one would be worse off under the Working for Families package?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The introduction of temporary additional support needs to be considered in the context of the $1.6 billion Working for Families package. Increases in assistance to families and people on low and middle incomes will improve their financial position and, clearly, reduce the need for ongoing hardship assistance. No one receiving the special benefit at the point of change last Saturday was disadvantaged, and people receiving the special benefit at that point will continue to receive it until their circumstances change.

Steve Chadwick: What is the purpose of the new benefit structure?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The aim is to ensure that our benefit system is responsive to the needs of those receiving benefits, in order to help all those on benefits reach their full potential and to ensure that those who are able to work get both a chance and the support to do so, such as offering the same range of case-management services for employment to people across the current separate categories.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister confirm that there are relatively few blind people who work for a living, and that because of their special circumstances they are allowed to retain their benefits; will he confirm that if this single core benefit regime comes in, this system will not change with regard to blind people?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The ministry is currently preparing consultation material, which will seek feedback from stakeholders, including the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind, and that will inform our subsequent decisions.

Judith Collins: Is the Minister trying to tell this House that Labour has worked on a single core benefit since 1989; can he still not tell the House exactly when it will be implemented or even what it will be called?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No, and mid-year.

Sue Bradford: Will the Minister assure beneficiaries that when genuine need arises, they will have access to the same levels of support as existed under the old special benefit, and can he explain what benefit mechanism he will use to do this, especially given that the current emergency benefit is not appropriate for this purpose?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Where a client faces costs that cannot be met by temporary additional support, case managers will help people access other hardship provisions, such as special-needs grants or benefit advances.

Judith Collins: Why did the Minister state in The Jobs Letter that the biggest challenge ahead for the Ministry of Social Development is the Child, Youth and Family Services - Ministry of Social Development merger, which was supposed to be a seamless transition; and what has really happened to the introduction of the single core benefit, which, earlier this year, he said was the biggest welfare restructure in 50 years?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Firstly, because I believe it is, and, secondly, nothing.

Sue Bradford: What steps, if any, is the Minister taking to ensure that the Government’s much-delayed progress towards a single core benefit—or whatever it is to be called—will not create a system that is less flexible, less financially generous, and more punitive to those in genuine need than the system it will replace?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I do not agree with the member’s proposition about delay, but the answer is yes.

Prime Minister—Comments on David Parker

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Prime Minister: Why did she make public comments about the possible reinstatement of David Parker to her Cabinet when the Companies Office has yet to complete its inquiry into declarations made by David Parker?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Because reinstatement is an option.

Hon Bill English: Why did she change the view she held on 21 March that Mr Parker had made mistakes serious enough for her to accept his resignation to a view on 28 March that the mistakes he had personally admitted were only “allegations”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Those are matters for the Companies Office to determine, and we will be guided by the facts.

Hon Bill English: Did any member of her office or her department, or any Minister’s office, seek or receive information, advice, or opinion from the Companies Office in relation to Mr Parker or the matters for which he is currently under investigation?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Mr Parker has, of course, kept in touch with the leadership of the Labour Party. There has, I understand, been communication from the Companies Office to the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet about the pace of the inquiry. I do not want to comment on what may have occurred in those conversations, but I am satisfied that Mr Parker is keeping his leadership in the loop.

Hon Bill English: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that a statutory agency responsible for a decision over whether to prosecute a senior Minister in the current Government has been communicating with the Prime Minister’s department over the progress of that investigation?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Obviously, I have made no request whatsoever for any information from the Companies Office, but—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Just answer the question.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Settle down, Dr Smith. The member is very vocal at question time. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Order, please.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am directly answering the question by saying that my understanding is that the head of the Ministry of Economic Development spoke to the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet at a very early stage about the likely timing of the inquiry.

Hon Bill English: Can I take the Prime Minister’s statement to the House today as confirmation of rumours and allegations that personnel from her department contacted an officer of the Companies Office last week, and that that officer of the Companies Office provided written advice on the Companies Office view of Mr Parker’s declaration; and does she regard that as appropriate behaviour for a member of the Prime Minister’s department and for a statutory officer responsible for making a decision about whether to prosecute a senior member of her Government?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have no advice of any such interaction as the member has referred to.

Hon Bill English: How come the Prime Minister, then, is aware of a discussion between the head of the Prime Minister’s department and the Companies Office; and how can anyone not construe that as pressure on the Companies Office from the political leadership of the Government to consider its view very carefully?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Let me be very clear about what I have already told the member. The head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet quite correctly reported to me that he had been phoned by the head of the Ministry of Economic Development.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister now confirm to the House that not only has somebody from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet been discussing these matters with the Companies Office, but those discussions have been reported to her; and how does she think that looks to a Parliament concerned that a statutory agency should be totally independent in making a decision about whether to prosecute a Minister?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: All that I can confirm is that, as I said in the previous answer, the head of the Ministry of Economic Development apparently contacted my head of department at a very early stage. It would have been in the day or two after the matter became public. My head of department quite properly reported that to me.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister then answer a question I asked earlier as to why she said on 21 March that Mr Parker’s actions were “mistakes serious enough for me to accept his resignation”, then a week later, after being briefed by the head of her department on discussions with the Companies Office, changed her view to one where she said that Mr Parker’s actions were only “allegations”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The facts are that on day one Mr Parker said he had made mistakes.

Hon Bill English: And you agreed.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I accepted his word. Since that time Mr Parker has been in communication with the leadership of his party, as is entirely proper.

Defence Force—Proliferation Security Initiative

5. JILL PETTIS (Labour) to the Minister of Defence: What are the reasons for participation by the New Zealand Defence Force in the Proliferation Security Initiative in Darwin?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): New Zealand is participating this week in an exercise called Pacific Protector, which is designed to prevent the proliferation and movement of weapons of mass destruction. This is part of the New Zealand Government’s longstanding commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. The exercise involves like-minded countries working together to develop and test procedures to detect and interdict such weapons in a scenario where those weapons might be trans-shipped by air.

Jill Pettis: Is the exercise consistent with international law and the position of the United Nations?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The exercise is consistent with our domestic law, with international law, and with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, adopted in 2004, on non-proliferation by non-State actors. That resolution calls on countries “to take cooperative action to prevent illicit trafficking in nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, their means of delivery, and related materials;”. It is worth noting for the member that the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, has commended the Proliferation Security Initiative for its contribution towards controlling proliferation.

Benefits—Single Core Benefit

6. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: When does he expect the single core benefit to be implemented?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I repeat the answer I have already given to the House today. Details of the new and simplified benefit structure, including its name, will be the subject of Cabinet decisions later in the year.

Judith Collins: Do the Minister’s comments on March 31 that “while I can’t say that we will be delivering a single core benefit certainly the system is going to be hugely simplified.”, indicate that Cabinet and this Minister are backing away from a single core benefit because it was, is, and always has been unworkable?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No.

Judith Collins: Could the Minister tell us who is correct: the Prime Minister, when she said in February last year: “Merging seven existing benefits into a single benefit would leave no one worse off.”, or the Minister, when he said just last week: “We are not prepared to say, ‘Well, sorry, no one will be worse off.’ ”? Who is right, the Minister or the Prime Minister?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I made it quite clear in my earlier answer that at the point of change for the introduction, last Saturday, there were no losers.

Judith Collins: Why is he withholding the results of the review on the 12 pilot programmes?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am not withholding any information, and I would say that the record of this Government on delivery of movement of people from benefits into the workforce is exemplary.

Judith Collins: Why, given Labour has worked on this concept since 1989 when Michael Cullen was the social welfare Minister, is the Minister still unable to provide intelligible answers to either written or oral parliamentary questions? Why can he not just tell the truth?

Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. Would you please withdraw that comment. Thank you.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I do not know which part of the word “No” to the earlier answer the member does not understand.

Human Rights—United Nations Special Rapporteur's Report

7. on behalf of RON MARK (NZ First)PITA PARAONE (NZ First) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Is he satisfied with the Government’s response to the report by the United Nations Human Rights Commission on the situation of Māori in New Zealand?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): The Government made every effort to ensure, in the very brief time—in fact, only 8 working days—he was in New Zealand, that the UN special rapporteur Dr Stavenhagen had access to those most informed about the issues he was addressing. Sadly, he chose to ignore much of what was said to him. The Government then responded, in an earlier draft to his report, to correct factual errors and errors of imbalance. Sadly, he ignored that as well. The Government will make a further formal report in an effort to correct these errors. I suppose it is best summed up by the MP Shane Jones, who said on morning television that Mr Stavenhagen would be better off saving the Marsh Arabs than interfering with our race relations.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister believe that the report of the United Nations special rapporteur on issues relating to Māori accurately reflects the situation of race relations here in New Zealand?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is a very important question, because there are some who believe it does. The facts are, of course, that he was captured by those entrenched in a grievance mentality who ignore even the most rudimentary social context in which Māori socially and economically mix with other people in this country. He ignores the fact that a Māori set up the Waitangi Tribunal, that there are more Māori in Parliament than the Māori population in terms of ratio, or that, for example, it is mandatory to follow the Treaty of Waitangi State-owned enterprise legislation, not voluntary. Such fundamental errors surely could not have resulted from anything other than a brief talk to certain people on the fringes of academia in this country.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that that report cannot be taken seriously, as it represents just “one man’s view”, despite that man’s view being consistent with the Waitangi Tribunal, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and 30,000 thinking New Zealanders who marched on the hīkoi to Parliament; and if he does agree, how then should the Government respond to the advice of key Māori leaders who have stated this morning that the Government criticism of the United Nations report will do the country no credit internationally?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: By preferring one hard fact, rather than 12 lovely emotions. The fact of the matter is that the primary case did not find in favour of Māori in the Ngāti Apa case, at all; neither did the Court of Appeal—and any lawyer in this country knows that. The second thing is that decisions of the Treaty of Waitangi are not coerced. The Waitangi Tribunal has never made a claim that it is coerced into decisions. It was never the claim of Tainui. It was never the claim of Ngāi Tahu, at the time. Those members who were there remember it very, very well. More important, when one can get something as wrong as saying that the State-owned enterprise legislation is voluntary yet it is clear as daylight that it is mandatory and the Government is required to follow it, then what else in the report is worth reading?

Ron Mark: Is he confident that the role of indigenous people in New Zealand reflects positively in the international arena?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I say very clearly that Māori are a huge asset to this country—and some more than most. [Interruption] I take that as a total affirmation of what I am saying. Not only is Māori culture and language an integral part of who we are; it is also amongst the strongest identifiers of our New Zealandness amongst the international community.

Rodney Hide: What about the poodle?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member may want to speak about himself, but the question is not about him; it is about us. It is not about irrelevant poodles like Mr Hide, whom his founding leader says is a joke; it is about the serious people of this country who happen to be Māori. And whilst I am here, deputed to represent them, I intend to carry on and say this—[Interruption] Oh, look—take a Valium!

Madam SPEAKER: Order, please.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member should take a pill, for goodness’ sake!

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister just reply to the question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Let us say this: New Zealand’s “Māoriness”, when it comes to Māori culture and society, should be celebrated, not misused by those with grievance agendas trapped in negativity. There is no question that things can improve on many fronts for Māori—[Interruption] Ha, ha!

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I notice that Mr Peters is taking a very long time in his reply to the question. That raises two points. Firstly, I heard him laugh during that answer. Is it our ruling that it is OK to laugh if one is answering a question but not if one is just a normal member listening to a question? Secondly, can we assume that the great leniency Mr Peters seems to attract from the Chair is part of some unofficial affirmative action programme?

Madam SPEAKER: Obviously not, Mr Brownlee. But I would say that if members interject on others, they are likely to get a response. I ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters to please complete the answer to his question quickly. It was long.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may help matters if Mr Peters just tabled his spontaneous answers that he is reading to the House.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, as the member knows.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Nowhere in my “spontaneous answer” was there an intention to talk about somebody who is a lapdog of this Parliament; the member raised the issue himself. I conclude by saying that Māori are actively engaged in every part of this country’s economic and social life—and so they should be.

I seek the leave of the House to table a report of an interview conducted this morning with Sir Douglas Graham, the former National member of Parliament charged with the Treaty of Waitangi portfolio, in which he says that the whole thing is “lightweight”.

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

Health, Ministry—Elective Surgery

8. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Has the Ministry of Health written to district health board chairs recently to express concern about a lack of satisfactory progress in elective surgery; if so, which district health boards did the ministry write to?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): No, but the ministry did write to all district health boards to remind them of their obligation to meet their district annual plans regarding their surgical booking systems.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why did the Government write to the district health boards last week, complaining about worsening elective surgery figures and performance, when the Minister gets up in this House every second day to defend the Government’s record on elective surgery?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The letters were about installing what are called “ESPIs”—elective services patient flow indicators. That is what it is about. About six or seven of the district health boards look as though they are too slow in getting those indicators up. The rest of them—

Hon Tony Ryall: Name them.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I will name them. The ones that are a bit slow are the Auckland, Waitematā, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Hawke’s Bay, MidCentral, Capital and Coast, and Canterbury boards. This is not about surgery, it is about measuring the surgery in a modern context.

Ann Hartley: Has he received any reports about how New Zealand compares internationally on the provision of timely access to treatments, including elective surgery?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have today received a report from the Commonwealth Fund in Washington that rates New Zealand as second out of six developed countries on the timeliness of treatment, including elective surgery. It puts us ahead of not only Australia and the UK but also well ahead of the United States, which came last and has a health system the National Party is keen to replicate here in New Zealand.

Judy Turner: Will the Minister recommend to all district health boards that they at least consider the initiative proposed by the Hutt Valley District Health Board to contribute up to 30 percent of an operation’s cost at a private hospital; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I understand that idea was tossed out at a recent district health board meeting. It is not clear to me how far it was tossed. I remind the House that a Minister of Health in the then National Government lost his job about 15 years ago for attempting part charges. I think that the proponent of that idea, who is now on the district health board and was in the House at the time, should learn from history.

Hon Tony Ryall: When the Government stated in its letter of last week to district health boards that it will put errant district health boards under intensive monitoring and investigation, what will that actually mean for the 18,000 New Zealanders who are sick enough to qualify for an operation but cannot get one in his 5½ out of 10 health system?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member continues to confuse two ideas—one hopes unwittingly. One is whether New Zealanders are accessing sufficient elective services, and the long and short of it is that the numbers are getting better and better each year. The other is that we have decided to install over a number of years a new patient flow indicator system. Those letters are designed to go to the hospitals and district health boards that have not yet fully implemented such a system, so that we can measure even more transparently what is being done and what is not.

Judy Turner: Does the Minister agree, in light of the case of 8-year-old Patrick Casey, whose life was hanging in the balance while waiting for elective surgery, that contracts between district health boards and private hospitals would reduce waiting lists, speed up the process for elective procedures, and potentially save lives; if so, will he actively encourage district health boards to pursue contracts with private providers, and if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON: District health boards are fully entitled to contract with private providers now—and many of them do. Typically, the private providers get the easy jobs, and therefore the price per unit is a little lower than usual—and that is a good thing. But when I compare the member’s two questions, I realise she does not seem to understand the difference between private provision and private funding.

Judy Turner: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. What I actually asked was whether he would actively encourage district health boards. I know that they are allowed to contract with private providers and that they do have that discretion, but I want to know whether the Minister will actively encourage district health boards to do that.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am happy to answer that.

Madam SPEAKER: I thought he had addressed the question.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I thought I had, too. District health boards are in charge of what they do. They are fully entitled to use private services if they wish to. I will not actively encourage them to use private services if they have no need to; that would seem to be a waste. But they are fully entitled to use private sector capacity if it exists—and often it does.

Hon Tony Ryall: Has the Minister seen reports that the Hutt Valley District Health Board has agreed to investigate providing patients with a subsidy of between 10 and 30 percent to get an operation in the private sector, as a way of reducing the growing backlog of elective surgery in the public system; if so, will the Government permit district health boards to use their funds in that way to benefit patients who have enough points to get an operation but have been waiting too long?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I thought I had addressed that in the answer to an earlier question from a member. This member apparently not only fails to listen to answers I give him but he fails to listen to questions that come from other parts of the House. I say to the member that that appears to be a very, very early idea. I do not think it is a very, very good one. It sounds like part-charging to me. National tried to pull that trick 15 years ago, and its Minister of Health lost his job.

Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister tell the House why, after contact from his office to the Auckland District Health Board, the board promised an 8-year-old boy with a life-threatening aneurism a new date within 2 days for his twice-cancelled surgery, yet the boy and his family have still not been given a new date almost a week after that promise was given?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am not aware of the number of times that that young boy’s surgery date has been changed. What I will say about that young lad is this—

Hon Tony Ryall: You do know.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not. [Interruption] The member can just accept my word on that. I do not know all the changes that have occurred in the Auckland District Health Board in respect of that case. I do not. Indeed, the board may have made another change half an hour ago, for all I know. But what I will say about that young boy is that whereas there is an annual risk from his not receiving the surgery—which is for a condition he has probably had for all of his 7 or 8 years—of 2 or 3 percent a year, and, of course, the risk is now accumulating, there is the risk of surgery itself, which is by no means minor. So we would do well to wish him well. Finally, that young lad requires, as I understand it, surgery on 2 consecutive days. There must be certainty of the availability of theatre staff and theatre space. The staff cannot begin that surgery unless they are sure they can complete it.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Why did the Minister say, in a press release at 1.52 this afternoon: “It’s time for everyone to realise that a health system that leaves people behind is not a health system that should be advocated in New Zealand.”, when the case of the boy in Auckland is an obvious case of a New Zealander requiring elective surgery and being left behind; and does that contradiction not further erode the Minister of Health’s credibility?

Hon PETE HODGSON: No, because the press statement referred to the proclivities of the National Party and its preoccupation with Americanising the New Zealand health system, as the then National Government attempted to do in the 1990s. [Interruption] The member may want to shout me down or he may want to listen to this: in the second half of the 1990s, the number of children waiting for paediatric surgery exceeded 3,000.

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I for one was interested in listening to the response, but back here we had an exchange going on across the cross benches, with people yelling from that side to people on this side. I think that is disorderly.

Rodney Hide: That is true, Madam Speaker, and I apologise. It is just that Mr Peters was explaining to me that he had paid up the $40,000 that he owes to Mr Bob Clarkson, but I understand he has not. I was just checking that out. I apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: That was not a point of order. We do not really need to hear the substance of the exchange.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you do. Now that he has put that at question, let me say what my response was. I said that, unlike him and the ACT party, who cheat the system, I pay up my debts if they are so found to be.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, I am sorry. That is why—

Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: No, please.

Hon David Carter: Winston Peters, since 2004, has owed me for my legal fees. I am still waiting.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: As every lawyer in the House would know, if that were true he would have a cause of action. He does not, because I am still suing him and he is trying to stop the case from going to court.

Madam SPEAKER: Would anyone else like to share on this issue?

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Unfortunately, as a result of the election, Mr Ken Shirley is no longer here. But he too, I know, would like to say that he is still owed money by Mr Winston Peters for his legal bills.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, he is no longer in the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. What is happening here is that Mr Hide, joined by Mr Carter, are making baseless allegations on the basis—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member is talking to a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I will back mine up with the court judgment and with the testimony of the lawyers in question, not with baseless allegations made in this Parliament. But the bad news for Mr Carter and Mr Shirley is that I am suing them and I do not intend to stop.

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: I wish to move on, unless it is a totally different point.

Gordon Copeland: I thought I had come to Parliament today, but it sounds more like a new-age love-in. I am staggered by the interchange that you have allowed between members of those two parties, who have simply used the House’s time to advance a personal quarrel.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his observation, and I am sure all members will take note of it.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just hope that you will look at the Hansard of that exchange. It seems to us that repeatedly in this House disruption is caused by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I do not know how long you can expect the House to allow that to happen. I think we have come, with all due respect to your good humour, dangerously close to the place going out of control. Mr Peters needs to be reined in quite considerably; otherwise, when we come back after a 3-week recess, we could well be in a permanent state of disorder.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his observation. I may say that the Rt Hon Winston Peters is not the only one who sometimes contributes from the cross benches when others are speaking. I would ask all members to take note of what Mr Brownlee said, so that we can, of course, have an orderly House.

David Bennett: I seek leave to table question for written answer No. 4381 in regard to legal expenses.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is objection. And I might say that comes very close to actually being a point of order that, in the context and timing in which it was done, brings this House into disrepute. [Interruption] Would all members please be seated. I do not, of course, deny the right of a member to raise a point of order. But in the context of the previous debate on points of order, when that point of order could be raised at any other time and when I have been invited by the House to ensure that we conduct the House in an orderly fashion, I make that observation. I will allow no comment on my ruling on that. I wish to move on now, please.

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

Madam SPEAKER: This point of order had better be on a different point.

Gerry Brownlee: I do not think you can direct what my point of order is about.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I am not. I merely said it should not be on the matter I have ruled on—that is all.

Gerry Brownlee: Well, that is exactly the problem that we get into, because it does not escape the attention of members on the Opposition side of the House that Mr Bennett got a stinging rebuke, when day after day Mr Peters comes in here and has huge license to disrupt the place, with barely a word said to him.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: That, of course, challenged the ruling that you just made. But more than that, it was Mr Brownlee who, just before, took a point of order, in my view quite rightly, to call the attention of the House to the fact that there is far too much of that kind of pointless exchange going on. Immediately Mr Bennett took a point of order to repeat a request for leave, which had already been declined on a previous sitting day, to table a matter that is to be found in the lobbies at this time. On at least three counts that was a trivial point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The best response to Gerry Brownlee would be an open admission from Mr Hide that he started it with his comment about paying some court bill. He knows that he started it. Those members know that, and this sort of flatulent protection of Mr Hide will not do in this House.

Madam SPEAKER: That is why I am asking members to move on, please.

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

Madam SPEAKER: No, I am asking us to move on. I have ruled on the matter. Would Mr Hide please sit down while I am on my feet. As I said, I have ruled on that point. Everyone has had an opportunity to put a point of view on it. Now I think we should move on to the next question, unless it is a totally different point of order—and I mean that this time.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is absolutely a new one, and it is this. This is quite remarkable. I do not think there is a more inoffensive MP in this House than Mr David Bennett. He stood up in the House—

Madam SPEAKER: This is not a point of order, Mr Hide.

Rodney Hide: Yes, it is.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, come to it quickly, please. Points of order have to be given succinctly.

Rodney Hide: If you allow me to, I will. I just wish you would not try to sit down Opposition MPs. David Bennett got up and very calmly and correctly raised a point of order. It is about the second one he has raised since he has been here. He got a stinging rebuke from you, Madam Speaker, and what you said was in the context of others having been rebuked. Then Mr Peters got up and did exactly the same thing—in fact, it was far worse than that, because he accused me of some monstrosity in this House—and you did nothing. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: No, I do not need any more assistance on this matter. I have ruled on the matter and we will move on.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just draw your attention to, and ask you to consider, the fact that two of those points of order were direct challenges to your authority and judgment.

Madam SPEAKER: I am aware of that, Mr Mark. I have warned members about that. I do like members to have their say—perhaps a little too much, at times—regardless of the allegations that I do not. This is a robust Chamber. I have always operated on that basis. But if my points and rulings are challenged again, then members will be leaving this House.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just observed something in the House that I have not seen before. The Rt Hon Winston Peters was holding something up to David Bennett in a threatening manner. I do not know what was written on it, but that is the sort of thing that brings the House into disrepute. When a longstanding member who should know better is up against a minnow—

Madam SPEAKER: I ask the member to please be seated.

Hon Tau Henare: We expect more from that member.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated. Does the member wish to remain in this Chamber? You will seated when the Speaker is on her feet, Mr Henare.

Hon Tau Henare: Well, you should be doing your job.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please leave the Chamber. I am doing my job.

Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber.

Low-wage Earners—Government Action

9. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Labour: What action is the Government taking to support New Zealand’s lowest paid workers?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): Successive Labour-led Governments since 1999 have lifted the minimum adult wage by 46 percent. That minimum adult wage now applies for people aged 18, rather than the previous 20 years of age. We have lifted the minimum youth rate by 95 percent.

Hon Mark Gosche: [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that the ruling in the House is that members do not speak when a question is being asked. Mr Rodney Hide was actually doing that. Given the Opposition’s desire to have this House run in order, I think he should be asked to leave the Chamber. I have tried to ask this question about five times while spurious points of order were taken. I think I have a right as a member of this House to ask a question without interruption, and I have been interrupted. I ask the Speaker to take some action on it.

Madam SPEAKER: The member is correct. I heard Mr Hide laugh. I did not hear him actually make an interjection. We had that discussion yesterday, as I recall. There is always a crossover between members coming to their feet and asking their question. I ask members to please maintain a level of silence and order in the House.

Hon Mark Gosche: Has the Minister seen any reports that are opposed to the idea of supporting New Zealand’s lowest-paid workers having higher-quality working lives?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. I have seen a report that suggests we abandon not only the minimum wage but also abandon minimum holiday entitlements, parental leave, and any moves to close the gender pay and employment gap. Those are the wishes of Dr Don Brash.

