Thursday, 3 August 2006

Thursday, 3 August 2006

Thursday, 3 August 2006

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week the House will begin a 2-week adjournment period. When the House resumes the priority for the first couple of weeks will be the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4), the Meat Board Amendment Bill, the Standards and Conformance Bill, and any high-priority legislation that has been reported back from the select committees. The first Wednesday, of course, is a members’ day.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): We note that on the Order Paper there are only, at this stage, some 20 items that are Government bills. One of the bills is the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill, which has been on the Order Paper, I think, since 1998. There is also, at No. 14, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, which we note has somewhat languished on the Order Paper since the proclamations post the 2005 election. Can the Leader of the House indicate whether our opposition to this bill will have a hearing on the floor of Parliament in the next 4-week sitting?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I am sorry to disappoint the member. I think that is most unlikely, at this point.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the House to meet on the ringing of the bell on Wednesday, 23 August. This will be because of the State luncheon for the new Governor-General.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Committees

Business of Select Committees

Reporting Dates

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the time by which the Local Government and Environment Committee must finally report the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill to be extended to 21 November 2006. This should have been notified to the Business Committee on Tuesday, I understand.

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

Points of Order

Taito Phillip Field—Leave to Move Motion

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to move, without debate, the motion in my name, members’ notice of motion No. 4 on the Order Paper today.

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

Taito Phillip Field—Referral of Ingram Report to Privileges Committee

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave of the House to move a motion that was lodged with the Clerk’s Office this morning and will appear on the Order Paper for the next sitting day of the House. It reads that this House expresses its deep concern at the allegations left unresolved against Taito Phillip Field in the report of Noel Ingram QC, and notes that the reputation of the whole of Parliament and each of its members will suffer serious damage until such allegations are properly resolved, and therefore refers the Ingram report to the Privileges Committee, with the direction that it should make such inquiry as necessary to provide this House with full and final resolution of the matter.

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

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Numeracy—Government Initiatives

1. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to lift numeracy standards?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Last week I announced the results of the numeracy professional development project. The project showed major improvements in maths results across the 400 schools involved last year, the highest improvement being amongst students who were previously the lowest achievers. There was also a lift in achievement across, particularly, Māori and Pasifika students. This project has been strongly endorsed across the education sector, including the more than 1,600 schools that have now been involved since the year 2000, and shows that we can now expect steady improvement in the achievement of students in the area of numeracy.

Moana Mackey: What else is the Government doing to ensure it meets its goal of ensuring that all students are able to achieve high standards in numeracy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: A great deal. We ensure that every teacher has the tools to diagnose the learning needs of students, through assessment tools such asTTle. We invest $20 million a year in professional development projects that give teachers the skills they need to lift the numeracy standards of young people. Through the new curriculum, we have set out the numeracy achievements we expect schools to deliver for students at each level. For the first time, we have numeracy standards under National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 1 and university entrance. Our investment in numeracy goes alongside our investment in literacy, to create a strong foundation for all New Zealanders to succeed in the school system.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister confirm that numeracy covers only two of the five strands of the mathematics curriculum requirements; and how does the laudable emphasis on numeracy gel with the possibly contradictory expectation that schools deliver a balanced curriculum?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, I can confirm the first part of the member’s question. But I draw his attention to the fact that with the way the curriculum is now structured, we are expecting students to be able to do a range of knowledge-area skills and competencies within the classroom by, for example, doing inquiry forms of learning, which might combine science with maths and English, and would bring them up to the appropriate standard across those subject areas.

Ingram Report—Work Permits and Residency

2. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Did his department grant work or residence permits, following immigration assistance from Taito Phillip Field, to any of the eight Thai immigrants, or their partners, who allegedly attended a meeting with Taito Phillip Field on 2 October 2005, shortly after the launch of the Ingram inquiry?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): Yes. I am advised that the cases in question were the subject of the Ingram inquiry. I am further advised that Mr Ingram had full access to all of those departmental files.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is the Minister concerned that of the eight Thai immigrants at that meeting on 2 October who were assisted by Taito Phillip Field with either their own or their partners’ immigration applications, only three cooperated with the Ingram inquiry—one of whom, Mr Srikaew, claimed he had not seen Mr Field at that meeting when Mr Field claimed he recalled seeing him—and why, if there were no immigration issues to hide at that meeting, does he believe most of those new immigrants refused to talk to the Ingram inquiry about it?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have no idea, nor should I have any. However, I am aware—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please continue.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have no idea, because it is not for the Minister to be inside the head of witnesses to an inquiry that has already taken place.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is the Minister concerned that the Serious Fraud Office conveyed to the Ingram inquiry allegations that the purpose of the meeting on 2 October 2005 between the Thai immigrants and Mr Field was to establish who, within the group, was the leak to the media in relation to Mr Field’s assisting those persons with applications for work and residency permits, in return for their working on houses owned by Mr Field; if that was not the purpose of the meeting, why would most of the group refuse to talk to the inquiry about it?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Serious Fraud Office lies outside my ministerial responsibilities.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is the Minister concerned that the police information provided to Noel Ingram stated that Mr Field had alleged at the meeting that one of the attendees—understood to be Mr Chaikhunpol—was the leak to the media; if the meeting were not part of a cover-up around immigration issues, why did Mr Ingram find Mr Field’s recollections of it shortly after the meeting to be “not particularly helpful”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I do not have access to the background behind the police statements. I am not the Minister of Police.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Given that in response to questioning by Mr Ingram, Taito Phillip Field said, in respect of the meeting on 2 October 2005, that he possibly called in to Ms Thaivichit’s place to say hello, that he could not recall what prompted the visit or the number of people present, but that he did concede that there may have been some talk about allegations involving Thai immigrants that had featured in the media, if the meeting was not part of an attempted cover-up of what went on in respect of the immigration cases promoted by Taito Phillip Field what other explanation does the Minister have for Noel Ingram’s inability to establish what went on at that meeting?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Misrepresentations to any inquiry or to the department are a serious matter. I am aware that a member of this House, in July 2005, made representations supporting a bid for residence by a foreign national who married a New Zealand resident soon after arriving. The representations stated the couple were “living as man and wife”, but they had already told the New Zealand Immigration Service that the marriage had broken down irreconcilably and the husband had withdrawn his support for the wife’s immigration application. Regrettably, the member presented false and misleading information to the Associate Minister and exercised very poor judgment in assessing the case. The Associate Minister declined to intervene. That member was Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thought you might take some interest in that. In respect of the question before us, which is around a meeting involving Taito Phillip Field on 2 October, the Minister has no details whatsoever in order to be able to provide an answer to any of the queries of the House, but he is able to provide a huge amount of detail on a case completely disconnected from the question on the Order Paper.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is the Minister concerned by Noel Ingram’s claim that his investigation into the meeting on 2 October had been unsatisfactory, leaving several immigration issues unresolved, including whether the purpose of the gathering was to identify the source of the allegations involving Mr Field and Mr Chaikhunpol that had appeared in the media, whether Mr Chaikhunpol’s move from his former accommodation was as a result of an effective edict from Mr Field, and whether those identified as being part of the gathering also did work on houses owned by Mr Field in consideration of Mr Field’s assistance on immigration matters; if he is not concerned by this apparent cover-up on immigration matters, why is he not?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I repeat that Mr Ingram QC has had access to all information held by the department on those eight cases.

Fisheries—By-catch

3. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Minister of Fisheries: Is he satisfied that sufficient progress is being made to decrease non-fish by-catch in New Zealand waters?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries): Yes. A number of management measures are in place to avoid, remedy, and mitigate the incidental catch of non-fish species by fishers. The ministry and fishers continue to investigate new methods and approaches to improve performance.

Metiria Turei: Why, then, do his own ministry figures show that over the past three seasons non-fish by-catch, such as seabirds, sea lions, and seals—like the one in the photo I am holding here—has not declined in New Zealand’s biggest squid fishery, the Auckland Islands?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Sometimes, industry initiatives and partnerships with Government make the glass half full rather than half empty. There is always concern about non-fish by-catch. If the member is interested, I can tell her that partnerships between industry and Government are fostering exchanges of crews and technologies between fleets in different countries; hosting national and regional fisher forums to enable fishermen from different fleets to exchange ideas and information; employing advisory officers in a number of countries, including South Africa and countries in South America, to work alongside skippers and crew; and so on. There is always concern about non-fish by-catch, but, in fact, lots of initiatives are being taken, and sometimes industry deserves thanks for, and congratulations on, that, rather than brickbats.

Metiria Turei: Why, then, given the Minister’s concern about non-fish by-catch, and the interest of the industry in preventing non-fish by-catch, has no limit been placed on fishing-related deaths of seabirds, such as has been imposed on sea lions—I have a photo of a sea lion here—even though some seabirds in this country are much more at risk of extinction than the very rare Hooker’s sea lion is?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: There is a national plan of action on seabirds, which was approved by the Government in 2004. Implementation of the plan has resulted in codes of practice in the following fisheries: ling longline, joint venture tuna, and squid. Recently, I have implemented further regulatory mitigation measures for all vessels over 28 metres. As a result of those measures, there have been significant reductions in seabird mortalities.

Metiria Turei: Why has the ministry failed to meet every one of the deadlines in the national plan of action on seabirds that the Minister has just mentioned—seabirds like the albatross in the photo I have here that was mangled in the process of fishing—and why, 1 year on, have industry plans for decreasing seabird deaths still not been implemented?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I remind the member that no responsible fisher—either company, corporation, or individual—intends catching non-fish by-catch in the fisheries areas. Very significant measures are being taken by all fishers that I am aware of to mitigate these unfortunate events. But, with the best will in the world, nothing is perfect. Goals are there to be achieved, but from time to time targets are missed. I am convinced, and I have plenty of evidence to suggest, that very supportive and significant efforts are being made by the fishing industry to mitigate this non-fish by-catch.

Metiria Turei: I seek the leave of the House to table a number of documents, the first being the National Plan of Action to Reduce the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in New Zealand Fisheries, which was referred to in the questions and answers.

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

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table two photographs of dead albatross found by observers on squid fishery boats in the Auckland Islands.

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

Ingram Report—Ministerial Revocation of Work Visa

4. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: On what basis did he advise the House last Wednesday that once the Associate Minister realised that Mr Sunan Siriwan was working without pay on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa, he “acted to reverse his decision” to issue a ministerial direction for a work visa for Mr Siriwan?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): In September an alert was entered into the application management system at Mr O’Connor’s request so that no visa would be issued without reference back to the Associate Minister.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When the Minister advised the House on Wednesday last week that once the Associate Minister realised that Mr Siriwan had been working for Mr Field without remuneration and staying in his house in Samoa, he “acted to reverse his decision”, how does he explain that action taking almost 3 months to occur?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Logically, that would refer to the amount of time it took for him to be clear about the information.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Precisely why did it take 11 weeks from when the Ingram report revealed that the Associate Minister unequivocally knew of Taito Phillip Field’s conflict of interest in his representations on behalf of Mr Siriwan, until he acted on 19 September to put a warning flag into the system?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Associate Minister acted effectively to ensure that no visa was issued. No visa was issued.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When the Associate Minister told the Ingram inquiry, in respect of the allegation that Mr Siriwan was working unpaid for Mr Field and staying in his house in Samoa, that the information “certainly didn’t form part of my decision-making otherwise I would have absolutely rejected it”, why was that absolute rejection not actioned immediately the Associate Minister knew unequivocally of the conflict, 5 days after exercising his ministerial discretion?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: What is clear is that the Associate Minister did act unequivocally to ensure that the gentleman’s visa was not issued.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is there any other explanation for the fact that it took the Associate Minister more than 11 weeks to act on the knowledge of the conflict of interest in Taito Phillip Field’s representations on behalf of Mr Siriwan, a matter the Associate Minister claims would have caused him to reject Mr Field’s representations, other than the fact that it was almost 11 weeks before the matters surrounding the case became public?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As I was not inside the Associate Minister’s head at the time, and as my department’s records do not contain the information that he seeks, I am afraid he is unable to establish proof by assertion.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is the real explanation for the fact that the Associate Minister did not act on the knowledge of the conflict of interest in Taito Phillip Field’s representations on behalf of Mr Siriwan until 19 September 2005 that Cabinet would have discussed the establishment of the Ingram inquiry at its meeting on 19 September 2005, the day before the Prime Minister’s announcement of the inquiry on 20 September, and that Cabinet discussion finally forced the Associate Minister to act on the matter the same day?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have no information to that effect, but I do have information that a member of this House, in May 2005, made representations supporting a bid for work permits by three Thai overstayers who ran a Thai restaurant in his electorate.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to say he cannot answer a question, but he can talk about some irrelevancy of some other thing that is completely unrelated? If you were on the ball, Madam Speaker, you would have stopped the Minister. I am also appalled that I had to shout my head off to get your attention.

Madam SPEAKER: I ask the member to please withdraw and apologise for that comment. I could not hear the member because of the barracking. Secondly, I agree with the member. I was waiting to see whether there was a relevant connection, rather than cutting the Minister off in mid-sentence. If there was not, his answer would have been entirely out of order. But I was going to hear what he wanted to say. Would the member please withdraw and apologise for his inferences about the Chair.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raised this exact point of order on an earlier question of my colleague Dr Lockwood Smith and you completely ignored it on that occasion as well. I now seek that you simply give a ruling that when a member asks a question about a particular issue, and the Minister says: “No, I’m not going to answer that, but I’m going to answer something else.”, which is not related, you will rule that that is out of order.

Madam SPEAKER: I cannot rule on hypothetical questions. The Minister’s answer related to the question. [Interruption] I am sorry, but it is for the Minister to answer the question, or not.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I believe it was answered, and it related to the principle of expeditious decision-making in relation to information presented by a member.

Task Force Green—Enhanced Assistance to Farmers

5. JILL PETTIS (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps is the Government taking to utilise Enhanced Taskforce Green to assist farmers affected by recent adverse weather?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I am pleased to advise the House that the Government has approved up to $500,000 for Enhanced Taskforce Green support to assist farmers with clean-up activities required as a result of the South Island snow and the lower North Island storm and flood events. This programme is cleaning up, to date, over 100 properties. This includes 36 properties in the Mackenzie district, 20 in the Wairarapa, and 35, I believe, in Taranaki and Wanganui.

Jill Pettis: What type of assistance is Enhanced Taskforce Green providing to those farmers?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Enhanced Taskforce Green is being used to pay for around 70 workers to undertake clean-up activities and get farms back to operational levels. Traditionally, unemployed people have been used for Enhanced Taskforce Green, but because we are experiencing record low unemployment, we are also able to support displaced farm workers by hiring them for this programme. The scheme also provides funds to hire or purchase light equipment and to assist each of the councils involved. I am informed by Brian Doughty, who is the Federated Farmers clean-up coordinator in the South Taranaki, Wanganui, Rangitīkei area that Work and Income is doing exceptionally well with regard to the roll-out of Enhanced Taskforce Green.

R Doug Woolerton: How is the eligibility for Enhanced Taskforce Green assistance assessed?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Enhanced Taskforce Green does not have any stand-down requirement, and because of the extra capacity, including the administrative capacity, we do have the opportunity to get people on to those farms immediately. That is what is happening.

Ingram Report—Painters' Employment Status

6. Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Labour: Will her department interview Taito Phillip Field to determine whether or not the painters at 51 Church Street were engaged as employees and covered by minimum wage legislation; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Labour: The department is still considering a request from the member to investigate these matters. Any decisions in this area are, of course, operational ones, and the department’s decisions alone.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Can the Minister guarantee that the department will conduct an independent inquiry, beyond just reading the Ingram report, in light of the fact that Mr Field gave three different stories to Dr Ingram in three different interviews in respect of the work done at 51 Church Street?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The department’s inquiry will, obviously, be an independent one, which is why the Minister certainly will not play any role in directing it in any shape or form.

