Volume 617 Week 56 - Thursday 13 May 2004 
Volume 617 Week 56 - Thursday 13 May 2004 
[Volume:617;Page:12911] 
Thursday 13 May 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House the Government will seek to make progress on the Visiting Forces Bill the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill and the Border Security Bill. Wednesday of course is members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Recalling a bold headline of a couple of weeks ago I ask the Minister to indicate when the Civil Union Bill might be brought before the House. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I expect the bill to be tabled within the next few weeks. 
Questions to Ministers 
Prosecution of Member of Parliament—Minister's Actions 
1. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does he stand by his answers to written questions 9586 (2003) and 13029 (2003) and his response to an Official Information Act request to the Office of the Leader of the Opposition dated 8 December 2003 all asserting that neither he nor any member of his staff had any communications with any member of the New Zealand Police regarding police actions against Shane Ardern MP; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes I have not had any dealings with the prosecution of Shane Ardern. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that amongst the police files released yesterday there are three instances of communications between his office and the police on this matter and worse that those communications make it clear that they are part of a series of communications which he has previously denied in answers to parliamentary questions and a response under the Official Information Act; if that is not the case what is his explanation for the clear trail in the papers tabled yesterday? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No communication from my office dealt with Shane Ardern’s case. However staff did let the police know of an attack on the integrity of a police officer by the Hon Murray McCully that had nothing to do with the Shane Ardern prosecution. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can the Minister give an undertaking to the House that the police will release all correspondence on the matter; if he cannot give that undertaking why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yesterday afternoon I tabled in the House the Official Information Act requests from Shane Ardern and from the National Party. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a specific question: will he give an undertaking to release all correspondence on the matter from the police? He did not answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wonder whether the Minister could expand just a little bit further. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have released the information that has been given to me. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister certain that all the paper trail all the telephone logs and all the emails that passed between his office and the police in relation to Mr Ardern’s file and case have been notified to him and there is nothing left that he should release? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have released everything the police gave to me yesterday afternoon plus there were some newspaper clippings that went to the police—but they were only newspaper clippings. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very very specific question that frankly was avoided by the Minister. The fact is that from the papers released there was clearly other correspondence and other communications. We simply asked him whether he believes that everything that took place has been placed on the table. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I thought the Minister did address the question satisfactorily. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will the Minister—in light of yesterday’s revelations which leave serious doubts as to the “other powers and agendas” that caused Mr Ardern to be singled out for special treatment—now release all the communications between himself his office his staff and the police on this matter? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: All the information that I have and know of I tabled yesterday afternoon. The police have prosecution files. I do not get involved in individual cases—never have never will. This is all about keeping the heat off Simon Power and Don Brash and his nuclear policies. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister accept that the serious questions raised by papers released yesterday coupled with widespread knowledge that he Inspector Marty Grenfell and his police adviser former Superintendent Gerry Cunneen had their own little Bellamy’s breakfast club—[ 
Interruption 
] Shall I start again? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes please start again. I am warning members. That is the warning. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister accept that the serious questions raised by papers released yesterday coupled with the widespread knowledge that he Inspector Marty Grenfell and the Minister’s police adviser former Superintendent Gerry Cunneen had their own little Bellamy’s breakfast club leave serious doubts in the minds of the public that can be resolved only by a full and complete disclosure on his part; or is he simply taking the “Dalziel option” at this point? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question can be answered. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Inspector Marty Grenfell worked for me. He stopped working for me on 23 September 2002 and I have not had breakfast or any other meal with him since then. Perhaps if that member chose to listen he would know that I do not get involved. However I want to read from an email sent from my office which says: “The Minister’s press secretary has advised me on Global News which also feeds Newstalk networks that Murray McCully National MP has said that Marty Grenfell who is a police officer involved in the Shane Ardern matter is also the same Inspector Marty Grenfell who has been seen having breakfast with George Hawkins and also worked from the office of George Hawkins during the ‘paintergate’ affair.” That is a longbow and it was a long long time ago. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer to some questions that were raised earlier by Mr Shirley and also by myself. Quite clearly in quoting from that email and choosing to call it to the attention of the House Mr Hawkins leaves open the question of what the conversation was that caused him and his office to send it to the police when we know they have a communications unit that monitors all this stuff. Quite clearly there are documents not yet released. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a point of debate; not a point of order. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have not had breakfast with that man and all this is is a slur on the integrity of a police officer. I have not had breakfast with Inspector Grenfell and I am not involved in any slur on the police. The National Party might be. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is not a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is why I did not regard it as such. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: But we heard the whole thing out did we not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes because I did not know where it was going. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He could have asked for a personal explanation or made a ministerial statement instead of wasting the House’s time. I object to the two old tired parties thinking they dominate this House and they do not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think that anybody listening to members in the House would ever think that was absolutely correct Mr Peters particularly as far as you are concerned. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What confidence does the Minister expect the public to have in police decision-making neutrality when an absolutely hopeless case was brought against Shane Ardern MP and no case was brought for a self-confessed forgery on the part of the Prime Minister? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police make those decisions and they make them away from the influence of any political party or politician. I have the utmost confidence in the New Zealand police although some members opposite seem to want to bag them. 