Sue Bradford: What is the Minister’s view of employers who are circumventing the just announced increase in the minimum wage by reducing service pay or skill allowances by the amount of the increase, thus, in fact, leaving some low-paid workers no better off?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Under the Employment Relations Act any change to employment agreements must be renegotiated in good faith between the employer and the employee. Employers cannot reduce terms and conditions already agreed to in their employment agreements without renegotiating the agreements. If the member knows of any specific instances of this happening, then I warmly invite her to provide them to either me or the department for investigation.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister accept that, in some cases, people who are employed casually are worse off than those who are employed permanently, even those who are employed permanently on a lower wage; if she does accept that, what is the Government doing to address the problems of casualisation?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I do accept that people whose employment is on a casual basis are more vulnerable than those who are in permanent employment, but the minimum wage provisions apply to both situations. At the direct request, again, of the deputy leader of the National Party, I seek leave to table Dr Don Brash’s comments confirming what I relayed in my answer to the supplementary question from the Hon Mark Gosche.

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

Question No. 6 to Minister

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I apologise for not raising this matter earlier, but I would like to give the Minister for Social Development and Employment an opportunity to correct his statement to the House. Earlier today Mr Benson-Pope, in relation to my question as to why he was withholding the results of the review of 12 pilot programmes, answered that he was not actually withholding any reports. I seek leave now to table two documents, one a parliamentary question and the other a letter from Mr Benson-Pope declining on various bases to provide the report.

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

Kyoto Protocol—New Zealand’s Liability

10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: Does he stand by the statement to the House on 16 February 2006 that New Zealand’s Kyoto liability for the first commitment period would be $562 million; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): Under present policy settings the first commitment period liability listed against the Crown accounts is $562 million. However, that liability is revised every May, and my best guess is that the revised price of carbon will rise substantially.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why will the Minister not accept that the cost of Kyoto is now over $1 billion, given that Treasury advised the Local Government and Environment Committee that the median estimate of the carbon price for that period is $16 a tonne, and that the Minister has already accepted a 64 million - tonne deficit—and when I went to school 64 million times $16 came to $1.024 billion?

Hon PETE HODGSON: If the cost did become $1 billion this May, next May, or some other time, it would be $1 billion over 5 years. Without wanting in any way to minimise that, I point out that it would be about one-seventh of 1 percent of GDP over that time. That is the size of it. That cost needs to be weighed against the costs of climate change itself and what happens if the world does nothing.

Hon Marian Hobbs: Further to the comment he has just made, has the Minister seen any reports costing the economic impacts of climate change on New Zealand as opposed to the cost of Kyoto compliance?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I have. From an economic perspective the most significant costs of climate change would be an increase of up to fourfold in flood risk in most regions; a twofold to fourfold increase in drought risk, especially in eastern regions; eroding and retreating coastlines; and changing biosecurity risks. The costs of these impacts are likely to be highly significant for New Zealand. The February 2004 flood cost about $0.3 billion. The late-1990s droughts cost well over $1 billion.

R Doug Woolerton: Would the Minister agree that we should look at the whole Kyoto question again, given that we cannot seem to achieve an international regime that is acceptable to the major players?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member misunderstands the state of play. Every country in the Kyoto world, with the exception of Russia, quite a few Eastern European States, and with a bit of luck Germany, will be buying. That is all of Western Europe, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, etc. New Zealand had hoped to be in the selling list, but we are likely not to be. We would be the only country in the selling list with an ordinary economy—not collapsed like the Eastern European economies—but it is now likely that we too will become buyers.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister explain to the people of New Zealand how sending a cheque to the Russians for $100 million—maybe $1 billion—will make any difference at all to the number of droughts or storms New Zealand might have?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member pretends he does not understand “cap and trade”. The member pretends he does not understand the role of economic instruments. This is despite the fact that the member has given many speeches in favour of Kyoto, of bringing economic and environmental policy together, of “cap and trade”, and of getting on top of climate change. He professes to want a cross-party arrangement. He professes to want to do something, yet at every chance, he gets up and grandstands because he gets his short-term kicks from doing so.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was quite specific. I asked how droughts or floods in New Zealand might be made less severe by sending a cheque to Russia. No part of the Minister’s answer sought to address that question.

Hon PETE HODGSON: If a country receives money from the Kyoto Protocol, it is because the country has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions—[Interruption] Indeed, it has. Because it has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions, the global atmosphere will be less affected, and because the global atmosphere will be less affected, that will make New Zealand’s climate, and the climate of the rest of the world, a little less changed than it otherwise would be.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister recall telling the people of New Zealand that New Zealand stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars from his Government’s decision to ratify Kyoto; and now that we are, in fact, going to have to pay about $1 billion—or $250 for every man, woman, and child—for his blunder, does he believe he owes the public an apology?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I do recall that. I was relying on advice that I received year after year after year from officials—which advice changed in May 2005. Those are the facts of the matter.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has the Minister seen the statement by Dr Kevin Patterson, senior energy analyst at the Ministry of Economic Development, who said: “The energy modelling team at the time did all the work, working out what the projections were going to be. Then they came up with a final number. Then they had a big whack taken off, and that was Pete Hodgson’s initiative.”; and why, pre-election, did the Minister cook the books to hide the scale of his bungling?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I resent the question, actually, because there was no cooking of the books by me pre-election. In fact, 4 months before the election, the bad news of May 2005 came out. That was the timing. The member has forgotten. The truth of the matter is that the reversal of our fortunes occurred 4 months before an election, not afterwards. What is more, I will say straightforwardly to the member that I played no part in influencing that report, except to ask for it to be reviewed.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the news report from the “Business Herald” in which Dr Kevin Patterson said that Pete Hodgson deliberately changed the numbers.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that newspaper report. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Human Rights—United Nations Special Rapporteur's Report

11. Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Deputy Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported comments that the report of the United Nations special rapporteur for indigenous issues is disappointing, unbalanced, and narrow and that the special rapporteur himself is “out of touch … with New Zealand”, and will the Government make a complaint to the United Nations?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): Yes; the Government will provide an appropriate response to the United Nations.

Dr Pita Sharples: Why does the Government, every time a report affirms Māori rights, discredit, deny, and dismiss both the report and the report writer—and, in this case, the United Nations committee that the report writer represents; if the Government’s concerns are so strong, will it request that another international expert be invited to report on indigenous issues in New Zealand; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In answer to those four questions, and perhaps some implicit other questions, firstly, no, we do not do that. Secondly, the committee referred to is in such ill odour that it is being abolished and replaced because it is seen as quite inadequate in terms of its performance over a number of years, and, in fact, the report is littered with errors of fact and interpretation. I recall, for the information of the House, having Mr Stavenhagen in my office. He was quite stunned to find out that most Māori live in towns and cities. After being around the country, he thought most Māori lived in isolated rural settlements.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the report refer to a “law on indigenous rights” when there is no such law; is that one of the reasons why a number of UN countries are looking to a new human rights council—something that might have credibility in the future?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, my understanding is that that reference is made, and that law clearly does not exist. There are many errors within the report that are simple errors of fact, not least in relation to the legal decisions regarding foreshore and seabed, both pre and post the Ngāti Apa decision and pre and post the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

Dr Pita Sharples: Will the Minister confirm which of the following people he was referring to on National Radio this morning as “the usual collection of academic radicals”, given that the consultation included himself, Parekura Horomia—

Madam SPEAKER: Order!

Dr Pita Sharples: —Nanaia Mahuta, chief executives and senior officials from 12 Government departments, the Human Rights Commission, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Māori Land Court, paramount chief Tumu te Heuheu, and kaumatua, kuia, and leaders of Kāi Tahu, Hauraki, Ngāti Whātua, Taranaki, and many other iwi throughout the motu?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I noticed, and noticed that you noticed, that Parekura Horomia interjected during the course of that question. Having had your very harsh sanction, I wondered why you chose not to take any action.

Madam SPEAKER: I heard several people making comment during that question. That is why I said “Order!”. I did not identify any particular person at the time. If every person who made a comment or laughed during that left the Chamber, we would probably have few left. So I ask members please to respect those who are on their feet asking the question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Different rules.

Madam SPEAKER: They are not different rules, Dr Smith.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order—

Madam SPEAKER: No, I ask Dr Smith to please withdraw and apologise for that statement. I try very hard not to have different rules but to maintain order in this House.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The people referred to by the member cover a very wide range of political views. It was certainly my very clear impression, when I talked to the UN rapporteur, that he was mainly influenced by one or two academic radicals at Auckland University and a few other people he had met. I asked him whether he had actually talked to any large numbers of urban Māori. He seemed somewhat surprised to hear that there were large numbers of urban Māori.

Youth Development, Ministry—Performance

12. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Youth Affairs: Is she satisfied with the performance of the Ministry of Youth Development?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Youth Affairs): Yes.

Anne Tolley: Why has the Minister continued to ignore warnings from the Ministry of Youth Development’s partner, the Gisborne District Council, about the risks of granting $118,000 of public money for a proposal that the council describes as “vague, lacking in definition, with a sloppy budget”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Because the chief executive has entered into the agreement and signed off on it.

Anne Tolley: Is the Minister confident that the grant of $118,000 in Gisborne will be used for new activities, or will the ministry continue to ignore double-dipping by a community group, as warnings from the Gisborne District Council suggest?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The Youth Development Partnership Fund is a partnership fund with local councils to ensure that new initiatives or existing initiatives can be entered into on behalf of youth in the local community. The Ministry of Youth Development will be discussing with the council any concerns that have been raised in regard to that particular contract. Let me reiterate that that particular contract has been endorsed by the chief executive of the Gisborne District Council.

Anne Tolley: Is the Minister unconcerned about the wise expenditure of $766,000 nationally on the Ministry of Youth Development’s youth development contracts because, firstly, all the ongoing risks are left not with the Ministry of Youth Development but with the councils, which feel that they are expected to rubber-stamp such proposals at the eleventh hour, and, secondly, there are no ongoing management or monitoring costs for the Ministry of Youth Development to face?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The Youth Development Partnership Fund is a partnership fund that works with councils. Agreements, in terms of the contract arrangements, are strictly between the Ministry of Youth Development and the council. Any concerns in relation to that particular contract are currently being discussed with the ministry and the council.

Darren Hughes: What focus do those projects that are funded through the Youth Development Partnership Fund have to have to meet funding criteria?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The Youth Development Partnership Fund was launched in October 2005. It enables the Ministry of Youth Development to respond to emerging youth needs, and create new opportunities, by partnering with territorial authorities. The theme for this year is education, training, and employment. It rolls off the back of the Mayors Task Force for Jobs, and is an important part of working with territorial authorities. Successful applicants for the first round of funding include 12 projects throughout the country. Let me say again that any concerns in relation to that particular contract are currently being worked through with the Gisborne District Council and the Ministry of Youth Development.

Anne Tolley: Has the Minister pursued this Gisborne project, and maybe $766,000 worth of projects nationally, despite a raft of concerns about financial accountability, duplication, double-dipping, and even the very need for the project, in order just to be seen to be doing something, and to counter observations from people like Stephen Bell of Youthline, who stated that there is no point in developing a youth development strategy if it just sits on the shelf as a pretty book?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The Youth Development Partnership Fund is an important partnership fund that actually gives life to the youth development strategy. Any issue in relation to that particular contract is a matter currently being discussed and worked through. It is not money being frittered away. It is money that actually supports positive youth development. We want all young people in New Zealand to grow up to be proud, confident Kiwi kids, culturally diverse and respected in today’s society.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Can the Minister confirm that through the strong Government support and the efforts of a whole lot of communities in Gisborne, people in that area are really revelling in the contract signed up to by youth organisations such as the Kaiti youth group?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I can confirm that the Gisborne District Council wants to ensure that young people are supported, and the Youth Development Partnership Fund is one way of achieving that. I seek leave for the member Anne Tolley to table any correspondence she may have that supports her claim that—

Madam SPEAKER: The member knows she cannot seek leave on behalf of another member.

Points of Order

Tauranga Court Case—Payment

BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to clear something up. A few minutes ago I received a letter stating that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has paid up. It states generally that he has—

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

General Debate

General Debate

RON MARK (NZ First): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Is it not interesting here today? One can easily see when the supposed mainstream Opposition has nothing to whinge about, because we revert to tittle-tattle and personal snides and slights come from very inexperienced members of the House, who are overpaid for doing very little work, at all.

During the election period, all of us were out there on the hustings listening to people—[Interruption] There they go, baying like poodles. We were out on the hustings listening to people tell us about their concerns. Rather than promising to get into the dirt, and to roll around in the muck with Rodney Hide and all those other grubby little cretins, we in New Zealand First made some promises to some people. And have I got good news for all those people who voted for New Zealand First—and even for the elderly gentlemen in the back row of the National caucus who are about to superannuate after the next election. While some people are rolling around in the muck and making personal attacks on other MPs, others are getting on and doing the work.

What sort of work has New Zealand First been engaged in? Members will remember that during the election campaign we met all those people who were complaining about the $9 economy, about underpaid work, and about casual labourers. Well, there is some good news. What is the good news? New Zealand First has secured a rise in the minimum wage. Is that not good news? And all those people out there will be thanking New Zealand First for doing that.

What other good news is there? New Zealand First, as a result of its agreement with Labour, has secured an increase in superannuation—[Interruption]—and even “Mr Noddy” over there is saying that that is amazing. I cannot remember his name. From 27 March workers earning the minimum wage will receive a pay rise of nearly 8 percent, taking that wage to $10.25 an hour. Is that not amazing? That is an important step towards our $12 an hour target.

On 1 April the rate of superannuation rose. But wait—there is more than just the fact that superannuation rose. One of the key promises of New Zealand First during the election campaign was that we would peg superannuation so it would never ever fall below 65 percent of the average working wage. Has that happened? Yes, that has happened—thank you, New Zealand First! Can we fix it? Yes, we have done the deal.

What else have we done? Well, the golden age card is coming up. Even Bob Clarkson will get a golden age card. But here is the great news about the golden age card. All the corporates who have been funding a failed National Party campaign are now coming to New Zealand First and saying: “This golden age card—can we be on it?”. That golden age card will be the tear jerker and the heartbreaker in the community, because not only will superannuitants get a card that gives them Government-sponsored discounts on power, phone, prescriptions, and doctors fees, but now the corporates—which will not back National next time—are coming to New Zealand First and saying: “We can tap in on this; we can help superannuitants.” That golden age card will become a billion-dollar card, mark our words, and superannuitants—[Interruption] Yes, Gerry Brownlee’s mum and dad, Lindsay Tisch’s mum and dad, and Mr Bennett’s grandfather, will all benefit, and I say to Mr Bennett that if they do not want it, they can just hand the money right on back. But that card was from New Zealand First. Did we fix it? Yes we did.

What else has New Zealand First done? What about the Tauranga Harbour Bridge? The old duffer in Tauranga was running around saying that he was going to put Tauranga on the map, but he is totally irrelevant now. The Tauranga Harbour Bridge will be toll free. Can we fix it? It is a done deal; it is good news from New Zealand First. Tauranga residents, who are already saying: “Did we really elect that guy to Parliament? Did you hear him speak the other day?”, are cringing. Members of the blue-rinse brigade are worried that he might fondle certain parts of his anatomy in public, but actually the biggest criticism now is that he cannot put two words together without making himself look like a raging idiot. But New Zealand First is still there, supporting Tauranga. Did we fix it? Yes, we did.

What about the 1,000 new cops? I say: “How do you like those babies!”. There are 1,000 front-line police in blue uniforms. The police are already telling us that they cannot handle the number of job applications. Is that not good news? And it is not just 1,000 uniformed staff—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Then why are you on 2 percent in the polls? Actually, it could be in the negative.

RON MARK: Oh, Mr Williamson is there—the computer whiz kid. He was going to solve the problems of the police force. He gave the police a computer to go and catch criminals. That is what he did, but it did not have any legs. It could not run fast enough. New Zealand First: can we fix it? We sure as hell can.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): Well, who would believe that New Zealand First is not part of the Government? Ron has gone home—Ron has gone back to his Labour roots. During the adjournment Helen Clark will reshuffle her Cabinet. We know that because she was a little uncertain about what to do with the finance Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You would expect that when a member has been here for some time he might know the Standing Orders. It is not proper for Mr Brownlee to refer to someone by his or her Christian name. It is proper that he calls Mr Mark by his full name, or refers to him as “the honourable member”, or major, or sir, in his case, but not by his Christian name. The member should be asked to stay within the Standing Orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is correct. All members know that members should be referred to by their correct name. So would the member please refer to the member by his correct name.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I withdraw and apologise. My friend Paku is signalling me from the gallery to say that his friend Ron does not mind being referred to by his first name.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, no. The member knows that that is incorrect—the member had better withdraw and apologise.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I apologise, Madam Assistant Speaker. The point is that Helen Clark is going to reshuffle her Cabinet. She has to. She knows that Michael Cullen has got tired. He is a little uncertain about whether he wants to carry on, and, more than that, she is uncertain about whether she wants him to carry on. We know that Pete Hodgson has completely lost the plot. He is in severe need of some sabbatical, and he also has put himself on the managed exit list, along with Russell Fairbrother, Dianne Yates, and our old friend the former member for Whanganui. The certainty is that despite the rumours—the strong rumours—Ron Mark will not be in that ministry.

Hon Members: Oh, no!

GERRY BROWNLEE: I know—people on this side of the House think he is a competent man, but despite that speech today, New Zealand First is not part of the Government. Despite the fact that every time the Prime Minister gets into trouble Winston “the trained poodle” Peters gets on his hind legs, Winston is insisting that New Zealand First is not part of the Government. We just keep seeing, day after day, examples of why New Zealand First is not part of the Government.

Earlier in the week the Auditor-General reported on the arrangements the Government has with the Green Party. Those arrangements have been spun by the Government as being perfectly acceptable, and the Prime Minister has said that there is nothing the Government needs to change. The reality is that the Auditor-General found a lot of things that need to change. The Auditor-General agreed with the National Party that Helen Clark had freely dipped into the taxpayer purse in order to cobble together an arrangement that suited her and ensured her longevity. The sad thing is that the Auditor-General could not make any comments about the constitutional issues that arise out of that situation.

So we now have a Parliament that cannot go directly to the people who are organising Government policy on the Buy Kiwi Made campaign, and, more important, cannot go directly to the person who is organising Government policy on energy conservation—something that is critical to this country’s future. It is time that someone, somewhere inside the Government showed enough integrity to insist that those people somehow become accountable directly to this Parliament. I do not hold out any hope that that integrity will be shown by anyone in Helen Clark’s Government, nor by anyone who is supporting her Government but who, for that matter, is not part of it.

Then there is the other issue that has come to light today, and I am sure that my colleague Bill English will speak more on it. It has to be a sign that a Government is in its last days when two former Ministers are being investigated by Government agencies, or by special people appointed by the Government to investigate them, and the ninth floor is donkey deep in ensuring the outcome from those investigations. That is the way in which this Government works. Helen Clark has the belief that her right to run this country cannot be challenged. It is an inappropriate way for someone to operate, and it will catch up with her later.

Then there is the extraordinary dispute between Dr Cullen and Helen Clark. It does not matter what sort of spin Helen Clark wants to put on it, the reality is that there was a 24-hour silence once she had first spoken. She may say in here today that Dr Cullen is her loyal deputy, that she supports him, and that as long as he is there she wants him there, but for 24 hours that man was hung out. It will be only his own toughness that sees him still sitting in that seat today. What we do know is that the two strongest people in this Government are clearly at loggerheads. When that sort of breakdown occurs, the end is very close.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): It is a bit rich for Gerry Brownlee to even utter the words “loyal deputy”, because everybody knows that that was a bid for the leadership, albeit a pretty pathetic bid for the leadership. The three National Party members there—John Key, Bill English, and Gerry Brownlee—all looked at the poll on Sunday, saw that National was 3 percent behind and that 45 percent of the New Zealand public had voted overwhelmingly that Dr Brash was not up to the job, and each one of those men want the job. I give members this prediction. Dr Brash will still be there, because those three are cutting each other’s throats. Not one of those three have what it takes to be a leader, nor will that pathetic party in Opposition—the once-great National Party—ever persuade New Zealand that it is anywhere near ready to be in Government.

I take up one thing with Gerry Brownlee. He had to apologise twice in the first minute of that speech. He should have just apologised and sat down. He did not add anything. However, he did try to imply improper influence by the Prime Minister’s office with the Companies Office. He knows that implication is untrue, he knows it is dishonest, and he knows it is totally unsubstantiated. I predict that when that implication is proved to be wrong he will not come in here to apologise for the smear tactic he has just tried in this House.

Do those members not learn anything? They used smear tactics against David Benson-Pope. Judith Collins and Rodney Hide tried everything in the book and said improper things. None of it bore any truth, and none of it had any traction with the electorate. But they do not learn. They use personal abuse, because they have nothing of substance to add to this House or to our country. As for Rodney Hide, even the founder of ACT said at ACT’s own conference that Rodney Hide was the reason the ACT party has practically disappeared in the polls.

This has been a bad week for the National Party but a great week for ordinary New Zealanders. On 1 April, 470,000 New Zealanders had the burden of interest rates on their student loans lifted from their shoulders. What better message can we give to the young people of this country that we want to motivate them to get more skills and more education for themselves, their families, and the country than to relieve them of the burden of that debt?

I ask Gerry Brownlee or John Key whether National would reimpose the burden of interest rates. We will not get an answer today, but those two members said they were totally against lifting the burden of interest rates from student loans. Last Friday Bill English said he was wrong, it had not led to students taking out more loans, and that National would keep the policy. Bill English said yes, and Gerry Brownlee and John Key said no. They are totally without direction. No wonder they have no credibility in this country.

What did we hear yesterday? We heard Shane Ardern say he would reverse the legislation passed by the previous National Government, abandon science-based biosecurity, and not let honey that the biosecurity people have said was safe to bring into this country come into this country. He got away with saying that in the House. The people I admire in this House, like Lockwood Smith and Tim Groser, who know something about trade, absolutely cringed. The National Party is trying to be everything to everybody and it ends up being nothing to anyone. That is why it is in its third term of Opposition, and that is why it will stay there for a fourth term.

What about decent, hard-working New Zealand families? If we take a family with a couple of kids that is on between $25,000 and $45,000 a year, it will be getting $100 tax relief in its pockets this week. I think that is great. Who on the National Party bench will say that National members would reverse that? They have said—here is the criticism—that MPs might get something. They said Heather Roy might get something if her husband had not been working, but because he is, she will not get anything. Twenty bucks a week—I ask John Key what the National Party was promising. It was promising $5,000 a year to people who did not need the money and were well-off already, and National members whinge and whine in this House because we have lifted the threshold levels so that decent, hard-working families will get money to help raise their families.

I mention an article from the New Zealand Herald, which states that this is some pay rise for ordinary hard-working New Zealanders. It states that it is richly deserved, and that it recognises the role families play in bringing up their kids. The article features a Polynesian family that said its kids would now have fruit in their lunch. This is a good Government and I am proud of what it is doing.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): Perhaps the enthusiasm of Mr Goff today is because he has spied his opportunity in his own party—an opportunity he is well known for keeping a sharp eye out for. Have we not seen it before? A Labour Government comes apart, because its Minister of Finance and Prime Minister are at odds. That is what happened back in 1987.

What has happened this week is more important than the marginal legal activities of many members of the current executive, because what has happened is that trust and confidence between Dr Michael Cullen and Helen Clark has been broken. It has been broken because she expressed in public the view that she did not know whether he would stay on. He was rather concerned about those comments, and as my colleague Gerry Brownlee pointed out to the House, it was a couple of days of talking until it was resolved.

We know that Helen Clark is very keen to try to make this Government look like it is refreshed and renewed. We know that Dr Cullen has been behaving in an increasingly irrational way. He has expressed views that he is tired and irritated, but he has not expressed the view—which I am sure he holds—that he is getting a bit fed up with Helen Clark taking all the credit for a good economic time that she had nothing to do with. Dr Cullen is getting tired of her taking all the credit for the stability of Government when he does all the hard work, and I sympathise with him. [Interruption] But those who have been in Cabinet—which the member who almost lost Otaki has not—will know how corrosive it is when the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister lose confidence in each other. Because the question remains unanswered—will Dr Cullen continue throughout the term?

Clearly the Prime Minister is covering her options. That is why she moved Trevor Mallard into a finance portfolio; that is why she has fed Phil Goff the line that he has a chance of being Minister of Finance, as compensation for taking foreign affairs off him—

Gerry Brownlee: Wouldn’t that be good.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That would be good. But, of course, the Prime Minister has been preoccupied with her own machinations. I cannot believe that she stood up in this House today and admitted that officials from her department have been communicating with the statutorily independent Companies Office, which is involved right now in considering whether to prosecute a senior Minister in the Government. Helen Clark is desperate to have David Parker back in Cabinet. She believes it is critical to the stability of the Government. But I say that this Government and this country are paying too high a price for her obsession with stability, because she is now interfering in the decision making of an independent statutory body.