Sue Moroney: What reports, if any, has the Minister received concerning entitlements under New Zealand employment law?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister has received many reports, obviously, some of which make suggestions that we abandon not only the minimum wage but also minimum holiday entitlements, parental leave, and the moves to close the gender pay and employment gap. Those suggestions were made frequently in the past by Dr Donald Brash.

Dr Wayne Mapp: In light of the previous answers given by the Minister, how can this House have confidence that the department will examine all documents held or discovered by Dr Ingram in the course of his inquiry, and that this examination will involve interviewing both Mr Field and Mr Chaikhunpol, whom Dr Ingram said was underpaid?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member seems to be arguing that the Minister should ensure there is an independent inquiry by ordering the inquiry what to do. I think that if he thinks for a moment, he might realise that is somewhat illogical.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Well, in that case, how on earth can the Minister justify his statement in the House last week that there were no concrete reasons to believe that there were any issues around the minimum wage not being provided, when this clear statement is in the Ingram report: “I find that Mr Chaikhunpol was significantly underpaid for that work.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On the face of the report, it would appear to have been a contractual relationship, not an employment one. I am sure that if the member ever has anybody painting his house, it is a contractual relationship, not an employment one.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Why would the Minister have concluded last week that the Thai painters at 51 Church Street were independent contractors, given that Dr Ingram, at paragraphs 292 and 325 of the report, indicated that the invoices of payment to the painters produced by Mr Field could well be forgeries? Read the report.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have read the report. Because, if for no other reason, normally when people have their houses painted, it is a contractual relationship.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Given the previous answer, can the Minister say why one would conclude that there was actually an independent contractual relationship, when the very invoices involved were found by Dr Ingram to be possibly forgeries, and that those were the invoices allegedly produced by Mr Field, an honourable—so called—member of this House?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure you know what the point of order I am going to make is. All members are honourable and one is not allowed to cast aspersions on that fact.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I withdraw that remark. I would just invite the member to read the Ingram report.

Madam SPEAKER: I would also remind members that they ask questions and do not make statements, and the member started his question with a statement. So would the Minister now address the question.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have read the Ingram report and the Minister, in my view, was correct to conclude, on the face of it, that it appears to be a contractual relationship. Of course, what the member has asked her department to do is to determine whether, in fact, it may have been an employment relationship. If it is contractual, the department cannot actually investigate it.

Immigration Profiling Group—Functions

7. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: How long has the immigration profiling group he described last night on One News been in existence and how many decisions to allow people into New Zealand from high-risk countries are yet to be re-examined by the group?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): The immigration profiling group was established in June 2005. It is primarily responsible for processing and deciding visa and permit applications that present a risk to New Zealand’s international reputation. Another function of the immigration profiling group is to review past decisions made since May 2003. Applications covering approximately 1,000 people are still to be considered.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister confirm that the immigration profiling group was set up in the wake of revelations made by New Zealand First that former members of Saddam Hussein’s regime were living in New Zealand, and can he confirm that the fact that all immigration applications from high-risk countries are now processed in New Zealand also came about as a result of those revelations?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Government has for some time been increasing scrutiny on applications from higher-risk profile countries. The immigration profiling group was established as part of that ongoing work.

Steve Chadwick: What has this Government done to ensure the safety of New Zealand’s borders?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Government’s ongoing programme has included implementing a substantial range of border security measures during the last 5 years. They include passing the transnational organised crime Act, introducing Advance Passenger Processing, establishing the immigration fraud and investigations and intelligence units, establishing the immigration profiling group, and reviewing the Immigration Act to simplify and streamline the law, in order to further strengthen border security.

Keith Locke: Is not the big drop in visitor visa approvals for people from several high-risk countries due primarily to not terrorism dangers, or anything like that, but the immigration profiling group’s massive overreaction to overstayer problems; how else does he explain the huge drop in approvals for people from, for example, Zimbabwe, from 924 visas in 2004-05 to 306 last year, and people from Burma, from 116 to 72, and why is he punishing, for example, Zimbabwean New Zealanders by preventing their family members from visiting them?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In short, no. I believe that the immigration profiling group is making a valuable contribution to the ongoing need of New Zealand for enhanced border security. That is a core part of our immigration policy, along with facilitation of those migrants we need to assist our skill shortage.

Peter Brown: Why does the number of high-risk countries identified by the Minister differ from the number identified by his predecessor, and what has happened in the past year that has allowed the Immigration Service to reduce the number of high-risk countries from 54 to 21?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am advised that currently 23 countries are identified as higher-risk and have their applications processed through the immigration profiling group. There have never been 54 countries whose citizens have had their applications processed through this unit.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: If the profiling group is going back over the cases of some thousands of immigrants from high-risk countries who have already been given permits and granted approval to be in New Zealand, how many so far have been found to have gained access to New Zealand on fraudulent grounds and had their permits revoked?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am not prepared at this time to put that information in the public domain, as it is sensitive to the work of the profiling group.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister clarify the situation: how far is the profiling group going back in terms of looking at decisions to allow people in from high-risk countries—is it pre-9/11; if not, will he tell us how far back it is going?

Hon Member: I think you’re safe.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I can confirm that the member is quite safe. May 2003 is the start date in terms of applications being subject to routine scrutiny. Of course, if there is evidence to suggest that an individual application from prior to that date is worth reconsideration, that reconsideration would be offered. I have received no such information regarding the member.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an article from the Sunday Star-Times of 8 January, detailing Maurice Williamson’s campaigning for an Iraqi couple who have been prevented from visiting their family because of the harsh immigration profiling.

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

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister of Immigration, David Cunliffe, dated 17 July, that includes a table that shows the huge drop in visitor visa approvals last year compared with the previous year, and shows that the question is one of reaction to overstaying, not terrorism.

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

Ingram Report—Integrity of Representations

8. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Immigration: What steps, if any, are being taken or will be taken to check the integrity of the representations made by Taito Phillip Field in relation to the 262 successful appeals to the Associate Minister on the basis of those representations?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): The reasons have already been specified to the member’s colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith in my letter to him of 31 July.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member like to give a little more information as to what was in that letter.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am happy to, but it was rather a long letter. Firstly, the department’s files, by definition, contain the advice presented to the Associate Minister. Any relevant information not known to the department but known to the advocate for the client could not or would not necessarily be evident from a check of that file.

Gerry Brownlee: Why is the Minister so comfortable with representations made by Taito Phillip Field when Dr Ingram found Mr Field’s evidence to be unreliable and in conflict with evidence given to the inquiry by other witnesses?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I believe that the Associate Minister, then and now, should be entitled to rely on the representations made by members of the House—such as a member of the House in May 2005 who made representations supporting a bid for work permits by three Thai overstayers who ran a Thai restaurant in his electorate. The representation was successful, and the three were granted work permits. The member was Dr Wayne Mapp. I trust that Dr Mapp or his agent have never accepted even as much as a morsel of food or drink in that establishment without paying the full price. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Order, please!

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that member has moved out of his way to have a better barracking seat for this particular question, but I will carry on. Why is the Minister refusing to review the 262 cases represented by Mr Field, knowing that some of the evidence he gave to the Ingram inquiry was at odds with other evidence given to the inquiry, yet he has the time, apparently, to trawl through all the applications made by National members of Parliament to the Minister, despite there being absolutely no evidence of them lining their pockets, as Mr Field clearly has done out of his representations?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that you sustained a similar point of order from Dr Michael Cullen earlier, in that it is out of order to besmirch the reputation of a member in that way.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: He said he lined his pockets—it’s quite true.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I think perhaps the member could just withdraw that—the import of his question. We are trying very hard in this House to be—

Gerry Brownlee: Fair enough.

Madam SPEAKER: Please withdraw.

Gerry Brownlee: Why is it that the Minister is refusing to evaluate or review the 262 ministerial discretions granted on the advocacy of the honourable Taito Phillip Field, yet he has had time to trawl though similar discretionary decisions made on the advocacy of National Party members, when there is absolutely no evidence that anyone on this side of the House had a house tiled in Samoa, a house painted in Auckland, a house painted in Wellington, or any other manner of personal preferments that may have come as a result of that particular representation?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Because I am advised that the department is not aware of any other case where allegations have been made that full disclosure has not been made.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister comfortable staking his career on the integrity of Taito Phillip Field when Mr Field told the Ingram inquiry three totally different and conflicting stories about one immigration case and apparently cannot even remember painting his own house?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Minister of Immigration is responsible for the systems of the department and not for the production or process of the Ingram inquiry.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that he will not review the 262 ministerial discretions made in relation to cases advocated by Taito Phillip Field because he fears he may find more examples where Mr Field has been reckless with the truth?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have seen no suggestion the department’s advice to me today, or to the Associate Minister, was on any such case inadequate. So to date, I have seen no basis for reviewing such a large number of files. If the member has any new evidence to suggest to the contrary, I suggest he provides it to my office or to the department.

Gerry Brownlee: Would the Minister tell the House which complaints about National Party members’ representations have forced him to put his department on a huge review of applications made by us, without any such complaint either?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have not asked the department to do a huge review of National Party members nor a review of huge National Party members.

Gerry Brownlee: How can the Minister expect us to believe that answer when we know the process for answering parliamentary questions, we know that the department this morning would have seen the question set down by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, which had nothing to do with any immigration applications lodged by National Party members, but somehow the department manages to trawl up a few for the Minister just in case he needs a hand; why should we now believe this Minister of Immigration?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: A Minister does not just take advice from his department.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know your views on addressing questions, but, surely, that reply does not address my question. My question was about whether his department had voluntarily trawled through every other member of Parliament’s applications, studiously ignoring the 262 applications granted in favour of Taito Phillip Field, and then just happen to present those to the Minister. For the Minister to say he does not just take advice from his department is not an answer, because clearly no one else has access to that material.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I think the member can take it from my answer that the implication is the department has mounted no such trawl.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the real reason he is not investigating the 262 cases represented by Mr Taito Phillip Field, who is described by the Prime Minister as having bad judgment, and by Dr Ingram as being somewhat evasive in his answers, is, in fact, because the Prime Minister has told him not to go into it, it is all too murky, and it will cost the Government too much?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I can confirm that that is not the case.

Budget 2006—Māori Arts, Culture, and Heritage

9. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Does she recall her address to the Hui Taumata in 2005, when she said: “As Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, I would like to acknowledge the role of Māori in reflecting the essence of who we are, where we have come from and what we can aspire to be. Māori are at the cutting edge of our success throughout the arts, culture, and heritage sector, and have helped to raise the profile of our nation to new heights”; if so, what initiatives are there in Budget 2006 to specifically support Māori in the arts, culture, and heritage sector?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage) on behalf of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Yes. As announced in Budget 2006, this Labour-led Government increased Government baseline funding for arts, culture, and heritage by $10 million over 4 years. In doing so, we continue to invest in our vibrant arts and cultural sector for the benefit of all New Zealanders. This increases the organisations’ annual direct Government funding to $15.5 million, up from just $2.4 million in the year 2000.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Who is the “we” referred to in the statement of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage to the Hui Taumata acknowledging the role of Māori in reflecting the essence of who “we” are, where “we” have come from, and what “we” can aspire to be; what role do Māori arts, culture, and heritage have in building our national identity?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: I would suggest the answer to that question rests in the last statement that member made, about generating a national identity. I would suspect that the “we” refers to us collectively as people.

Dr Pita Sharples: Tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa. If Māori arts have “raise[d] the profile of our nation to new heights”, why, then, were the words “in New Zealand the uniqueness of Māori arts is recognised and valued, along with the diversity of our cultural heritage” removed from the new draft curriculum statement?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: As Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, I do not have any responsibility with regard to the latter part of the member’s question.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What provision is made for the 91.6 percent of Māori students who are in mainstream primary and secondary schools to recognise and value the uniqueness of Māori arts, given that Māori arts has been deleted from the new curriculum?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: That question can be responded to by saying the member should make reference to the arts curriculum, and also to a recent survey by the organisation Creative New Zealand that shows and analyses Māori participation in the arts, which is, increasingly, quite significant at this time and going towards the future.

Dr Pita Sharples: I seek leave to table the arts statement from the New Zealand Curriculum Framework of 1993, which recognises the uniqueness of Māori arts.

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

Te Ururoa Flavell: I seek leave of the House to table the Prime Minister’s address to the Hui Taumata of 1 March 2005.

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

Question Time

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to give a considered ruling on a matter that has come up to do with question time today, and I refer particularly to questions that have been asked of the Minister of Immigration. Normally, if a particular case was the subject of questions, the Minister would advise the House that he was not prepared to provide information to the House in relation to a particular case, and would require that the House accept a response couched in fairly general terms. Today on a couple of occasions we have had the Minister, not having been asked about any particular cases, offer to furnish to the House information not so much about those cases but about the representations that have been made in relation to those cases by members on this side of the House.

Clearly, as the Minister is in such a generous frame of mind with regard to information, I want you to give the House some advice as to whether we can now expect that the Minister of Immigration will answer quite specific questions about individual cases before him, since he feels free to make details of those representations by members of Parliament available to the House on a gratuitous basis. I want your assurance that you will require him to give those detailed answers in future, should we seek them by way of questions.

Madam SPEAKER: I suggest that the member ask any such questions, if he so wishes, in the future, and rulings will be given in accordance with whatever the answers are. It is not for the Speaker to give hypothetical rulings.

Mental Health—Government Initiatives

10. Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Health: What steps, if any, is the Government taking to improve the mental health of New Zealanders?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: This Government has increased its investment in mental health by 75 percent in nominal dollars and by 44 percent in real terms, since 1999. We have introduced mental health programmes, we have expanded forensic support, we have undertaken the most successful de-stigmatisation campaign in New Zealand’s history, and on Tuesday we released a widely supported 10-year action plan for the sector. The list goes on, but of course we still have more work to do.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Why is it that when the Government has increased spending on specialist mental health services by nearly $1 billion per year, the number of hospitalisations for attempted suicide has soared by nearly 20 percent between 1999 and 2003 and, even worse, the rate for young women aged from 15 to 24 has increased by 45 percent?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am sure the member, as a former general practitioner, knows that the causes and analysis of symptoms around suicide and the development of suicide statistics are an extraordinarily complex area. It is important to recognise that if we take the peak of suicides in New Zealand at around 1998, there has been a 15 percent reduction in suicides. Again, it is always easy to score political points on glasses being half empty, but this glass, in terms of suicide programmes from this Government, is at least half full, and it is about time some members recognised it.

Darien Fenton: What reports has the Minister received on the strength of the mental health workforce?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I have received reports that the number of specialist psychiatrists and mental health nurses has grown by 26 percent since the election of this Government. There are now nearly 900 more mental health nurses working in our public health system than before 1999. That is what a Government can achieve when we invest in the health of our families instead of throwing money at reckless tax reductions.