Youth—Education Training and Work Initiatives 
2.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What initiatives is the Government putting in place so that by 2007 all 15 to 19-year-olds will be engaged in education training work or other options leading to independence? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 This morning I announced a $57 million package of further initiatives to achieve the target that the member is referring to. The six initiatives are a new transition service to support school leavers trialling career plans for year 10 students in 75 schools expanding the Gateway programme to all decile 6 schools by 2008 providing 500 more Modern Apprenticeships increased support for the Secondary Tertiary Alignment Resource and piloting the training incentive allowance being given to 200 teenage parents. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What response has the Minister had to those new initiatives? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Those policies are all tried and true so it is no surprise that the Council of Trade Unions has welcomed the whole support package which it says will make a real difference for young people while the Industry Training Federation has said that the Government has announced a good package for young people. In the member’s own area where we launched the package Susanne Jungersen of Porirua College praised the Gateway programme initiative while Mayor Jenny Brash welcomed the package and indicated that her city was keen to participate. I would also like to thank Paul Adams of United Future for his positive comments and I am sure that every other spokesperson has a release coming out sometime during the day. 
Bill Gudgeon 
: What alternatives does the Government have in place to cater for the needs of those in the 15 to 19 age bracket who cannot cope because of the personal challenges they may have? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I thank the member for the question. In Budget 2003 the Government announced a package of $56 million which has gone to a wide range of initiatives from Modern Apprenticeships to the Gateway programme and to advice and support for young people. I think the programme this year is a major step up for that kind of support. For example the transition service is all about ensuring that no one falls through the cracks and that we have a coordinated approach to young people to ensure that whether it is with regard to health education or a job the services are brought together and tailored for their needs. 
Sue Bradford 
: How does this latest package—which is to be commended—match up to the Mayors Task Force for Jobs’ own key goal that by 2005 no young person under the age of 25 will be out of work or training; and is the Government looking to extend further assistance to that older age group? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Mayors Task Force for Jobs has been closely involved with the development of this particular policy. Yes it is committed to a goal that would take support through to the age of 25. We cannot commit ourselves to that until we have the resources but the member will know that there are other policies that are making a real difference to that slightly older group. For example industry training and the commitment to get 150000 people into training by 2007 will have a major impact on that group. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Do these initiatives include any specific plans to encourage more young women to take up Modern Apprenticeships in light of the fact that only 6 percent of the current uptake is female? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: These initiatives do not but we recently announced changes to the guidelines for the coordinators who will recruit Modern Apprentices which means that they have worked with us and with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner to look at ways to ensure that the take-up for young women in the traditional areas of apprenticeship is higher. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What alternative approaches has he seen to meeting the needs of 15 to 19-year-olds? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen approaches that included the abolition of the Apprenticeship Act the undermining of careers funding and leaving students to make their study choices in an environment of rising fees. Those policies were tried in the 1990s. They helped to achieve a record unemployment rate of 23.6 percent for that target group and of course they were run by the then National Government. 
Terrorism—Residency 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she agree that if a known terrorist came to New Zealand fearing torture in his home country he would have to stay unless another country would take him; and what reports has she obtained from her Ministers and their officials as to what in terms of costs to the taxpayer this could mean? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: I am advised that is the publicly reported view of the Solicitor-General. The specific costs of any such situation of course would depend on the particular circumstances. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That being the case can the Prime Minister tell the House what the costs are now given that her office has had 4 hours to look at the current and up-to-date costs across all the legal and penal areas and therefore she is surely able to give me the answer now that I have been denied on two prior occasions? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Because the case is ongoing getting a total cost is not possible at this time. However I can say that answers to written questions from Ministers give us the following summary of costs. Crown Law legal costs are $411624.96 Department of Labour legal costs are $29166.50 legal aid costs for Mr Zaoui are $206189 and imprisonment costs are $59000. All those costs of course are not final because the case is ongoing. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Has the Prime Minister read the part of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision that at page 222 found that Mr Zaoui was a refugee under the United Nations convention on refugees and by legal definition therefore not a terrorist a finding that was not challenged by the Crown by way of review; and is she aware that the national security risk certificate was not issued on the grounds that Mr Zaoui was a terrorist but on the grounds that he was a threat to our international and economic well-being? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I cannot say whether the Prime Minister has actually read that page but yes the Government is aware that he was identified as a refugee and that there was no evidence at the time that he was a terrorist. And yes he is held under the terms of the security risk certificate which identifies him as a potential risk to national security. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What is the likelihood and expectation that the Government will make an arrangement with another country that will enable Mr Zaoui to be deported in the event that the inspector-general upholds the national security certificate? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As has already been said discussions are prudently going on but it would be unwise to discuss them at this time. 