As a Minister I would never have considered instructing an official, taking advice from an official, or letting an official in my office if that official had communicated with the Companies Office in these circumstances. It would have been unimaginable. It is a measure of the extent to which Helen Clark has eroded the standards of propriety in Government that it is not even regarded as that significant that she has been briefed, via her officials, about the length of time that investigation will take. That is what she has owned up to—what is it that she has not owned up to?

I am told that an opinion has been written by the Companies Office—I know the name of the officer who said he or she wrote it—and it was handed to the Prime Minister’s department. I believe that is why Helen Clark changed her position on the seriousness of David Parker’s actions. She changed her view from being that they were mistakes warranting his resignation, to allegations from which he might be cleared and be back in Cabinet.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): Listeners tuning into this debate today could be excused if they thought the National Party had been struck down with a new disease. It is called snivelling syndrome—everything is bad; nothing is good. Boohoo, they are “going down the garden to eat worms”! There are bogeymen, conspiracies, and malicious fabrications. We have just heard the biggest one from Bill English, who accused the Prime Minister of asking for information. She never asked for that information. He made it up, as he makes things up in this House everyday. The member knows it was made up, as he walks out of the Chamber unable to face the fact that he is making up stories in this House for political advantage. Let us use the words of Shakespeare to describe National members—they are droning, flap-mouthed gutter gripers. We do not need a vaccine against bird flu, we actually need an anti-snivel vaccine for the National Party.

I would not worry about the leadership of the Labour Party, but I would be very worried if I sat on the front bench of the National Party, as its members look sideways at each other. Who will be the next person to pull out the knife? Who will be the first person to get rid of their leader? Plotting and backstabbing are the order of the day in the National Party.

I say that 1 April was a red-letter—[Interruption] Oh, Maurice Williamson is still here—is that not amazing? Of course, he has moved from the third bench to the second bench. Well done, Maurice! If he stays there long enough they might even let him sit on the front bench, again.

But I was saying that 1 April was a red-letter day for thousands of New Zealanders—for students, for old people, and for families. I listen in this House to members opposite, and they love to talk about families. They are very caring about families in theory, but they are careless in practice. I want to give them some examples today of how this Government is caring about families. They are real examples—not theoretical examples—of what this Government is doing.

For example, in relation to the Working for Families package I took this straight out of Saturday’s New Zealand Herald, which some people may have read. It refers to a benefit boost, and states there is a good advantage for the Fe’ao family in Auckland—a family with seven children. Of course, National members are probably appalled that anyone has seven children, except for Bill English. This family with seven children had a gross income of $38,000 a year, and it was losing a lot of its benefits through claw-back until this change came in. That family will now be $409 a week better off.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: More welfare.

Hon ANNETTE KING: That family man, Nick Smith, is yelling out that that is boring. It is boring to him that that family is getting $409 a week more. Does Nick Smith think that that family would not say that this will make a huge difference to them? They are saying that it will make a huge difference.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: More welfare.

Hon ANNETTE KING: He never said it was welfare when farmers got subsidies. He never said it was welfare when exporters got help from hard-working taxpayers. But when families get help from the taxpayers of New Zealand—good hard-working families who go to work every day, have children, and bring them up properly—he says it is welfare. We say that it is the proper assistance that we ought to give to families.

Let us take another story on Saturday. This one was in the Dominion Post and it is headed: “Student spared a small fortune on interest fees”. It states: “At only 22, Cathryn O’Sullivan still can’t get her head around the fact that she owes the Government $100,000. But the sixth-year medical student is ‘absolutely elated’ that from today she will no longer be charged interest on her loan. She is one of thousands of students and loan-holders who will benefit from Labour’s interest-free scheme that comes into effect today.” I am quoting that. One of our good young doctors will save $100,000 in interest on that loan. What a good Government!

JOHN KEY (National—Helensville): That was a tired speech from a tired Minister in a tired Government. I know why she is tired. It is because she did what every other Labour Minister did on Sunday morning. Last Sunday was a little different from most other Sundays because Labour Ministers got up knowing that the Listener was coming out on sale. So Labour Ministers set their alarms for 7 a.m. as they were just not quite sure who Helen Clark was going to finger. The word had gone out that there was a message for one of the front bench. Annette King knew that she had gone from the all-important health portfolio to police, and she knew she could be the one to be mentioned by Helen Clark. I hear from the Rongotai dairy owner who sold her a copy at 7.01 a.m. that the look on her face was one of relief as she got back into her self-drive ministerial car knowing that Michael Cullen was the one to be fingered.

I feel a little sympathy for Michael Cullen. He has spent 30 years slaving away in the shadow of Helen Clark. It is a shadow that is cast from some very far-flung parts of the range as she traverses the Earth at all-important functions like some inter-parliamentary faith conference—as opposed to the Commonwealth Games, which she did not have time to pop over to. For 30 years Michael Cullen has stood behind her, loyally supporting her. How was he treated last Sunday when the Listener came out? He was treated with a kick in the teeth. He must have choked on his chewing gum when he woke up to read that article. Helen Clark, who described herself as a close friend and colleague of Michael Cullen for 30 years, was there in print musing about his imminent departure.

No wonder Michael Cullen was a little miffed. This is a man who is not usually short of a comment, yet 2 days went by before Michael Cullen could find anything to say. That is because he had to oversee a very unusual situation. It was a macabre kind of scene—something like The Godfather, with Helen Clark playing her new role as “The Godmother” as a sort of real-life, female version of Marlon Brando. Was she really trying to tell the trusted deputy Michael Cullen that he now sleeps with the fishes? Is that what she was trying to tell him through the pages of the Listener magazine? Was she trying to tell him that he was about to have a horse’s head delivered to his parliamentary bed? That is what he thought was coming. Poor old Michael Cullen—after 30 years. Of course, the next day she played it out beautifully on screen. What did she say? She said: “I am going to encourage him to stay.” That sounded really convincing. She said that even though he is in his early 60s, and even though he is engrossed with what he will do next, she will encourage him to stay.

Michael Cullen went to the seventh floor and did what any self-respecting Minister of Finance would do after he has been treated like that—he sulked for 24 hours. He said to Mike Jaspers: “You get out there and tell them I’ve got nothing to say. No comment. I don’t have anything to say about a woman I’ve loyally supported for 30 years, and she’s come out in the Listener and kicked me in the guts.” One has to ask why Helen, in her new modern-day role as a female Marlon Brando, made that comment. There are two options. The first option is that she knew from Michael Cullen that he was off. She would only confirm one Budget. [Interruption] Let us get the facts right, I say to Mrs King. She said: “One budget—I can’t see any further than that.” Or she was trying to send him a message just like the message she sent to Dover Samuels, Jill Pettis, Georgina Beyer, George Hawkins—

Hon Maurice Williamson: “The Godmother”!

JOHN KEY: —exactly—Russell Fairbrother, and Marian Hobbs, and the list goes on. They are all gone. Poor old Michael Cullen! He has got the DVD and the video at home. He knows what it is like when the ninth floor plays it out against the seventh floor and does it through the force of the State. Michael Cullen deserves a lot better than that.

In Budget 2005—and we all accept on this side of the House that it was an absolute and unmitigated disaster—Michael Cullen said something that I thought was very interesting. He said that Budgets do not win elections but they can lose them. Well, when he delivers one like that, he can lose it, all right. There was Helen Clark smarting from the fact that she had the unloseable election, the second term, snatched from within her grasp—

Darren Hughes: Third term.

JOHN KEY: She was within millimetres of her third term when it was snatched from her grasp because Michael Cullen could not deliver a Budget—and she kicked him in the guts.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I rise on behalf of the Māori Party to discuss the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, on His Mission to New Zealand. It is a report that focuses on the injustice wide across the political and social spectrum.

The report to the United Nations describes the Foreshore and Seabed Act as a process by which the Crown extinguished all Māori extant rights to the foreshore and seabed, in the name of public interest. The rapporteur recognised that Governments cannot unilaterally extinguish indigenous rights through any means, without the free, prior, and informed consent of the concerned indigenous peoples. Māori did not give any type of consent to the action of the Government to the confiscation of the foreshore and seabed. The special rapporteur therefore recommends that the Foreshore and Seabed Act be repealed, that Te Tiriti o Waitangi be entrenched in the constitution, that the MMP electoral system be constitutionally entrenched to guarantee adequate representation of Māori in the legislature and at regional and local governance levels, and that there be recognition of, and meaningful provision for, Māori as a distinct people who posses their own system of knowledge, philosophy, and law.

Throughout the country today, Māori leaders have been commending the rapporteur’s report for what John McInteer described as: “an insightful and intelligent report”; a report that is wide ranging and displaying good understanding of the situation. The head of Māori Studies at Auckland University, Professor Margaret Mutu, said that the Government cannot keep ignoring international criticism of its treatment of Māori.

Next week the four Māori members of the Māori Party will be embarking on a nationwide tour of our constituencies, and presenting the draft bill to them for their appraisal and comment. We will also be taking the report of the special rapporteur back to the people. We will be listening to Māori people.

What has the Government said? Its own admission that “nothing much will happen” is now on public record as to how much it cares about the status of United Nations reports, and how it cares even less for the well-being and prosperity of tangata whenua. The Government has unilaterally discredited the report, those who contributed to the rapporteur’s visit, the rapporteur, and the United Nations committee—even the number of days the rapporteur spent in this country. Millions of people throughout the world believe that the world was created in 7 days. Well, 9 days for the rapporteur to assess our situation in Aotearoa is pretty good by that standard.

In respect of Treaty settlements, the tangata whenua have been questioning the nature and process of the Treaty evasion that this Government has undertaken right across the policy spectrum. The United Nations report states that Māori’s ancestral land base has been appropriated by a variety of historical processes, including voluntary sale, fraudulent purchase, confiscation, and alienation of land through legislative subterfuge. Indeed, the rapporteur suggests that the fact that the results in any redress are dependent on both the Government’s and the claimants’ willingness to reach an agreement, is a matter of coercion. Standover tactics used by the Government to force a settlement to its conclusion could be referred to as extortion if John Citizen did the same thing in the street. One law for all? Or does it apply only to dogs? In the view of the special rapporteur, such redress as may be negotiated in the historical claims process seems, on the basis of experience so far, to fall short of “just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered”.

In view of the importance of the Treaty as a founding constitutional document, the special rapporteur considers that the entrenchment of the Treaty of Waitangi in constitutional law is long overdue. Rather than continue to disregard, dismiss, and deny, perhaps the Government could respond calmly in the light of day to the recommendation of the special rapporteur with these words: “These wider constitutional and societal issues need to be debated responsibly and democratically by all social and political actors concerned, because their solution will determine the kind of society New Zealand will be in future.” The Māori Party does not think that that is a big ask of this House.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka): Of course, 1 April was a great day for New Zealand and New Zealanders, as many of my colleagues have outlined. But I want to return to a theme I talked about a couple of weeks ago, which is perhaps the main thing on the National Party’s mind: the National Party hack handicap for the leadership race. Before I do that, though, I think it is important to ask a question. What I really want to know is how much political correctness “The Eradicator” has eradicated since he became “The Eradicator”. So I asked some questions. Is it 50 PC things, or 40, or 10, or is it maybe five? I have learnt that it is zero PC things—absolutely zero, zip, not a sausage. Not one PC thing has been eradicated by the PC eradicator. He came in with great hope, but none have been eradicated at all. So I think the PC eradicator should do us all a favour and eradicate the PC eradicator, because clearly he is a waste of space.

I want to go back to my main theme, which is the National Party hack handicap. I reported on that race a couple of weeks ago, and talked about the TAB odds being placed on each horse. To recap on some of the horses, there is “Bold ‘n’ Brash” out of the Reserve Bank stable, “Gerry Can” out of the St Bede’s College stable, “Key to the Door”, which is from the only State house stable that is in this race, “The English Patient”, which is a horse all the way from Winton, “Wind Power” from Rangitīkei, “Punch and Judy” from the New Zealand Law Society, and “That’s Rich”—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may recall that earlier in the afternoon I was required by you to alter my speech considerably, because of the way I was referring to members. I accept this is perhaps the one moment of creativity that Mr Swain has displayed in his entire parliamentary career, but I think you should be consistent and ask him to refer to members by their proper name.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is quite right. The member on his feet must refer to members of Parliament by their correct names.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Let us look at the odds for these horses. Don Brash, last time I reported, was at about $1.40, but I have to report to the House that he has slipped back to $1.50. He has been invisible and had no impact; that is why he has gone down from $1.40 to $1.50.

Hon Annette King: Where is Don Brash?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: That is the question everybody asks. Then linked into that is Mr Key. He was at $1.50 last time and there has been no change, because he has been a bit quiet—a bit below the radar. We now have a head-to-head race between Don Brash and John Key. They are paying $1.50 each.

Then, of course, we have Gerry Brownlee. I reported last time he was at $8 for the win, but he has slipped right back to $9 for the win, because he has been absolutely invisible, trying to make fuss and nonsense out of nothing. The point is that there is no place bet on Mr Gerry Brownlee.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I notice that Mr Swain referred to me as being invisible, and I want to thank him!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows that is not a point of order.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Gerry Brownlee has gone down to $9, and the point is that there is no place bet on that member. When the final reshuffle happens, he will be nowhere to be seen. So there is no place bet on Gerry Brownlee. He has slipped from $8 to $9, and I suspect the punters will not keep with him for much longer.

Then we have Bill English. He started out at $2 last time, but has slipped to $2.20. He has been making a fool of himself on issues like the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and student loans, so most people realise that he will not prove to be a good bet in the end. Then we have Simon Power. He started out at $3.50 and there is no change to that, because he also is under the radar.

We have only two place bets at the moment. Judith Collins started out at $5 but is not likely to get there in the end, because she is not really liked by the other jockeys. So there will be some pressure on her. I think a good place bet for those who are following the race is a $3 place bet on Katherine Rich. She is from a younger stable, she is brighter, and she actually prefers a clean race. Have members noticed that? She is not like the other person in the race, who prefers a bit more of a dirty race. This is a clean race, and I think the punters will take over.

Darren Hughes: John has worked it out.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Yes, John Key has worked it out. He is known to be very canny. He is hanging in behind there, just waiting.

The point is that since I reported on this matter to the House a few weeks ago there has been a bit of change. Now, we have a dead heat between Don Brash at $1.50 and John Key at $1.50. I think everybody is now looking to see what will be happening to the money—and the good money—

Darren Hughes: What about Nick Smith?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Nick Smith is in the knacker’s yard. He is heading for the dog’s meat factory. He is not even being considered. I think some of the good money that was on Simon Power will probably start to shift shortly. I think people have realised that Gerry Brownlee is really out of the race too, although a few punters are still hanging on. He is not a bad performer in the House, so he is still hanging on a bit. But I think the money will shift and go on to one of the other two contenders. I think this will be a two-horse race, and I look forward to seeing it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The only sure bet is that this Government is on the ropes and on the way out. It is a tired, divided Government that is reeking with scandal. We just look through the lack of moral authority that it has to govern, by going through its front bench. We can look in terms of Trevor Mallard and the mess he has made of young people’s scholarship and examinations. We can look at Steve Maharey and the mess he has made of tertiary education, which has to be cleaned up by Dr Cullen. Then we look at the Prime Minister with “paintergate”, with “corngate”, with “Doone-gate”, with “speedgate”, with the pledge-card mess, and now the Auditor-General’s report on the dodgy arrangements for buying off the Green Party’s support. Now, we have the splits at the highest level of the Government between Dr Cullen and Helen Clark, which show the degree to which the Government is on the way out.

The problem for the Government is that every single one of its front-bench Ministers has a track record of messing things up for ordinary New Zealanders, which now sees the reputation of those Ministers in tatters.

I just want to highlight further the debacle that has occurred over Kyoto in just 1 year. A year ago we were to believe that New Zealanders were to make hundreds of millions of dollars from the Government’s decision to ratify Kyoto. Then it had to admit, prior to the election, that not only had the numbers reversed to negative but New Zealand faced a $560 million bill, as a consequence of ratifying Kyoto. Then today the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, Pete Hodgson, the master of this mess, more or less admitted in the House that it was not $500 million but a billion dollars. Then he said that that was not very much. So a billion dollars is not very much! It actually comes to $250 for every man, woman, and child in this country. We face that huge price, because Prime Minister Helen Clark wanted a pretty photo opportunity in South Africa with her left-wing mates by early ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. That is what it came down to.

Hon David Carter: Sold New Zealanders down the drain.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: She sold New Zealanders down the drain. We now have a huge price. Then in the House today Pete Hodgson made another amazing comment that if we pay a billion dollars to the Russians, the weather will be better. How many members believe that? Maybe if we pay $2 billion to the Russians, Pete Hodgson will be able to guarantee the weather for New Zealanders.

But it is more serious, because this week we have a senior scientist within the Ministry of Economic Development saying that it was not officials who had goofed the numbers, but it was at Pete Hodgson’s direction. Let me read out what Dr Kevin Patterson had to say about who was responsible for this mess: “The energy modelling team at the time did all the work, working out what the projections were going to be. Then they came up with a final number and they had this big whack taken out of it, and that was Pete Hodgson’s initiative.” The reporter asked: “So you’re saying Pete Hodgson stuffed it up?”. “That’s right.”, the senior official said. So not only do we have a billion-dollar mess-up, not only do we have this Government covering it up—that is what the Auditor-General said—but also we now have the knowledge that it is actually a billion-dollar problem. The reality for the Government is that the chickens are coming home to roost. They are coming home to roost in terms of the breakdown in the relationship between Prime Minister Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. They are coming home to roost in terms of the mess that was made with the Tertiary Education Commission in respect of Kyoto, etc. It is time this Government gave it up so that a decent Government could take control.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): What a shame to see the member for the Opposition with such a single, tunnel-vision focus—and without a policy, I might add, on what the Opposition is going to do about climate change.

I wonder whether the Opposition actually woke up on 1 April this year, because it was a pretty exciting day. It was a red-letter day for families young and old in New Zealand, and did they not know it!

Hon Dr Nick Smith: April Fool’s Day.

STEVE CHADWICK: It was no joke, and this Government was not fooling. I was at City Focus in Rotorua with my little laptop, showing families what they will get with targeted tax relief. I can tell the members opposite that those families were absolutely thrilled. I had people coming up to me. I would whistle them over and say: “Do you realise that your family may be entitled to some family tax relief from 1 April?”. We would go through the programme and they could not believe it. They qualified for in-work support.

My family of three children not only had interest taken off their student loans but they got some targeted tax relief. What a difference it will make to them! They are in that emerging group of the so-called middle class. That is what the Opposition calls them. They are children who have come back from the United Kingdom prepared to face their student debt and also to contribute to New Zealand’s identity. What will they get? With two children, on $60,000—middle class, as they would say over on those benches—and with a mortgage, they will get $120 a week from their in-work payment, and it will make a huge difference to their lives. It will actually put food on their table.

And there was Mrs Tangohau in Rotorua. She said: “If you don’t have the strength in your families, your children are going to be in trouble.” She is a wonderful woman; a solo parent with four children, on $25,000 year. She came up to me and she did not know about the package. She is going to get in-work payment, keep family assistance, and get some accommodation supplement. She was thrilled. She is one of three out of every four New Zealand families who will have some more bread on the table. It was a red-letter day. It was a day when I, as a Labour member of Parliament in this House, felt so proud to be going out there amongst our community

I also went to a hui at a primary school, where 80 Māori parents turned up to learn about their children’s education and discuss education issues. One woman came up to me and said: “I have had three part-time jobs. With this family assistance through Working for Families, I am going to stop part-time work, and I’m going to be home with my children. Thank you for that because it’s going to help me keep my children on track with their learning and be able to make sure they get good food, get their homework done, and get into bed.” For us, as Labour members in this House, that package is about building strong families, and those families are going to contribute to the economic benefits of this country in the future. I am really proud to be a Labour member who actually brings that about for families young and old.

Superannuitants were also absolutely delighted. In my electorate alone, 43,000 superannuitants are going to benefit by having up to $420 a year in increased assistance, and that is a lot for old people on a fixed income. That may be something that Mr Brash would be interested in, because his position on Working for Families keeps changing. It flip-flops all over the place. He said at first: “I don’t think of Working for Families as a welfare programme. Then he expressed position two: “You have to apply for it; it is sort of a glorified welfare system.” And he had position three: “Most of that Working for Families programme will certainly remain.” Does that member of the Opposition like it, or does he not really understand what it is all about? Position four came from Mr Key, who said: “National doesn’t support the current Working for Families package.” Is there ever a frisson of friction in the Opposition when Mr Key does not support it and Mr Brash does!

NICKY WAGNER (National): I have listened with interest to this debate today. In fact, I have listened with interest for about 6 months, and all I can say is that I have been truly disappointed by the lack of positive direction, the lack of integrity, and the lack of performance by this Labour Government. I know that this Government is in its third term, that it has lost its enthusiasm and energy, and that it does not think how to make a real difference. But do members of the Government have to be quite so bare-faced, quite so cynical, and quite so cruel as they scrabble around desperately spending taxpayers’ money, trying to hold on to power?

But let us focus on a simple, small issue—noisy exhausts. For some of us that issue is irrelevant, but if one’s home is near a road that has been designated by boy racers as a drag strip—and there are plenty of them all over the country—and if one’s hotel or business is in a central city, noisy exhausts are a disaster. Families lose sleep and patience, businesses lose patronage and income, and our country loses its reputation for being clean and green—all this when there is a very simple solution.

Cheap Japanese cars with modified noisy exhausts have been a persistent and growing problem since this Labour Government came to power, but in the 6 years it has been in office it has done absolutely nothing to solve it. There are now over 90,000 excessively and offensively noisy cars in New Zealand. One can go to Europe, to the UK, or to Australia, and find that those countries are able to solve the problem. There is an easy solution, but this “Minister of Transport Safety and Noisy Vehicles”—

Hon David Carter: Who’s that?

NICKY WAGNER: It is Harry Duynhoven, who just cannot, or will not, make it happen. Sure, he has made lots of pronouncements that he can fix it. He has even given dates when he will fix it, but nothing changes. I wonder whether he remembers grandstanding in Cathedral Square in Christchurch 8 months ago promising faithfully that he would deal to noise by putting a specified decibel limit on noisy cars and introducing an objective standardised test to measure exhaust noise—and when? Within 6 months. Can I repeat that? He did a song and dance in Cathedral Square, and said: “Yes, I can fix it.”, and he set a deadline for performing. But, alas, that was a long time ago—it has gone. That is the habitual story of this Government—lots of spin, lots of grandstanding. It promises the earth and delivers sod all, just short-term panaceas that look good on the surface but in practice take us deeper and deeper into the mire.

The reason I came to Parliament is that I believe we need to build a strong, successful country to attract and keep our young people. This Government sells the same message. But what does it offer? It offers a student loan bribe that will totally distort the economy. Students will have even bigger loans and have them for longer. When they graduate they will be able to work in a heavily taxed, low-wage economy. How long will that satisfy our kids?

With such poor quality, short-term thinking, this Government is destroying the future for New Zealanders. The student loan policy, the Working for Families package, and the whole welfare system is a cynical process of entrapment. Instead of empowering New Zealanders to go out there and make it happen for themselves, this Government tempts the most vulnerable with free hits of welfare until they are truly hooked and cannot cope without Government support or interference. We want a safe, prosperous, and healthy country, and we want a future for our kids and grandkids.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): What a bunch of whingers! I cannot believe it. We sat and listened to the previous speaker banging on about how bad we are with imported cars. Who wrecked the car industry in this country? It was the National Government—and now they whinge on and on about low wages in this country. What was the biggest driver of low wages in this country? It was the Employment Contracts Act. Who brought in the Employment Contracts Act? It was the National Government. We hear from John Key, who boasts about his upbringing and his hard-working mum—and I acknowledge his hard-working mum—who brought up those children in a State house. He acknowledges that that was his upbringing, but what do he and his party want to do? They want to flog off as many State houses as they can and introduce market rents so that other hard-working New Zealanders do not have the opportunity that John Key and his brothers and sisters did.

Hon Annette King: It’s welfare.

LYNNE PILLAY: That is right; it is welfare, and that is a terrible, dirty word to the National Party. I would like Paula Bennett to rise and take a call. She boasts that she was a single parent who got a university education. That is very, very commendable. But she received the domestic purposes benefit—which is commendable—and she studied at a time when university education was free. We now hear Paula Bennett and the National Party being so critical of our progressive student loan policy. We feel really, really proud that we will stop that crippling debt for students in New Zealand. When students in New Zealand graduate, as long as they are committed to staying here, studying here, and sharing their skills in this wonderful country, they will not be burdened by debt and interest. We think that is commendable. We think it is great that our young people are saying to us that this policy is a major thing for them and they are proud to be here. It is a really great opportunity. I can see Maurice Williamson sitting opposite and hanging his head in shame. I have met his children, and he knows that they will benefit from those policies. He is ashamed of the policies that came in under a National Government.