Barbara Stewart: How does the Minister plan to address the chronic staff shortages for adolescent patients within the mental health sector?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: For a very long time—going back at least 20 or more years, and probably longer than that—the mental health system has been the Cinderella of the health system in New Zealand. That is true. And it has been difficult to obtain and train the skills we need, both at a psychiatric professional level and at a mental health nurses level. But as I have just said, this Government has made a greater step forward in the mental health system probably in the living memory of anyone in this House, and it is about time that that was acknowledged, at least for the truth that it is.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: How can the public have any real confidence in the Government’s ability to deal with the increase in attempted suicides when the Government response to the latest suicide statistics is to issue a press release that announces a plan to set up a task force to oversee an action plan to implement a strategy to release a detailed plan? [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: We will wait until we can hear the answer.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: When in Opposition in this Parliament to the then National Government, I had the opportunity to ask the then Minister of Health for proper processes and budgets for a prevention of suicide strategy. Not one single dollar was available for that. This Government has put millions of dollars into it. If the member wants to investigate the facts of that I will be happy to educate him, because he is a relative newcomer here and he does not have a clue about the history of this issue.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: How can the public have any confidence that this Government is up to the task of improving the mental health of New Zealanders when the specifically listed action for promotion and prevention in the Government’s new 10-year mental health plan is to spend 3 years reviewing the strategic framework to develop a new framework to develop a plan to set out a strategy, and is this not just more plans, strategies, and waffle that will not impact on mental health rates at all?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: This Government has invested $1,000 million additional funding in mental health; it has opened up resources and facilities all around the country for the young and not-so-young people affected; it has more staff professionally trained for the mental health system; and it has taken mental health into the public arena in terms of private general practice and the hospital system of New Zealand. It has done more for mental health than the National Party in its whole history in Government ever did, and it is about time that the member, who was a professional clinician, understood the reality of that. I am sure that he does and that he is making cheap political points in this House that do him no credit.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: How can we have any confidence in the 10-year mental health plan when we have cases such as that of Peter Waihape, who had a long history of involvement with mental health services, who abducted and raped a woman, who then approached a number of mental health agencies in Christchurch, at least one of which he told what he had done, was sent away, only to then kill a woman by repeatedly running over her in his car?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: There is no one in this House or in New Zealand who would be satisfied with that kind of situation—of course. But I say to the member, who is a professional doctor, that he well knows that mental health patients are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of crime. If he recognised the reality of that, which is absolutely shown by all the statistics that I know, and I am sure he does too, he would pay more attention to clinical evidence than talkback shows, which is where he gets that kind of information.

Dr Jackie Blue: How is the 10-year plan going to address the critical shortage of New Zealand - trained rather than imported psychiatrists when fewer than 50 percent of our psychiatrists actually trained in New Zealand, and when it is well known that mental health workers should have a knowledge of our unique culture in order to be effective?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: There is no question that the provision of professionally trained psychiatrists has been of significant difficulty for this country. But let me say—and I am sure the member knows—that it is of significant difficulty for every country in the world. One thing I do know is that the Government will have to put more funding into mental health and into the training of professional psychiatrists. That will not happen under parties that promise tax cuts to the richest New Zealanders, when Government expenditure is part and parcel of the answer.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: I seek leave to table documents showing an increase in hospitalisations for attempted suicide.

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

Dr Jonathan Coleman: I seek leave to table a press release announcing the plan to set up the task force to oversee the plan to implement the strategy to release the detail of that.

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

Trans-Tasman Business—Mergers

11. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce: What reports, if any, has she received on the rules governing mergers that relate to trans-Tasman businesses?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): Last week the chairs of the New Zealand Commerce Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission reached agreement on a protocol to enhance cooperation when dealing with trans-Tasman business mergers. The outcomes of the protocol are expected to synchronise the timing of mergers, the sharing of information, and the sharing of agency analysis and assessment of transactions—more good news for business under a Labour-led Government.

Maryan Street: What alternative approaches has she seen to promoting trans-Tasman businesses?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I have seen reports of an approach based on travelling to Australia to criticise New Zealand and Australian newspapers. I have also seen a report that suggests that making comments in foreign newspapers that could jeopardise New Zealand trade is a form of treason. I do not support either of those approaches of Dr Don Brash.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that those arrangements are being put in place to facilitate the reverse takeover of Air New Zealand by Qantas?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No.

Gordon Copeland: Does the Minister have concerns around the ability of New Zealand businesses to compete in the trans-Tasman market, and is she confident that the business tax review will make a positive difference in this regard; if so, how?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Despite some commentary that suggests that doing business in Australia is easier than doing business in New Zealand, trans-Tasman companies know that is not the case. When components of the business tax review are implemented, doing business in New Zealand will be even easier. For example, New Zealand firms do not pay payroll taxes, compulsory superannuation, or stamp duties on property sales—the list goes on.

Question No. 12 to Minister

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I seek the leave of the House to hold question No. 12 over to the next sitting day so that the Minister of Māori Affairs has time to be here.

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

Hon TAU HENARE (National): What advice, if any, has he received—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A couple of days ago I was removed from this House—I still do not know why. [Interruption] Here we go again. That is the second example. When I was asking my question the Deputy Prime Minister said something. We have been told by you that we have to play the game according to the Standing Orders. Hopefully, on this very occasion, you will ask the Deputy Prime Minister to remove himself from the Chamber for that infraction.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I withdraw and apologise for the comment, which was somewhat unseemly. But, in fact, Madam Speaker, you ruled the other day that the rules on question time have slightly changed.

Madam SPEAKER: Exactly. I shall give the member a copy of my ruling. I am not sure whether he was in the Chamber when I made it.

Hon TAU HENARE: Rules for some and rules for others.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry; would the member please withdraw and apologise. I made a lengthy statement upon which there was a considerable amount of discussion on this point. So would the member please withdraw and apologise for the comment he made about the Speaker.

Hon TAU HENARE: I just did.

Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear it. Would you please do it.

Hon TAU HENARE: I withdraw and apologise. What advice, if any, has the Minister of Māori Affairs received from his ministry on—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Members are allowed to chatter; they do it all the time.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh well; that is fine. I cannot wait until the next question time on the next sitting day.

School Curriculum—Treaty of Waitangi

12. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: What advice, if any, has he received from his ministry on the effect of removing reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in the draft New Zealand school curriculum?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs: None. The responsibility for the draft curriculum lies with the Minister of Education.

Hon Tau Henare: What does the Treaty principle of participation, as identified by the Minister on 1 August as being enhanced in the curriculum programme, mean in relation to the formulation of the school curriculum?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Within the Education Act, the principles are set out. Within the national education goals, the principles are set out. And they are articulated in this particular version of the curriculum by a commitment to things Māori and to people being able to address a bicultural society and be able to live as a Māori within the education system. A good expression of that will be the rewriting of the draft curriculum into the Māori medium and it being consulted on next year.

Dave Hereora: What is the Government doing to support educational success for Māori?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Quite a bit, but I will restrict myself to the following. The Minister is working with Māori communities through the Hui Taumata Mātauranga process. The first Māori curriculum is being developed and will be consulted on next year. An amount of $26 million a year is being put into support for the full range of te reo Māori learning. As a result, more Māori students are achieving qualifications under the National Certificate of Educational Achievement, more Māori are moving on to tertiary study, and more Māori are getting jobs.

Pita Paraone: How is the education of New Zealanders affected by the fact that the Education Act 1989 contains no reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Since 1989 there have been quite significant educational gains for Māori. There are a whole host of reasons for that during that period of time. I would note that since 1999 those results have significantly improved again, and they are tracking up in a way that would get the approval of most people in this Chamber. I point to the policies that have been put in place since 1999.

Hon Tau Henare: What other principles of the Treaty of Waitangi have his ministry identified, and if there are other principles then which ones does his ministry use in order to ensure that other departments and agencies are providing adequate services for Māori, as required under section 5 of the Ministry of Maori Development Act 1991?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I refer the member to section 181 of the Act, for example, which applies to tertiary councils. It simply places a duty on the council of the institution to perform its function and exercise its powers in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles—things like encouraging the greatest possible participation by the communities served by the institution so as to maximise the educational potential of all members of those communities, under-represented groups, etc. No discrimination works its way through those kinds of principles, and Te Puni Kōkiri’s role is to ensure that that is carried out right across all areas of education.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am seeking a bit of clarification. The Minister referred to the Acts. I am not sure whether he was referring to the Ministry of Maori Development Act 1991 or the Education Act

Madam SPEAKER: The Education Act.

Hone Harawira: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou te Whare. Could the Minister of Māori Affairs please tell the House how he can justify a comment he made in response to a question from my colleague Mr Flavell on Tuesday, that removal of the Treaty from the curriculum can enhance the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, when he has just voted to delete the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think the member is referring to the sending of a bill on that topic to a select committee. I made it clear myself that that would not result in a vote on further stages of the bill. Can I just say to the member that if he looks at the Act he will find the principles of the Treaty there. He will find them in the National Education Goals. This is not the same curriculum with bits removed. This is seven volumes of what was a very prescriptive curriculum, now being written as one slim volume, where things to do with the Treaty and to do with Māori, and to do with arts for that matter, are right through it in a way that that member would probably expect them to be.

Hon Tau Henare: What evidence can he provide to this House that Te Puni Kōkiri maintains rigorous standards when meeting its statutory obligations under section 5 of the Ministry of Maori Development Act 1991, and does he believe that monitoring other Government departments is also one of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The best evidence I can give is that the Maori Development Act of 1991 gives Te Puni Kōkiri responsibility to liaise with, and monitor, other Government departments, in respect of their responsiveness to Māori. As part of that, and to take an example, the ministry works with the Ministry of Education to effect positive educational outcomes. Examples of that work would be the development of the Māori medium curriculum, the tripartite relationship between Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Education, and the Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust. I understand the member was a member of the Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust board and would therefore know that.

Hon Tau Henare: Does Te Puni Kōkiri have a list of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; if so, what are they and where could one get a copy of them?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: My understanding is that the Minister’s department does have access to the principles. They have been repeated ad nauseam in court cases throughout the last little while, including when there was a National Government, so I am sure the member will find it easier to access them.

Hon Tau Henare: Could the Minister tell the House exactly what are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The first two, if I remember rightly, concern participation. As I say, the member can easily get hold of them.

Questions to Members

Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill—Purpose

1. PAULA BENNETT (National) to the Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill: Who is the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill intended to help?

Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment BillDr WAYNE MAPP (): The bill is particularly designed to help young people to get their first job—especially Māori youth, who have an unemployment rate of 26.9 percent for those aged 15 to 19. It is also intended to help migrants. I am sure that Thai painters would value being treated as employees, because they would be entitled to minimum wages.

Paula Bennett: Why does the current legislation not work?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: The current law makes it much harder for employers to take a chance on new employees, especially if they do not have a work history. But of course there are protections, including those for sick leave, holiday pay, anti-discrimination provisions, and minimum wages—all of which, of course, would have been appreciated by Thai painters.

Peter Brown: Noting those answers, has the member any solid evidence that suggests the potential employees he wishes to assist want this legislative type of assistance; if so, will he produce it?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: There are literally hundreds of submissions before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which in many cases I have read. They indicate that smaller employers especially want to have the legislation so they can give a chance to new employees—to take the risk when they otherwise would not do so.

Darien Fenton: I seek leave to table a report where National MP Paula Bennett expressed her concern regarding the fate of workers who could be dismissed for refusing to undertake unsafe work, should her colleague Dr Wayne Mapp’s Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill become law.

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

Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill—Small Business Advisory Group

2. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) to the Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill: How does the probationary employment period established in the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill compare with the view of the Small Business Advisory Group on the importance of probationary employment periods?

Dr WAYNE MAPP (Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill): The Small Business Advisory Group, which reports directly to this current Government, stated in recommendation 19 that a grievance-free probationary period was the single most important measure to reform New Zealand’s employment laws to enable them to boost employment, growth, and productivity.

Chris Tremain: What reports has the member seen regarding actions taken by the Government in response to the much-advocated Small Business Advisory Group’s strong recommendation for a probationary employment period?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am afraid that questions to a member must be in relation to a matter the member is in charge of. The member is not responsible for the Government’s actions.

Madam SPEAKER: Precisely.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was in relation to any reports I have received. That, surely, is within order, because it stems directly from the primary question.

Madam SPEAKER: The question has to relate to the bill. If the member would like to rephrase his question so that it relates to the bill only—which is what the member is responsible for—I will take it.

Chris Tremain: What reports has the member, seen in relation to his bill, regarding the actions taken by the Government in response to the much-advocated Small Business Advisory Group’s strong recommendation for a probationary employment period?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am afraid that the member still has not managed to rephrase the question to avoid the issue raised in the first point of order on the first supplementary question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Chris Tremain was very careful to refer to reports in respect of my colleague’s bill. I draw to the attention of the House that almost every single day I hear questions to Ministers about what this National MP might have said or what the good Leader of the Opposition might have said. Provided that members ask about what reports the Ministers have received—despite the fact that the topic may be way beyond their responsibility—you have ruled that that is allowed. If it is good enough for a Minister in charge of a portfolio to be able to comment on reports from National members, surely it is possible for Wayne Mapp to be asked what reports he has received, in relation to his bill, about what the Government has done in response to the Small Business Advisory Group.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the members for their contribution. Members can, of course, under the Standing Orders put questions to non-Ministers, but these are very narrowly based, unlike questions to Ministers. If members want to ask such questions, they must bring themselves within the Standing Orders. I will move on to question No. 3. [Interruption] No, I have moved on to question No. 3.

Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill—OECD Comparisons

3. NATHAN GUY (National) to the Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill: How does the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill compare to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries’ practice of probationary employment periods?

Dr WAYNE MAPP (Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill): The bill falls fair and square within the standard practice of the OECD. Every OECD country has a probation period; it is seen as critical to getting people into the workforce. This bill brings New Zealand into conformity with the rest of the OECD, which has far higher productivity than this country does.

Nathan Guy: What is the typical length of probationary periods in the OECD countries?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: In the United Kingdom the length of the probation period is 12 months—

Hon Tony Ryall: Under Tony Blair?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Under Tony Blair it is 12 months. In Australia it is 6 months. Throughout most of Western Europe—which, of course, the Government has a certain fondness for—the time is typically 3 months. Three months is, in fact, a conservative and modest measure. One must ask the question whether Mr Field would last 3 months.

Madam SPEAKER: I ask the member to withdraw that last comment. We are trying to comply with the Standing Orders, as I understand it.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I withdraw the comment.

Hon Mark Gosche: Will the member be taking the advice of his colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson, who said that any decent employer would know whether a worker was up to standard within the first 9 days, and removing the nought from his probationary bill so that a probationary period of 9 days is the standard, as his colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson advised; or will he follow the advice of Bob Clarkson, who said it should really take only a week, and make it a 7-day probationary period instead?

Bob Clarkson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am a little bit concerned. Was that not privileged information?

Madam SPEAKER: Was it when submissions were being heard? [Interruption] Was it part of a submission? [Interruption] Well, this is what happens with questions to members.

David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Hon Mark Gosche said he could not get his caucus to agree to at least a 7-day—

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Throughout the developed world there is, in fact, a complete range of probation periods. The country that the Government is most fond of—the United Kingdom—actually has a 12-month probation period. I have taken a very conservative approach of a 3-month probation period because, of course, different jobs have different requirements and different times to measure whether someone is up to the job.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table the latest OECD survey, which ranks New Zealand’s economy a commendable fourth out of 155 OECD countries for the ease of employers starting or ending an employment relationship.

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

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It seems that your ruling on that last answer was that the member was addressing the question, even though he clearly did not answer it to the satisfaction of the member asking the question.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I take the point. It was a broad answer, but he addressed the question.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I seek leave to table the 2006 report of the Small Business Advisory Group to the Government. In relation to recommendation 19, which refers to personal grievance - free probation periods, it has scored the Government zero out of 10.

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

Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill—Submissions

4. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Chairperson of the Health Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill?

SUE KEDGLEY (Chairperson of the Health Committee): The Health Committee has received 41 submissions on the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill.

Madam SPEAKER: This is the last supplementary question.