Keith Locke 
: Is the Prime Minister not prejudicing the inspector-general’s determination of the Zaoui case by approaching other countries to take him and talking about that particularly when as has been pointed out the Refugee Status Appeals Authority has determined he is a refugee and when if it did come to a deportation in this case as in any other case there is no deadline associated with that deportation? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I do not think anybody is prejudicing anything. It is simply prudent behaviour to make those kinds of inquiries subject to what the result may be. There is nothing being done here that would prejudge anything at all. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that Zaoui has cost the New Zealand taxpayer in excess of $705000 already although he is a known terrorist in three international First World jurisdictions—all superior to the inferior court judgment in this country—why does the Minister not send that bill to Mr Robson and Keith Locke and give the taxpayer a fair go in this matter? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This case is one that is being followed through in a proper fashion. There will of course be costs but the process has to be seen through. That is the nature of this case. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that New Zealand’s reputation as a soft touch and safe haven for fraudsters is a serious threat to our national security given that since April 2001 under her administration there have been 886 refugee status claimants arriving without valid transport and travel documentation and did she or any of her Ministers and their officials check to see whether other countries would take those people even though the mass majority of those fraudsters were accepted into our country? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No there are no concerns that we are seen as a soft touch. We are a country that of course wants to be seen as one that goes through the proper process which is what is happening here. The Prime Minister has already made it clear that in the case of Mr Zaoui she is looking for a review of the process once the case is completed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did her confession in the House yesterday that it takes two to tango—whatever that means—and that to deport somebody one has to find somewhere to take that person explain why in the last year alone 70 percent of those who arrived in New Zealand without valid travel documentation had their refugee status claims approved; and how can the Government allow that to happen? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: On the first matter which was in answer to a question about deportation I think the Prime Minister was simply making it clear that something like that could happen only if there was somewhere to go to. That is what she meant by her reference that two people were involved. That is what she was referring to. In answer to the second part of the question I can only say no. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: I seek leave to table the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision of 1 August 2003 on Mr Zaoui. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table far superior judgments from the courts of both Belgium and France not some quasi-judicial— 
Documents not tabled. 
Pay and Employment Equity—Public Sector 
4.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Labour 
: What progress is being made towards the Government’s commitment to develop a programme promoting pay and employment equity in the public sector? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I was delighted to announce today that the Government has endorsed the four key recommendations of the Pay and Employment Equity Taskforce. These are: a clear Government commitment to pay and employment equity in the public service public education and public health sectors; development of tools to assess pay and employment equity; establishment of a unit to oversee a 5-year action plan to implement that programme; and use of existing processes such as collective bargaining and accountability mechanisms as part of the implementation. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why is it necessary to address pay and employment equity issues now? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Over a decade ago New Zealand had pay and employment equity legislation. The first act of the incoming National Government in 1990 was to repeal that law. Now we need a new and sustainable plan to address the pay and employment gap between men and women and to ensure that women’s contribution in the workplace is maximised and valued. The taskforce report provides that way forward. 
Sue Kedgley 
: In light of the Government’s stated commitment to promote pay and employment equity in the public sector can the Government assure New Zealanders that it will be supporting nurses in their pay equity claim and assisting district health boards to implement it; if so how? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As the member knows the New Zealand Nurses Organisation was officially part of the task force that prepared the report to which the Government has positively responded. Could I draw the House’s attention to a statement today by District Health Boards New Zealand chair Syd Bradley who said the Government needed to be congratulated on providing a way through a complex emotive issue and for trying to find a process to identify and remedy any pay gaps. District Health Boards New Zealand is the employer organisation with which the nurses will be negotiating. 