I will also talk about the Working for Families package. I want to talk about my hard-working electorate office. One of my staff members recently received paid parental leave under this Government, so we had a staff member relieving. That staff member, who worked very hard in our busy electorate office, is over the moon about the changes that have happened, because under the targeted tax relief she will get so much more income, and that enables her to finish her studies, work part-time, and even get a Christmas bonus. That targeted tax relief will put more money into her family’s pocket. She is so proud to be a Labour supporter and to be part of our Waitakere community and part of our whole New Zealand community. Three out of four New Zealand families will benefit from this wonderful policy. It is one that I think is an absolute benchmark for this Government, and one that I feel proud of.

Hon Annette King: Are they going to keep it?

LYNNE PILLAY: Who knows? One minute they are, and one minute they are not. One minute they are critical, and the next minute they are not. We cannot rely on National Party members to tell us any of their policies, because, quite frankly, they do not have any. The reason they do not see much need for policies, or to verbalise them, is that in their heart of hearts they know they will never be in a position to implement them. People in this country are forward-thinking and do not want to listen to whingers.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Local Government Law Reform Bill

First Reading

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Local Government Law Reform Bill be now read a first time. I intend to move at the appropriate time that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee, and that the committee report the bill by 12 June 2006. The tight time frame for reporting the bill is because some of its provisions need to be enacted by 1 July 2006 if the Government’s policy in relation to the rates rebate scheme is to be fully implemented for the 2006-07 year.

I am pleased to see that David Carter is so interested in the well-being of ratepayers. He is not showing the least bit of interest in this bill, but that is par for the course.

The purpose of the Local Government Law Reform Bill is to refine the legislative framework within which local authorities operate to reflect recent policy decisions, to clarify existing provisions, and to improve the effectiveness of regulatory tools. This bill implements some new policy decisions and better reflects past policy decisions. It also clarifies and addresses a range of issues relating to local government legislation that are mostly technical or minor in nature. It does not signal any major new policy initiatives.

Successive Labour-led Governments have made it a priority to provide a robust and empowering local government framework for councils and communities to operate within. This has involved the development and introduction of legislation, such as the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, and the Local Electoral Act 2001. It has also included the introduction of a number of legislative reforms to the Dog Control Act 1996 that are aimed at effective dog control and improved public safety. This comprehensive set of legislative reforms has modernised and revitalised New Zealand’s system of local government.

The Government has been working collaboratively with the local government sector on the implementation of the local government legislation, and it recognises the importance of this in helping to ensure that the legislation is achieving its intent and that its effectiveness is reflected in practice. As a result of this process, and as with any major legislative changes and reforms, it is not unusual that some issues have arisen that need to be addressed. This Government has an established and a vital working relationship with local government. This has allowed both local and central government to be better informed about each other’s key issues, concerns, and priorities, resulting in improved policy, legislation, and, perhaps most important, positive outcomes for our communities.

In this regard, I note that many of the matters proposed for inclusion in this bill have been raised through consultation with the local government sector and arise from submissions made by Local Government New Zealand, the Society of Local Government Managers, the Local Government Lawyers Group, and individual local authorities. I believe that this bill will, among other things, help to ensure that the legislative framework within which councils and communities operate is clearer and more certain, and reflects Government policy for effective local government.

The bill amends the Rates Rebate Act 1973 to update the definition of rates in order to ensure that uniform annual general charges and postponed rates are eligible for inclusion in the calculation of rebates under the Act. This change will help to ensure equitable treatment between ratepayers in respect of rates liability. The amendment will also ensure that the expansion of the rates rebates scheme from 1 July will appropriately reflect recent changes in rating legislation.

The bill makes various amendments to the Dog Control Act 1996, including the recognition of dogs trained by the Mobility Assistance Dogs Trust as companion dogs, provision for epilepsy assist dogs, and the recognition of dogs trained by the New Zealand Epilepsy Assist Dogs Trust for that purpose.

Hon David Carter: What about the database?

Hon MARK BURTON: If that member stayed awake and paid attention, he would know that that legislation was passed by the previous Parliament.

A range of other amendments are also proposed in order to ensure that councils have the appropriate range of tools and enforcement mechanisms for effective dog control and improved public safety. The bill makes various amendments to the Local Government Act 2002, including permitting councils to donate money and resources outside their district or region where it will benefit the district or the sector as a whole, or for emergency relief purposes. This recognises the sector’s willingness to engage in all of these areas.

Other amendments include clarifying processes around the amendment, review, and revocation of by-laws, which will allow justices of the peace to preside over liquor by-law offences in order to reduce court pressures—that is certainly a measure welcomed by my colleague the Minister of Justice—altering the definition of incidental arrangements to enable councils to hedge against exchange rate risk in relation to foreign currency investments, and the protection in perpetuity of regional parks.

The bill makes amendments to the Local Government Act 1974 to simplify and reduce the costs of dealing with abandoned cars by providing councils with new processes and powers, including empowering councils to recover the costs of removal. The bill makes a number of amendments to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, including reintroducing valuation provisions that existed prior to 2002, to regularise the processes relating to valuation objections. Other amendments include empowering councils to offer lump-sum contributions as an option for ratepayers, and providing transparency by requiring councils to state their definition of the term “separately used or inhabited” in their funding impact statements and in information supplied with rates assessments.

This bill amends the Land Transport Act 1998 to provide some certainty around the enforcement of bus lanes and transit lanes—a matter of particular interest to Auckland members. The Land Transport Act creates a clear expectation that organisations other than the police, such as local authorities, would have the right to enforce various aspects of transport law. In fact, local authorities in Auckland have been enforcing bus and transit lanes for some time. Recently doubt was cast on the integrity of the provisions in the Land Transport Act on which this enforcement has been based. We are moving quickly, therefore, to re-establish certainty.

The provisions in this bill will expire on 1 July 2009, to coincide with the sunset clause contained in the Transport Act 1962 that deals with local authorities’ traffic and parking management powers. The expiry date of the provisions in this bill will allow those powers to be reviewed as part of the development of a new legislative framework to succeed the Transport Act.

The bill also amends the Litter Act 1979 to clarify that offences under that Act are strict liability offences, and to increase the maximum penalties for infringements and offences under that Act to enable councils to better deal with litter offences. The bill also contains a number of minor drafting alterations and corrections, clarifications, and consequential amendments to some of the Acts I have mentioned and to the Local Electoral Act 2001. It also consequentially repeals redundant references in the Local Government Amendment Act 1992 and the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996.

These amendments will provide clarity and greater assurance for councils in the administration of the various Acts, and should also provide communities with greater certainty in dealings with their local councils. As I noted earlier, it is highly desirable that the legislation be enacted by 1 July 2006 if the Government’s policies in relation to the rates rebate scheme are to be fully implemented in time for the 2006-07 financial year. I acknowledge that this is a tight time frame for the committee, and I thank the committee in advance for the hard work I know will follow in ensuring that we do meet this time frame.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): The problem with the Minister’s speech is that he condemned himself with his own words by saying that this bill is insignificant. The problem is that the Minister takes that attitude to local government, when it has never been more the case than it is right now that we need some action in local government. The tragedy is that the Minister will do little about the issues that concern local governments and ratepayers.

I want to go back to the motion that led to the introduction of this bill. I remind the House that that motion displayed again the arrogance of the Government, the Prime Minister, and the Minister in not consulting other parties about this legislation. The upshot was that before the bill even came before the House, as it has today, changes were made to it because not enough consultation had taken place. Had proper consultation taken place, this bill would have included the ability to make sure that a database could be established. The problem with the microchipping of dogs, as the legislation stands, is that the Government is really stuck as to how it will get a national database. I will be very interested to see what sort of answer the Minister comes up with in that regard. I remind the House that the Government had planned that this legislation would give the Department of Internal Affairs the authority to establish a database on microchipping.

It is interesting that a member of another party spoke about that party’s intention to put forward an amendment to this bill, but the only member who has actually put an amendment on the table is the Hon David Carter. Instead of going on about what might happen, David Carter has actually done that. The National Party, with David’s leadership, has put forward an amendment to make sure that farm dogs are exempt from microchipping. I know that David Carter will want to talk more about that.

The other speakers on this bill from our side will be the Hon Maurice Williamson and Eric Roy. Both of them, but particularly Maurice, will want to talk about issues relating to the transport section of the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Maurice Williamson.

Hon Maurice Williamson: The Hon Maurice Williamson.

JOHN CARTER: The Hon Maurice Williamson will want to remind the House that the last thing we need is Transit New Zealand staff becoming policemen. The last thing we need is Transit staff out there trying to be cops. They cannot even get their roads right, let alone police them. But I will leave Maurice and Eric to expand on that.

While the Minister is in the House I want to take up another point regarding the broader aspect of this bill: the issue of civil defence. I know he is Minister of Local Government, but he referred to a statement I had made about civil defence. I would have loved it if he had come with me today to see the trouble civil defence is in. While it has improved—things are happening—what this Government has not done in respect of civil defence is, quite honestly, an absolute disgrace. There is great need. We will be in real trouble if some problem arises in this nation in the next little while.

The Minister can put out as many statements as he likes about me having my head in the clouds when it comes to civil defence, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. When some calamity occurs the Government will be unable to respond to the needs of the people. It will be an absolute disaster, and the Government will bear the biggest responsibility for the consequences.

I want to talk about what is happening in local government and why I am absolutely embarrassed and ashamed that the Minister says the bill we are debating today is just a small piece of legislation. In local government we are seeing what has been classified as “incremental creep”. [Interruption] That is not a new nickname for the Minister. We are seeing the compliance costs borne by local government continuing to become more and more of a burden on ratepayers. This year we will see significant rates increases across the country, from both regional and district councils. The significant majority of the costs underlying those rates increases can be laid right at the feet of the Labour Government. I will give a couple of instances. Microchipping of dogs is a classic example. The Government says it will impose microchipping of dogs right across the nation. A Treasury report has advised the Government not to do so. Treasury is absolutely opposed to the measure because of the significant cost of setting it up—$1.4 million—and ongoing costs of $400,000 a year just to maintain the database. Who will pay for that? The Government will not—not on your Nelly! It will ask the ratepayers, the dog owners, to meet those costs. That is part of the incremental creep we see happening across the nation.

Hon Maurice Williamson: That’ll be half the Working for Families package gone.

JOHN CARTER: Well, exactly! Those who have dogs will suddenly find that instead of being able to spend the bit the Government has paid out, on the extra things that are talked about, they will be putting it into the control of dogs. Even worse is the fact that microchipping of dogs, when it comes in—and it will come in shortly—

Hon David Carter: We’ll beat it!

JOHN CARTER: We will defeat it, absolutely!

Hon David Carter: Common sense will prevail.

JOHN CARTER: We hope that is right—let us hope so. Microchipping of dogs will be seen as a deterrent, and fewer dogs will be registered and microchipped than currently are. It will not work. It will be a failure, and that failure will rest at the feet of the Government and of the Minister himself.

We need to look at other areas in local government that are a real worry—costs that the Government has imposed on local government for things like food safety standards. Somebody—some bureaucrat in Wellington—came up with the theory that we should have the system right across New Zealand. Well, that is fine, but who has the Government said should meet the cost of making sure that it is monitored, applied, and certified? Who does that? It is the local authorities. Where do the local authorities get the costs from? Who will pay for that? It will not be this Government. The Government expects local government to pick up those things. Water quality is the same thing. Here we go again. The Government has come up with a standard across the nation. Many local authorities struggle to bring their water supplies up to the standard. I ask the Minister to tell me how many people have died from drinking water from a water supply. I have not heard of any. There may be some, but there has not been a raft of them, to my knowledge. Yet here we go again. This Government is saying to local government that it has to meet the costs. The ratepayers of this country will meet the costs of laws that are imposed on them by the Labour Government on to local government.

Quite honestly, the ratepayers of this country—the people of this country—need to understand that the reason why they are having increased rates demands this year falls fairly and squarely at the feet of the Labour Government. It continues to impose additional costs on to local government. The consequence of that is that local government has no alternative but to put those costs out to the ratepayers. So when people sit there and think that the Government is giving them more money in some sort of benefit, they must remember that that same Government is taking it with the other hand because of the costs it is imposing on local government.

I say to the House that the National Party is working with local government. The local government team in the National Party, supported by other members of the caucus, is going around the country and visiting local authorities. We want local authorities to know that at last there is a party that will listen to them, that will work with them, that understands the problems, and that will be making sure we do not have a Government that merely hands out responsibilities without understanding the impact. The National Party is the one party that will be making sure that local government gets the support and the backing it needs. Members should remember that this bill will do nothing for local authorities. It does not help the ratepayers of this country, and it certainly will not stop the cost escalation that this Labour Government has put on ratepayers in this country.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): It is rather sad to hear the usual carping rhetoric of the Opposition from a member who, like many Labour members on the Local Government and Environment Committee, has probably not been a district councillor. I recall that when I was a district councillor we had one visit from the then National Government. The mayor poured a cup of tea and we were told about the better roads, better future policy—and the less said about that the better, because that is partly the reason why Auckland is in need of assistance from our Government today.

The Local Government Law Reform Bill is a very important bill. It amends nine Acts, which are all related to the workings of local government. This Government has worked on developing a collaborative arrangement with local authorities and regional councils since we came into Government in 1999. One thing local authorities are applauding us for is our regional and local forums for mayors to come and meet with key Ministers of the Crown, discuss their issues, and call for reform to the local government legislation, such as the changes reflected in this bill. We can get on with the business when we have heard, from our consultation with them, where the legislation needs to be better strengthened for them. That relationship will continue, and it is one of the cornerstones of our values as a Labour Government.

One of the aspects of the bill that I think is terribly exciting concerns yet another of our pledges from last year’s election: the pledge about rates rebates. We said we would deliver on that by July 2006, and as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee I am sure that we will get the measure through. Many people will be very pleased about the rates relief. Anyone who asks Grey Power members will find they will be thrilled to see their rebate rise from $200 to $500, and the top threshold for those entitled to apply for a rates rebate increase from earnings of $7,400 a year to $20,000 a year. That affects many senior citizens on a fixed income, and they are thrilled about that. We are out there yet again, delivering to the senior citizens of our country.

I want to mention the uneasy partnership between National and local government. Dr Brash has already signalled that he does not support keeping to the intentions of local authorities, as he has said about the Māori seats on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. Poor Dr Jonathan Coleman will be squirming when he goes home to his father-in-law, the wonderful John Keaney, who was the chair of that regional council, because he will have to do a bit of explaining to his father-in-law about those racially-based seats. Their inception was his father-in-law’s idea. John Keaney came to the Government and asked Mita Ririnui to lead the very bill that has got us having good representation on our regional council. Poor old Jonathan! I wonder what goes on in the Keaney household.

This bill is about our Government listening to local authorities, and reasoning on whether to enact their wishes for law reform. There are lots of things that the bill will fix. It does not just contain a measure regarding dog microchipping; it also gives local authorities powers to neuter menacing dogs, dispose of diseased dogs, and provide for epilepsy assist dogs—very important aspects that we have considered, after consultation with local government, and are now fixing through this bill.

In conclusion, I say that there are some very good members on the select committee that will consider the bill. They have considerable experience on local authorities and will bring that to the table in a reasoned way. I am very confident that we will get this bill through, so that the beneficiaries of the rates rebate will enjoy the fruits of that relief by July 2006.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Following on from the contribution made by my colleague John Carter on the Local Government Law Reform Bill, I say that the National Party will, of course, oppose this legislation.

It is worth the House recalling the true genesis of the legislation. The original mess was made in the year 2002, when none other than the Hon Chris Carter was the Minister of Local Government. As the Minister, he left a legacy of absolute incompetence and mismanagement, which, although the Local Government Bill was passed in 2002, has come to the public’s attention only now, 4 years later. I say to Chris Carter that if he had only taken note of the work done by the Local Government and Environment Committee in 2002, when the legislation was originally introduced into the House, I have no doubt that we would not be dealing with the mess this amendment bill proposes we attempt to tidy up.

The background to all this legislation, in respect of microchipping, is that there was a horrific dog attack in Auckland. No member of Parliament could not have been moved by that attack. The Government then took the initiative to move legislation into the select committee. The committee, after hearing a substantial number of submissions, determined that the problem was not with every dog or with every responsible dog owner in New Zealand but with the dangerous dogs that some people keep in this country. What the select committee recommended—unanimously, as I recall—was that those dangerous dogs should be identified and microchipped as a means of managing where they are kept.

But what the Hon Chris Carter did as the then Minister of Local Government was to completely ignore the report of that select committee, and when the report came back to the House, he tabled an amendment that overrode the select committee’s deliberations, in total. He then used Labour’s strength of numbers, plus, no doubt, one or two of the supporting minor parties, to pass legislation that New Zealanders only now realise is a mess.

It is an absolute outrage that we are in Parliament today, with the full ramifications of this legislation coming into force on 1 July this year, 4 years after the original mess was made. I note that Chris Carter, the original architect of this mess, is not even about to take a call to explain his action. The public of New Zealand—and, in particular, the farmers of New Zealand—have finally woken up to the stupidity of this legislation, whereby farmers will be required to take every dog they own down to the vet to get a microchip put in. How will that prevent one dog attack? The answer is that Labour knows that it will not. It is another cost that is unnecessarily being put on our farming industry, simply because the Government does not like that industry.

After the election we had the most unbelievable appointment of the Hon Jim Anderton as the Minister of Agriculture. The farmers in New Zealand were just astonished that Labour put Jim Anderton into this position. He said he had never known much about the farming industry but was prepared to learn and to listen. His first big test came with this legislation and its requirement to microchip dogs. Jim Anderton met with Federated Farmers and their president, Charlie Pedersen, and he said to him: “Don’t worry, I’ll fix this for you. I am No. 3 in Cabinet.” Then the Minister said the famous words that will haunt him forever: “What part of No. 3 don’t you understand?”.

So he went off to Cabinet a couple of weeks ago and presented the proposal whereby common sense would prevail and the microchipping of farm dogs would be exempt. What happened at Cabinet was that the all-powerful No. 3, the Hon Jim Anderton, was rolled by the little-known Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who is No. 18 in Cabinet. The sad thing is that Federated Farmers were hanging on to every promise that Jim Anderton had made, only to be let down again.

As National’s agricultural spokesperson, I have a solution for all the farmers in New Zealand. I have a member’s bill waiting to be called in the ballot that will exempt all farm working dogs. On two occasions I have sought leave to introduce that legislation into the House, and on both occasions Labour has denied leave. With this legislation now coming into the House, I have been able to move my member’s bill as an amendment—Supplementary Order Paper 22—which will give Parliament the opportunity to revisit the issue.

We know that Labour does not like the farming sector and is jealous of the contribution it makes, so I do not expect its members to support my amendment. But I look to the other parties around this House for support. Gordon Copeland of United Future has already indicated he will be moving a similar amendment, so I look forward to his support. The support of two other parties is needed for this to be successful in the House—either New Zealand First or the Green Party. I have not been able to ascertain at this stage the position of the Green Party, but I know that its members are giving it serious consideration.

I have not been able to ascertain the position of New Zealand First. When I talked to its agricultural spokesperson, Doug Woolerton, he said the party will not support my amendment, but apparently the Rt Hon Winston Peters has gone around all the greyhound racing clubs and said he will be moving an amendment for greyhounds. I fail to see the logic—and not many members of this Parliament do see any logic in the Rt Hon Winston Peters—but he will apparently move an amendment to exempt greyhounds from the bill. Maybe that party will vote against my amendment to exempt farm working dogs.

Hon Maurice Williamson: And poodles?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Maurice Williamson says we are not sure about Winston Peters’ attitude to poodles. I do not know yet whether an accurate policy has been formulated about the microchipping of poodles, but I can see that Mr Brown is rather scared about the possibility of that happening.

The legislation was stupid when it was introduced; it remains stupid today. If this measure is passed by this Parliament, when it is finally voted on in the Committee stage, a huge cost—an unnecessary cost—will be imposed on the farming industry of this country. It is a nonsense. There is a mechanism before this House today for Parliament to relook at this issue, and I certainly look to the support of New Zealand First members. I hope that, given another couple of weeks of deliberation within their caucus, they can finalise their position. I certainly look to the support of the Green Party. I hope that with either of those two parties supporting us, in conjunction with the Māori Party and the ACT party, who will support my amendment, this House can finally see the nonsense created by Chris Carter put to bed once and for all, and we can move forward with sensible legislation that does not bind our farming community unnecessarily.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party will support the Local Government Law Reform Bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee, with some misgivings. There are very many good aspects of this bill—which I will talk about—but Green members are a little bit worried that this is one of those omnibus bills whereby there are very positive aspects in it and then in the fine print we see a whole lot of things, some of which slightly worry us.

Clause 47 states: “Clause 10(1)(c) of Schedule 3 is amended by omitting ‘must’.” What does that mean? We really have no idea, and the Local Government and Environment Committee will be looking very carefully at some of these clauses. As another example, clause 41 is headed: “Power to restrict water supply”. What does this mean? We certainly would not wish to inadvertently support legislation that gives local authorities powers to restrict water supply in ways that would concern us. We have not had a chance to look at all of the many detailed amendments in the bill and in the schedules. We have concerns about some of those, and we will look at them very carefully.

However, we strongly support other provisions, and that is why we will support this legislation going to a select committee. Who would not support rates rebate relief? Who would not support the requirement for public consultation before a local authority disposes of, sells, or agrees to dispose of or sell a park? I would have thought that the public consultation provisions of the Local Government Act would require this, but if they do not, then it is a very good thing that we are including that provision. There is another provision for a regional park or reserve to be protected in perpetuity from sale or disposition. I gather that this would enable a regional council to apply for a ministerial Order in Council to preserve a park in perpetuity. Once again, we think that is an excellent idea, and we strongly support that provision.

There are other provisions relating to things such as cycle lanes, and bus lanes, and we strongly support those. And, of course, we support the strengthening of dog controls so that if a dog is classified as dangerous in one local authority, that finding will hold throughout New Zealand. Who would not support that? Who in this House is not interested in trying to reduce the number of dangerous, menacing dogs in New Zealand? Another provision states that such a dog would have to be neutered within a certain period. That, too, we support.

One other aspect we strongly support is the strengthening of the litter provisions in the Act. My understanding is that at present local authorities are able to take very few prosecutions in relation to litter, because the present legislation is not strong enough in relation to the presenting of proof, and, as a result, we have an incredible amount of litter in New Zealand and people are not being prosecuted. Indeed, our lovely, so-called clean green image is being undermined by the amount of litter we see all over New Zealand. In the street in which I live, we have a constant litter problem. We have a section of our street where there is perpetual litter, and it looks like a rubbish tip for much of the time. People in the street have been complaining about this on an almost weekly basis for several years, and there have been no prosecutions. Nothing has happened; it continues to look like a tip. So it is our sincere hope that the strengthened provisions in the bill will give local authorities the ability to take prosecutions for litter and that this might result in our particular street, and many other streets around New Zealand, not looking like a rubbish tip.

We are very, very pleased to support the very many positive clauses in this bill. However, we find other provisions that we really have not had the chance to look at. We know about fine print, and we know it is very easy to slip some clauses that might cause real concerns into an omnibus bill like this bill, which covers such a wide range of issues in local government. So we have certain reservations, particularly about some of the amendments to the schedules and so forth. We think they need to be examined with a fine-tooth comb, as they say—or with a microscope—and we will be doing that in relation to the Local Government Act. But we do sincerely support parts of these provisions, and for that reason we support the bill’s referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki): One would think that as the member for Waiariki I would be very proud to think that the centres of Maketū and Kawerau yesterday hit the world’s news-stands. Instead, it is a matter of great shame that the Crown has been called to account for its treatment of Maketū and Kawerau by an international human rights expert Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen. The report from the special rapporteur recommended that the Crown should take an active interest in supervising the compliance of the paper company in cleaning up the waste site at Kawerau and the waste disposal build-up at Maketū.

These are not new issues. The Kaituna claim was first lodged back in 1978.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is to speak to the bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I am leading to that. Our people have consistently presented their objections to the environmental abuse, the contamination, and the waste disposal build-up that is occurring at both Kawerau and Maketū over generations.

I turn now to my northern whakapapa. We learnt today also of the situation of Ngāti Wai, who are suing the Minister of Conservation, Chris Carter, and the Department of Conservation for their handling of the consultation issues in Northland about marine reserves and offshore islands. Ngāti Wai elder Hori Te Moanaroa Parata had this to say about the nature of the Crown’s consultation: “DOC and the Minister think they have been consulting with us. What they have been doing is insulting and almost assaulting us.” This simply cannot go on. How many international experts, reports from United Nations committees and special rapporteurs, and damning releases from iwi leaders can this Government simply disregard as the view of one man, or respond to by saying that nothing much will happen? Remember Shrek and the “haters and wreckers”? Well, it is all coming home to roost.

The special rapporteur has brought to international attention the marginalisation of tangata whenua from local governance. His report states that little more than 5 percent of members elected to local councils are Māori. The special rapporteur reported how many Māori legal authorities had advised him that they consider it constitutionally improper to force claimants to waive their entitlement to the protection of the courts when they negotiate settlements, especially as it is achieved through coercion.