Dr Jackie Blue: How will the Health Committee’s busy schedule accommodate the hearing of submissions on this bill?

SUE KEDGLEY: The Health Committee does have a busy schedule, as we are in the middle of hearing our inquiry into the obesity and type 2 diabetes epidemics in New Zealand, and we have 12 petitions before us. However, we are hoping to hear submissions on the member’s bill in October. I might add that, despite the Health Committee’s busy schedule, we are always keen to have briefings from Ministers, and we are looking forward to a briefing from the Minister of State Services, who declined to appear before our committee during the estimates hearings to brief us on the Trans-Tasman therapeutic goods agency.

Question No. 5 to Member

Question, by leave, postponed.

Question Time

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have made a couple of comments during questions to members about the number of supplementaries, the way in which questions can be asked, the narrowness of some of those questions, and other such remarks. The Standing Orders do not differentiate substantially in any way at all between questions to Ministers and questions to members. In fact, a section of the Standing Orders deals with questions to Ministers and members. Having stated who they are and in what circumstances those questions would be answered, all of the Standing Orders are then applied, it would seem, to both types of question.

I do not detect anywhere in the Standing Orders where it states that, should a chairperson of a select committee not be present in the House, a question cannot be answered by another member—presumably, the deputy chairperson of that select committee. If, in fact, the ruling you have given is correct, where do we go in the Standing Orders to have that ruling backed up? If it is a Speaker’s ruling, I cannot find in Speakers’ Rulings either where that particular requirement is set down.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): There would appear to be no reason in principle why the deputy chairperson of a select committee cannot answer a question when the member who chairs the committee is absent. I refer you, Madam Speaker, to Standing Order 203, which addresses the issue of the absence of the chairperson. It provides that in the absence of a chairperson from a meeting and so on, the deputy chairperson may step into the place of the chairperson.

The issue is whether a meeting of Parliament is a sitting or whether it can also be a meeting. I refer you to Standing Order 12 for some guidance, because it refers to “Proceedings on meeting of new Parliament”. So there would seem to be no reason in principle why Standing Order 203 could not be interpreted to include not only a meeting of a select committee but also a meeting of Parliament. That is the principal reason why—

Madam SPEAKER: No, I thank the member; I have heard enough. I have noticed a growing practice of questions to members, which is perfectly in order. Therefore, I think it is appropriate that I give a ruling on these matters. I will take that under advisement and give a ruling.

Paula Bennett: So can’t he ask his question?

Madam SPEAKER: No. Obviously, the member did not understand what I have just said. I have ruled that I will consider it. My ruling is “no”. It is consistent with my understanding of the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings. The members have raised the issue, I will take it under advisement, and I will rule. We will now move on to Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2.

Hon Member: So be it.

Madam SPEAKER: So be it. Thank you.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is the first point of order I have raised in my time in this place and I have tried to be as succinct as possible. You, kindly, are going to give the House a considered ruling, which I think would be most helpful, but would it not be helpful if you heard the rest of my submission on the point, so that you have a full appreciation of the arguments on behalf of the Opposition?

Madam SPEAKER: No, I think the member was totally clear, and I thank him for the succinctness of his arguments. I understand the point that he is making.

Bills

Coroners Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 2 August.

Clauses 1 and 2 (continued)

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Let me go back and summarise what the National Party in Opposition did when we were previously in Committee on this bill. We were very concerned about Parts 3 and 4, and, for the benefit of the previous member for Whanganui, Ms Pettis, I say we had two questions, and two questions alone, that we wanted to engage the Government in debate on, because they were very important.

The first of those questions was not necessarily one where we were opposed to what was happening. It concerned suicide and the media—a hugely important issue. If the member for Wigram would get off the phone and listen, then perhaps he might learn something, because the issue is an extremely important one. National warily supported the existing provisions set out in the bill.

The second question we were concerned about related to clause 3 in schedule 3. We said that it raised a major constitutional question. Clause 2 of schedule 3 proposes: “On repeal of the former Act, every former coroner vacates office under that Act as a coroner or deputy coroner.” Clause 3 of the schedule, however, provides: “No former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office as a coroner or deputy coroner under clause 2.” In the course of a number of speeches by some of my parliamentary colleagues, we referred to the opinion of former Deputy Solicitor-General, Mary Scholtens QC, who provided advice to the Coroners Council that was tabled at the Justice and Electoral Committee. We referred to the Law Commission’s very recent report on access to court records, which addressed the fundamental question of judicial independence as an underpinning of parliamentary democracy, or democracy in New Zealand. I undertook a very detailed analysis of the 1988 Act and the Coroners Bill, to illustrate the judicial nature of coronial office and how it is quite wrong to declare the office of coroner vacant without any form of compensation.

There were two issues only; all we wanted to do was to focus on two key issues. I regret to say that the only people who spoke in this debate were National members—other than the Minister, who, in fairness, engaged in the debate on these issues, and the members for Hamilton West and Otaki, who moved closure motions. Otherwise, we had silence from the other members on the Labour benches. They made no contribution whatsoever. Neither did the member for Wigram, who was so sanctimonious on this issue earlier this afternoon. These issues are very important. It behoves Parliament to do its job and look very closely at the issues of suicide and the media and of constitutionality.

Jill Pettis: Sit down and we’ll vote for it.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The very noisy Jill Pettis could have come down to the Chamber to address those issues last night, but she failed to do so.

I ask Ms Pettis just what Labour MPs contribute to this Parliament. They do not engage in debate. In the good old days—and I sat in the public gallery in the good old days—there would have been a clause by clause analysis of the bill, and the greats of the Labour Party, like Sir Geoffrey Palmer, would have got stuck in and engaged in the issues in an objective and a professional manner. In this place now, we cannot even debate things part by part and have Labour members participate in the debate, and that is very disappointing. They ask patsy questions, they do not respond to serious questions, and they do not even try to defend their own colleagues when they are in a pickle. They are nothing more than third-rate apparatchiks, and I am very disappointed in them. And I am very disappointed that Ms Pettis did not condescend to come down to the Chamber and engage in this debate, because the issues are big-deal issues. Those questions were the only two we sought to raise, and they were critical.

I will be very brief as I continue, because all I want to do is to engage in—for the benefit of people like the member for Otaki and Ms Pettis—a little history. Back 20 years ago in this place, we had as a Prime Minister—and those members opposite had as the leader of the Labour Party—a distinguished trial lawyer. They had in the Deputy Prime Minister an Attorney-General, a Minister of Justice, and a first-class former law professor, and his skills are exemplified by the fact that he is now president of the Law Commission. They had dear old Frank O’Flynn, the former MP for Island Bay, who was Minister of Defence and a Queen’s Counsel. They had David Caygill, Richard Prebble, and Bill Jeffries. One could argue the toss with those guys, but one knew that they were qualified and that they would be prepared to engage in the debate.

And on issues as fundamental as the independence of the judiciary and suicide and the media, I imagine that Geoffrey Palmer would have wanted to take the call on every single clause and talk with the authority and skill one had come to expect of him. I cannot believe that if Sir Geoffrey Palmer were in this place as Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, that odious clause 3 in schedule 3 would be enacted. I think it is a great disappointment not only that it is being enacted but also that we did not have the chance to debate it with our Labour colleagues. Debate in this place is the stuff of Parliament, and I am just very, very disappointed in that.

Mr Fairbrother should have taken part in the debate. He would have made a very competent Attorney-General had it not been for the fact that he is out of favour because he lost the Napier seat. Not even Mr Chauvel condescended to take part in the debate. One would have expected, given his legal background, that he would be interested in it.

So I have to conclude my contribution to the Committee stage of the debate by expressing great disappointment in the way the Labour Party has performed in this debate. Sometimes issues are much bigger than partisan politics; they deserve a real contribution. My challenge to the leader of the Progressive party is to get on his feet now—it is not too late—and engage in the debate on these issues instead of sanctimoniously pontificating, as he did during question time.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): Undoubtedly, the title “Coroners Bill” would seem to be quite appropriate. Unfortunately, however, due to the intervention of this Labour Government—which was so ably described by Chris Finlayson—in failing to debate the odious clause 3 of schedule 3, which states: “No former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office as a coroner or deputy coroner under clause 2.”, the title perhaps should appropriately be named the “Labour Government Dumping on Long-serving Coroners Bill”, or maybe the “Labour Government (Let us Overturn Constitutional Convention) Bill”.

I was not on the select committee but I have listened to a few of the debates, and one of the things that has struck me is that there has been consistent acknowledgment from both sides of the House as to the hard work and commitment of many long-serving coroners throughout New Zealand. On the one hand, we have heard of people like the full-time Auckland coroners, such as Dr Murray Jamieson and Sarn Herdson, who have provided quite an exemplary service—so exemplary in fact that I understand they are called every morning at a quarter to 7, on 365 days a year, and go on until 11 pm. In fact, further to that, the office starts work at 5.30 am, with the police compiling their reports and getting them ready to report to the coroners. During their tenure, which has been about 4 years—since 2001—the number of coronial files opened and post mortems carried out in Auckland has fallen by 30 percent, while the Auckland population has risen steadily.

But, on the other hand, we have heard from my colleague Anne Tolley, the excellent member for East Coast, about the sterling work carried out by Hughie Hughes JP, who was neither a doctor nor a lawyer. I must say, just by way of acknowledging Dr Jamieson again, that he is both a lawyer and a doctor, and carries out a very, very competent process.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: And a Rhodes scholar.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: And he is a Rhodes scholar, to boot. He is certainly looking after a most exemplary office in Auckland. But I understand that Hughie Hughes, who is neither a lawyer nor a doctor, has for many years served a widely dispersed community, the length and breadth of the East Coast, with extreme dedication, commitment, and sensitivity.

So I come back to the point that although National is supporting the Coroners Bill for the many technical reasons that have been debated, we are deeply concerned about the Labour Government’s failure to recognise fair and reasonable transitional provisions for those coroners who have served New Zealand so well, and who will no longer have a job when this bill comes into effect because of clause 3 of schedule 3, which is quite clear about Labour’s commitment towards long-serving New Zealanders. I repeat that that clause states: “No former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office as a coroner or deputy coroner under clause 2.” Indeed, I understand from my legal colleagues that what the Government is undoubtedly doing is dumping long-serving, committed, hard-working New Zealanders without a thought for what they have done—without a thought for their service. It seems incredible, when clause 107(1) states: “For the purpose of performing or exercising a function, power, or duty under this Act, a coroner has the same powers, privileges, authorities, and immunities as a District Court Judge …”. This untalented, short-sighted Labour Government—which my colleague Chris Finlayson describes as having a rapidly diminishing gene pool to select its talent from—is overturning longstanding constitutional conventions and dumping on the coroners it describes.

KATE WILKINSON (National): In speaking to this bill it is interesting to refer to some criticisms of the United Kingdom coronial system, because some of those criticisms are certainly relevant in New Zealand. The criticisms include the fact that families frequently are overlooked during the inquest process, there is nowhere for them to turn when they think something is going wrong, and there is no complaints system. The system is fragmented and there is no national leadership. The system is not accountable. The standards are not uniformly good, and they rest too much on the personal qualities and abilities of individuals. For most coroners, their coronial work is not even their principal occupation. Most coroners have to learn on the job, as they handle the most technically complex and personally difficult cases with no training.

That is the case in the United Kingdom, and, to a certain extent, that is also what happens in New Zealand. The coronial system must serve the public interest and the bereaved families’ concerns, and justice must be served with sensitivity, transparency, accountability, and all due speed. It is certainly hoped, by now having a dedicated and professional body of coroners, that grieving families’ need for sensitivity, and the emotional needs of bereaved people, will be met by this bill and by the overhaul of our coronial system.

Having said that, this bill is far from perfect. Some of its deficiencies, and National’s concerns, have been considered in the Committee stage—without, I might add, any rebuttal or debate whatsoever from Government members. There was some comment, at times, from the Minister, but it certainly did not at all address those deficiencies or concerns.

We currently have a coronial system of some 60 part-time coroners, some of whom have legal qualifications, some of whom do not. Those with legal qualifications will be able to apply to be full-time coroners under this new regime; some will want to, some will not. Those who do not have 5 years’ experience as a barrister and solicitor, even though they may have been excellent coroners for 20 years, will have no choice without those legal qualifications, and their function as coroners will be extinguished and gone.

It is laudable to have a dedicated and professional body of coroners with national leadership by the chief coroner. What is not laudable is to abandon and dump, without recognition, conscience, and compensation, those many hard-working, experienced, part-time coroners who have spent countless hours in the service of our community. Their experience is wasted, their knowledge is wasted, they are no longer valued, and they are no longer wanted. This issue is particularly relevant in some of our rural areas: the West Coast of the South Island and the east coast of the North Island, for example, and areas like Ruatōria, Motueka, Kaikohe, and Gisborne. These are unique rural and regional areas with their own characteristics. At the moment, they are very well served by part-time, dedicated local coroners armed with local knowledge, knowledge of the people, knowledge of the area, and knowledge of the idiosyncrasies of the region. Under this bill, those part-time, dedicated local coroners will be gone and replaced by a roaming coroner who is perhaps lacking in that vital local knowledge and local sensitivity. I fear that many of our rural and provincial areas will suffer by the passing of this bill. Is that fair? Is it reasonable? Are these concerns even considered or listened to by this Government? Regrettably, I would have to say no.

It would not be too difficult to include in the transitional provisions the ability for existing part-time coroners, albeit without legal qualifications, to continue as usual until their retirement. I understand that the age of retirement in the bill is 68. This is a somewhat arbitrary figure, but an age limit no less. There could certainly and easily be a phase-in period, and everyone would win. But no, this Government has no concern for provincial New Zealand and for what is in the best interest of provincial New Zealand. What is so wrong with allowing our existing talented, experienced, dedicated non-legal coroners to continue to contribute, benefit, and give value to our coronial system? All our existing part-time coroners will be dumped. They will receive no money, no compensation, no redundancy, and probably no thanks.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote): In speaking to the title of the Coroners Bill, I believe that it is useful to go over the real purpose of this legislation before the Committee, because it is easy to lose sight of its true objectives. Its purpose is to help prevent deaths and to promote justice.

For years in New Zealand we have had a very efficient coronial system that has been staffed by highly professional coroners, many of whom have given up other professional obligations to give service to their communities. Many coroners have come from the legal profession and some of them have continued legal practice. Some of them have been medical practitioners, and quite a number have been retired policemen. Those people have taken up this work because there has been a need for it in the community. We should reflect that the reason for any coronial inquest is to prevent future deaths occurring in similar circumstances, so the role of the coroner is a very important one in our society.

This legislation will establish a chief coroner, and it will establish professional standards for coroners. I know coroners have always acted in a professional manner, but the legislation will put some formality around that profession. As we have heard, there will be 20 full-time coroners throughout the country. The aim of that and, I believe, the purpose it will achieve, is that wherever people go in New Zealand and have cause to have contact with a coroner—a time of great distress for any family—they will be assured that they will be subjected to a standard set of processes, and that those processes will be appropriate to New Zealand society and the community we live in. There is no doubt that our society has changed and it is important that the coroner’s function actually reflects the needs of the society it serves. I know that in past years there have been issues around the release of bodies to certain groups in time to have funerals, and that has created a great deal of distress. Now, under this legislation, there will be some certainty and some standardisation, and all New Zealanders will know what they can expect when they deal with the coronial office.

But as members have already heard, the National Party is concerned about the unconstitutional nature of the idea of just dismissing existing coroners. People will be told that they, after years of service, are no longer welcome. Members may yawn, but the reality is that that is a most unfair way to treat someone who has given years of service to the community. Members have to ask why anyone would take up a position of service to the community when that is the treatment that could be expected.