Painted Apple Moth—Spraying 
5.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: Since spraying began in January 2002 what is the total quantity of the formulated product Foray 48B that has been aerially sprayed over residential areas of Auckland in an effort to eradicate the painted apple moth? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Acting Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry says that 663000 litres of Foray 48B have been used in the painted apply moth eradication programme in Auckland. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why is the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry continuing to bombard west Aucklanders even today with a commercial insecticide whose ingredients it refuses to identify when the assessment of the potential health impacts of the painted apple moth spray programme carried out by one of New Zealand’s leading health experts at the Wellington school of medicine calls into question the safety of the insecticide when it is inhaled? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The report concerned cited a potential long-term health issue for people who were exposed to the spray for many hours a day over many years. This involves people with occupational exposure not the people of west Auckland. In fact only a small group of New Zealanders could be included in such a group and I do not think the member from the Green Party really wants to ban organic horticulture. More study is being done in this area so that any potential risks to organic market gardeners can be avoided. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Did the Wellington school of medicine report contain any surprises for the Government? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No the report showed that a small proportion of the population had a reaction to the spray. This was expected and it was why a multi-million dollar health service was put in place in west Auckland. In the end fewer people than expected reported health issues. But given that today is hopefully the final aerial spray for west Auckland I want to thank on behalf of the Minister and myself the people of west Auckland for their perseverance while the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry did battle with the painted apple moth. 
Brent Catchpole 
: What other reports has the Minister had of any monitoring of the health effects of the people of west Auckland during the repeated spraying of Foray 48B since it began in January 2002; if none why not? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I think a report was done not so much on the health of the people but an independent one put up by the Auckland District Health Board in 2002. It concluded that Foray 48B had never been implicated in any significant health effects on humans in 35 years of use. 
Larry Baldock 
: Has the Wellington school of medicine health study which was requested by United Future and David Cunliffe the New Lynn electorate MP been helpful in examining the affected west Auckland residents’ health concerns; if so what has been learnt and what changes will be made in future eradication campaigns? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: First of all it is my hope that with biosecurity continuing to do a reasonable job and with the increased amount of money put by this Government into biosecurity we will not be doing any further campaigns. But the report from the Wellington school of medicine did not recommend ending the spray programme and neither did the Occupational Safety and Health Service which has ruled the spray as safe for general use. As I said before this spray had a reaction from only a small proportion of the population. We will continue to monitor that and that was why we put in a multimillion dollar health programme to help that 2 percent. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Given the Minister’s comments on the report why did he seek to discredit and delay the publication of the report and now that the Ministry of Health is implementing the report’s recommendations will he retract his comments that the report and its recommendations were worthless and flawed; if not why not? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: My memory is that the Minister’s response was actually more to do with the reporting of the report. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Government assure the people of west Auckland that the nightmare is over for them and that the Government will carry out an independent inquiry into how the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry conducted the spray programme and into the health effects on residents before it ever embarks on any further aerial spraying of residential areas in Auckland or anywhere else in New Zealand? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Just this afternoon or yesterday a paper was published about the arrival of the southern saltmarsh mosquito. The southern saltmarsh mosquito has been sprayed aerially by helicopters and on the ground in various locations throughout New Zealand. There is no way that the Minister for Biosecurity or the Associate Minister can ever guarantee that there will be no aerial spraying. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: What is the Minister doing to improve the quality of service provided by MAF Biosecurity given that it did nothing about the painted apple moth for 2½ years letting it get out of control then to make up for its inaction spraying the citizens of west Auckland with 663000 litres of a commercial insecticide using ingredients it refuses to identify? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry worked particularly hard in those early years. It was attempting not to have to go to the expense of aerial spraying by trying to do things on the ground. I thinkthe Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry deserves absolute credit for doing something that has not been achieved in any other place in the world. 