What we are getting, as the kaumātua from Ngāti Wai himself points out, is that despite the willingness of people to engage in constructive dialogue and to work with the Government in the interests of responsible local governance and marine protection, the Government continues to pull the rug from under their feet. Here we are again, today, with this minority Labour Government trying to coerce this Parliament into accepting an enormous omnibus bill, amending the Rates Rebate Act 1973, the Dog Control Act 1996, the Litter Act 1979, the Local Electoral Act 2001, the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government Act 1974, the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996, and the Land Transport Act 1998.

The Māori Party will continue to voice the views of our people, outside this House and inside, on the critical matters of local government and of rating, and, as we mentioned in our speech during a previous debate, on dog control and dog tax. We want to make special mention of the ratings issue included in this bill. The bill amends the provision in the Local Government (Rating) Act in relation to the information a local authority is required to include in its rating information database. We have to ask this House what purpose this information will be put to and whether it will be in the interests of Māori landowners.

Members of this House will, of course, be aware that the imposition of rates on Māori land from 1871 until the Ratings Act 1908 was resisted. Speeches by Māori members of Parliament as each piece of legislation was introduced continued to articulate that resistance. Even as recently as 10 years ago, in 1996, the Labour member for Southern Māori, the Hon Whetu Tirikātene-Sullivan, continued this theme of resistance to imposed rating changes: “I am pleased that any thought of coercing or insisting on the Māori Land Court making charging orders over Māori freehold land to cover rates arrears was not imposed by the committee.” Mrs Tirikātene-Sullivan made reference to Lake Rotokawau and the Ngāti Rangiteaorere people, within my electorate, who were forced by the pressure of some local body members—that those Māori owners pay rates—to take their case to the Māori Land Court to seek a special exemption, then to go on to the Waitangi Tribunal. Our people are often forced into unreasonable situations, coerced into the courts, and forced to file papers for judicial review when all that may be required is the recognition of rights of roles of mana whenua.

I turn again to the north. Professor Margaret Mutu’s 1991 report on the rating and valuation of Māori land in Te Tai Tokerau stated that all the tribes from the area had longstanding grievances over the effects that rating and valuation have had on their ownership and occupation of their ancestral lands, their whenua tūpuna. Professor Mutu saw that the manner of levying and collecting rates was a clear breach of the treaty, and that valuation processes failed to take account of “Māori cultural and spiritual values, which are an integral part of all such land.” In her opinion, this only served to exacerbate the problems faced by Māori landowners still further.

This issue continues in Te Tai Tokerau, where, for example, unemployed Māori returning to tribal lands to make a new life encounter rating problems and a lack of services. The Hon Dover Samuels, when chairman of the Far North District Council’s Māori Affairs Committee, is quoted in the Northern Advocate on 21 August 1993 as saying that Māori believe ancestral land should not be taxed. Perhaps one more example might help. The Māori Party has been advised of record rating increases currently being imposed on residents in Te Tai Tokerau, the East Coast. One property currently holding a land value of $13,000 was revalued to $48,000. Another property has a current land value of around $13,000 and has been valued at $35,000. Māori ratepayers who have approached our office have advised us that such an enormous rating increase is indicative of a cynical piece of land evaluation and potential rates extortion.

There is a proud history in this land of tangata whenua advising local authorities of their concerns with local government decisions, of their desire to retain management and authority over their tribal lands, and of their frustration—in some cases, fury—at being ignored, sidelined, or marginalised in the consultation process. Although attempts are being made to make the resource management legislation work for Māori, the local government aspect, the critical relationship with mana whenua, has not been sorted out first. It was from that context of those wide-ranging and universal concerns that the special rapporteur recommended, first, that the MMP electoral system should be constitutionally entrenched to guarantee adequate representation of Māori at regional and local governance levels, and, secondly, that iwi and hapū should be considered as likely units for strengthening the customary self-governance of Māori in conjunction with local and regional councils. Those are recommendations that respond entirely to the situations of our time. They reflect the aspirations and dreams of tangata whenua throughout Aotearoa.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi requires a more direct relationship between local government and mana whenua. There needs to be a commitment to working with Te Ao Māori, and we want to encourage constructive dialogue, healthy relationships, and debate—not coercion or relations built on insult or assault. The Māori Party believes that we need to address the issue of rating Māori land within the Treaty framework. The current bill does not go anywhere near this; instead it seeks to increase rates through introducing lump-sum payments or face paying certain targeted rates.

The difficulty with the grab-bag, pick-and-mix approach to legislation like this, throwing everything together into the wash, is simply not good enough. To that end, the Māori Party will be moving to oppose this bill. We do so simply because, along with the issues I mentioned earlier, it will not advance and enhance the relationships between regional local authorities and mana whenua.

Tangata whenua are watching the response of this Government to the United Nations report with great concern. The special rapporteur concluded in his report that the inherent rights of Māori were not constitutionally recognised. Whether the Government reacts to that finding with a calm, considered response, or a response that denies, discredits, or dismisses the validity of the analysis within it, will be a matter of great import for tangata whenua, and indeed, for the nation as a whole.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): I should signal at the beginning that United Future will support the first reading of the Local Government Law Reform Bill. In particular, I shall talk about two reasons why I believe this bill to be important. The first is one that has already been touched on by the Hon David Carter in relation to the microchipping of dogs. As we now know, the question of whether all dogs should be microchipped has now been considered by Cabinet not once, but twice.

In response to questions in the House about whether working farm dogs should be exempted, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta came up with a very humorous line—namely, that there should be one law for all dogs. It is a good line and it certainly raised a degree of humour in the House. But we need to analyse whether that is a satisfactory response, and I believe it is not. Let me just mention a few things to the House. First of all, we can categorise between different breeds of dogs. The original intention of microchipping arose out of the heightened concern in the community about dangerous dog attacks when Carolina Anderson was attacked in Auckland. It was in that atmosphere that we decided to microchip all dogs. But if one says to a person: “Take a Labrador dog that is trained to be a guide dog for a blind person and put that dog alongside a Rottweiler or a pit bull, are there, in fact, different categories of dogs?”. They will all say: “Yes, of course there are.” From that point of view, I also believe working farm dogs to be in a different category.

Farm dogs are in a different category from another point of view as well, and that is the attacks that we were concerned about on children and other people from savage breeds of dogs such as pit bulls and variations thereof, occur mainly in suburban areas, and we were particularly worried about attacks in Auckland. When it comes to working farm dogs, Garrick Tremain’s cartoon, which was well discussed on talkback radio last week in New Zealand, hit the nail on the head. The cartoon shows a group of dogs in the back of a ute and the first dog says: “We’re going to be microchipped in case we bite anybody when we’re in town.” The second dog says: “But when are we ever in town?”, and the third dog says: “Well, we have to go to town in order to get the chip.” In other words, working farm dogs do not, in the normal course of events, get to go to town very often. Therefore, from that point of view, too, they are much less dangerous than the dogs we had in mind that are roaming the streets of South Auckland.

A third factor that I bring to the attention of the House is a new piece of information. The Veterinary Association came to see me yesterday, and it praised highly the microchipping regime in the state of New South Wales in Australia. It told me that that regime has been going for 7 years, which is about how long it will take our regime, when it starts on 1 July this year, to achieve its goal of microchipping dogs. That is because, of course, on 1 July only puppies and new registrations are affected, and the average dog lives about 7 years. So about 7 years from now most of our dogs will be microchipped, with the exception that I want for working farm dogs.

The Veterinary Association said that microchipping had been a great success in New South Wales. It spoke very, very highly of the outcome. It has been successful in controlling dogs, and anecdotally, although it is hard to prove a negative, the number of dog attacks on children and other people has gone down. However, here is a significant thing. In New South Wales farm working dogs—dogs used primarily for the purpose of droving, tending, working, or protecting stocks, and dogs being trained to be working dogs—are exempt from microchipping. The regulation in New South Wales goes on to state: “However, these dogs are valuable animals and owners are encouraged to have their dogs microchipped and registered for the dog’s own protection.”

The Hon David Carter has already said that during the Committee stage I intend to move an amendment to exempt working farm dogs from microchipping. That is what I intend to do, but I also want to put in my amendment a provision that is similar to that of New South Wales, such as: “However, we encourage farmers to microchip their dogs, because they are valuable animals and it will also help them to control their dogs.” I think that that is the right message to give New Zealand farmers. What they are objecting to is compulsory, unnecessary microchipping of a special category of dog. That is because it is an unnecessary cost, and farmers say that they are already up to their necks in legislation and red tape. That is their fundamental objection. We should look at it from a common-sense point of view. We will get more working farm dogs microchipped in New Zealand if we say it is a voluntary registration but we encourage them to do so. I think that that is the way forward, and I will move an amendment along those lines at the appropriate time. That, of course, is all to do with the amendments to the Dog Control Act 1966 that are proposed in this bill.

I also want to talk on a quite different subject, and that is the amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998. Part 8 of the bill brings in definitions and enforcement regulations in respect of what are now called “special vehicle lanes” on New Zealand roads. When the bill was first drawn to United Future’s attention by Dr Michael Cullen, the Leader of the House, mention was made of bus-only lanes. In Auckland in particular both the local authority and Transit New Zealand want to have a legal framework to enforce bus-only lane regulations. At the moment that is not there, and that is what this bill will do. Immediately, I drew it to Dr Cullen’s attention, and eventually also to the attention of the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Mark Burton, and I will also write to the select committee to say that a parallel situation has also arisen on the Mana Esplanade on State Highway 1 out of Wellington.

The situation on the Mana Esplanade on State Highway 1 is a very interesting one. Basically, the highway has been four-laned, through the township of Paremata. It is called the Mana Esplanade, but I refer to it as Paremata. Most people know it as the township of Paremata. What happens there is that at peak hours of the day, only vehicles carrying two or more people are permitted in the left-hand lane. So a person travelling in a car on his or her own is not permitted to go in that lane. That is the first thing. So it is a “two or more people only lane” during peak hours. However, during non-peak periods people are allowed to park in that lane. That situation, which is novel and innovative—and I think the intention was good; it was introduced to speed up the congestion on State Highway 1—is, of course, fraught with a number of difficulties. For example, a truck with two or more people in it that is whizzing along that lane at peak times may suddenly find a parked car in the way. The driver may not be able to brake and may have to swerve to the right into a lane that is completely bumper to bumper with cars at peak hour. There have already been some nicks and bumps, but a really serious accident is waiting to happen.

As this bill goes through the select committee process, it is very important that the opportunity is taken to also ensure that the Porirua City Council and Transit New Zealand have enforcement ability around those rules for those lanes. I might say as an aside to the Porirua City Council and Transit that I think they probably have to do more to make it very, very clear to people going through the Mana Esplanade exactly what the rules are. For example, I went through on Saturday, and I noticed a sign that said something about Monday to Friday, then there was another bit that referred to Sundays and public holidays. I was there on a Saturday and I had no clear indication what the rules are for Saturdays. So I think there is also some more work to be done around the signage and so forth to make the system work, but I will, as I mentioned, write to the members of the select committee and ask them to make sure that this bill will cover that situation. It may now do so, because I note when I look at the bill, as opposed to the initial draft we were given—the initial draft, as I mentioned, referred to bus-only lanes—that it now refers to special vehicle lanes, which presumably would cover the situation on the Mana Esplanade. With those remarks I am happy to say that United Future will support the first reading of this bill, and I look forward to it coming back to the House in due course.

I would also like to say a few words at this stage to New Zealand First and the Greens. I ask them to please consider carefully the situation of exempting working farm dogs from microchipping. I also include the Māori Party in that, as I understand it may be sympathetic to that ideal, as well. There is an example of that in New South Wales, where people have said that it has worked extremely well. So why do we not give it a try? If some time in the future we find that, yes, we do need every single dog microchipped regardless, we can always do that later. But it seems to me that we should start with a voluntary registration for working farm dogs, which, by the way, are already defined as being dogs that are specifically trained to work with sheep and cattle. That is already in the Act. Therefore, I ask those parties to give consideration to supporting the amendment at the appropriate time.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): ACT New Zealand will not be supporting the Local Government Law Reform Bill, for a variety of reasons that will become apparent very soon. I shall go over the main features of the bill I particularly want to focus on. The bill will amend the regulations around dog control, including that of a national register of dogs. It proposes that epilepsy assist dogs will be treated like guide dogs. The bill will require more consultation by local authorities—yet more talking around the issues—when disposing of parkland. It will allow local authorities to seek lump-sum contributions from ratepayers for projects, provided that ratepayers agree. Its final purpose will be to fix drafting errors in the Local Government Act 2002.

I want to address a couple of things in the short time I have, and the first concerns dogs. Mr Gordon Copeland was busy trying, rather loudly, to persuade the Green Party that his amendment was necessary and should be addressed. We in the ACT party agree with the Hon Nanaia Mahuta when she says there should be one law for all dogs. It is a very good line, and I have to agree with Mr Copeland’s comment that it is a very good line, indeed. But when we say there should be one law for all dogs, we say that the law should be that no dog should have to be microchipped. Microchipping of all dogs is a complete overreaction. It is a knee-jerk response to a couple of terrible incidents, but a response that will not result in any resolution of the situation, at all. With the microchipping of dogs, we will see law-abiding people, who already register their dogs as they are required to under the law, continue to do so and microchip their dogs—taking their obligations very seriously—but those who do not currently register their dogs and do the right thing will not be about to microchip their dogs, at all.

The issue that has arisen in the House today addresses just some dogs—working dogs on farms that work mostly with sheep and cattle. ACT will support the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Hon David Carter, because it is a move in the right direction. We would like to see a move that goes much further to exclude all dogs from microchipping, but we will support David Carter’s Supplementary Order Paper because it is a step in the right direction. I have yet to see Mr Gordon Copeland’s amendment, and the full implications of that, but certainly his description of it today indicates that we could support that, too. Voluntary microchipping would certainly be in line with our position on this matter. So no dogs should be microchipped, and I think that the register proposed in the bill will achieve very little. I certainly do not think it would have prevented the terrible accident that befell Carolina Anderson. For that reason we will not support the bill, but we will support David Carter’s Supplementary Order Paper.

I come now to the question of what exactly we have local government for. Why do we have councils? I think it is a question that councils do not ask themselves frequently enough, and that New Zealanders do not think about nearly enough, except when it is local government voting time. Even then, the turn out is usually much less than we would like to see, so I think it is an issue that New Zealanders at large do not give nearly enough consideration to.

Traditionally, councils have been responsible for core issues like rubbish and roads, and I contend that that is what councils should stick to. For councils to have the power of general competence, which was introduced in the Local Government Act 2002, was a massive shift in the way that councils are managed. Councils can now carry out just about anything they like, unless it is specifically prohibited by statute.

Russell Fairbrother: Well, you would agree with that.

HEATHER ROY: Not with public money! Councils should not be in the business of running businesses. Councils are not put in place, and rates are not paid, to subsidise businesses that a group of councillors would like to see up and running. The Local Government Act 2002 has been a recipe for increased rates and, sadly, reduced services in many cases. Residents have seen some very basic services increasingly being ignored by councils as they spend ratepayers’ money on what are probably considered more exciting things—things that are perhaps more visible than sewerage pipes under the ground, the state of roads, and rubbish collections. We do not have to look very far around this country to see the great deal of empire building that has gone on in particular areas.

It is interesting to look at what has happened to rates in various areas since the Local Government Act 2002 came into being. There have been some huge rate increases—for example, increases since 2002 of 60 percent in the Selwyn District, 52 percent in the Tasman District, 38 percent in the Banks Peninsula District, 36 percent in the Ashburton District, and 24 percent in Waitakere City. We should also look at how regional councils are doing, because in many respects they, too, are guilty of the very same things. Since 2002 there have been increases of 52 percent in the Auckland Regional Council, 41 percent in the Taranaki Regional Council, and 32 percent in Environment Canterbury. It is the ratepayers of this country who are footing the bill. Are they getting good value for money? It would be great to think that they are, but in most cases they certainly are not.

Over the same period, the rate of inflation has been 6.8 percent. We should keep in mind those rate increases in comparison with the rate of inflation over that time period. ACT New Zealand feels so strongly about that situation that it has put a member’s bill in the ballot. At the last ballot, Rodney Hide’s Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill was drawn out. It will be debated in Parliament shortly. The bill is an attempt to stop this madness we are currently seeing, by limiting any increases to local body rates to the rate of inflation plus 2 percent. Councils would be prevented from increasing their rates beyond the inflation rate plus 2 percent in any given year, or the inflation rate plus 4 percent in any 3-year period if they choose to attack the rate increase in that manner.

That would see a concentration in the minds of local bodies. If they were confined to that sort of increase in a given time frame, they would have to consider much more carefully than they have had to up to now the way in which they spend ratepayers’ money—money that does not belong to councillors. It is very easy to spend somebody else’s money. People are very good at saving their own money and spending it wisely, but it is actually very, very easy to spend other people’s money. That limitation would concentrate councillors’ minds, and make them look at their core business to see exactly where their efforts should be channelled. Ratepayers in this country would eventually thank their local councils for taking that into account.

When one goes around New Zealand, one hears about rate increases. In fact, I walked over to the House this afternoon with Barbara Stewart, and she was bemoaning the fact that her local rates are going up hugely in the coming year—by 12 percent, I think she said. That is actually a huge increase. Here in Wellington we are facing similar increases. That is unacceptable when ratepayers are footing the bill, yet get very little say as to how that money is spent.

So ACT New Zealand will be opposing this bill. We think that it is a backward step and will do nothing to rectify the problems that currently exist at local body level. But we are very sympathetic to the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Hon David Carter. We would like to see it go further. We will be supporting it, because it is a move in the right direction.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government): I rise to take a short call on this bill. A number of the issues that have been raised do require a response. But, perhaps more important, in order to put in context the intention here, I will say this Government is committed to a close and collaborative working relationship with local government. That is important in going forward. We know that local decisions are best made locally, and that the legislation we are looking at here today will enable local government to provide strong, local leadership. Labour will continue to work closely with local government for the benefit of all our communities. I say that from the outset, because there are provisions in the bill that I think will make a real difference.

What are those provisions? The rates rebate provision is an example of one. From 1 July this year, the maximum rebate available under the rates rebate scheme will rise from $200 to $500. There was some comment from across the House about that very issue—rates. I am concerned when members of the Māori Party say they will not support that measure, because in some respects that provision alone will benefit at least 300,000 more families in New Zealand, including many Māori families as well as others. More important, and connected to the issue of the rates rebate, the income threshold under which people will become eligible for a full rebate is to increase from $7,400 a year to $20,000 a year. Again, that is a really, really useful step in the right direction.

A number of comments have also been made in the House about the provisions around the Dog Control Act. Mr Copeland was right to point out that the New Zealand Veterinary Association is very supportive of the microchipping measures. He also pointed to comments in respect of the New South Wales example. I want to comment on that very example only because Mr Copeland would have received the same information as me regarding the issue of the exemption for farm dogs from microchipping in New South Wales. Let us bear in mind the statement that farm dogs in New South Wales constitute a very, very small proportion of all the dogs in that population. That proportion is very different in the New Zealand context. So it is not simply a matter of saying it is done in New South Wales, so therefore we should do it in New Zealand. In fact, a regime for an exemption for farm dogs here in New Zealand would put onerous monitoring costs on local authorities. That issue will come out in the select committee process, but it is an issue that needs to be highlighted in respect of the issue of the exemption regime.

There does need to be a law that applies universally to microchipping. Why? Because if the regime is to work effectively, we must get as many of the dogs as possible into it. I do not think that exemptions are the way forward. The honourable member has a different view on that. I hope that the select committee will put in context the examples that have been drawn on in this House, because I do not think they apply here. We need to look at the New Zealand situation. We need to have an overriding framework that promotes public safety and achieves a balance between having a good information system in terms of the dog ownership regime—putting responsibility where it lies, which is with the owner—and having an overarching suite of tools that will help to strengthen what we all seek: public safety in our communities around the ownership of dogs.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I want to speak specifically on Part 8 of this bill, but first I want to say a little about dog microchipping, because I sit here in this House in almost a delirious state, not quite believing what people are saying. I hear people say that because of the dreadful attack on Carolina Anderson, we can microchip dangerous dogs and prevent that from happening again.

That is about as logical as what I heard from Pete Hodgson today in respect of the Kyoto Protocol. Basically, he said if we send a cheque for a billion dollars to the Russians under the Kyoto Protocol, it will mean the weather will be better. Well, why do we not send a cheque for two billion dollars, order some really good weather, and ask for really neat, sunny summers—great weather for the beach—or a cheque for three billion dollars and have the best weather the world has ever had, and then all the tourists would come here? What nonsense! Sending a cheque for a billion dollars to the Russians will not change the weather one drop—not one drop. But that is what Pete Hodgson said. He said the Russians have decreased their emissions, so we should send a billion dollars to them. The Russians have already done that; their emissions decreased because their whole economy collapsed.

So when it comes to dog microchipping, can a single member of this House tell me that, because a dog happens to have a microchip in it, there will be no further attacks? First of all, we know that the real mongrel, ratbag dogs out there will not be microchipped. If any member in this House wants to come with me and the dog control officer to the Mongrel Mob headquarters in Ōtara, knock on the door, and say: “Hello boys, we’ve come to microchip your dog.”, I want to see them do it. We know that the real ratbag dogs will not get touched. They are only a small percentage of the dog population, but they are the ones that will normally be out in a park, off a leash, and attacking the Carolina Andersons of this world.

But I found out something interesting the other week about dog microchipping. With these microchips, we actually have to touch the fur of the dog with the scanner to read the microchip. So if we are in the park and we see in the distance a vicious Rottweiler race up, attack a little girl, and take a big chunk out of her, we will have to run after the dog, scanner in hand, and try to catch it. We know this new regime is in place now and the dog is definitely microchipped; we just have to catch the little ratbag, hold it down, and run the scanner over its fur, and we will find out who the owner is.

In this situation two outcomes can happen. First of all, the dog can run faster than the dog catcher, and that is normally the case, or if we do happen to be fast enough, or if there are enough of us to pin this ratbag dog down and hold it, then, bugger me, it will be the one that did not get microchipped after all because it was owned by the Mongrel Mob or whoever. So how will that regime help anybody? How does that help anyone?

Instead of the Labour Government going on about how this is a good measure, and how we will have a database and we will keep records, I want one member of the Labour Government to explain how having a microchip inside the most well-behaved dogs, owned by good dog owners, will help. All of those people out there who are law-abiding citizens—who keep their guns in a special cupboard, the bolt action in another cupboard, the ammunition in another drawer, and it is all locked away, and who keep their gun licences up to date according to the gun laws—are the same people who will have their dogs microchipped, because they do not want to break the law. How will that stop the rotten Rottweiler or the various other vicious breeds that we know of from attacking?

I do not think there is such a thing as a bad dog; it is just the way it has been treated and been brought up. If it is beaten, kicked, and so on, it becomes savage. That dog will not be microchipped—and microchipping will not stop another Carolina Anderson being attacked.

So Labour is doing this, which is its standard trick. This is its big flagship legislation. It says it is on the side of those poor kids who are going to get attacked by vicious dogs. There is not a member in this House who is on the other side of that argument or who says: “I reckon I support vicious dogs attacking little girls in parks and ripping pieces off them.” But what we do say on the Opposition benches is, let us put up something that will work. Let us put up something that is sensible.

Russell Fairbrother: Well, what’s your proposal?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I have a proposal for the failed previous member for Napier straightaway, and it is to support an amendment to get rid of compulsory microchipping for all dogs. I believe this provision should be removed for all dogs; it will not do anything.

I heard Gordon Copeland talking about the Garrick Tremain cartoon. I think Garrick Tremain is one of the greatest cartoonists this country has ever produced. I think he is spectacular. I love his cartoons, even when they are at my expense. The cartoon the other day, which should be put on billboards all around the country, showed a ute being driven down the road with three farm dogs on the back. Listen to what they said. One said: “We’re off to town to get microchipped so that we don’t bite children when we’re in the town.” The second dog said: “But when do we ever go to town?”. The third dog said: “Well, we go when we go to get microchipped.” How bizarre is that? I know of a number of farm dogs whereby the only time they go to town will be when they go to be microchipped. But I have been diverted.

I wanted to speak about Part 8, “Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998”. I feel just as passionately about this. There are members of this House who will remember back to the good old days when local authorities, like Invercargill city or, in my case, Tāmaki, had a traffic enforcement unit. The Tāmaki Borough Council had its own enforcement unit, so did Mount Albert. The public’s view, when surveyed, was that those units were little Gestapo units, out of control, who made their own rules to suit themselves. They were rapacious revenue collectors because they were collecting it into their own coffers.

The public said they would have much more faith if traffic enforcement duties were put into a centralised unit such as, in those days, the traffic cops, or, more important—after the merger—to the New Zealand Police. I am one who has faith that the New Zealand Police would act more sensibly, more carefully, and more properly in performing that duty. I would prefer that to giving traffic enforcement duties to local authorities and—wait for it—to Transit New Zealand, as this bill will do.