The second element that the National Party takes slight issue with, but is supporting—although is watching with a sceptical eye—is that of the reporting of suicides in the media. As we heard in question time today, there has been a 20 percent increase in suicide attempts in the last 7 years, and a 45 percent increase in attempted suicides amongst young women aged 15 to 24. If members look at the actual outcomes of mental illness, they will see that that is a clearly measurable outcome; it is something we really have to be concerned about.

I would say that it is debatable whether suppressing discussion in the media is really in the community’s best interests. We have to look at how people in those age groups actually communicate. People in the 15 to 24-year-old group get a lot of their information now through the Internet or text-messaging and not necessarily through the print media. So making parents and family members aware of issues around youth suicide may actually be of greater overall benefit to society as a whole. I think we need to be really quite cautionary in saying that we are keen to have a long-term blanket ban on media reporting of suicide. I also have to note that New Zealand has the most stringent rules in the Western World around media reporting of suicide. There was, of course, last year in Gore a situation of seven youth suicides, spread over a space of just a few short months, that was shattering for that community, and there was some speculation as to whether media coverage might have played some role. But I think, on balance, there is some benefit to media transparency.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): In speaking to the title of the Coroners Bill, I share the concerns that my colleagues have noted today in their speeches. Although I do not have a legal background—my background is medical, and I did not have the opportunity to sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee that heard this bill—I, too, was surprised when I read clause 93, which looks at how coroners are appointed. I understand that prior to this bill, the backgrounds of coroners have not been limited and they did not have to be barristers or solicitors. In fact, coroners come from all walks of life. I understand that some are justices of the peace, and some come from a medical background, as well. They have all fulfilled this role admirably.

So I was quite surprised to read in clause 93 in this new bill that a coroner must now be a barrister or a solicitor, and has to have been working in the profession for the last 5 years. Although I realise that a coroner has to understand the judicial process, I must admit I was quite concerned when I read what this clause really meant. Basically, it means that the current lot of coroners who do not fill the criterion of being a barrister or solicitor will be heaved out.

I felt very concerned, in terms of this provision, that we are losing expertise by dumping those people. There should be, perhaps, some sort of grandparenting or phasing in process. Otherwise we could face a situation where we have 20 new, full-time coroners versus 20 very experienced coroners who are not solicitors or barristers. I think that is a dreadful situation to be in. In this country, we have to value expertise and loyalty, and I am concerned when I read this clause. I am pleased that I am not alone in that—it has caused some concern among my colleagues as well. I hope there is a chance later on, somewhere, for this legislation to be amended so that that expertise can be reviewed, or so that there is a transition phase.

I will jump to clause 23, “Viewing, touching, or remaining with or near body in coroner’s custody”, in Part 2. I think this is a good change to the bill. The changes to this clause mean there is provision made for members, or representatives now, of the immediate family or people who are performing religious or spiritual services or advice to be present. I think that is a very good thing. It is a compassionate change, and has regard for the members of the family to grieve and to be counselled and supported by a religious person or spiritual adviser. Those people, of course, need the coroner’s permission, but I think, on balance, that it has been an excellent addition.

I turn to clauses 110, 111, and 112, in Part 4. I did struggle with the quite legalistic-type phrases in these clauses, not having a legal background, but their intent is quite clear. They are quite significant amendments. Clause 110 states that a coroner may, by written notice, require a person to supply “information or documents or other things”. Subclause (1A), which was unanimously agreed upon by the committee, states: “(1A) The person on whom the notice is served must give or produce a thing (whether the thing is information, a class of information, a document, a class of documents, or any other thing) sought by the notice, except to the extent that the person is excused from doing so by section 111.” Clause 111, “Grounds for refusing to comply with written notice”, is also new, and was also unanimously agreed upon. Those grounds are set out in the provision.

Clause 112, “Warrant for information, document, or other thing”, states: “(1) A District Court Judge may issue a warrant for the search of a specified place (including, without limitation, a dwellinghouse or marae), craft, or vehicle if satisfied on an application in writing made on oath by a member of the police …”. The clause goes on to describe the grounds where that would occur. Part of the clause is completely new, and I see that it was also unanimously agreed upon. This means, I gather, from reading it through a few times, that a District Court judge will now be able to issue a warrant authorising the New Zealand Police to search for information that will be helpful in determining the circumstances surrounding how a person died. I am sure that colleagues will agree it is important that coroners have the powers to investigate unexpected or sudden deaths expediently.

Shane Ardern: Absolutely.

Dr JACKIE BLUE: Yes, for many families that is a truly terrible time. Loved ones will be in shock. There will be many questions that need answering. I am pleased that the new part of the bill allows for expedient use of the coroner in authorising warrants. It will be important that those questions are answered so that families can get on with the grieving and move on.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Meat Board Amendment Bill

In Committee

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is it the wish of the Committee that the bill be taken as one question. It is? The bill will be taken as one question.

Clauses 1 to 5

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture): I will give just a brief word, by way of introduction. I, first, thank the Primary Production Committee for the instructive and expeditious approach it took to this bill. The committee has not recommended any changes of substance to the bill. It has recommended some minor changes, to ensure that the bill replicates the changes in drafting style adopted by the House in March 2006, and I support the changes that the committee has suggested to Parliament. I hope the bill can now proceed as quickly as possible through the House.

NATHAN GUY (National): I rise in support of this bill. The Primary Production Committee had quite a few submissions on it, and they were wide ranging, as well. It was interesting to hear both sides of the argument. There was concern out there amongst the Government members that there could be a bit of a challenge to this bill as it sat in 2004, but I think that in going through the submission process we were able to hear both sides of the argument—the pros and the arguments against—and to understand the bill more fully.

The Primary Production Committee believes that this legislation will actually clarify the intention of the Meat Board Act as it was passed in 2004. We have gone through quite a robust process of working through all those issues. In particular, this amendment bill is about ensuring that the value of quota is apportioned appropriately throughout the industry. We need to be mindful of the actual impact on the small players in the industry and, also, on the toll processors, who are actually killing on behalf of others and taking a headage. Although we had submissions against the amendment, and they tended to be from some of the bigger meat companies throughout New Zealand, we had submissions in favour of tidying up the bill from some of those smaller processors. I think it was important that we heard both sides of the argument, and reacted accordingly.

I would like to acknowledge the officials, who have done a pretty good job, I believe, in drafting this bill, and in working with the select committee to bring it through to where it sits right now.

The bill is actually tidying up the ambiguity around the Act, and that is extremely important. The bill will allow quota to flow through. The value of quota will still be represented right across the board to farmers at the farm-gate level, and that is also extremely important. Competition in this industry is rife, so it is most important that quota are spread right throughout the industry, and that farmers actually get value for money from the quota process. Most farmers did not want to see a legal challenge to the Act, and I believe that the select committee having gone through the bill will ensure that it does not happen.

The key part of this bill fundamentally still allows the Meat Board to act in its own right in allowing the quota process to go forward. The commentary on the bill states: “The Meat Board may allocate quota on the basis of share of production history regardless of how much kill is exported.” We accept that the debate about quota allocation will continue, and that other allocation options permitted by law will remain possible. The Meat Board has statutory power to make a choice about how the quota are allocated, and that is extremely important. There is a democratic process that the board goes through. It was fortunate that we had on our select committee Mr Colin King, who was part of the Meat Board in the last term but has now stood down. He was a great influence and guiding hand as we went through that process. The Meat Board is made up of democratically elected members who come from right throughout New Zealand, and it is very important that those people have a say in how the quota are allocated, along with the officials from the Crown.

As we look forward, we see that we are tidying up, I guess, a bit of ambiguity that may surround the legislation. It is important legislation for primary production people in New Zealand, particularly for farmers growing meat and veal. It will ensure that money flows through to the farm gate. From this side of the Chamber, it is interesting to note that with Mr Sutton standing down recently and being replaced by another list member—

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country): I also rise to speak in favour of the Meat Board Amendment Bill, and I thank the officials for the work they have done. Clearly, it has been quite a difficult task for them to arrive at the position they have arrived at. I also acknowledge the work done by the very good Primary Production Committee, chaired by the spokesperson on agriculture for National, the Hon David Carter—a farmer—who was aided and abetted by very, very good members of this House Nathan Guy and Colin King. They are both National members who are farmers, which is something that the party on the other side of the Chamber has no ability to claim any more—or parties anywhere else in the House, for that matter, as far as their members of Parliament go.

I also bring to the attention of the Committee that this Meat Board Amendment Bill was referred to the select committee on 30 March 2006, and the closing date for submissions was 3 May 2006. The committee received 15 submissions from organisations and individuals, and it heard five of those submissions orally. I know that during that process—because I have spoken to my farmer colleagues—arguments were put forward on both sides of this debate, but I need to remind the Committee of how the 2004 Meat Board Act came into being.

We heard earlier today, during question time, some of the ironies of what goes on in this Parliament. Well, the irony here is that the moves to deregulate the industries that brought about the 2004 Act were brought forward by the National Government, first of all under Lockwood Smith, then later on under John Luxton, as agriculture Ministers. I acknowledge today the work that they did, because at that time that leadership was politically very difficult. I remind the Committee that despite the fact that all of those members on the other side were against the deregulation process, including the Hon Jim Sutton, who spoke vigorously against it, campaigned up and down the country and got a lot of farmers onside, it was Labour Ministers who introduced that legislation and had it passed through this House. Because of that political climate, a lot of this stuff was rushed through so that it did not get too much exposure, as the political backlash would have been enormous. That is why we are here now making some amendments around quotas.

John Luxton was once described to me by a member of this Parliament as being the person whom most members disagreed with, but also the person whom most members liked. That was quite an achievement on his part. It means that he was, at the time, showing leadership that was ahead of where the rest of Parliament was in terms of its thinking, and that is what led us to that deregulation.

I also say to the National members of the Primary Production Committee that these issues have always been enormously difficult. On one side of the fence we have those who argue that they should have total control over quota because of its value and the lucrative markets it brings; then on the other side of the argument we have those who say that it should be thrown to the wind, that it should be up for tender, and that whoever wants it should have a big chunk of the pie. It is an almost impossible road to steer down the middle of, and I think members have done a fine job in arriving where they have.

I remind the Committee of what the Minister of Agriculture said when the bill was going through its first reading. He said that, in relation to the practice of allocating quota to producers of export-quality meat who are registered meat exporters, regardless of whether they currently export meat products, the bill will clarify the fee collection powers of the board. Once again, this is to remove a potential ambiguity that came out of the 2004 legislation. I hope that has been achieved. We will not know, of course, until some clever lawyer from somewhere or other for some interest group somewhere tests it, but I suspect that the officials and the Parliamentary Counsel Office have gone through this with fine-tooth comb treatment and that they have got it about right.

It is also true to say at this point in time that the whole debate is a sinking-lid debate in the sense that quotas have a limited time, if we look to the future.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour): Salaam aleikum, Mr Chairperson, and peace be upon you.

First, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber, particularly Nathan Guy, who has summarised this bill very well. I thank the members of the Primary Production Committee, who are in support of this bill. I thank the officials, who have done a great job in preparing the bill, and also the submitters—farmers, Federated Farmers, companies, and a number of individuals—who have made submissions on the bill. We heard a variety of arguments, both in favour of and in opposition to the bill.

I wish to say just briefly that the select committee has unanimously agreed that the bill does not require any change, and it has commended the bill to the House as it is, bar some technical points. Essentially, this bill amends the Meat Board Act of 2004. The amendments allow the Act to become more clear, and ensure that the intent of the Act is lawful, to allow other non-exporters to export meat. The provision involves a very small amount of quota meat—only 2 to 3 percent of the total quota available for export. I think the bill generally just clarifies the Act we already have and, once again, I thank my colleagues for supporting it.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura): It is a privilege to follow the Meat Board Amendment Bill’s progress through Parliament. It was with great pleasure that I sat on the Primary Production Committee along with the other members. It was great to see how we worked as a team. I acknowledge the deputy chairperson of the committee, Ashraf Choudhary, who has just spoken. It was interesting to challenge ourselves around our thinking, to test our thoughts, and to come up with what we are convinced is the appropriate answer.

For just a moment or two I would like to take members through the situation that makes the Meat Board so significant. The board originated in 1947, and it has been a strong conduit in a significant market that will be 125 years old in 2007, which is Export Year, so it is quite significant. There are 1,200 quotas into Europe, and, by and large, those quotas are administered from the country in Europe where the quota ends up. But New Zealand manages this quota on its own shores, and it does so with a huge degree of international responsibility and care. On that basis we capture the value of that administration back to the industry.

One of the interesting aspects around the mechanisms used by the Meat Board that are governing the urgency of this bill being passed into law is that companies with quota used to have to return 3 percent of their quota annually so that there was also the opportunity for new entrants to come on board and to be able to create an environment for innovation. That 3 percent might not sound an awful lot, but a big company that had built up good relationships with its clients in overseas markets over a 10-year period was giving away 30 percent of its market share. So that gives an indication of the sensitivities that exist around the meat industry. The review process undertaken recently by the Meat Board, which looked at historical data and the usage of that new entrants allocation, decided to reduce that percentage back to 2 percent, because, according to historical data, only 1.8 percent was used. There is a large amount of consultation with the industry, and one of things that has ensured the importance and maintenance of the New Zealand Meat Board as a brand overseas is the way it embraced the industry at a time when there were certain views that the producer board had long passed its used-by date.

Overseas, if one were to go to Brussels, one would find that the organisation operating there is known as the Meat Board, whereas, here, the farmer organisation that sits alongside the Meat Board is now known as Meat and Wool New Zealand. The amount of quota utilised comes under scrutiny annually. It has to be monitored on a very, very progressive basis so that when we get to the end of the year, which is the last day in December, we are sure that we have landed in the country of quota origin the maximum amount of that quota. In the case of the US market we are talking about a beef quota of about 214,000 tonnes, and in the EU market it is 227,000 tonnes. It is no mean feat to be able to manage that and maximise the return back to the industry.

Looking at the bill, it is significant to notice that it was during the Uruguay round of the World Trade Organization work on free-trade agreements that we were given the privilege of managing that quota. The quota belongs to the Crown, and on that basis of it belonging to the Crown it is very appropriate that the Crown has chosen a mechanism that allows the industry to capture that value. I acknowledge my colleague Nathan Guy; we talk about farms a lot. There is no doubt about it that when farmers are making good returns, they get out their cheque books and spend that money, and that does an enormous amount of good for the rural economy.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): New Zealand First supports the passing of the Meat Board Amendment Bill. Personally, I am a bit sad that I am not on the Primary Production Committee anymore, where we used to debate these things with much interest, and sometimes hilarity. But after listening to my colleague Shane Ardern going on about the changes some years ago to producer boards, I must admit I was not totally convinced of the changes at that time. It does not escape me that the producer groups that have succeeded since then have been the ones that have retained—as much as possible—the structure they had prior to those board changes. So I am not too sure whether, in fact, they were needed as much as we were told they were. I certainly understand that overseas markets have to be protected and, if they are not happy with a single seller - type operation, then that must be disbanded. On that basis, I certainly understand the changes. But, as I said, it looks to me as though the ones that are succeeding more than others are the ones that have retained as much of their structure as possible.

To farmers, as opposed to those in other industries, it has always been about the industry. That is the wonderful thing about the select committee, and the wonderful thing about farmers, generally. Although they might compete on a friendly basis to get the best production out of their land, they are not in direct competition themselves because the marketing is done by another body, be it a meat company, a board of some description, or something other. So that has led to what I believe is a very important driver in our essential primary industries—that is, it is not about the person; it is about the industry and what is good for the industry. If it is good for the industry, it will be good for individual farmers. I go on about that because it makes a huge, huge difference. It saddens me somewhat that in other areas of New Zealand we have competition outside the country between players from within the country. I do not think that that is the way to go; I think people should get their heads together.