Methamphetamine—Sample Testing 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister for Crown Research Institutes 
: What is the current backlog of clandestine methamphetamine laboratory samples at the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd and when is it expected this backlog will be cleared? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Crown Research Institutes) 
: 
 At the end of April the Institute of Environmental Science and Research’s total clandestine methamphetamine laboratory caseload was 165. These cases will be cleared as soon as possible. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is this Minister ignoring the fact that drug testing is at crisis point when a detective files an affidavit in the High Court swearing that the institute’s testing of essential evidence in a serious methamphetamine-manufacturing trial may be 2 years away because of delays at that institute? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I cannot comment on a specific case when I have no prior notice of it but I can tell the member that the backlog peaked in December. It has been coming down ever since. It is currently at 165 cases. The member can shake his head as much as he likes but last month it came down by 10 and maybe this month it will come down by another 10—who knows? It depends on how many new cases are found. What is more if the member would like to reflect on the fact that the number of cases likely to be reported this year is 300 then to decide how many months it would take to clear 165 cases at the rate of more than 20 a month he could come up with his own answer. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: How does the Institute of Environmental Science and Research’s capacity to deal with these cases compare with that of other countries? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: As a result of recent recruitment as a result of funding commitments from the police as a result of a determined approach from this Government and in the face of a worldwide shortage of forensic investigators the institute’s clandestine methamphetamine laboratory team is now the largest in Australasia and it continues to grow. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why has the Minister ignored the call by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research for a one-off injection of $900000 which would rapidly clear the backlog; or does he take the narrow view that letting methamphetamine cooks and crooks off the hook is simply not his responsibility? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The House should be very clear that money is not the problem here. The House should be very clear that every time the Institute of Environmental Science and Research clears a case the police pay for it and they do so on a demand basis. Money is not the problem. Members of the House need to face the fact that the problem is a lack of trained forensic scientists—they take years to train. Members may also be interested to learn that proportionately New Zealand’s trained forensic team is three times bigger than that of the United States. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What responsibility if any will this Minister take when drug dealers walk free from court because of these drug-testing delays as Justice Potter warned in the High Court in New Plymouth when she described the delays as extremely serious and intolerable? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member might like to reflect on the fact that in that case the judge put the person back in jail. 
Marc Alexander 
: Is the Minister prepared to take any responsibility for the backlog faced by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research in light of the fact that at the end of March police reported that they were finding double the number of methamphetamine labs compared with last year not to mention the institute’s own mission statement to “protect people and their environment through science”; if not where does the buck stop? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is absolutely true that the amount of methamphetamine labs being discovered in Auckland has doubled in the first few months of this year compared with the first few months of last year. That is why the number of cases that the institute plans to deal with has also doubled and that is why it continues to recruit actively internationally to bring Canadians Americans etc. into this country to help with the remarkable effort that is needed. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will the Minister take any responsibility if drug dealers and drug manufacturers walk free because of testing delays in the agency for which he is responsible? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member should reflect on the fact that the alternative is to take shortcuts and have people walk free because the evidence is not good enough and the Institute of Environmental Science and Research will not let that happen. 
Music—Promotion of New Zealand Music 
7.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: What is the Government doing to promote New Zealand music? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 This Government believes that a strong music industry is good for New Zealand and the New Zealand economy. In 2000 this Government established the New Zealand Music Industry Commission to facilitate the growth of New Zealand music. Last month this Government passed the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act whose purpose is among other things to promote and encourage New Zealand music composition and composers and to provide opportunities for performance for New Zealand musicians. This month is New Zealand Music Month when the Music Industry Commission is working with all music sectors with organisations broadcasters and retailers to showcase a great range of live and recorded New Zealand music. 
Darren Hughes 
: How has New Zealand music airplay changed since the 1990s? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Sadly under the last Government the creative sector was badly neglected and major arts organisations were financially crippled. In the early 1990s commercial radio in New Zealand was playing less than 2 percent of New Zealand music. Under this Government there is now 10 times more New Zealand music on commercial radio—over 20 percent—which means more New Zealand music is being enjoyed more income for New Zealand musicians and business and more music exports. 
Heather Roy 
: In respect of promoting New Zealand music will taxpayers be getting any return on the $450000 poured into  
NZ Idol 
 so that more New Zealand music can be promoted; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: When musicians earn income they pay tax too. When New Zealanders buy music they pay GST. Of course there is a massive return but the point about the creative sector is that the return is not financial alone. It is also about New Zealand identity and New Zealanders’ well-being. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very pleasing to hear that artists pay tax too but the specific question was in respect of the $450000 that New Zealand On Air paid for  
NZ Idol 
 and whether there would be a return on it given its commercial success. The Minister gave members a lovely rendition of the tax status of artists in New Zealand— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: It’s a great song that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the only warning today. 
Rodney Hide 
: She gave members a lovely rendition of the tax status of artists but never once addressed the specific question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I thought the Minister did address the question. 
Prosecution of Member of Parliament—Police Decisions 
8.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Can he absolutely assure the House that in relation to police decisions regarding the prosecution of Shane Ardern MP Mr Ardern was treated in the same way as any other New Zealander would have been treated; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised that he was treated fairly like all other New Zealanders. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Is the Minister aware that the head of the Police Prosecution Service Superintendent Graham Thomas confirmed on radio this morning that he had seen no other incidents of a district commander issuing a direct instruction to so-called independent prosecution officers; if so can he tell the House why Mr Ardern was singled out for special treatment? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the high public interest may have been behind Mr Kelly’s inquiry but it was firmly rebuffed by Mr Thomas and that shows that the situation is completely fair. 