Anybody who knows how Transit is behaving in this country at present will be outraged. Transit has taken it on itself to become the de facto regulator of development. Transit is regularly saying so to a whole range of developers up and down the country. I got a couple of cases yesterday from Owen McShane that are classics. A man has decided to expand the kiwifruit orchard he owns. He has bought some land next door and he is expanding his orchard, to grow some more kiwifruit. He has the kiwifruit up and running, and now he has applied for consent to build a big packing shed. The local authority says it is OK, the regional council says it is OK, everyone says it is OK, even the neighbours are fine, but Transit has said no—he cannot build a packing shed on his kiwifruit orchard because he will be driving his truck on Transit’s roads.

Eric Roy: What?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: That is what Transit said, that he would be driving his truck on Transit’s roads.

Another case Owen McShane brought up yesterday involves a guy who has quite a nice small private hotel. He has decided, because he is doing such good business for tourism and so on, that he would like to add on some rooms. Transit, again, is the de facto controller of growth. I would have thought that this House was looking for economic growth.

Helen Clark wants us to be in the top half of the OECD. We will be lucky to be last in the OECD if Transit keeps doing what it is doing. Now, with this legislation, we will be giving Transit the power to issue infringement notices. But wait—there is more.

Transit will not only have the power to issue infringement notices, it will also have the power to retain some of the money it gets from that. Can members see Transit saying each year: “Oh boy, the blowout in the budget for roading is so bad, and the Ministers have cut our budget. I know what we will do. We will just get out there and issue a whole lot more tickets, and in that way we can get our roading revenue back.”?

I am totally opposed to that. Law enforcement should stay with the law enforcement agency—that is, the New Zealand Police. If people are abusing traffic lanes, the police should be pinging them. If the Government wants to do something about increasing resources for the police to do so, I will listen with great interest and with great care. But when it comes to enforcement, I do not want to see the tentacles of the State being pushed further and further out to unaccountable bodies like Transit—and Transit is totally unaccountable. One might say that there is some accountability in the case of local authorities, but try working through one’s elected councillors to get anything changed. They just say: “Oh, I give up. The full-time bureaucrats within the place run it.”

For that reason alone, I take issue with this whole Part 8, which extends the definition of which particular authority can issue infringement offences. This provision extends it to Transit New Zealand, which I believe is now so out of control that the Minister should sack the entire board right now. I will not rest easy in bed at night knowing that Transit has the ability to start issuing infringement notices.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Mr Assistant Speaker, as you will well know, New Zealand First was entitled to a call earlier on in this debate, but I deliberately sat it out because I wanted to hear the Hon Maurice Williamson. To a large degree, and I did not know this until he spoke, we share his concerns on Part 8. We have been a firm advocate of a properly constructed police force to administer traffic and roading enforcement. As a result we have real concerns about a local authority, or indeed Transit, taking on that responsibility. That is not to say we fail to recognise there is an area that has to be enforced and policed, but we would be happier if the police had the responsibility for it.

In addition, we would prefer the traffic arm of the police to be separated from the police service proper, and would prefer that there was a nationwide traffic enforcement agency. We have not lost sight of that, and we hope that in the fullness of time we will get other parties to concur with that view. We know a very large number of the public concur with us. The public do not like the police themselves being traffic enforcers, and would prefer that there was a separate entity. I understand from many police officers that although they cannot speak publicly about the issue, they also would support that move.

New Zealand First will support this bill going to a select committee, but that is not to say we have no major concerns with various parts of the bill. I have demonstrated the one concern we have with respect to Part 8, which amends the Land Transport Act. We have yet to be convinced about the argument for microchipping dogs. We have listened intently to the arguments from Opposition members that they do not agree with farm dogs—working dogs—being microchipped. Gordon Copeland, who seemed to lead the attack on that issue, quoted the experiences in New South Wales. He said that dogs there are now being microchipped on a voluntary basis.

The principal reason for microchipping a dog is not to stop it from attacking people. Microchipping a dog, as I think everybody will know, will not stop that dog from attacking anybody if it is inclined to attack people. It is simply to identify the dog, to track it down pretty quickly, and to deal with it pretty quickly. We know there will be people who will not microchip their dogs. They will think it is safe to be outside the law. But when their dogs are rounded up, for whatever reason, they will be dealt with accordingly—and by that I mean they will, in all likelihood, be exterminated.

There have been a number of cases where young children have been attacked by dogs. We have to do something to put some controls into the situation. We are told that in Australia microchipping works, and that the Veterinary Association believes it is a correct measure. That association goes along, apparently, with making working farm dogs exempt. But it then goes along, apparently, with saying that even if farm dogs are exempted, farmers should be encouraged to microchip their dogs on a voluntary basis. If we are to require people to microchip their dogs, then there is a good argument to say we should do it once and for all, and make it compulsory. As the Minister outlined a few moments ago, if everybody gets in, so to speak, it makes the cost cheaper on an individual basis, right across the board.

Eric Roy: Will it fix the problem?

PETER BROWN: As I have just said, it will not stop dogs from attacking people.

Eric Roy: Well, why support it?

PETER BROWN: The point I would like to make to the honourable member is that that is not in this bill. There is already legislation on that in the Dog Control Act. This bill has nothing to do with microchipping dogs.

Eric Roy: But it is about controlling dangerous dogs.

PETER BROWN: I do not wish to have a debate with the member. I know that he is going to take the last call, and he can refute everything I say.

The point is there is a good argument for being able to identify a dog quite readily and promptly after an event. Hopefully—and there is a degree of hope in this—it will make owners take more responsibility for where their dogs go and how they are trained. I have to say that the farming community microchips cattle now, as far as I am aware. Farmers microchip animals in the ear now—

Hon Mita Ririnui: Horses.

PETER BROWN: And horses, so they can tell exactly where they are, where they have been, and what have you. Microchipping farm dogs will be a lot cheaper for farmers than microchipping cattle and horses, and will comply with the law as it stands.

In terms of local bodies, I could not come to grips with what the ACT member was saying. She seemed to say that she thought local bodies should be confined to building roads and sewerage. Well, I say to her that if local bodies and councils confined their activities to those areas only, New Zealand would be an awfully dull place to live in. I can recall many years ago Sir Clement Freud came here when everything was closed, including the hotels, after 6 o’clock and on a Sunday. He said: “I called into New Zealand on a weekend, but it was shut.” I think if he came and found local bodies were confined just to matters of roading and sewerage, he would say: “I came, but it was not there.”

I am very proud of the local council in Tauranga, where I come from. It has built a massive swimming pool, which is well patronised. We have a library, a theatre, and parks galore. The council has enhanced the downtown area and it looks magnificent. That local body is doing what the local people want. It is now on the verge of building an art gallery, and I have absolutely no doubt that it will be an asset to Tauranga. If anybody thinks the council is doing the wrong thing, then can he or she tell me why just about every person and his or her dog wants to come and live in Tauranga? Why do all the people come? Because it is such a go-ahead place with such a go-ahead council. For us MPs to stand up here and take local body politicians to task because they are doing a good job is really not on.

I will conclude on Gordon Copeland’s reference to Mana Esplanade, or Paremata as he said. I had the unfortunate pleasure of driving through that place some months ago. As my wife was with me, we went in the lane for cars with two occupants. But I did not realise, because I did not see the appropriate sign—there were signs up everywhere, telling me what this was and what that was—that we were outside the hours for that lane and people were allowed to park in it. I was behind two other cars and a truck, I think, when we came across a parked car. We came to a grinding halt and everything we had overtaken while in that lane overtook us, and we had to sit there, seemingly for ages, to get out into the correct lane. I could not make head nor tail of the signs. I thought if someone had thought that situation through, then that person had not done his or her homework.

New Zealand First will support the referral of this bill to the select committee, unlike the National Party, which will not. But National has put in Supplementary Order Paper 22 in the name of the Hon David Carter to correct the bill. I cannot make any logic out of that, either.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): It is good to have the opportunity to take what I guess will be the final call on the Local Government Law Reform Bill. I am disappointed in the previous speaker, Mr Peter Brown. Normally he is a man who speaks sense. I do not know why he is in Parliament. I will tell members why I am here: I came here to make a difference. What the bill actually proposes in Part 1, “Amendments to Dog Control Act 1996”—which is the enactment of those things around control over dogs biting people—will not make one scrap of difference. I ask the member to reflect on the words that the Hon Maurice Williamson used. He stole quite a bit of my thunder, so I will not repeat his words. But I have to simply say that putting a microchip in a dog will not stop it biting anybody. I will talk some more about that in a minute.

But, firstly, can I just speak broadly about the bill. My local mayor, Tim Shadbolt—I think it is probably appropriate to mention his name because he is in hospital after having a car accident, and I hope that Tim has a speedy recovery—and I have had a number of discussions over how Parliament makes rules, and says “Fix that!” or “Implement that!”, in a local government situation. Layer upon layer of costs have gone to local government, and it has had to front up to its ratepayers and say, for example: “Yep, an 8 percent rate increase this year.” Ratepayers are saying: “Why are the rates going up if inflation’s X?”. It is simply because we are loading layer and layer of actual compliance costs upon local authorities. If the member is at all concerned about that, he will not support the microchipping of dogs and all of the costs that actually go with that. Tomorrow our select committee is going to Manurewa to talk to its council about prostitute management, and there is a local bill because they want to deal with that—

Peter Brown: Microchipping!

ERIC ROY: Do not go there. This is layer upon layer of costs that we are downloading on to local authorities. I have to say that that is entirely inappropriate. If the member wants to make a difference he ought to give scrutiny to the legislation that we pass in the House. If legislation will be effective, sure, let us do it; if it will not be effective, let us not do it. Let us not go for what I call placebo legislation where we kid ourselves that we are actually doing something of benefit when we are not. Maurice Williamson made a very valid point about the Kyoto Protocol in his speech today.

Peter Brown: He did.

ERIC ROY: Yes, absolutely. If it is not going to fix it, let us not impose a cost. Let us not go there; let us not put people through a whole lot of issues that they do not actually have to face.

There are some good things in this part about dog legislation, especially in the provisions for companion dogs and dogs that are developing a range of skills that actually help people. We need to go through whatever we need to do to let those dogs go into restaurants, on public transport, or go into places they normally do not go. We need to tidy that bit up, and support that element of the bill.

But the rest of it is a load of nonsense. I could mount a case in this House that says it is more important to microchip cats than dogs. In terms of zoonosis—diseases that people catch from animals—cats are the worst. The average cat, in its lifetime, kills 700 birds—many of them natives. There are a raft of things that I could put up in the House to say: “We should be microchipping cats.”, but that is a nonsense. It is a nonsense to say that we should microchip dogs when one could have a pet bull and take it to town. That is much more dangerous, and it does not have to be microchipped.

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

ERIC ROY: I inform the House that I am, I think, the last speaker on the Local Government Law Reform Bill. The area of the bill I have been canvassing is Part 1, which principally deals with menacing and dangerous dogs. The point I was making before the dinner break was that the legislation will not fix the problem. That is essentially the message I have been bringing to the House.

Because I am the last speaker, I will sum up one point that I think is appropriate to canvass. One or two members have mentioned specific breeds of dogs—even Rottweilers have been mentioned. It is dangerous to try to brand a breed of dog; it is more important that we say there are inappropriate owners. My own experience with Rottweilers, particularly with the pure-breds, is that they are certainly no greater threat than most other dogs, and certainly less threat than some. It would be a wee bit inappropriate if we left the message that Rottweilers are dangerous dogs. There are dog breeders who have a set breeding programme and also an environment that can make any dog dangerous. Those are the people whom we need to deal with. If a person has an intention to breed and develop a macho-type dog, then he or she will certainly not be lining up to register it, and will be even less likely to line the dog up to have it microchipped.

The other point I made before the dinner break was that this bill will load more costs on to local authorities. But it does not stop just at local authorities, because the bill states that there are rights of appeal, so we are also loading up the District Courts. New section 71B, to be inserted by clause 11, states there can be appeals. That brings in a range of other questions. Will there be legal aid to defend one’s dog, should some activity that is dealt with in the bill impact on one’s dog? If one is not happy with the District Court, I guess one could appeal to the High Court. This provides more and more layers that will be seriously ineffectual.

I say to the House that if we have a problem—and I believe we do—we should not have a knee-jerk reaction because Carolina Anderson was bitten by a dog whose owners we knew about and were subsequently charged. We should do something about dogs that are largely unregistered. If the House wants to be serious, then it has to consider passing legislation that would destroy dogs that cause the problem. That would send a very, very clear message.

Parts of the bill are almost humorous to me. New section 33EB, to be inserted by clause 9, states that the “Territorial authority … may require neutering of menacing dog”. I have to say to the House that the issue is not bestiality; it is about dogs biting people. We have a mixed message here. I am not sure who dreamt up that particular provision—

Hon David Carter: Chris Carter.

ERIC ROY: I have to say it is certainly ineffectual. I have mentioned before my experience in dog control measures, being on the National Hydatids Council, and the problems with unregistered dogs. Last week I rang up my next-door neighbour, who is a bit poorly in hospital, and I asked what I could do to help. His wife asked me to shear their rams. I went and borrowed his dog. It was not microchipped, and it never bit me. I ran the rams into the yards on Saturday. Lo and behold, the first ram I approached charged me—maybe it should be microchipped. It is an absolute nonsense to say that microchipping dogs will actually stop the problem.

A number of issues about this bill absolutely concern me, including the loading up of costs on to the local authorities, and the efficacy of the approach of microchipping. Maurice Williamson spoke about having to virtually rub the scanner over the dog. I have talked to people who have tried to find microchips in rough-coated dogs, and they have not been able to read them. This provision is an absolute nonsense. I support my colleague David Carter, who will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage.

Hon David Carter: It’s there now.

ERIC ROY: It is there now, but we will deal with it in the Committee stage. I have to say that if we wanted to be sensible, we would simply say no to microchipping any dogs, and we would bring in some serious provisions that would deal with menacing dogs and the people who own them. Only obedient citizens will microchip their dogs. It is a process about which there are serious questions of efficacy, and it will not stop dogs menacing or savaging people.

National will not support the bill. We do not believe the numbers will be there to carry it through, but we will determinedly progress the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of David Carter. We look forward to that, and to receiving further support from the House in seeing some sensible solutions in that regard.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government Law Reform Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 48; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Bill read a first time.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the Local Government Law Reform Bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and that the Committee report finally to the House on or before 12 June 2006.

Motion agreed to.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I seek leave that it be an instruction of the House to the committee that it consider Supplementary Order Paper 22 during its deliberations.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I seek leave for the committee to 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 area on a day the House is sitting, despite Standing Orders 192, 194(a), and 195(1)(b) and (c).

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.

Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General

Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2005-06 financial year in respect of Vote Audit and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and the appropriations and information for the 2006-07 financial year in respect of Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and Offices of Parliament.

The need for this motion arises from the special arrangements that Parliament has for dealing with the budgets of Offices of Parliament under the Public Finance Act 1989. Section 26E of that Act provides that before an appropriation in a vote administered by an Office of Parliament may be included in an appropriation bill for a financial year, information must be submitted to the House on estimates of expenses, capital expenditure, and other matters. This procedure for presentation of an Address to the Governor-General reflects the relationship of Officers of Parliament as statutory persons, separate from the executive, to the legislature.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast): I will not take very long in speaking to this motion. I want to raise just two points that were the subject of much discussion in the preparation of the report by the Officers of Parliament Committee. The first issue is the increase in remuneration for Vote Audit. The second is the baseline flexibility request.

Treasury spoke against the increase in remuneration that was sought, but the main issue the Officers of Parliament Committee considered was the pressure on the Audit Office to maintain competitive remuneration. The office assured us that the majority of its staff were aligned with the average public sector market median. However, it saw a risk of losing its current capability. The work of the office is, of course, highly specialised and requires highly trained staff. So the position of the parliamentarians was that if the office were unable to maintain a capable and competent staff then we would face the risk of losing services. The Audit Office reported that it had delivered 15 of the 17 performance audits required under the 2004-05 Budget and that it planned to meet the requirement of 19 performance audits in 2005-06.

We considered the service the office provides to Parliament with these performance audits an extremely important function. As a result, we agreed to the remuneration increases. However, as will be seen in the report, we specified that we felt as if we were operating in the dark a little in that we did not have adequate information on the current market rates. We have given the office 6 months to bring that information back to us, to show us the movements in the market place, and to align them with its own rates. It was pleasing to note that staff turnover was around 8 percent, which shows that staff turnover is not a huge issue. But of course we want to maintain a highly specialised staff.

The second issue is the request by the Audit Office for what was termed baseline flexibility. In fact, the office was asking for a buffer of $500,000 because it had difficulty in forecasting its audit fee increases and remuneration. One of the issues around the audit fee increases concerns me as an electorate MP. I am sure many of my colleagues—certainly my colleagues around the committee table—know that local authorities have expressed considerable concern, particularly around the long-term council community plans, about the amount they have to pay out in audit fees. In fact, representatives of the Wairoa District Council met with me recently and complained that they were up for $70,000 in audit fees—an enormous amount of money for a small council to find. Fortunately that is not required every year. As a representative in Parliament I need to be assured, as there is no contestability regime around the Audit Office, that the workings of the Audit Office and the way it sets its fees are done in a reasonable manner, and that the fees that are charged to organisations are reasonable. The fees charged is one issue that we looked at as contributing to the need for the buffer.

The second issue concerned the long-term council community plans themselves. It is all very well for us to pass legislation in this House, but it has a huge effect on people throughout the country, and the long-term council community plans have required a whole new separate audit regime. Again I go back to my own electorate, and dealing with four different councils and four mayors. The overall cost to ratepayers of the long-term council community plans—let alone the audit fees—is enormous. Smaller poor communities like Wairoa, Ōpōtiki, and a number of others around the country are really struggling with the requirements of the long-term council community plans. This also puts enormous pressure on the Audit Office to find good-quality staff on a temporary basis to complete these audits. In fact, during the discussion we were told that the Audit Office had had to import from the UK, on a temporary basis, about 30 staff to work on the long-term council community plans. I hasten to assure members that those staff are only temporary. Because this is a cyclical process the Audit Office does not want to take on permanent staff.

So the committee agreed to the request from the Audit Office for this recognition of baseline flexibility. But, again, we have directed the Audit Office to work with Treasury for the next year, so that they are not to take it as read that this increase will remain. We are yet to be convinced that ways in which they could better forecast their needs cannot be found. We have asked that the work be done and brought back to the committee by, I think, October this year, and we will consider it for the 2006-07 year. I have to say that this was a very amicable committee, and I commend the work performed by the Audit Office, the Ombudsman, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. National will support this motion.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I do not want to take a long call, by any means. [Interruption] I thank my friend for saying that that was an excellent contribution! The member who has just resumed her seat spoke in quite some detail about how the Officers of Parliament Committee operated. But I would like to read the conclusion of the committee’s report, which I think should be put on the Hansard record. It states: “We acknowledge the high quality of the work done by the Officers of Parliament and the dedication and professionalism of their offices. The ‘parliamentary watchdog’ role is a vital one for a healthy democracy and we wish to see the officers appropriately resourced for their responsibilities.” Speaking on behalf of New Zealand First, at least—but I think I am speaking for the whole Parliament—I say that we value the efforts of these people and we think they have done a darned good job over a long period of time. We would like to put that on the parliamentary record.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I also rise to talk about Government motion No. 1, particularly regarding the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has done extraordinarily valuable work—enormously valuable work—in addressing some of the very significant ecological issues this country has to face and offering a number of very positive ways in which we can move forward in terms of addressing these significant challenges. Dr Morgan Williams is, I think, well known for the rigour of his work. His office produces work of a very, very high standard. It is highly regarded. This has meant that because of the nature of the office, it has produced some work that is highly challenging. Some of it takes quite a serious look at certain very significant alterations we have to make in our land-use practices—challenging reports, but works that, because of their rigour and high standard, cannot be dismissed as airy-fairy or lacking in substance. So I think the work that has come from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is enormously valuable for this country.

The first report I read was in relation to the involvement of tangata whenua in resource management decision-making. It is an extraordinarily useful work. Rather than retreating into generalities and superficialities, it looks in some detail at what the practice is in different local authorities, and has produced a resource that has very important lessons for local authorities all around the country.

Essentially, the main lesson I drew from it is that those councils that approach engaging with tangata whenua as a statutory requirement for which they have to tick off the box did not do it well, and as a result they did not get much value from the process. But some local authorities realised that engaging with tangata whenua was not a question of compliance but of the fact that they are people with a longstanding historical relationship with the place and who have knowledge of things that the decision makers did not have access to, and that, therefore, engaging with tangata whenua was about improving decision making by getting access to better information and working with local people. Councils that took that position actually got enormous value out of the process and did it very, very well. That was a useful thing to put out in the public domain, in the cogent way that it was put, so it could be read clearly.

Of course, there have been a number of important reports. Restoring the Rotorua Lakes: The Ultimate Endurance Challenge correctly identifies that the problems we are identifying now have been years in the making and are the result of long-established but no longer appropriate ways of doing things. It will take us many years to resolve those problems.

Working Together in Thames-Coromandel: Guidelines for Community Planning suggests improved ways for communities to solve their problems using cooperative processes of dialogue. Now, that is the kind of stuff that is valuable for this Parliament to understand and get our heads around, such as the issue of how we engage communities in decision making. Future Currents: Electricity Scenarios for New Zealand 2005-2050 serves a very useful role of characterising the different possible futures for New Zealand’s electricity supply, depending on what decisions we make in the very near future. Those are the decisions that will set the path for us for the next 45 years. Thinking as far ahead as this, and even further, is absolutely vital if we are to make the right decisions today—if we are to make the decisions we actually need to make.

The last report I will refer to, because it is such an enormous issue, is the Growing for Good report, which addresses the question of intensive farming: sustainability and what that really means in New Zealand’s environment. That is a key report identifying the impacts of New Zealand’s major land use on water quality, and the dependence of the sector on energy and fertiliser for its intensification. This is a very current issue. We are undergoing a massive intensification of dairy right now because of the enormous returns from milk solids. It is causing enormous issues on the Canterbury Plains. It is a massive demand on the water resource, and the issue of water allocation is now becoming extremely important.

We are seeing the impacts of intensification of dairying on waterways in the Taupō area. We have seen it in the Rotorua lakes. Right now Landcorp is retiring a massive area of forestry into intensive dairying, and drawing water from the Waikato. The effects on the river of drawing a very large amount of water from it and of the runoff that will go back into the waterways are massive issues, and the kinds of things addressed in this report are very important. The commissioner’s office coupled it with a roadshow, which went around the country to increase awareness and stimulate further discussion and action.

The report tackled some really hard issues. It suggests that we have to go about finding other ways of enhancing our wealth, rather than just pouring on more nutrients and using more energy to boost production. If we are to get serious in this country about creating a sustainable economy that means our children and our grandchildren have any kind of future at all, we have to start paying attention to this enormously valuable work that is coming from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): The Māori Party rises today to speak to the motion. The provisions earmarked within the 2004-05 appropriations for Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and the associated draft budgets, reflect an important principle within the democratic process: the importance of independence.

We come to this financial review debate spurred on by the report of the United Nations special rapporteur. That report demonstrates the importance of independence, integrity, and capability—the capacity to stand outside and make an informed contribution. Mr Rodolfo Stavenhagen has confirmed in his report many of the issues raised by the Māori Party within the House and within the general public arena. They include issues relating to the Treaty settlements, to education, to the foreshore and seabed, to MMP and the entrenchment of the Māori seats, to human rights, and, of course, to the position of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in relation to our country’s constitution.

It is of no surprise that the Government has chosen to react to the report with hotheaded retorts that the committee should be abolished and replaced because of its “ill odour”, that the rapporteur is out of touch with New Zealand, that the report has been ghost-written, and that the people who have contributed to the report are a collection of “academic radicals”. It is, in fact, irrelevant that the Government chooses to deny the value of an external expert opinion. All that urging to make us believe the report is fundamentally wrong just consolidates even more the view of thinking New Zealanders that the Government has made some fatal errors in imposing the Foreshore and Seabed Act on this nation.

The Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, the Office of the Ombudsmen, and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment have the same responsibility that the special rapporteur has to demonstrate the importance of independence, of integrity, and of the capacity to stand outside and make an informed contribution. The Māori Affairs Committee had the opportunity to receive the assessment from the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General on Te Puni Kōkiri. The briefing we received from the office told us that Te Puni Kōkiri had received a “good” assessment from the office for its financial and service performance during the 2004-05 financial year. Like my colleague from the National Party Tau Henare, I question how the assessment can be “good”.

Te Puni Kōkiri appears to have moved its focus and resources away from its monitoring role. How can it be “good” that an agency does not take seriously its responsibilities under section 5 of the Ministry of Maori Development Act, and is instead downsizing its monitoring role? Section 5 of that Act states: “(1) The responsibilities of the Ministry of Maori Development include—(a) Promoting increases in the levels of achievement attained by Maori with respect to—(i) Education: (ii) Training and employment: (iii) Health: (iv) Economic resource development: (b) Monitoring, and liaising with, each department and agency that provides or has a responsibility to provide services to or for Maori for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of those services.” The report that the special rapporteur has presented to this country cites “the underlying institutional and structural discrimination that Maori have long suffered.” How will the Government, and how will Parliament, ever be able to respond to that underlying discrimination unless Te Puni Kōkiri provides us with the information to be able to make an informed judgment on that?