Craig Foss: Winston and Phil, you mean?

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Seeing that the member mentions it, I can say that, as we speak, Winston is fit and well and up to the task. I am told he is looking forward to furthering New Zealand’s interests, as he has been doing, despite all the publicity to the contrary. I am told on good authority that he is a heck of a lot healthier than the spider that inflicted the pain and sickness. Mr Peters will be out and about, pursuing the interests of the country—which is what this bill is all about.

I would like to acknowledge the farmers of New Zealand. I would like particularly to acknowledge the farmers in the South Island who have had to battle their way through snow and all those other conditions this past winter. I think it is easy for people who hail from the cities to say: “Well, it’s either too dry for the farmers or it’s too wet for the farmers.”, or to say that this or that is wrong. In actual fact, that is because that is exactly the way it is. I, for one, flew over those snow-ridden lands and I saw them on my TV. I thought: “Thank God we have people willing to go through all of that—to continue with a smile on their face, electricity or no electricity—and produce the primary production that gives the standard of living to all those of us who live in the cities.” Thank God they do that, and thank God they have the back-up of legislation such as this to keep open markets into other countries, when people within those countries, and farmers within those countries, fight continuously to keep us out.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): I rise to speak to the Meat Board Amendment Bill. First of all, I would like to congratulate the Primary Production Committee on its work—and on the cooperation of the committee, in general—and also acknowledge the work of the officials, to get the bill to this stage. In particular, National’s agriculture spokesman, Mr David Carter—and I am not sure how many Ministers of Agriculture he has seen off now—is doing a great job, backed up very well by Mr Nathan Guy, who is one of our new intake, and Mr Colin King, who just gave a very good speech on the bill. I thank Mr King for the technical references he gave. I also acknowledge Mr Phil Heatley, who is also on the select committee.

The progress of this bill is a great example of MMP in action. I almost surprise myself by saying that, given that the Minister in charge of the bill, Jim Anderton, is from a party to the left of Labour, and slightly to the right of the Greens, I guess. In this current environment we should celebrate such cooperation, and focus on the right and good outcomes of this Parliament. Certainly, Parliament’s reputation is enhanced when bills like this come to the House.

I think—but I am not sure—there is unanimous support for the bill. As previous speakers have mentioned, there are no substantial changes to the bill as it was first read, which was then considered by the select committee. Again, congratulations are due to the officials and to those who have contributed to the drafting of the bill. As I mentioned earlier, the National Party is supporting the bill, and there are no major changes.

I would like to note one point. The National Party is supporting the Minister and the officials on the Meat Board Amendment Bill, but I must note that this will not be habit-forming. I say that because last night I attended the inaugural Horticulture New Zealand conference in Auckland, and the Minister of Agriculture was the guest speaker at dinner. I do not think the Minister realised I was there, so he may have shared a few too many secrets. They were good words, but I need to point out to the Minister that they were only words. Much of the discussion around my table and at drinks afterwards included statements like: “Well, show us some action, Minister; words are cheap.”

I also note for the benefit of the Minister that most of the people in the room took gross offence at the accusation that they, and New Zealand land-based industries, constantly saw the glass as being half empty. That is a gross insult to those who have worked so hard to put this nation where it is now, in spite of, in many instances, the Labour Government’s actions. They were quite indignant at the comparisons with our cousins over in Australia, as to how well they are doing in respect of productivity and return to the farm gate, etc. Again, he should celebrate the industry of which he is the Minister in charge.

I also note that they were quite astounded when the Minister spoke last night, pertaining to land-based industries, of the need for productivity gains in this sector in New Zealand. In spite of the actions of the current Government, including in its previous term, this sector has had massive productivity gains. In discussion after the Minister’s speech, questions were asked. How on earth can the Minister say that, when he has been part of a Government that has flooded regulation on to the farm—including, pertaining to the Meat Board Amendment Bill, farms that produce meat? How on earth can he keep asking about productivity gains, when he has hiked up everyone’s wage bill by about 2 percent with the Holidays Act? How on earth can he talk about the need for productivity gains and incentives in this sector, when he has been part of a regime that has hiked up personal taxes, that has absolutely trawled another $30 billion over the last 6 years, rising to $60 billion, in personal tax, wasting the gains from the investment of hard-working farmers, over many years, that they had hoped to enjoy at this time?

In the discussion about whether this Minister is right about the need for productivity gain, and about things that are good for the country and for the agricultural sector, the issue of Sovereign Yachts came up. The Minister, in his previous incarnation, constantly wrote out cheques for decent photo opportunities. He absolutely squandered taxpayers’ money on Sovereign Yachts, for example—money that farmers could have enjoyed using in the first place.

My electorate consists of many meat processors. They are cooperatives, listed companies, and private companies—large and small. Discussions on issues concerning procurement and processing run very deep and get very emotional. An example is the recent debates about PPCS Ltd being taken over by, or merging with—depending on whom one talks to—Richmond Ltd, which is a company with a great history in Hawke’s Bay.

The Meat Board does a great job. As I said earlier, National is supporting the bill, which is relatively unchanged. There are no substantial changes to the bill. The board does a great job of managing, corralling, and advocating for New Zealand’s position and access to markets abroad, in spite of the absolute best efforts of other parties and competitors to prevent that.

NATHAN GUY (National): I would like to take a call on this Meat Board Amendment Bill. It is a Government bill that is being supported by the Primary Production Committee. The bill pretty much confirms the status quo. We should bear in mind that exporters need an export registration certification to be a part of this process. Whether meat-processing plants export or are involved in domestic supply, they will still need an export ticket. That means every plant throughout New Zealand needs to be at an optimum, high standard of hygiene.

I urge those members in the Chamber who have not been through a meat-processing plant to go through and have a look, because the cleanliness of plants in New Zealand is fantastic in comparison with plants in other parts of the world—and I was fortunate enough to go through a few in North America when I went there on a Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Fellowship in 2000 to follow our New Zealand beef exports—and in those big markets to which we export. Our industry has had to invest millions and millions to meet the United States Department of Agriculture safety standards. The people of New Zealand need to be reassured that our meat-processing plants—commonly called “the works”, but I like to call them processing plants—actually have very good, high standards of hygiene, which is fantastic.

We need to have a look at the wider industry benefits of this quota and at how they flow through not just to farmers at the farm gate but to rural New Zealand and those provincial towns right across New Zealand. I am talking about the fertiliser companies, stock and station agents, and other people, right through to the greengrocer and the person running the local dairy where one buys one’s milk. All of these people will benefit from this amendment passing through the Committee today.

Another important thing is how we value our clean, green, natural resources in this country. That is a significant part of this bill when we look at our quota and at meeting our export requirements around the world. Fundamentally, we in this country are blessed with wonderful natural resources. But farmers are environmentalists in their own hearts. They have been brought up on the land for generations, and they know that if they do wrong environmentally, they cause suffering right down through the chain and into our markets, as well.

The speech made the other day by Charlie Pederson, president of Federated Farmers, sparked debate around this whole environmentalist approach. We need to be cautious that we do not get too extreme in our approach, but we need to be mindful of the fact that we need to maintain our clean, green aspect that we have in this country. We are an island nation, and that aspect is worth billions—absolutely billions—to us as a country. But we need to be mindful of the fact that if we go down the road of extreme environmentalism, that will be detrimental to our overall productivity. We will see unemployment levels grow and fewer jobs in the rural, provincial areas of New Zealand. It is a fine balancing act, and farmers, along with industry organisations like Fonterra, the Meat Board, and others, are actually doing fantastically well.

The other thing I will touch on is the issue of biosecurity, and how that impacts on our island nation. We would be down the gurgler if we got something like foot-and-mouth, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or tuberculosis in this country.

Shane Jones: National have already got that.

NATHAN GUY: What was that from the member over there? I have forgotten his name. Anyway, one back-bencher from over the other side is trying to chime in. He probably does not even own a pair of gumboots. He probably has not even been out to talk to any cockies in their woolsheds. He probably would not even know what this bill was about, like a lot of people on that side of the Chamber. We have seen Mr Sutton, unfortunately, be pushed out by a replacement Minister, and now farmers are left with no one rural to represent them.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country): It gives me great pleasure to follow on from my good colleague—my good farming colleague, I hasten to add—Nathan Guy. Is it not an indictment on the Government that the Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe, is a Japanese sheep station owner from west Auckland? Does that not demonstrate to us the depth of rural support that this Government now has? For sure, the Minister in the chair is learning very quickly about issues of immigration, but I am sure he has learnt very little about issues concerning the Meat Board Amendment Bill at this point in time.

My good colleague Colin King made some very good points. The meat industry is very important to the economy of this country. A total of 240,000 tonnes of beef goes to the US. I say to the Government, while I have this opportunity, that it would be absolutely marvellous if it could focus for more than 30 seconds on what is important in this country and do some work to build relations with the US, rather than doing what it has been doing recently, which is to destroy what has taken years to build up. Would it not be absolutely marvellous, in terms of health funding, education funding, road building, or even, God forbid, some spending on biosecurity, if we could secure a free-trade agreement with the United States of America? Would that not be wonderful? This bill is all about quota access, but we would not need quota access if we could get a free-trade agreement with the US. These amendments would be redundant if we could achieve a free-trade agreement and get access to that lucrative market, where we export so many of our products.

The Minister in the chair, who is from west Auckland and is struggling a bit with immigration issues at the moment, does not even know that. This Government does not even know that. Aha, the Minister in the chair has been replaced! We now have a much more learned, earthy Minister in the chair, Mahara Okeroa. It is good to see yet another farmer—from somewhere down in the deep south—occupying the chair. He is a good Naki boy at heart, so I know he has been on a farm at least once in his life—somewhere around Parihaka. It is good to see a replacement Minister in the chair who is closer than David Cunliffe is to the farming sector.

I also say to the Government that it would be absolutely marvellous if it could focus for more than 5 minutes—like the very good Primary Production Committee, which has done the work on this bill—on the issues that are important to the economy of New Zealand. The Government should focus on things like, for example, biosecurity. The same department advises the Minister on that as on the meat industry, but the Minister himself is not a farmer and would not have a clue about farming. He knows nothing about the effect that some of his silly nonsense has on this economy. I say to the Minister—wherever he may be; I am sure he will be listening in to this debate, because it is very important to New Zealand and to that Minister—that he does go out and he does say the right things. In fact, when we hear that Minister from the hard left give a speech to farmers, we would think he has had a road to Damascus experience, because he sounds as though he has moved over to the right of centre. But I can say to farming folk out there—and they are starting to know this already—that that Minister talks big and does nothing.

The Minister told the bee-keepers and the farming sector in the South Island, which depends on pollination from the bee industry, that the Government would look at eradication of the varroa bee mite. Then his associate the Minister for Rural Affairs, Damien O’Connor, said he thought we should attempt eradication and we should do it now. But no, the Minister got on a plane and went overseas on a leftist little junket around some of the socialist countries that the Minister currently visits. While he was away, Damien O’Connor’ big words and the Minister’s big words all went into hot air, and what did we hear last night? We heard this Government say there was no point in trying to eradicate the varroa bee mite in the South Island. That opportunity has gone; we are to give it away and forget about it.

I guess we can say to all of the recreationalists, fishers, hydroelectricity producers, and other people like that out there that that is what will happen with regard to didymo, as well. It will be in the North Island before we know it. It is no use going to the Minister. If people in those industries are listening out there and are concerned about that issue, they will have to front up and eradicate didymo themselves, because there is no point in going to this Government. It will do absolutely nothing to protect the borders with regard to biosecurity. There have been 229 new incursions in the last 5 years, and that Minister stands up and says we have “the best biosecurity in the world”. Well, I can say to the Minister that, with 229 new incursions in the last 5 years, God help us if we had had a poor biosecurity system. I say to the bee industry and farming folk out there at the moment that that is what they will get from this Government. To the meat farmers out there, who are actually earning the income for this country, I say does it not—

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura): I start by making the point to the New Zealand First member who spoke earlier about it being no use our having a free-trade agreement with America, that for every cattle beast Australia sells to America it receives $21 more than we receive, because of a free-trade agreement. I would also remind the member not to bite the hand that feeds New Zealand.

I draw the attention of the Committee to section 24, “Requirements for allocation mechanisms” of the Meat Board Act. The amendment the bill proposes to that section, as intended and approved unanimously by the Primary Production Committee, was the most controversial of the amendments being made by the bill. The new subsection (5), to be added to section 24 of the Meat Board Act by clause 3 of the bill, states: “(5) To avoid doubt, an allocation mechanism may provide for an allocation of access to quota markets to any person who is a registered exporter, whether or not the person currently exports meat products.” That amendment, as the commentary on the bill states, is being made for the point of clarification.

Until recently it was a moot point over where the quota should be allocated. Potentially it could have been contested in the High Court as to whether the quota should be based on the meat exporter or on the basis of a mechanism whereby meat that was processed in a certified and an approved processing plant was eligible to be exported. The point was not necessarily the fact that the meat was exported. When we consider that point, there has to be some very subtle thinking around who earns quota.

When members sat down yesterday to that beautiful lamb fillet during our farewell to Dame Silvia Cartwright, we could appreciate the importance of ensuring that, in a country where we rely so heavily on tourism, we are able to present the highest quality of product. When we look at our food safety level, which is considered to be the platinum level throughout the world, it is nice to be able to entertain our overseas guests with such a delicacy as a lamb fillet.

If we turn to the amendment to section 32, “Decisions”, made by clause 4 of the bill, we see, again, that the word “eligible” will be included in that section. This will ensure that subsection (1) of that section will summarise things by stating that committed future investment in the distribution, marketing, packaging, or processing of meat products eligible for export has to be considered when deciding matters of allocation. So on that basis, we can see how the bill clarifies that particular clause, and takes the steam out of the debate over whether litigation will be taken out against the Meat Board.

The process the bill has gone through in the select committee has been very, very important to ensure that we can add certainty to the process so that we do not confront those issues. We can also have comfort around the responsibilities and the accountabilities of the Meat Board back towards the industry, because section 26, “Consultation”, states: “The Board must not establish any particular allocation mechanism without consulting those meat industry organisations the Board thinks appropriate …” for that purpose. So it has to consult and it has to do that on a regular basis, because section 29 of the Act, “Review of allocation mechanisms”, talks about this having to be done on a regular basis. Subsection (2) states: “(2) The board must review each unrevoked allocation mechanism at intervals not greater than 5 years. The first review of each allocation mechanism after the commencement of this Act must occur within 5 years of that commencement.”

So everything has been lined up appropriately. I reflect back on the tumultuous times surrounding the restructuring of the producer boards, and the outcome. We saw the demise of the Wool Board and its separation of industry-good activities as opposed to commercial activities.

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Coroners Bill with amendment and the Meat Board Amendment Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill

Second Reading

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce): I move, That the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill be now read a second time. I would like to thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its detailed consideration of the bill, as well as all of those people and organisations that provided submissions to the committee. The committee’s consideration has resulted in a number of amendments, and I consider those to be useful improvements to the bill.

The bill repeals and replaces the Geographical Indications Act of 1994. That Act was passed following negotiation of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, known as the TRIPs agreement. The TRIPs agreement establishes minimum standards for the protection of intellectual property rights, including geographical indications, which World Trade Organization (WTO) members are required to provide. Member States can choose how they decide to give effect to those obligations.