Sue Bradford 
: Was the police decision not to prosecute Shane Ardern consistent with its decision to continue the prosecution of myself and others in 1999-2000 given that when I was arrested during our unemployment demonstration at Parliament I did not get anywhere near the steps much less drive a tractor up them? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: While I do not have any knowledge of that I must say that if the member wants more information she should go to the Commissioner of Police. I have no part in any prosecution. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What is the point of having a supposedly independent police prosecutions centre if regional commanders like John Kelly send emails to subordinate officers working at the centre instructing them to prosecute regardless of the merits of the case or was Mr Shane Ardern MP a special case? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the reason we have the Police Prosecution Service is so that everything is analysed fairly and openly and it shows that individual police cannot interfere with that process. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister tell the House what Superintendent Kelly meant when he emailed so-called independent prosecution officers that: “In relation to this issue there are to be no moves to withdraw this matter.” if it was not to be seen as a direct instruction to subordinate officers that very very senior police officers had their own reasons for requiring that Mr Ardern be prosecuted regardless of the merits of the case? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have no input whatsoever and no knowledge of it whatsoever because I do not get involved in police prosecutions. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It may be the case that the Minister of Police has no knowledge of what is going on in the police—I believe him on that. But the specific question was as Minister of Police what was his response to the question. He cannot stand up and say: “Look I have no knowledge of my portfolio.” He must address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister tell the House what steps he took to satisfy himself as to the facts before he signed answers to parliamentary questions assuring the House that there were no discussions meetings or other communications between his office and police officers? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I took advice from the police to see whether any information had come from my office. There were three things: firstly an email from Gerry Cunneen; and secondly a copy of Mr Speaker’s rulings on the service of proceedings on members of Parliament sent by Kate Gabriel who was the Police liaison person at the time. It was sent a second time because it had a couple of typographical oddities the first time. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether he has seen the statement in the prosecution review by Senior Sergeant Erasmusen that “it is inescapable that comparisons will be made with other high-profile cases where a decision not to prosecute followed”; and does the Minister understand that that is a very clear reference to the fact that police prosecutors could have no way of justifying the obvious double standard of exercising a discretion not to charge the Prime Minister over “paintergate” but pressing charges against Mr Ardern? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have said previously that I take no part whatsoever and no political influence is asserted in what police do. If the member thinks there is a problem and if he thinks a crime has been committed he should talk to the commissioner. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider the Minister’s answer. He did not address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister did address the question but perhaps the member could enlighten me. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I made it quite clear that I was asking what the Minister thought about a particular passage in the prosecution review. I put it to you that that is the question the Minister needed to address and he failed to do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When the member asks what the Minister thinks about a particular passage there has to be a lot of leeway in the answer concerned. If the Minister wanted to add anything he could. 
Question No 6 to Minister 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the judgment of the Hon Justice Potter in a case where she calls on the Government to take urgent steps to deal with the delays of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Air New Zealand—Government Support 
9.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is the Government committed to long-term support for Air New Zealand Ltd; if so why? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: Yes. It is in New Zealand’s interest to have a national airline and the Government considers that that airline needs a stable shareholder behind it. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will the Minister concede that supporting one airline with taxpayers’ money has skewed the aviation market and contributed to Origin Pacific Airways’ plight—a plight that the Minister for Economic Development has reportedly dismissed as “collateral damage”—if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What kind of support is the Government committed to? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Government will remain a majority shareholder but has never ruled out a cornerstone shareholding being sold. We have also set aside a further $150 million should the company proceed with its signalled capital raising. Operational decisions are of course matters for the board to decide. 
John Key 
: If the Government did not alert Air New Zealand management to the impending crisis at Origin Pacific Airways why did Jim Anderton tell Origin Pacific Airways director Bruce McCallum to call John Palmer the chairman of Air New Zealand; and why did Mr Anderton believe that Mr Palmer would progress discussions designed to support its major regional competitor? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As is appropriate the Minister of Finance although generally aware of any discussions that the Minister for Industry and Regional Development may have had with the airlines concerned is not privy to the detail. Why does that member not ask the Minister concerned? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the Minister of Finance telling the House that he has not seen the story in this week’s  
Independent 
 titled “Govt turns screw on Origin Pacific” which states that a Cabinet Minister—one Mr Anderton—suggested to Origin Pacific that it would be “in their interests” to hold talks with the chairman of Air New Zealand a rival airline; does he not consider that that is an invitation from the Government for rival airlines to collude which happens to be contrary to the Commerce Act? Why has he not taken an interest in that matter? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: What part of the words “generally aware of the conversation” does that member not understand— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has been asked a question. I do not want him to get into that sort of thing. I want him to give an answer. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Detailed questions about the nature of those discussions should be directed to the Minister for Industry and Regional Development. 