The report from the special rapporteur recommends that the social delivery services, particularly in health and housing, must continue to be specifically targeted and tailored to the needs of Māori. He urges that there be more targeted research, evaluation, and statistical databases—exactly what the Māori Party has said from the beginning. That is the sort of criticism we would expect from the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. On thinking about some of the knee-jerk reaction from Labour and National alike to the report, there was one thing I agreed with: the concern that we have had to wait for an independent outside expert to tell us about the disparities and discrimination that occur right underneath our noses here in Aotearoa.

In relation to the 2004-05 appropriation, I briefly refer—like my colleague here—to the work programme of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The baseline increase of $400,000 for 2005-06 to restore and maintain core capability is targeted to allow the office to expand its capacity to address citizens’ concerns relating to the Resource Management Act 1991 review functions.

The Māori Party wants to give particular emphasis to the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in constructing a genuine progress index. The Māori Party has advocated for a genuine progress index—“GPI”—as providing a measure of comprehensive, sustainable, and inclusive advancement. The genuine progress index distinguishes between positive contributions to progress, such as the building of schools, and negative activity, such as the building of prisons. It recognises voluntary and other activities that contribute to the expression of positive social and cultural values, including all of the kaupapa that guide our party. Within the genuine progress index, we see that time and resources given to family and whānau care are included in the positive outcomes. The same can be said for marae and other community activities that include whakawhanaungatanga and the expression of other values. Health promotion is positive. The use of time and resources for treating addictions, though necessary, is a negative.

The genuine progress index is an indicator of net advancement and progress. The Māori Party supports the development of genuine progress indices for use at national and community levels, including their use by whānau, hapū, iwi, and district and regional councils. In that respect, we are very interested in the advances of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in working with the New Zealand Centre for Ecological Economics at Massey University. The centre is looking to develop a genuine progress index for New Zealand, as a more comprehensive indicator of progress towards sustainable development than GDP. We understand that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is contributing staff resources towards that project. We believe that the initiative by the commissioner is exactly the type of initiative and proactive direction that we would expect to see from an office that understands the importance of independence and integrity, and of the capacity to stand outside and make an informed contribution.

The Māori Party supports that project as being an excellent initiative to bring about a sea change—a transformation for the better. We believe that the shift to a genuine progress index will require a shift in perception and understanding on the part of many people and organisations in New Zealand today, and we support that work. We have a whakatauākī that I believe offers some inspiration in considering the issue of sustainable futures plainly: “Haere i mua mō haritaonga; waiho i muri titiro kau ana—go in front for a treasure load; leave those behind who would only look.”

Motion agreed to.

Address adopted.

Bills

Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3)

Third Reading

Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of State) on behalf of the Minister for Courts: I move, That the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. This bill amends one of the most important pieces of legislation in this country. The Judicature Act 1908 is the cornerstone legislation for New Zealand’s senior judiciary and our higher courts, especially the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Court rules made under the Act govern the practice and procedure of our courts of general jurisdiction.

The bill makes a small number of amendments, principally to assist the work of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal is the workhorse of the New Zealand appellate system. Its jurisdiction includes hearing appeals from judgments and orders of the High Court, criminal matters on indictment in the District Courts, judgments of the Employment Court, and appellate decisions of the High Court on appeals from the District Court. The Court of Appeal is facing heavy workload pressures. A growing number of appeals are waiting to be heard, and without additional judges that trend is predicted to continue to lead to negative impacts on timeliness and a corresponding erosion of justice. The Government recognises this problem and is addressing it in this bill by increasing the number of judges who may be appointed to the Court of Appeal. This is the first increase since 1987—goodness knows what the Government in between was doing. Because of the timing of last year’s general election the passage of this bill has taken a little longer than usual, and I thank the court for its forbearance.

The bill also amends the way in which the court may deliver judgments. A more flexible process will be set out in amendments to the court rules, as is the practice for the Supreme Court and the High Court. Clauses 6 and 7 correct minor omissions arising from the legislation establishing the Supreme Court. Given the scale and complexity of the drafting for that reform, it is remarkable that only minor corrections are required. Clause 6 goes further than a mere correction. Section 65 of the Act re-enacted section 14 of the Court of Appeal Act 1882. As the reference to tribunals may originally have had a different meaning and as the section is no longer necessary, it has now been decided to repeal this section in its entirety.

An effective and accessible court system is a fundamental part of any democratic society. This Government believes that court processes must adapt to new technology and that legal procedures must continue to evolve, in order to ensure that our courts are as efficient as they can be and deliver a higher-quality service to the public. I welcome the House’s agreement to the inclusion of a small amendment to enable the use of videoconferencing, whereby an Associate Judge of the High Court may participate remotely in certain civil proceedings. The Government is committed to providing a modern, effective, and accessible court system, in which the public has confidence, by making small but important improvements. This legislation demonstrates that commitment.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): As the acting Minister, Jim Sutton, said, this bill gives some belated, but much-needed, partial relief to the Court of Appeal. Clause 3, which has not been amended since 1987, will have the effect of amending section 57 of the Act to permit the appointment of eight permanent judges to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal plays a major role in the justice system of this country. It has been overworked for a number of years, and it reflects no credit on the Government that it has taken as long as this for something to be done about it. At the very least there should have been amendments to the Judicature Act in 2004 when the Supreme Court was established and the Privy Council appeal system was let go.

This provision is a major improvement. It will enable the court to sit in two divisions and will allow at least two judges to be working on their written judgments. Hopefully, that will go some way to improving the procedures of our intermediate appellate court.

As I said in the second reading debate—and I also mentioned it during the Committee stage—it is a good first step, but I think the time is coming when a leave provision needs to introduced. I also think the time is coming when the Law Commission’s report has to be dusted off. We need to consider whether appeals from District Court jury trials should go to the Court of Appeal, as they do now, or to a full court of the High Court. So that is the first part of this legislation.

The second part improves some court procedures, not just in the Court of Appeal but also in the High Court. The Minister referred to the minor amendment instituted by clause 5, which is about the procedures when judgments of the Court of Appeal are given. He also mentioned a minor change introduced by clause 5A on Supplementary Order Paper 21, dated 21 March, whereby a judge or associate judge may, by video link, preside at a hearing of specified matters.

Some concern was expressed in the Committee about this procedure and whether it could be used for nefarious purposes, but, in my opinion, it simply reflects existing practices. I have been involved in a number of cases over the years where evidence at the trial—and not just interlocutory matters—has been taken by video link. I recall on one occasion having to get up very early to go down to the Auckland University video centre so that the evidence of an expert in a case could be taken from England. So new section 26IB, in clause 5A, is a standard change, and it causes me no distress at all.

The third part of the legislation rectifies an embarrassing mistake that reflects rather poorly, in my opinion, on this Parliament. Clause 6, which is in Part 2, provides that section 65 of the Judicature Act is to be repealed. Section 65 deals with decisions of the Court of Appeal whereby a case is removed to it, and it provides that the decision of the Court of Appeal is final, subject to an appeal to the Privy Council. That proviso was not repealed in 2003 when the Supreme Court Bill was being debated. It should have been. Other legislation was the subject of consequential amendment on the passage of the Supreme Court Act, but for some unknown reason that particular section of the Judicature Act remained unchanged until someone in the Ministry of Justice, apparently, spotted the error after the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court had mentioned it, and it now forms part of this amending legislation.

That is the kind of sloppy, unsatisfactory drafting that bedevils much of our legislation. The mistake should have been picked up, as I said, a couple of years ago, and it reflects no credit on this Parliament that we have this kind of sloppy drafting. Quite frankly, we need to lift our game. So that is really what the bill is about—giving belated relief, improving some procedures, and stitching up an embarrassing mistake.

But I want to end my third reading speech by saying that I think the time has come for more than just piecemeal reform of this legislation. As the Minister said, this is the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3). The time has come for us to take a good look at all the statutes governing courts and tribunals in this country, and have a consolidated courts and tribunals Act that deals with the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, the Māori Land Court, the Māori Appellate Court, and certain statutory tribunals.

I think the time has come for a consolidated statute. The Judicature Act 1908 is hopelessly out of date. When one reads the synopsis of the Act, one sees that a large number of sections have been repealed. Part 3 is a splendid example of a miscellany of sections that deal with a range of matters that are not related to the establishment and constitution of the High Court and Court of Appeal.

So I would strongly submit to the Minister that that is a useful exercise that could be undertaken by this Parliament. I am sure the Justice and Electoral Committee would enjoy the work of bringing together the key statutory provisions dealing with all the courts, including the Māori Land Court and the Māori Appellate Court, within one statute.

I go further than that. I do not know whether the Minister read an exceptionally good address given last week by the President of the Law Commission of New Zealand, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, to the New Zealand Centre for Public Law at Victoria University. Sir Geoffrey Palmer was reflecting on law reform and the Law Commission after 20 years, and said we need to try a little harder. That could be the subtext of this legislation tonight—that Parliament needs to try a little harder.

One of the key matters he talked about was the accessibility of statute law in New Zealand. He made the comment that the New Zealand Parliament is the fastest lawmaker in the West and that massive amounts of law are made in New Zealand every year. Indeed, we have nearly 1,100 statutes as part of our primary law—putting to one side our secondary legislation. He went on to say that New Zealand’s statute law is simply not accessible, and I quote: “In New Zealand, unless one knows the name of the principal public Act, there is a good chance that relevant provisions can be overlooked. The New Zealand statute book is both massive and unmanageable. More useful is the American approach where both at state and federal level a code is produced of all statute law or federal law passed by the legislature and arranged under topic headings.” He referred, for example, to the code of the state of Iowa, which is contained in four volumes, and he said that the code allows people in both the public and the private sectors to locate and read all the relevant primary statute law that may be important to a particular concern.

I heartily endorse what Sir Geoffrey said in his speech. I think it could be an excellent exercise for the New Zealand Parliament to codify much of its legislation, and I can think of no better place to start than with the statutes that govern the courts of New Zealand. There needs to be a comprehensive code or statute bringing together all the relevant provisions, and, as Sir Geoffrey said, we need to try a little harder.

As I said, this legislation is an improvement, but it is piecemeal and bitsy and, at the end of the day, the Judicature Act is a mess. I described it during the Committee stage as a dog’s breakfast. The District Courts Act 1947 is not much better. There really needs to be a bit of effort made by this place to bring together all these pieces of legislation in one statute that is easily readable and easily accessed by lawyers and laypeople.

So the National Party will support this legislation through its third reading, but, like so much legislation introduced by this Government, I would have to give it only a C pass. It is a rather poor effort indeed.

TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere): I must thank my colleagues, and the junior whip, for giving me the chance to speak. This is one of my first speeches this year, but I am pleased to contribute to the debate on the the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3), which is before the House. The previous speaker said that it has been quite a while since the legislation was amended, but I say to him that during the intervening 19 years, the National Party was in Government for a significant part of that time, and there was no amendment at all from the National Government. It took a Labour Government in 1987 to improve this legislation, and it is now up to another Labour Government to make amendments. So given the focus of his speech in relation to the lack of improvement over such a lengthy period of time, I am quite proud of the fact that it has taken two Labour Governments in those 19 years to improve on this important legislation.

As previous speakers have said, the bill is designed to reduce the workload pressure facing the Court of Appeal and to increase access to the Supreme Court. I point out to the previous speaker that this Government was responsible for the establishment of the Supreme Court. This Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) makes a significant move, although with small amendments, in terms of the extra number of judges who will be appointed. As previously mentioned, there will be eight permanent judges, and that will help give confidence to the judicial processes in relation to appeals to the Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court. This bill also looks at improving the use of judges’ time, as well as increasing access to the Supreme Court, and improvements in the use of technology in relation to the available technology for court processes.

The bill also amends the way in which the court may deliver judgments. A more flexible process will be set out in amendments to the court rules, as is the practice for the Supreme Court and the High Court. Clauses 6 and 7 correct minor omissions arising from legislation establishing the Supreme Court. Given the scale and complexity of the drafting for that reform, it is remarkable that only minor corrections are required, and that gives credit to the drafting of the legislation that established our Supreme Court.

The effectiveness of our court system is a fundamental part of our democracy and society, and this Government believes that court processes must adapt to new technology, as I said, and legal processes must continue to evolve in order to ensure that our courts are as efficient as they can be, and deliver a higher-quality service to the public. This Government is committed to providing a modern, effective, and accessible court system in which the public has confidence. Those changes in the legislation clearly demonstrate that commitment.

I am in full support of what is being done here. I am pleased also that the previous speaker kept quoting Sir Geoffrey Palmer, and I remind that speaker that Sir Geoffrey Palmer was a former Labour Prime Minister and very good at drafting legislation. His speech, as the member said last night, pointed to some of the things that we need to look at in the future. However, I also give credit to the former member’s services as a Labour member of Parliament in this House, and the fact that he is a former Prime Minister as well.

I thank the Minister for bringing this bill to the House. I believe that it will significantly improve our judicial processes in the Supreme Court as well as the Court of Appeal.

KATE WILKINSON (National): I rise to speak to the third reading of the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3). When the Ministry of Justice annual report of 2004-05 states that the workload at the Court of Appeal is at a historically high level—547 hearings in 2004-05 compared with 503 in 2003-04, which includes a substantial increase in the number of criminal appeal cases, with 450 in 2004-05 compared with 371 in 2003-04—it is obvious that something needs to be done about the workload and the backlog.

The report of Sir Thomas Thorp entitled Miscarriages of Justice makes it clear that New Zealand lags behind the United Kingdom and other countries in terms of having the procedures in place to deal with miscarriages of justice. In fact, Justice Thorp suggests that as many as 20 people may be wrongly incarcerated in New Zealand, and it is obvious that something has to be done.

When we hear of examples whereby Court of Appeal judgments have taken, in some cases, 1 year and 1 week, or, in another case, over 7 months to be delivered, it is obvious that something needs to be done. When we hear that recent 2005 crime statistics show that violent crime is up 6.9 percent, grievous assaults are up 13 percent, homicides are up 27 percent, intimidation and threats are up 11 percent, robberies are up 12 percent, serious assaults are up 7 percent, sex crimes are up 6.4 percent, burglaries are up, and busts for new drugs like P are up 29 percent on last year and up 179 percent since 2003, then we know that something needs to be done. Dealing with such an increase in crime at that level—the court stage—is certainly the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, but it must be a very, very large ambulance if it is to deal with this. This bill is but one piece of the jigsaw. Yes, it is bitsy, as my colleague has said. Yes, it is piecemeal. It is certainly not the whole jigsaw. There are still pieces missing, but at least it is a start.

This bill increases the number of Court of Appeal judges from six to eight, plus the president. It means that the Court of Appeal will be better resourced. Yes, we do have to be careful that we are not appointing too many judges, but so too do we have to be careful that we have enough judges to ensure that access to justice is not denied, that the integrity of our legal system is maintained, and that confidence in our legal system is maintained. Miscarriages of justice ideally should be eliminated, but if that is not possible, they should at least be minimised. By further resourcing our Court of Appeal this bill goes some way towards that objective.

As the Minister has stated, this bill also deals with how the judgments of the Court of Appeal are delivered, by providing that the delivery of the judgment of the Court of Appeal may be effected in any manner provided by the rules. At present under the Court of Appeal Rules, the judgment of the Court of Appeal on appeal is delivered in open court by at least two permanent judges of that court. By comparison, the High Court Rules lay down requirements for the giving of judgments, whether orally or in writing, but the actual delivery of those judgments can be done by the registrar of the court. The New Zealand Law Society submission on that point—and it is encouraging that at least the submission was listened to—suggested that the Court of Appeal may wish to adopt the same procedure so that judgments are given by the judges but delivered through the registrar. The provision as originally drafted included the words “and by any number of Judges”, which, of course, could have led to the unintended interpretation that a judge was required actually to be involved in the process of delivering a judgment, and that at least one judge might have to be there to deliver a judgment. It is pleasing that, at least, the judge now does not have to be present. It is a waste of judicial time if a judge has to be in a courtroom that may be empty, merely for the purposes of delivering a judgment. It makes some sense to allow written judgments to be delivered through the registrar in certain circumstances, freeing up judges’ valuable time so they can clear the backlog of cases waiting to be heard. What a waste otherwise of valuable judicial time for a judge to have to deliver a judgment personally when a registrar is just as capable of doing so, and when the judge, as was said, would be far better employed clearing the backlog.

This bill also addresses—not perfectly—the issue of appeals, so that a decision of the High Court can be appealed, with leave, to the Court of Appeal or, in exceptional circumstances, directly to the Supreme Court. It can no longer be appealed to the Privy Council because, as we all know, that right to avail ourselves of those wonderful legal brains was taken from us. Unfortunately, however, when this Government abolished the right of appeal to the Privy Council it did not seem to consider, even momentarily, the consequent pressures that that action might have on the Court of Appeal. The domino effect on the Court of Appeal was either ignored, disregarded, or not even thought about. The fact that the Court of Appeal judges of New Zealand might move on up to the newly established Supreme Court did not appear to have been given any attention whatsoever, nor did the fact that when those top Court of Appeal judges moved up to sit on the Supreme Court, a vacancy might occur in the Court of Appeal. Such matters, as the fact that those vacancies would need to be filled, and so on, seemed simply to have been overlooked. So it is little wonder that the Court of Appeal found itself in the position of being overworked, under-resourced, and unable to deliver prompt judgments or make any dent in clearing the backlog of cases.

I said before that this bill is part of a jigsaw, and a missing piece of the jigsaw relates to District Court jury trials, as my colleague Mr Finlayson has already alluded to. Currently, appeals from District Court jury trials do not go to the next highest court in the land—namely, the High Court—but in fact go directly to the Court of Appeal. There is merit in the suggestion that appeals in jury trials in the District Court could go directly to a full court of the High Court rather than directly to the Court of Appeal, thereby alleviating some of the Court of Appeal’s workload.

Increasing the number of judges in the Court of Appeal is not the absolute cure for all the ills of the legal system. We must also consider why there is a backlog of unheard cases in the Court of Appeal and why we have so many appeals in the first place. In this regard we must look at the number of appeals resulting from legal aid work. This Government has now increased the number of those eligible for legal aid from 700,000 to 1.2 million, even though there is anecdotal evidence that the supply of legal aid lawyers is dwindling. For several reasons convincingly debated in the readings of the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2), lawyers are walking away from legal aid work. That means that the few legal aid lawyers left will be overworked, with the very real risk that their work will be rushed and not up to standard, and with the consequence that miscarriages of justice may occur or more appeals may be made to higher courts, including the Court of Appeal. This does not even start to consider those people on legal aid who may decide to give it a go in the Court of Appeal, and that perhaps in a District Court jury trial the trial judge may have made a mistake or overlooked something. Such appeals would go directly to the Court of Appeal, not the High Court, and further clog up the workload of the Court of Appeal. Yet such appeals could be avoided if the issues of access to justice, as raised in the debates on the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2), had been properly considered and addressed.

There is definitely a sore out there. This bill is a band-aid, but the sore remains. The bill may momentarily numb the pain, but it will not remove it completely. Access to justice is vital. This bill does help that objective, but it is just part of the jigsaw, it is piecemeal, and it is bitsy. It is not the panacea of all ills, but at least it is an improvement. National supports this bill.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): I am a little bit disappointed that some of the smaller parties, who are always complaining in the House about the unfair treatment they receive, are not taking a call in the debate on the third reading.

Darren Hughes: When was the last time they complained about that?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: The whip on the Government side makes a fair point. However, the reason I make the point is that the administration of justice is one of the key roles this Parliament performs. We pass the laws in this Parliament that set up the structure of the courts. The Attorney-General appoints the judges. So therefore Parliament and the executive have a hugely important role in the administration of justice in the courts of our country. Frankly, to have 20 percent of Parliament effectively absenting itself from the process serves the country poorly. If those parties wonder why they attracted only 20 percent of the vote at the last election, perhaps it is because the public actually made a judgment on them, saying: “They are not worth any more, in truth.” Although they once had 35 percent of this Parliament, today they have 20 percent, and it is because they have refused to participate in developing the law on the administration of justice. They stand condemned by their inaction.

Darren Hughes: They spoke on the last motion. Get on with it.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Would the junior whip stop making irrelevant and petty interjections, as he is notoriously prone to do. I had thought the man had some potential. He came dangerously close to losing his seat. It was another case of the voters in his district saying: “Well, maybe the member for Otaki needs a break.” Indeed, I suspect that in the 2008 election the voters will say: “We need to confirm our judgment. That man needs a retirement package. Goodbye, and welcome to Nathan Guy.”

I want to talk about the bill, as indeed one should. One of the important things the Government did in the last term—and I acknowledge the role of the Speaker in this—was establish the Supreme Court of New Zealand. I realise that it had a controversial birth, but I also acknowledge, and I want to say so publicly at this point—it would be only fair to do so—that it was something that had been spoken about a great deal by the Rt Hon Jim Bolger and the Rt Hon Sir Douglas Graham. They were committed to that development.

When a Government is developing new judicial structures—and I recognise the Supreme Court as a very substantial development in our constitution—

Taito Phillip Field: That’s not very generous.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: We actually said at the time that it was significant. We said it was so significant that the New Zealand public ought to have the right to vote on it. I can imagine that Labour members will say: “Well, you weren’t saying that back in 2004.”, but the truth is that over time people learn about constitutions—perhaps not the Government, but the wider public—and the public expect to be able to vote on major changes to the constitution. I think the Supreme Court fairly met that proposal. I suspect that the public would have voted for a Supreme Court as part and parcel of New Zealand’s development.

Darren Hughes: Which is why you have never voted against it!

Dr WAYNE MAPP: As I have said in this House, in a proper reply to the interjector, the failed member for Otaki, one of the reasons we voted against it was that the public did not have a proper say.

In developing that important initiative of the Supreme Court, it really is incumbent upon the Government to consider more carefully the structure of the balance of the courts. After all, there was a substantial direction by the New Zealand Law Commission, report No. 85, Delivering Justice For All: A Vision for New Zealand Courts and Tribunals in which it set out a series of important proposals, such as the court sitting in panels and so forth. There is no real recognition by this Government of the importance of putting in place a proper plan, in a statutory way, that would do that. At least half of the appeals, both criminal and civil, originate in New Zealand’s largest city, Auckland. On an ad hoc basis the Court of Appeal sits there in panels of three. It is only on an ad hoc basis. No permanent panel is established there. The other panel tends to sit in the Wellington Court of Appeal. There are also no developments—and I think it is necessary, now that we have a Supreme Court—that would mean the Court of Appeal would sit only in panels of three. Because now, under the new system, why would we ever have a full hearing of the Court of Appeal? In short, what would be the point? Any substantial issue should be heard by the Supreme Court.

One of the values of the Supreme Court is the “access to justice” question. For instance, approximately only eight appeals were heard per year in the Privy Council. I put on record in Hansard that Mr Christopher Finlayson appeared in the last Privy Council appeal heard in London, which I suggest is an important milestone in New Zealand’s legal history. The truth is that the opportunity has been lost to properly develop the Court of Appeal. For instance—and I have noted this previously—in the Ngāti Apa case the Court of Appeal sat as a full court. Indeed it should have, because for all practical purposes it was sitting as a final court. Of course, it was not the final court.

That case could have been appealed to the Privy Council, but it was not. The Government took the unprincipled route of simply passing legislation without testing its arguments further in the Privy Council. I am sure the Māori Party—and certainly many other Māori people in New Zealand; my wife being one of them—would say that the most important thing that had to be done was to test the legal right, one way or the other. Māori have a proud record of using the courts and accepting the decisions of the courts.

That era of New Zealand’s history has now passed. This bill, which deals only with numbers of judges, does not deal with all of those other questions I have spoken about, such as a permanent panel of three established in Auckland, a permanent panel of three established in Wellington, a rule that the Court of Appeal will sit only as three, and no proper statutory rules around High Court judges sitting on the Court of Appeal—again, there are ad hoc processes around that. We have ended up with a detailed and comprehensive statute on the Supreme Court, but it is essentially a mishmash of statutory provisions and rules of court procedure that establish the Court of Appeal. That is fundamentally unsatisfactory. Although we will support the bill to third reading, because it does something useful, it really is a missed opportunity.

I suggest to the Government, given the amount of legislative time it has these days, that it take the opportunity to do the job thoroughly, repair the legal tool kit, put our legal system in a proper structure, take advice from the Law Commission, and then act on it. After all, the Government appointed Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who is a former Prime Minister, which was a good appointment I have to say. The Government should let him do his job properly. Otherwise, we will have a mishmash of ad hoc measures, like this legislation, which really do not provide the concrete foundation that I think the country is entitled to expect from the legislators and from the executive of this country. It is why taxpayers pay literally hundreds of millions of dollars to them to run the country. I say to the Government, which holds the executive power, that it should do its job properly.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time.

Ayes 115

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 3

Māori Party 3.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): I move, That the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This is straightforward legislation that will add the Supreme Court to the list of higher courts for which the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting will be responsible for preparing formal law reports. This is not, as some Opposition spokespeople have said, a major overhaul of our judicial system; nor was it ever intended to be.