The 1994 Act on geographical indications established a registration system for the protection of geographical indications and accorded a level of protection consistent with the level provided for wine and spirit geographical indications under the TRIPs agreement. However, that Act has never been brought into force. In part, this was because there was no strong interest by New Zealand producers to register geographical indications at that time. They were content to rely on New Zealand’s general consumer protection laws provided under the Fair Trading Act and the tort of passing off. Through the select committee process, the industry has voiced its strong support for the new legislation—and I appreciate that endorsement of the Government’s actions.

Another reason the 1994 Act was not brought into force was that it was drafted in anticipation of further developments occurring within the context of the WTO and its negotiations around the protection of geographical indications. As it happens, those developments have not eventuated, and, as a result, the 1994 Act is now out of date.

The purpose, then, of the bill is to put in place modern, efficient, and cost-effective processes for the registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits that serve to meet the needs of our wine and spirits industries and ensure that New Zealand continues to meet its obligations under the TRIPs agreement. This is a clearer and more coherent framework for honouring New Zealand’s international obligations. The select committee has recommended that the purpose clause of the bill should explicitly recognise the role of New Zealand’s rights and obligations under the TRIPs agreement in applying the bill. I support this recommendation of the select committee.

At present, New Zealand implements its TRIPs agreement obligations primarily, as I have already said, through the Fair Trading Act 1986 and the tort of passing off. In addition, the Trade Marks Act 2002 enables geographical indications to be protected as certification marks and collective marks. Under the current system interested parties may take legal action to confirm their rights to a specific geographical indication, as has already happened, for example, for Champagne. The bill will complement this existing system by providing a specific avenue for protecting geographical terms for wines and spirits in New Zealand.

However, the registration mechanism provided by the bill is voluntary and the bill does not affect existing mechanisms already in place to protect current or future geographical indications. The select committee has therefore taken on board wine industry concerns and has recommended that a new provision be added to the bill to clarify further that the bill does not affect existing mechanisms in place. I endorse this recommendation of the committee.

The bill limits registration to geographical indications for wines and spirits alone. The TRIPs agreement accords two levels of protection for geographical indications: a minimum level applying to all goods, which requires Governments to provide measures to prevent geographical indications being used to a misleading or confusing manner, and a higher level that applies to wines and spirits only. The higher level requires Governments to provide measures to prevent the use of a geographical indication on a wine or spirit that does not originate from the area indicated. This prohibition applies regardless of whether any use misleads or confuses consumers as to the origin of the wine or spirit. The protection accorded to registered geographical indications by the bill is specifically tailored to meet this higher level of protection for wines and spirits only.

The TRIPs agreement establishes a balance of rights and obligations for the protection of geographical indications. This balance includes certain limitations and exceptions for geographical indication protection. The bill incorporates all of the limitations and exceptions to protection provided for by the TRIPs agreement. For example, protection is not to be afforded to terms that are considered generic in the New Zealand market—for example, vodka or gin.

This bill contains a new definition of geographical indication to ensure that only those geographical indications for wines and spirits that meet the standards of the TRIPs agreement are able to be registered under the Act. This means that a registered geographical indication needs to be able to indicate that a wine or spirit originates from a defined area and that the particular quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the wine or spirit is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. The bill also contains updated and modern definitions of the terms “wine” and “spirit”. [Interruption] I would have thought that the member for East Coast Bays or wherever he is from would be fascinated by any discussion of wines and spirits.

In relation to what constitutes a spirit, the select committee has recommended that the definition be amended to remove the word “tequila”—I am sure the member will be deeply concerned about that—which is considered to be a geographical indication by Mexico because it describes a village in Mexico. The select committee considered that the use of the term in the definition in the bill may imply that tequila is considered to be generic in New Zealand and, therefore, is not registrable as a geographical indication. It is not intended that this question should be prejudiced by the bill’s definition of the term “spirit”. Consideration of whether a term like “tequila” is registrable as a geographical indictor should be an issue for the registration process to determine and not necessarily for the legislation.

Similarly, the bill clarifies the relationships between trademarks and geographical indications. Consistent with New Zealand’s position internationally on this issue, the bill implements a “first in time, first in right” principle for determining which right has priority. A later filed geographical indication will, in most instances, be prevented from registration by an earlier filed trademark, and vice versa. In very limited circumstances, the bill allows for the potential of a later filed geographical indication to be registered, despite a pre-existing trademark having priority.

Provision is made in the bill for geographical indications that are identical in name or sound but relate to different geographical areas. Provided that both geographical indications are legitimate, the bill allows for the possibility of both to be registered. Conditions may be imposed on the registration to ensure that the use of both terms does not lead to confusion in the market place. For example, it may be necessary to state not just the geographical indication but also the country the product is from. As registration is not compulsory, the bill introduces an exception, ensuring that unregistered identical geographical indications remain unaffected by the legislation.

The select committee process has resulted in a number of amendments to the bill as introduced. Those clarify and strengthen the range of technical and operational issues. Changes to the bill as reported back include clarifying a number of clauses to ensure that the provisions are more closely aligned with the wording used in the TRIPs agreement. We have added a new clause to provide that on registration of a geographical indication, the date of registration be deemed to be the date of application for registration, consistent with the trademark regime.

We have clarified that the grounds for refusal of a geographical indication include where an application to register a trademark has been made in good faith but has not yet been granted, and we have clarified that a geographical indication’s scope of protection in the country of origin may include conditions as to its use. We have also clarified the definition of “bottled” to capture different types of containers used for packaging wines and spirits, and have included a provision to allow the registrar to establish a committee to advise on issues regarding the removal of a geographical indication from the register. I am very happy to support those amendments and other minor and technical recommendations made by the select committee.

I thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its work on this bill. This bill is legislation that demonstrates, yet again, this Government’s willingness to work with industries, with business, and with communities to make sure that international obligations work for New Zealanders and that New Zealanders are able to trade from the strongest position internationally. I thank the committee for the work it has done, because I think it has strengthened the bill.

This bill will assist our growing wine industry and our emerging spirits industry to ensure modern, efficient, and cost-effective registration processes are in place for wines and spirits in New Zealand. A registration system will provide legal certainty for producers without, I hope, stifling innovation. The bill does not make registration compulsory. Existing legal mechanisms within legislation and the market will continue to apply, and the bill will also help consumers to make informed choices about the origins of the wines and spirits they buy.

I apologise that this speech has been somewhat technical and obviously a little too much for the Opposition, but, given that it is necessary to be very precise in this area, I hope that those members will take it as seriously as I know the wine industry, consumers, and the spirits industry in New Zealand do. I commend the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill to the House.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays): I could tell from the faces of members around the Chamber that they shared my view that that was easily the most exciting, and indeed moving, speech ever made in the House by Judith Tizard! [Interruption] The look of excitement on Mr Woolerton’s face was a picture to behold! I was moved to reflect that we on the Opposition side of the House worked out some time ago how to tell which members of the Labour Party are in trouble with the Labour Party leadership—they are the ones who are sent down here to the Chamber to suffer during a Judith Tizard speech. She knows she has a unique capacity to make a 10-minute speech sound as though it is an hour and a half long. Mr Jones is clearly in the dogbox yet again, because he has been sent down to the Chamber by the Labour whips to endure the speech from the Minister. I tender my sympathy to Mr Jones and to the other members who have fallen foul of their whips and been required to suffer that experience.

This bill is important. It has a deep significance at this particular time in the history of the wine industry, as the Minister told the House when she read her carefully prepared notes—which she had obviously not looked at prior to coming into the Chamber. This bill brings New Zealand into line with certain trade obligations. As a relative newcomer to the ways of the trade sector, I have discovered people in the sector have acronyms for everything. [Interruption] I know I should not mention trade deals while members of New Zealand First are in the House, because they get excited, but I say this bill brings the New Zealand wine industry into compliance with obligations the country has under the World Trade Organization and, particularly, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which the Minister referred to.

I normally have the services of my very well-qualified colleague Mr Groser to interpret these matters for me, and it is a matter of some disquiet to me that I do not have his expertise available to me and to the House on this occasion. I say to Mr Woolerton that unfortunately his own expertise on this topic does not quite rival that of my learned colleague Mr Groser. But the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which is part of the World Trade Organization set-up, makes some requirements of New Zealand that are recognised in this bill. As the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Judith Tizard, told the House, we had, in fact, passed previous legislation in 1994. That legislation was not brought into operation, but the fact that this bill is now required is an indication of the growing reputation and maturity of the industry.

This bill—to provide a more colloquial account of its utility than the Minister did—will enable winegrowers in New Zealand who manage to achieve a particular quality or character in their wine, as a consequence of their skill, to have the geographical location recognised in references to their wine. I refer, in particular, to a quotation from the Wine Institute of New Zealand, which represents the winegrowers of New Zealand: “A geographical indication is an indication that identifies a wine or spirit as originating in the territory of a country or a regional locality in that territory, where a given quality or reputation, or other characteristic of the wine or spirit, is essentially attributable to its geographical origins.” It is a tribute to the growing maturing of the industry in New Zealand that there is interest in having this legislation, so that some of our more successful winemakers and winegrowers on the international stage are able to take advantage of the facility provided by this bill.

I do not intend to rehearse the detail of the bill; the Minister did that perhaps to an excessive extent for the purposes of those members who were intent on staying awake. One aspect of the bill gives me some disquiet, and I hope some members will give consideration to it when we get to the Committee stage. I refer, in particular, to clause 51 and to the way that the registrar is empowered by this legislation to appoint committees. The registrar is the person charged under this legislation with receiving and dealing with applications from the industry. Under clause 51, the registrar has the power, where the registrar thinks fit, to “establish a geographical indications committee”. Where such a committee is to be put together, the registrar may appoint some members from the industry, but the Surveyor-General or the Surveyor-General’s representative and a member of the New Zealand Geographic Board are required to be members of that committee. I should explain to members that the registrar is, as a requirement of this bill, a bureaucrat. The legislation requires that the registrar be an official within the Government department that is to administer the legislation. Only when that bureaucrat sees fit to do so will there be an attempt to establish a committee for the purpose of consulting on the applications lodged with the registrar.

That proposal was the subject of some questioning in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I regret to report to the House that, due to some obligations I had on the Privileges Committee, I was unable to be there for some of the hearings in relation to this bill. But I did, subsequently, take the opportunity to talk to representatives of the industry. Indeed, today I have updated those discussions with my colleague Mr Hayes. It appears to me that we have a potential imbalance in this legislation as a result of clause 51 and some of the other clauses that relate to it. I urge the Minister, if she is to take an ongoing interest in this measure, to give some thought over the next few days to clause 51 and the related provisions, in terms of the way that the industry will be able to interface with the registrar.

I see no absolute requirement for the Surveyor-General or a member of the New Zealand Geographic Board to be mandated as members of any committee established under clause 51 and clause 52 of the bill. If those people have some specialist expertise, they can simply be invited to come along to tell committee members what they think about the attribution of certain place names to a type of wine, or whatever the proposal is. As the bill stands, those people are required to be members of any committee that is established by the registrar. More worrying to me, though, is the fact that the registrar can simply decide that the registrar—an official, a bureaucrat—needs no help.

During the Committee stage, I intend to move that we reconfigure those clauses so that the registrar sits on a board alongside some industry representatives from New Zealand winegrowers, and that those individuals jointly have the responsibility to undertake the tasks of the registrar. It seems to me that this measure will be successful only if it is implemented in a way that reflects the expertise of the wine industry. To have before the House a provision, in important legislation like this, that the expertise of the wine industry will be accessed only if a bureaucrat, who may know nothing about the topic whatsoever, decides to call in that expertise seems to me to be rather inadequate. So I give notice to the Government that National will move accordingly during the Committee stage. I have consulted with the industry, and I am satisfied that such a move is in compliance with the wishes it has previously expressed.

I simply say to the Minister in charge of the bill, to other members on the Government side of the House, and to members of New Zealand First and the Green Party in particular, who are listening intently to this very interesting address, that I hope they will give some thought to this matter. If they take the trouble to consult with the industry, they will find there is strong support for those sorts of changes in the legislation. I hope they will give those proposals some consideration over the next few days. I welcome the fact that the bill is before the House. I thank the select committee for the time it has given to it, but I commend to the House the utility of some further thought being given to the matters I have briefly outlined today.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): New Zealand First supports the passing of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill. In my colloquial way, I regard this as EU stuff inflicted upon New Zealand growers, because this is something we need to do for our trade. As I said, New Zealand First supports the passing of the bill, but let us make no mistake: as the Associate Minister of Commerce said in her long and detailed address, it is something that our growers have not initiated. It is something that, in fact, New Zealand’s grape industry, and others, have not sought. It is something we have had imposed upon us, and I have to say that I give all credit to our trade negotiators in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, for going through this bill.

At times like this—and I should not say it, as my leader will kill me—I wish for the return of my former colleague Gerry Eckhoff, who, when he was on the Primary Production Committee, having come from a family that was deeply entrenched in the wine industry and the selling thereof, would wax lyrical about all of what I would call the pretentious stuff surrounding wine. He would go into immense detail about geographical regions and the tastes that pertain to those areas. Then, when challenged to talk about this in any scientific manner, he would resort to what we all resort to: “Well, I think it tastes good, anyway.” So we had many a good debate on this subject when I was on the Primary Production Committee.

But having had these things imposed upon us, it is imperative that we do debate this in a proper manner. The bill has gone through the select committee, and it is imperative that it is carried forward in a way we can live with in New Zealand. New Zealand First has been in favour of food labelling and those sorts of things when they have been proposed by other parties in the House. We would have to say it is interesting that, although we have had this imposed upon us, we are going along with a bill about labels that covers regions not only in New Zealand but, again as the Minister said, in countries throughout the world. I wonder whether it is a forerunner of a proposal by the National Party, or, indeed, by Labour, to label food from overseas countries, because I have a bit of a problem with the fact that we are now eating garlic from China—where the last lot in my house came from, God bless my soul—or from India. I would like to see, quite obviously, that we are eating garlic that comes from New Zealand. We are also at Christmas time, in the main, eating pork that comes from Canada, and I understand some of that comes from China, as well. We would like to see the things that can be home-grown actually be home-grown.

I digress slightly to say it is interesting to me that we have just debated the Meat Board Amendment Bill, in which members talked about industry standards and hygiene, and the wine industry, in the main, is careful about that. I have talked about pork from Canada, but I cannot talk about any export industry without talking about the problems we have had with our poultry in New Zealand. I agree with the Green spokesperson in this area, Sue Kedgley, and I suggest to members most strongly that if we had an export business in poultry, we would not have had the problems we have with poultry. It is not widely known in this country—and it should be—that we have two standards, in many cases. One is the export standard, which is the higher, and one is the local standard, which is the lower. Those in the meat business are doing their very best, and have actually achieved one standard across the board. In apples, the industry still has not, with due respect, and in poultry we certainly have not, because we do not export. So exports are important, not only for our economy but because we are going into markets where the standards demanded of us are extremely high. We as a country benefit from those, as I have indicated.

So although we support the bill, we recognise that it has been imposed upon us, to a great degree. We applaud the work of our trade negotiators in doing the best for our people, but I point out, if there is a barb in my speech, that we wish other areas and producers in our economy would lift their game before we in this House are forced to legislate for them to have to do that—which they will not be too happy with.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party is really keen on the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill. We favour the model it embodies, which is that food should be properly labelled as to where it comes from. Under this bill, that can be the country, the region, and the subregion within that.