Gordon Copeland 
: What assurance can the Minister give us that as Air New Zealand’s supporter and majority shareholder the Government will not place undue pressure on the Commerce Commission to approve the proposed Air New Zealand alliance with Qantas thereby skewing the aviation market even further? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Minister of Finance is on record as saying that the Government will not disturb the findings on appeal of either the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission or the New Zealand Commerce Commission. 
John Key 
: I seek leave to table the  
Independent 
 of 12 May so that the Minister can rethink his answer in which he told the House that the Government had no information despite the paper telling us that that is exactly what it had. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I let the member go on for some considerable time. Is there any objection to that course? There is. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to point out that although what Mr Key was trying to point out will obviously be uncomfortable for Ministers and members they should not have been barracking him at the start and he should at least have been able to say what he was proposing to table before your intervention to ask him to move on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is why I let him go on and finish what he had to say. 
Paraparaumu Airport—Sale Inquiry 
10.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does he agree that an inquiry should be held into the sale of Paraparaumu Airport in 1995 as recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in its report on the petition of Ross Sutherland and 584 others; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The report of the select committee raises serious issues and the Government will respond formally to it within 90 days as the Standing Orders require. However it is already clear that the privatisation style of the previous National Government was dodgy. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What regard has the Minister had to these facts— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee you do— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I was responding. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —no you do actually take things a little far. You are lucky I am so reasonable. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What action will the Minister be taking to hold to account those who lied to the select committee inquiry over this matter who told the select committee that an offer had been made to the original owners when clearly that was not true—and the select committee discovered that; there was even an embarrassed National Party member of the committee present at the time—and will he tell us what he intends to do about the assurances that Rob Storey gave to the officials in 1991 that treaty claims needed to be considered on this matter? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Those and many other matters form the issues that the Government will need to respond to. They are serious. I acknowledge while I am on my feet the consistency of the member and indeed of his party; I recall that it was the proposed privatisation of another airport that caused the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement to be shredded and that phase of Government to end. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: In what ways according to the committee’s report did the Government processes around the sale fall short of acceptable standards? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are too many to mention in an oral question but the committee said the worst were a failure to deliver on the stated objectives of the sale and a decision to sell too cheaply. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister as he has put the issue of the September 1998 proposed sale of Wellington Airport into contention whether he has read the Cabinet paper that discloses that the National Party part of the coalition wished to go downtown at the time with a majority foreign sale offer whilst telling the public in New Zealand that it would not sell the majority ownership off shore; and that that because it was outlawed by the coalition agreement brought the coalition agreement down; and what sort of unconscionable behaviour could one call that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a very interesting question about another matter. The Minister can report in so far as it relates to his ministerial— 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No but thanks for the revelation. 
Drugs—Cholesterol-lowering Statins 
11.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she agree that on past experience a significant number of New Zealanders would have a heart attack suffer a stroke or die as a result of being forced to change cholesterol-lowering statins as stated by leading New Zealand cardiologists; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Acting Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Hon Annette King met with Harvey White and Chris Ellis on 31 March of this year—the cardiologists referred to in the primary question. At that meeting they recommended that all high-risk patients on 40 milligrams or more be permitted to access atorvastatin via a specialist. Pharmac will allow even wider access than they recommended. All patients currently on 40 milligrams or more will continue on atorvastatin and all new patients who cannot tolerate simvastatin can have access to atorvastatin. This wider access is what the Heart Foundation and the Cardiac Society recommended. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister think it risky given the strong conflicting evidence on Pharmac’s safety claims that Pharmac intends not to audit what will happen when the remaining 30000 patients switch statins; and will she take responsibility for creating another possible Gisborne scenario where inadequate quality controls lead to preventable deaths? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No. In my view it is entirely proper and certainly not risky to rely on the expert advice of New Zealand’s leading cardiologists. That is exactly what Pharmac has done. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has Pharmac considered other leading cardiologists and health professional organisations regarding access to atorvastatin? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes it certainly has. Pharmac has consulted the following cardiologists: Norman Sharpe the President of the Heart Foundation; Stuart Mann a professor of cardiology; and Gerald Wilkins the President of the New Zealand Cardiac Society. Pharmac also has sought advice from the Pharmacology and Therapeutics Advisory Committee cardiac subcommittee which includes three other cardiologists: John Elliot Miles Williams and Gary Gordon. Pharmac is following their recommendations. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that in many areas of the world chelation therapy is recognised as a safe and practical treatment for potential heart attack and stroke victims; if she is aware of that would she consider a practical trial in this country consisting of volunteers? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a little wide of the original question. The Minister may comment. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I do not have any information or advice about whether a formal proposal has been received by the Ministry of Health along those lines but I would be certainly happy to forward it for consideration. 