The Supreme Court is the highest appellate court and, through all the appellate pathways, has the ability to review the decisions of our courts across the full range of New Zealand law. Given the central importance of the Supreme Court, the law reports will need to be of the highest quality. To achieve this standard, the Council of Law Reporting has been consulting the judges in the Supreme Court and also the New Zealand Law Society to review the current practices and suggest possible improvements. A protocol has been agreed to ensure good practice. We are fortunate to have a number of specialist law reports covering a wide range of specific case law such as tax law, family law, and resource management law. This bill will also clarify the basis on which consent may be given by the New Zealand Law Society to enable specialist reporters to continue this valuable series.

During the debate, an issue was raised about reports on the Māori Land Court and the Māori Appellate Court. It is accepted by the Government that we have an inadequate series of reports in this area. I gave an assurance to the Committee of the whole House at that time that the Government was going to move on this. I want to repeat that assurance, that within the next 6 months or so we will have a better structure for the Māori Appellate Court, and approximately 12 months after that we will have a better series of reports for the Māori Land Court.

In conclusion, the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill will ensure the continued value and validity of New Zealand law reports by extending the responsibilities of the Council of Law Reporting to include reports on significant decisions of the Supreme Court. This bill is as simple and as straightforward as that, and I commend it to the House.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): The comments made by the last speaker, the Hon Rick Barker, remind me of that great Latin tag line noscitur a sociis—a word is known by the company it keeps. Certainly, when future generations come to reflect on the contribution that the Hon Rick Barker has made to this House, they will remember this bill as probably the high point of his contribution as a Minister.

In one view, the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill is short and simple, but it is wholly reflective of the intellect that a powerful Minister in the current administration has brought to this particular task. This is not difficult legislation, as the Minister has been at pains to say. Indeed, it is simple. But it is quite old legislation, and, although he did not say so, it has its origins in 1938, when the principal Act was passed. It is good to be remembered for something positive that one has done in the course of a parliamentary career. That is why I started by saying it is particularly significant that this bill should be identified as the high point of the Hon Rick Barker’s period in Parliament. Sadly, all periods come to a close. Some are marked by stellar greatness; some, perhaps, are not.

I thought I would start with a reference to noscitur a sociis, then come to a more familiar theme—[Interruption]—which will be picked up instantly by Mr Parker in the valuable contribution he is about to make in the course of this third reading speech—which is the doctrine of stare decisis. Why are we strongly supportive of the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill? Because we are committed to the doctrine of stare decisis. There are no blank expressions on the faces of those members seated opposite, and I know why that is. In common law countries, court opinions are legally binding under the rule of stare decisis. In fact, it is what we here are all about. [Interruption] Those members who are interrupting might like to pause for a moment, because I wish to develop other Latin concepts that will clearly be familiar to Mr Barker and his colleagues.

The concept is a simple one. Under that rule, court opinions of superior courts are legally binding—it is the doctrine of precedent. The regular publication of opinions is important, so that everyone—the media, lawyers, judges, and laymen—can find out what the law is as declared by judges.

It is very much a central feature of law reporting that the law reports, as one looks at a decision in a particular case, are in two very structured parts. The first is the headnote, and the second contains in full detail the opinion of the person who delivered the judgment. That is why I want now to consider the concept of ratio decidendi, which I think is fundamental to sound law reporting. Ratio decidendi is a simple concept to articulate, but quite a difficult one to apply. Ratio decidendi translates into very rough English as the “reason for deciding”. It is the task of the law reporter to draw out from the material contained in the judgment what, in fact, the ratio decidendi is. What are the guiding principles in the case? How is the case to be remembered, reflectively, for its precedent value?

I believe that the hallmark of a good report is the ability to discern the ratio decidendi. But it goes much, much further than that and moves into another important area of law, obiter dicta. I would like, in the short period of time remaining, to speak about the important concept of obiter dicta. This is the stuff from which lawyers weave their fairy tales. This is the stuff that keeps them awake at night. It is the pillow talk that is the commonplace of judicial company. I would like for a moment to dwell on obiter dicta. So often in reporting these days we see significant confusion between ratio decidendi, which I have briefly explained, and obiter dicta, which I now want to talk about for just a moment.

I am not completely sure how obiter dicta is best translated these days, but the concept is simple enough. We have the guiding principles of law captured in the phrase ratio decidendi, but these other comments—the comments on the side and the outside comments—make up the concept of obiter dicta. That is the test the Minister has grappled with so determinedly in his decision to bless the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting with this important task of reporting Supreme Court decisions. It is for the reporters to sift carefully through the material to determine what is ratio decidendi and what is obiter dicta. So we will see, in a well-constructed headnote, that differentiation so importantly drawn between those hugely significant concepts.

Mark Blumsky gave a speech in Parliament the other day that I think is worthy of recollection and recall. He made the point—guided by his famous wife, who is a prominent lawyer in the city of Wellington—that one of the problems with law reporting is that the law reports lag significantly behind the publication of the actual decisions of the judges. There is no doubt that this Government, with its laudable outcome of accessibility to justice, on which it fails so lamentably and so often, should clearly pursue a plan that provides accessibility to law reports. Concepts of accessibility are incredibly important, but in this context we are talking about the accessibility of judges’ opinions. We all know that, in looking at issues of access to law, access to statute law is important and well provided for, but access to case law is significantly less so.

I pick up the comments of Mr Blumsky’s wife that it is important we have a timeliness of law reporting. That is why it is important to note the deficiencies in the specialist reports that the Hon Rick Barker has spoken about. They may have an immediacy but they do not necessarily have an accuracy on those two critical benchmarks of identified ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. A much sharper focus should be made in those important areas.

I could have ventured at some length upon the history of law reporting in New Zealand. I have refrained from doing that and instead have decided to give just a very short summary of where we have gone in the context of law reporting in New Zealand. Some would say this is not a bowel-gripping topic. I am led, I suppose, to that conclusion in a provisional way myself. But there is no doubt that the history of law reporting in New Zealand has been a solid one, and it has been a record marked by scholarship and intellect.

I see that the previous Attorney-General, David Parker, who had specific responsibilities for law reporting, is in the House, and I venture to hope he might comment on this legislation. I certainly hope he will do so, because in the course of his career as a lawyer he contributed substantially to decisions in the courts that had a significant commercial consequence.

With time running against me, I will not retrace the complete history of law reporting in New Zealand. I simply say that the current New Zealand Law Reports, as members may know, started in 1881, but complete sets are deemed to have started in 1861, with a number of prior series. In the period from 1861 until about 1872—subject to correction from Mr Parker—we had the Macassey Reports, a publication called the New Zealand Jurist Reports (New Series), and later reports.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): I must confess that I am tempted to yield my 10 minutes to the previous speaker. I think it is worth noting on the record that Dr Richard Worth, member of Parliament, was also the winner of the Sweet and Maxwell prize at Auckland University for being the most prominent graduate of his year, and that he was a member of the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting for many, many years.

I think we saw that depth of expertise being reflected tonight, as he explored the principles of, firstly, how to write a law report and, secondly—for the benefit of members on the other side—how to read and understand law reports. After all, unless law reports are accurate, and unless they sum up in the ratio of the case the little headnotes that the previous speaker was talking about, it would be impossible, I suggest, to understand the development and structure of the law.

I know that lawyers are sometimes criticised for going on about the common law and its development over many, many centuries. But the fact that we can stand here, on the summit of centuries and centuries of legal decisions, is of enormous benefit to our country. The principles that we are all so accustomed to in this country: the rule of law, the protection from the powers of the State, and the fact that people can be detained by the police only after they have been arrested, as opposed to simply being hauled off the street and summarily dragged off to jail, which would happen for instance under Saddam Hussein’s regime—something that no doubt the Greens would applaud—are due to the development of the law by our judges.

Let us imagine that we did not have decent law reports. How would we know what had been decided not just last week, last year, or a decade ago, but literally centuries ago? It is absolutely crucial to our system of law that we have good law reports, and that they are accessible. Indeed, people like the Clerk of the House, David McGee, who has written a superb book on the procedures of the House, have provided that enormous depth of precedents that we all value and rely on when we read the law and understand its practical application. How often have I heard a member of the Green Party, for instance, talk about the importance of being protected against the State, talk about civil rights, or talk about the importance of the individual? I know that I have heard members speak on those topics many, many times. None of the precedents would exist without the work of judges, and those precedents would not be available to us unless they had been written—unless, in short, they had been reported.

I also want to put one other point on record, because I am not sure that Mr Chris Finlayson will have the opportunity to speak tonight, although he has spoken previously. He was shabbily treated by the current Attorney-General, I might add, and members on the other side of the House ought to reflect in shame at the political interference that occurred, which meant that proper recognition of his skills of advocacy was not able to be made last year. So I want to put that on record, because it was a shabby little thing done by the Attorney-General—a lack of understanding, really, of the importance of advocacy. It would do well for members on the other side to understand that it is not uncommon, in fact, in other jurisdictions for people to be elevated to the level of Senior Counsel—as the title is now—while in Parliament.

The point I am really making here is that amongst Mr Finlayson’s many achievements he was also a member of the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting for many, many years, and that needs to be put on record. We actually have, in this House today, two members of Parliament who do not just have a general knowledge of the law, who did not just practice the law, who are not just learned and esteemed in their profession, but who have had a direct and material connection to the development of the Law Reports.

I turn now specifically to the bill, which primarily allows the reporting of Supreme Court reports. It is an interesting little oversight, is it not? Because Government members rushed through the decision on the Supreme Court, and because they did not bother to ask the public of New Zealand what they thought, this bill is actually a correction of an oversight—

Christopher Finlayson: Another one.

Dr WAYNE MAPP:—another oversight. A Government worth its salt would have included in the initiating legislation the ability to report the decisions of the Supreme Court, but it was not even thought about. Why? It was a matter of: laziness, I guess; incompetence, I imagine; haste, I dare say; lack of consultation—

Kate Wilkinson: Ignorance.

Dr WAYNE MAPP:—and ignorance, as my colleague Kate Wilkinson has suggested. All those factors had a role to play. So here we have had yet another repair job where the Government has come across to the Opposition and said: “Help us out by voting for this legislation.” Opposition members are having to do that on a regular basis—helping out the Government to repair its botched jobs for the benefit of New Zealand.

Hon Rick Barker: He goes on for a long, long time.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I tell the Minister for Courts, who needs to reflect, I guess, where he will fit in the sequence of seniority for justice Ministers, that this bill is not a fine reflection on him or on his Government. The Supreme Court has now been in action for 2 years—the court did not even get a permanent home until just recently, and that will take years and years to actually become reality—so finally we will get the decisions of the Supreme Court published.

I want to conclude on a particular point—again an issue that Mr Finlayson raised, and I acknowledge that the Minister has taken it on board—that is, the reporting of the decisions of the Māori Appellate Court and the Māori Land Court. They have been very badly reported in the past. There is no easy way, currently, to access those reports. One can go into any lawyer’s office or for that matter into any law school, or into any Government department, and one will not find decisions of the Māori Appellate Court or the Māori Land Court on the shelves, but one will find reports from every other court easily accessible.

The Government must ask itself why the United Nations sees fit to say “Well, frankly in some areas you haven’t done the job properly.” I guess that this is a little example, is it not? And to be fair, I do not just blame the current Government. As a nation we have been neglectful of giving proper reporting of, and indeed respect to, the decisions of those two courts.

National will be supporting this bill, and members have heard the very learned dissertation from the winner of the Sweet and Maxwell prize—the top law student in his year at Auckland University—on the challenge facing law reporting. How does one work out what is the stare decisis of the decision, and the reasons for deciding that? What is the obiter dicta? What kind of guide will be given, not just to us in this Parliament, not just to contemporary generations of law students, but to students who will be sitting in their high-tech law schools a century from now? They will be reading the decisions of 2005 and saying “Actually, that court made a fine decision.”, or “How is it that the reporter made an error there?”. So we are doing an important part of repairing the legal tool kit, but again National has had to come and rescue the failures of the Labour Government by voting for this legislation—albeit 2 years after it should have been passed.

MARK BLUMSKY (National): Yet again I follow some very learned legal colleagues from the National Party. I suggest to members, however, that my background in footwear retailing and my current ownership of 10 years of my lingerie business has also given me a background similar to that of Dr Worth. In fact, I can share with members many Italian words also—words such as Amalfi, Botticelli, and Elle MacPherson—

Dr Wayne Mapp: That is not Italian.

MARK BLUMSKY: I know it is not Italian, but I know many Italian men who wish she was Italian. In my background I probably have more knowledge and skills in legal matters than those that we saw from the Minister for Courts in his gripping speech when he introduced this bill for its third reading tonight. In fact, if I keep talking on these legal bills I am sure that some members in this House will actually believe that the Blumsky household has two lawyers.

I see my new pen pal, David Benson-Pope, is over there in the House, and I acknowledge him. Can I thank him for his lovely letter the other day, so personal and so very signed. Can I suggest to him that a Minister on top of his game would do better things than write me love letters, as he did. But I do look forward to his Christmas card, which I am sure I will get because I am on his “most favourite persons” database.

This is a very serious but simple bill, and National supports it. Is it important that the New Zealand Law Reports are authoritative and without peer? To quote a press release from 30 September 2001: “The argument of counsel and Privy Council cases is to be reported in the New Zealand Law Reports (NZLR) from now on. This will give a major boost to their authority and standing”. That was a press release from the managing director of LexisNexis, reinforcing the importance of the authoritative volumes the New Zealand Law Society put out.

Should the Law Society produce those reports? Of course it should. To quote from another fine journal, the New Zealand Law Journal of February 2005: “The difficulty for publishers and clients alike is that the New Zealand legal profession is small but diverse … What role does the New Zealand Law Society play in this? As it states, in s 4 of the Law Practitioners Act 1982, one function of the NZLS is (e) To promote opportunities for the acquisition and diffusion of legal knowledge … A guiding hand at least; an informed voice for the legal profession at best, the New Zealand Law Society should ensure that issues … are identified and debated.” So, without doubt, the New Zealand Law Society is the exact, perfect authority to produce those fine volumes.

How important are those reports; will they get referred to; and are they to be used? Lawyers in practice, lawyers in commerce, lawyers in intellectual property—I put that in for my wife—judges, law librarians, New Zealand agencies overseas, local bodies, the Ministry of Justice, main Government agencies—those people and organisations need to see how law develops and to find out just what the distinguishing facts behind the decisions were. They are very important documents, indeed.

It was with surprise that I saw that the Greens, in the first reading debate of March 2005, totally agreed with our position on this bill. I quote Nandor Tanczos’ speech from Hansard: “… I have to say that, in my view, it is important that, in relation to judicial decisions, and the importance of implications for the wider society, there be a clearly authorised publication that can accurately report the courts’ decisions.” We agree with him on that point, but we do not agree with the next section of his speech, where he spoke about the fact that he liked the provision on the Supreme Court in the bill. We do not. It is a pity that when the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Act came into being in 1938 there was no mention of the Supreme Court. Legislation introduced in 2002 ended 160 years of New Zealanders’ rights to appeal to the Privy Council, which was a major constitutional change. The Government made that change, and many are uneasy about that, and about the arrogance this Government showed when it made that decision.

We are supportive of the bill. We believe that it is important that the Supreme Court is now added to the New Zealand Law Reports. We also totally endorse the provision in clause 3 that refers to the need for there to be other publications that can print some of the material if the New Zealand law report is delayed, overdue, or too costly. That will keep some pressure on the need for them to deliver, and deliver true. We support the bill and I look forward to seeing it go through.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I had not intended to take a call, but I thought a number of points could usefully be made about the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill, which, as my colleagues have said, the National Party supports. It is very short, technical legislation that essentially amends section 12 of the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Act to enable decisions of the Supreme Court to be reported in the New Zealand Law Reports—which, as Dr Worth said, are the official series of law reports.

As my friend the MP for North Shore said, the bill is a bit of a late development. In fact, this should have been done a couple of years ago. It is another example of what I call sloppy or inadequate drafting by this Government’s team. The point is—and this needs to emphasised—that the New Zealand Law Reports have already been publishing decisions of the Supreme Court. For example, those in the Zaoui case took up almost an entire part of the New Zealand Law Reports. So it is a case—to get into the Latin mood—of ex post facto. It is being done now, it should have been done earlier, and it was not done earlier because this Government has difficulties with attention to detail, and that is disappointing. Essentially, that is what the bill amends.

In the Committee stage I made a brief comment about new section 12(6), inserted by clause 3, which provides that the Chief Justice may, on occasion, authorise an individual, a firm, or a company to publish reports of the Supreme Court. I ventured to suggest that I thought that was a bad idea. I do not know where that provision came from; its background was certainly not explained in the Committee stage. I would have thought that the Council of Law Reporting should have the sole responsibility for publishing reports of Supreme Court cases, unless the job is not being done in a speedy and effective manner, in which case the council of the New Zealand Law Society can authorise another company or firm to publish law reports.

Occasionally, in the history of the Council of Law Reporting, the New Zealand Law Reports have got behind, and the council of the New Zealand Law Society has been required to authorise competitors to publish reports. For example, I know that when the New Zealand Law Reports were getting a bit behind the action, the council of the New Zealand Law Society authorised Brooker’s, a distinguished legal publishing firm in New Zealand, to start publishing the Procedure Reports of New Zealand. This has also happened in the past with the Family Reports of New Zealand and the Criminal Reports of New Zealand.

To most people law reporting is a rather boring occupation and does not seem to be of any great moment. But Dr Worth made a number of important points that are worth reiterating. I begin by going back to what I said in my speech during the third reading of the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3). I talked, with reference to what Sir Geoffrey Palmer said last week, about the importance of accessibility to statute law in New Zealand. It is fair to say that this country’s Parliament is one of the fastest and most prodigious lawmakers in the West, and complaints are often made that New Zealand’s statute law is not as accessible as it should be.

The other great source of law in New Zealand is, as Dr Worth said, the common law. For many years the common law has been reported in the New Zealand Law Reports, and before that in the Gazette Law Reports. In the early years of this country, private individuals and firms reported New Zealand law reports. It is incredibly important that, in terms of the development of the common law, judges, lawyers, law students, and public officials have access to up-to-date reports of New Zealand cases, because the common law changes through the decisions made by judges in the various courts. A major problem has occurred over the years when, from time to time, reports of the cases that have been decided by judges have not been readily available. That is why we have a Council of Law Reporting, that is why we have the New Zealand Law Reports, and that is why we have other types of law reports. So it is incredibly important that the decisions of the courts are properly recorded and are readily available in a high-quality series of law reports for lawyers and judges.

When I was making that statement I heard the member for Dunedin South groan, and I was not quite sure what he said. If he would care to repeat himself, I would be quite happy to answer him. He has fallen silent again.

Hon David Benson-Pope: Stand up straight!

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: He is getting back to his schoolboy tactics of telling me to stand up straight. I will do so, because knowing that member’s past I would be frightened of what might happen if I did not subject myself to his bullying.

That is why we have the New Zealand Law Reports.

Hon Member: No backbone!

The member says I have no backbone. This is technical legislation, and I find it very disappointing when I am trying to help educate the member for Dunedin South on these very important points—

Chris Auchinvole: An impossible task.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON:—it probably is an impossible job, as my friend Mr Auchinvole says—that he continually makes cruel, rude, and vicious comments. One can understand why he was so loved as a teacher at Bayfield High School.

Putting that to one side, I conclude by emphasising the important role that the Council of Law Reporting plays. It has a major task to produce—not just in physical form but also in electronic form—up-to-date, high-quality reports, and I must say that it has been doing a very good job over the years. It will continue to do a good job with reports of the Supreme Court. One of the innovations that has come in under Bernard Robertson, the editor of the New Zealand Law Reports, is that in the Supreme Court Mr Robertson or a reporter for the New Zealand Law Reports will often be present to listen to and record the argument. That too has its place in the development of the law. When one goes to the Privy Council one sees that a reporter is there to take down the argument. It also now happens in the Supreme Court, and that is a very good thing.

So, as my colleagues on this side have said, National supports the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill. The bill makes a minor change to law reporting by permitting Supreme Court proceedings to be reported. This should have been done a couple of years ago, as should one of the changes in the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3), but the important thing is that it is done now, so the New Zealand Law Reports can continue the fine work it has been doing for many years.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 March.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I am absolutely pleased to speak on behalf of the National Party in support of the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill—[Interruption] no, I could not possibly; not when the whip is around—particularly when just this week a man was apprehended in a Farmer’s store using a cellphone to take photographs looking up women’s dresses. How did he do that? All he had to do was to bend down and pretend to do up his shoelaces or undertake another seemingly innocent activity, stretch out with the cellphone in his hand between the women’s legs, and snap. The irony is that he, in turn, was snapped while doing the snapping. Would members believe that neither of the women involved was aware of anything happening? In fact, the man had the gall to follow them to the next shop, to take more pictures. By that time security guards had alerted the police, and the man was then apprehended. He was found guilty of two charges of committing an indecent act, with the jury taking only 12 minutes to reach its verdict.

In yet another case, a man was jailed for 18 months for filming up women’s skirts on 23 occasions. He told the judge that he was possessed by evil spirits. Such behaviour is totally unacceptable.

This bill will ensure that any covert filming of people in intimate situations without their knowledge or consent, when they believe themselves to be in a private situation, is unlawful. People who find that they have their moments of privacy invaded by voyeuristic filming must have recourse to the law, to protect themselves against such activity. The advance of technology has allowed the voyeur to evolve from the general concept of the peeping Tom to a far more menacing predator, young or old, who utilises modern devices for purposes neither anticipated nor intended originally. Although voyeurism is an offence in itself, such activity has the potential to lead to much more serious offending.

The Law Commission quite rightly recommended that the courts have the power to order that anyone apprehended and convicted for undertaking covert filming have the images destroyed and any equipment used forfeited to the Crown. One of the worst aspects of covert filming is the speed with which images can be disseminated by way of the Internet. That can happen in spite of apprehending and prosecuting any offender, because of the ability to publish in real time through live broadcast. What is the penalty for that? It is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years. I have no doubt that victims would want more than that, after having their privacy defiled by some perverted creep. A variety of other penalties are imposed for the publication, exportation, or sale of intimate visual recordings, with the emphasis being on “visual”. Concern has been expressed in the House by my excellent colleague Chester Borrows about the absence of a penalty for audio recordings. For that and other reasons, National has no doubt that further amendments to the principal Act may be needed in the future.

The Law Commission’s recommendation has been well known to the courts since its publication in June 2005. An 18-year-old builder who was caught while filming a lady in a public toilet would have been dealt with much more severely under this legislation than he was. In sentencing the offender, the judge made reference to the Law Commission’s paper. Her comments made it quite clear that the offender should count himself lucky that this legislation had not been enacted.

It is worth noting that the offences in the bill relate to intimacy or nudity. As such, covert filming like that of Princess Diana in the gym would be unlikely to be an offence, even though it was done in secret, because it was not seen as being an intimate or nude situation. In spite of that, some gyms and swimming pools ban cellphones from changing rooms. Although such filming may not be a prosecutable offence, it is still an invasion of privacy—and, of course, it is not good for business.

Where people agree to be filmed in intimate or nude situations, there is no case to answer. They then take responsibility for their behaviour and for the risk of any intimate filming being used for unintended purposes at a later date.

Hon David Benson-Pope: Well, that member would know.

SANDRA GOUDIE: I shall ignore the unseemly comments from the Government side of the House.

One of the matters the Law Commission chose not to consider was the wider issue of the covert filming of people involved in non-intimate activities, such as walking, talking, or reading in a library. In one such case, which went as far as the Court of Appeal, a man was found guilty of offensive behaviour for taking more than 100 pictures from inside his van of girls walking to school. In spite of the pictures not being obscene or objectionable, he was still found guilty. In another instance, the very same man was fined in the District Court for filming young women in a library. Again, he was convicted of offensive behaviour, because even though the pictures themselves were not obscene or objectionable in the general sense, the behaviour was still deemed to be offensive.

One of the more serious aspects of covert filming is the use of cellphones by child pornographers. As one commentator said, from the child’s position it just looks as though someone is checking his or her phone. Modern electronics have transformed the activities of the peeping Tom into a booming, perverse, online industry where images are endlessly in demand, replicated, manipulated, and distributed. The technology is relatively inexpensive and easy to access. Camera cellphones, high-tech recording equipment such as pinhole cameras, and long-range lenses have transformed our concept of the peeping Tom into a whole new category of criminal behaviour. There are instances of that in New Zealand: a video camera hidden in a bedroom to take images of two girls changing before going to bed, a technician installing a hidden camera in an operatic society’s dressing room, a video taken from behind a one-way mirror of boys getting changed for swimming, and a gang member in court using his cellphone to take pictures of the jury. More and more of those stories are occurring.

National supports the passage of this bill, in spite of it having some shortcomings, because we believe that it is important for the protection of people’s intimate and private moments. We believe that covert filming, as identified in this bill, should no longer escape the long arm of the law, and that victims should have access to justice for the invasion of their privacy.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 9.31 p.m.