There are very good reasons for having quite detailed labelling, because the product is different depending on the country, region, and subregion it comes from. It was explained at some length to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee how the soils and the weather in the region are important for the growth of the grape, and for the particular grape that excels there. There is an extremely good reason for having detailed labelling, from a production and consumer point of view. In this case, the consumer is going to rule. The consumer is going to know exactly where the wine came from—not only the producer but right down to the vineyard, region, subregion, and country, as I said.

Of course, both consumers and producers are pushing for that detailed labelling. The previous speaker, Doug Woolerton, mentioned the European Union, but around the world the best-practice wine producers and consumers are also asking for labelling, because it protects quality. New Zealand is trying to export wine at the higher end of the market, at the quality end of the market—that is what we were told repeatedly—and having detailed labelling is essential for that. As the previous speaker indicated, the same thing applies to other products. Labelling is something that encourages New Zealand firms to produce quality food products.

It is ironic that just about a month ago the National and Labour parties, which are supporting this bill, were so opposed to my colleague Sue Kedgley’s bill on the labelling of food products. All the arguments that have been used here today in favour of this bill were strangely forgotten or opposed when those members opposed the member’s bill from Sue Kedgley.

Shane Jones: What’s the National Party got to say about that?

KEITH LOCKE: What did they say? They said: “Oh, we’ll just rely on the State. We’ll make sure that scientifically it’s safe.” Well, for a start, we cannot necessarily rely on the State just to prove that everything is safe. There are often a lot of unknowns in science. The safety question, as this bill shows, is only the beginning of wisdom. There are a whole lot of other things to consider in terms of quality—what the consumer wants in terms of quality—and of the ability of consumers to make their own choices. We are not saying—as seemed to be implied by the rejection of Sue Kedgley’s bill—that if it is safe it is OK. That is like saying under this bill that people should drink chardonnay but they will not be told where it comes from.

We should be able to have a choice about what chardonnay we want to drink or what red wine we want to drink, and to know where it comes from. This bill provides for that ability. It is great that the European Union has provided an impetus for it, and it is good that the wine producers and consumers of New Zealand, and the political parties here today, have gone along with it.

What were the arguments used against Sue Kedgley’s bill? Underneath them all was the trade argument that when New Zealand exports products to, say, America, we do not necessarily want the Americans to know that the products have come from New Zealand. The Americans might prefer the American product or the European product, and they might have good consumer reasons for that, but if we can sneak in products unlabelled, and have a deal with the Americans whereby they send their stuff here unlabelled, then we increase trade—even if the consumer dips out. We have seen dip-outs most recently, in terms of stuff coming into New Zealand unlabelled, with 27,000 tonnes of meat coming into New Zealand unlabelled, and 40 percent of the pork being unlabelled. We know what happened when 6 tonnes of raw pork came in illegally from Korea recently, and not long ago we had the poor people at Eden Park falling sick after eating raw oysters from Korea.

R Doug Woolerton: Oh, they want to ban them, Keith.

KEITH LOCKE: Yes. That is the problem that can ensue if we do not know where things come from, and if we just have a totally open season without any labelling whatsoever.

I think we are taking after the European Union in this case, but, in the case of Sue Kedgley’s bill, even though we knew that Australia was setting an example and doing food labelling, we did not follow that example. Murray McCully challenged us on the question of producer representation on committees that might be set up to look at labelling, and the Greens, in principle, support having producers on those committees. We do not know whether we really need to specify particular producers in legislation. In this case, National suggests the Wine Institute of New Zealand and the New Zealand Grape Growers Council. I think we can formulate something that makes more provision for producer representation. There is producer representation in other industry organisations, which is a good thing.

Basically, that is the Green’s position. If we are serious about serving the interests of both producers and consumers in the food area, then we have to use this bill as a model. Next time we come back to the House with a food labelling bill we must say that, yes, in the interest of consumers, in the interest of advancing quality, and in the interest of true trade that enhances quality and safety around the world, we should have labelling. Thank you.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Four days ago the nation willingly contributed to the extinction of the last living representative of the reptilian order. And before everyone starts calling out about Fred and Wilma, Barney and Betty, and Dino, let me tell members what I am talking about. The Māori Party acknowledges the demise of a tipuna, an ancestor, that is the sole survivor from a lineage stretching back over 225 million years. It is a tipuna that up until Monday graced our 5c coins—the tuatara, the unique living fossil that exists today in its ancestral home of Takapourewa, Stephens Island, in Cook Strait.

The survival of the tuatara was threatened by habitat loss, introduced animals, and global warming, and now, it seems, the decommissioning of currency. For Ngāti Koata of the Marlborough Sounds, the protection and rights of the tuatara had nothing to do with the Reserve Bank. Indeed, it was the concern they had over the failure of the Crown to protect and exercise tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over their indigenous flora and fauna, such as the tuatara, that saw them join with Ngāti Kurī, Ngāti Wai, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Porou, and Ngāti Kahungunu to present the 262nd claim lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal—a claim known as Wai 262.

For Ngāti Koata, their iwi responsibility of kaitiakitanga has seen them care for the tuatara without the need for the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill. When a local wine producer, Waimea Estates, first announced that its latest wine would be launched with the Tuatara label, Ngāti Koata upheld their kaitiaki responsibilities to provide protection for the geographical indication of their ancestral name. Such was the significance of the authenticity of that name, the identity, and the whakapapa of the tuatara that Ngāti Koata were able to impress upon Waimea Estates a recognition of their ownership, control, and protection of their cultural and intellectual property.

And so it came to be that on 5 June 2006 Waimea Estates introduced a new label into the United States, with a flashy launch at The New Zealander, which is a restaurant in Alameda, California. It was the latest addition to the Waimea Estates wine cellar—the Spinyback label. It was a win-win all round. Ngāti Koata retain the naming rights of their customary and intellectual heritage rights associated with the tuatara, and Waimea Estates capitalises on a unique brand. An arrangement was worked out between the wine producer and the iwi, to ensure that Ngāti Koata also benefit from the use of their intellectual property rights. And it is going to be a good deal more than a 5c coin.

This was achieved before the bill ever saw the light of day. The bill sets in place legislative obligation to provide protection for geographical indications, which are location-specific naming rights that the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) classifies as intellectual property. The TRIPs agreement creates the incentive to establish an effective administrative system to establish, process, and maintain registration; to deal to restrictions on the use of geographical indications and exemptions; and to set in place an appeals process to challenge decisions made by the registrar, if necessary. Well, that is a lot of words, and systems, and processes, and administration for what Ngāti Koata and Waimea Estates seem to have done pretty much on their own already.

Members should not get me wrong—the Māori Party believes that geographical indicators have the most potential of all provisions in the TRIPs agreement to benefit the indigenous people. In their essence, the indicators could offer protection and rights over the regionally based products and produce of hapū and iwi. But this bill is not about the protection of indigenous crops. It is not about the legal, customary rights to biological and genetic resources of indigenous and taonga species. It does not cover pōhutukawa; koromiko; kūmara; puawānanga, which is clematis; indigenous forests; kererū, which is the pigeon; pūpū-harakeke; which is the flax snail; or the tuatara. It is about wine, which is not indigenous to Aotearoa.

But that is not why the Māori Party is opposed to this bill. It comes back to the questions asked by the Wai 262 claimants, Dell Wīhongi, Haana Murray, the late John Hippolite, the late Tama Poata, Katarina Rīmene, and the late Te Witi McMath. They asked whether the law or trademarks in Aotearoa recognise kaitiakitanga, the guardianship of tangata whenua. Is the use of the trademark registration system by third parties in relation to taonga works, particularly design and symbols, a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles? What about the scope of the Mātaatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? How do these international treaties enhance the protection, preservation, control, use, development, and regulation of Māori knowledge—mātauranga Māori?

The Mātaatua declaration signed at Whakatāne in 1993 recognises the importance of self-determination for enabling indigenous peoples to protect our culture, customs, and intellectual property rights. You see, there are already protective mechanisms in place. There is already a flora and fauna and cultural intellectual property claim before the tribunal. Such was the significance of the authenticity of that name, the identity, and the whakapapa of the tuatara that Ngāti Koata went that way.

The United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which to this Government’s shame it has shied away from, states: “Indigenous peoples are entitled to the recognition of the full ownership, control and protection of their cultural and intellectual property.” That means, in plain English, Māori words and names. Yet in this bill a proposal is put to safeguard and preserve the name “Marlborough” as one of the foremost sauvignon blanc wine regions of the world. The bill will preserve the uniqueness of the location called Marlborough. But what about Marlborough, west of Boston? What about Marlborough of Wiltshire, England? And while we are talking about original names, what about Kenepuru, Te Tai Tapu, Te Wairau, and Awatere—the names of the original peoples, the mana whenua, of this area, Marlborough?

If we are looking at trade names, let us look at the registration of Awatere Terrace Vineyards in this area. This bill introduces the “first in time, first in right” principle for determining which right has the priority. So, theoretically, Awatere Terrace Vineyards, which was first in, can use the word “Awatere”, and Tohu Wines, the first local indigenous wine company producing wine for domestic and export markets, is deprived of the use of their own name. The name “Awatere” comes from their whakapapa. Yet this bill we are discussing today might prevent Tohu Wines from using their own name, their name, which was passed down through whakapapa lines.

The bill does state that in some very limited circumstances there is the potential for a later-filed geographical indication to be registered despite a pre-existing trademark having priority. In determining whether a later-filed geographical indication is to be registered, the registrar considers such things as the legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark and of third parties, and other factors, which may include international considerations. Yet, given the appalling recent record overseas of this Government, in the increasingly hostile position towards indigenous peoples and our right to self-determination, one wonders whether cultural appropriation would cause any concern. Indeed, one wonders whether the Government is opening the gate for cultural appropriation and the denigration of indigenous people to be acceptable. Let us recap: deleting the Treaty from legislation; deleting the Treaty from education; removing Māori arts from the curriculum; the foreshore and seabed—shall we go on?

The Māori Party recognises the tino rangatiratanga of hapū and iwi in relation to their own cultural heritage rights and taonga. Because of that recognition, we will not support this bill.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): I thank my colleague from the Māori Party, Pita Sharples, for some thought-provoking comments. I valued his comments more than any other speaker’s today, apart from my own colleague Mr McCully’s. Before I discuss elements of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill, I would like to spare a thought for how we came to be discussing the bill. We are dealing with a plant that was imported—the grape plant—and with technology, which was also imported, to turn the product of that plant into wine. The arrival here of the plant and the technology was certainly much more recent than the arrival of our indigenous people. Naturally enough, I want to look at this issue from a Wairarapa perspective.

We are here today debating this bill because of people with vision—people who dug holes in stony pasture land in the Marlborough area, in the Awatere Valley, or in the Wairarapa to see whether the soil was suited to grapes. We are here because of people who had entrepreneurship—people like the late Tom Draper and, for example, our own colleague John Falloon, to name just two. Then we needed people who invested in grapes and the marketing thereof. I think of the Riddiford family, and also the Parkinsons, in Martinborough in the Wairarapa. Then we had to bring in people who actually knew how to make the wine, who had the technical skill to do it—people like Larry McKenna and Roger Parkinson. Those people, and many others, built the industry in this country from bare paddocks in Matahiwi, Bideford, Gladstone, and Martinborough, and, yes, in the Awatere Valley, too.

I have to report to the House that during consideration of the bill by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee it astonished me to see the influence of bureaucrats on this process. Despite four or five submissions made by people in the industry, the bureaucrats wanted to retain control. The Government has produced a bill that does that in clauses 51 and 52. But before I comment on those, I will refer to the comments made by my colleague from New Zealand First Doug Woolerton. Clearly, he knows nothing about this legislation, and he has not talked to anybody at all in the industry. If he had, he would know that the industry is desperate to get this bill into place. I can tell members that all of the winegrowers in the Wairarapa electorate are desperate for this legislation, and have been pestering me for a long time to get this thing into place.

I come back to Murray McCully’s comments. He talked about what a geographical indication is. It is an indication that identifies a wine or spirit as originating in the territory of a country or region. The Minister, Judith Tizard, read a very detailed brief, but from her comments since then I think she has misunderstood how one decides what a geographical indication is. What one does is to look at things that give wine a particular quality, reputation, or characteristic when it is grown in a certain region. That includes climate, aspect, soil, history, geography, and producer and consumer understandings. The boundaries in the names of the geographical indication follow the wine; the wine does not follow the name. It is really important to focus on that, because that then leads to the issue of who is qualified to make the decision. I would argue that the people who are qualified to make the decision are people with knowledge of the relationship between the quality, reputation, and characteristics of wine and the region of origin. They would be persons with knowledge of international law on practices regarding geographical indications, and the registrar of geographical indications, who will have expertise in administrative aspects of the New Zealand legislation.

But this bill is faulty, because it leaves full control of decisions on geographical indications in the hands of a bureaucrat employed by the Ministry of Economic Development. That ministry is singularly inappropriate to do this work. Clause 52 proposes that the registrar must include on his committee the Surveyor-General. That is brilliant! Who is the Surveyor-General? What does he know about wine? Zip! The Surveyor-General knows how to put lines on a map, but he does not know how to take a decision about what the geographical indication of a wine should be; he has no specific qualification whatsoever for that. The second person who must be on the committee, according to our bureaucrats and the Labour Government, is a member of the New Zealand Geographic Board who is not the Surveyor-General. That is someone who knows about names. What does that person know about wine? Nothing!

I am astonished at the work of our bureaucracy and the advice that bureaucrats gave to the Labour Government—which has overridden submissions from the industry—that those people are competent. I can tell members they are not competent, and in the Committee stage of the bill National will be opposing most strenuously their appointment. We need a committee of three, by all means. It should be chaired by someone nominated by the industry, it needs to be supported by another person nominated by the industry who knows something about wine, and it should have a registrar-general there to deal with the administrative detail at the industry’s direction. This is not about control and it should not be about bureaucracy; it should be about doing something to help the industry, which will help our exports and support the activities of many wine companies throughout New Zealand.

I come to another area that really impacts on this industry, and that is the issue of the plethora of red tape and regulation that our industry has to face and that the entrepreneurs in this industry have had to overcome to get a good product into the market. This Labour Government is taking about $130 million in excise tax imposed on growers. This money has to be paid before any of the wine is sold. I think this is an outrage, and certainly it is impacting negatively on the winegrowers in my region.

If we say “$130 million” fast enough, it does not sound very much; it does not register or mean anything each time we buy a bottle of wine. But for the benefit of the chardonnay socialist Minister who comes from Auckland, I say that she needs to realise that for a bottle of chardonnay costing $20, the Government retains $2.50 as GST, then there is a retail margin of $3.78 and a distributor margin of $3.45. About $10.55 ends up with the wine producer, exclusive of GST. This is on a $20 bottle of wine. Then, from that $10.55, the chardonnay socialist Minister from Auckland takes a further $1.69, or about 16 percent of the money the vintner receives. This leaves the vintner, who pays $2.60, or about 25 percent of the winery price, for grape costs, and another $2.49, or 23 percent, for winemaking and packaging costs, with about $3.77, or 36 percent of the vineyard price of the wine, to cover overheads, grape marketing, and a return on capital.

But a $20 bottle of wine is a super-premium wine. Most wine is cheaper, so the impact is greater. This excise tax is a huge money-spinner for the Government. It is causing huge damage to small businesses in my electorate, particularly in Martinborough, and National intends to try to do something about that. Those growers, however, do support this bill, subject to the modifications to clauses 51 and 52, which we will address in the Committee stage.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee by majority be agreed to.

Ayes 112

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1.

Noes 4

Māori Party 4.

Question agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 112

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1.

Noes 4

Māori Party 4.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 5.50 p.m.