Heather Roy 
: In light of concerns about heart disease does the Minister take any responsibility for Pfizer terminating its $40 million research and development contract grant to Auckland University; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am certainly disappointed that Pfizer has taken that decision. But Pharmac advised Pfizer of its decision in 2002 following which Pfizer renewed its contract with Auckland University. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Minister concede that any financial savings made from Pharmac’s decision to switch 23000 New Zealanders over to Lipex will be totally outweighed by the social economic and health costs resulting from any heart attacks strokes or deaths as a result of the move; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No I do not support that assertion. That decision was made on the basis of recommendations from New Zealand’s leading cardiologists. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does she realise that past experience shows that approximately 10 percent of patients on a drug such as Lipitor when asked to switch medication will simply stop taking drugs altogether; and given the clear warnings in the literature which she has not quoted is she prepared to take responsibility for the heart attacks strokes and deaths likely to result? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I indicated in my answer to the primary question from that member on advice from New Zealand’s leading cardiologists Pharmac has agreed to continue with the provision of access to atorvastatin for those high-risk patients. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What confidence are the New Zealand people expected to have in Pharmac which saved over $27 million last year by cutting back on drugs and this year is no longer pursuing a policy to ensure that in every case New Zealand consumers have First World latest-generation drugs available to them? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Pharmac is internationally regarded as a very high-quality and safe way to ensure that the massive pressures from various drug companies and our need to retain access to high-quality medicines are balanced. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table two papers. The first is an article from a 2003  
British Medical Journal 
 that demonstrates the considerable risks associated with inadequate statin medication. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
The second is an article from  
The Lancet 
 that shows morbidity—as shown in a New Zealand study—when patients changed statins. 
Document not tabled. 
Glenelg Children's Health Camp—Child Abuse Allegations 
12.  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why did she not order an immediate independent inquiry into the alleged abuse of children at the Glenelg Children’s Health Camp in the 1980s following the briefing on 28 October 2003 that her officials provided for her as a result of my written questions? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Acting Minister of Health) 
: For the same reason that the Minister of Health did not in 1993 and 1995: there was insufficient evidence to warrant an independent ministerial inquiry. The police considered that the matter was a professional one and not a criminal one. A complaint was received by the Medical Council in 1995 regarding professional practice issues but it was later withdrawn. The doctor in question is not currently registered to practice in New Zealand. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Has she read British police surgeon Dr Herbert Kean’s report on the treatment of children at Glenelg Health Camp which concludes: “There is adequate information to confirm sexual molestation with a degree of sadism and fabricated evidence of sexual abuse against fathers that subsequently the welfare department separated the children from their families.” and if the answer is yes why did she not order an immediate inquiry and end the 17-year State cover-up of that affair? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There is no cover-up by this or any former Government in relation to alleged abuse at Glenelg Health Camp. The police investigated at the time and they determined that there was no reason for a prosecution. Whether it was that there was insufficient evidence for conviction or for whatever reason the police determined that. A complaint received by the Medical Council was withdrawn. If that member has any new information to offer I would be very happy to take up the matter. 
Katherine Rich 
: Since the Minister has mentioned 1993 will she confirm that Helen Clark first received complaints regarding the treatment of children at Glenelg Health Camp when she was Minister of Health and will the Minister correct her misleading answer to parliamentary question for written answer No. 7757 where she indicates that the first complaint was received by her ministry in 1993? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have looked very carefully at the very issue raised by the member in her question because I am aware that the alleged abuse occurred in 1987. The first incident that is reported within the Ministry of Health system is 1993. If that member can give me any information to the contrary—and I doubt that she can—I will be very happy to correct that answer. On the best advice and with prompting I say 1993 is the first information that is on record. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How does the Minister respond to the obvious conclusion that there is a double standard between men and women accused of the sexual abuse of children? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I absolutely reject any insinuation of double standards between men and women who abuse children. Any abuse of children is absolutely unacceptable to this Government and in my view to every member of this House. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I seek leave to table official advice given to the Minister of Health on 28 October 2003 following my parliamentary questions. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to the consultation that I understand Tim Barnett chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee has undertaken with whips and following a resolution of the select committee I seek leave of the House to extend the date the committee must report the Sex Offenders Registry Bill to Thursday 18 November 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. 
Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice)  
on behalf of the Minister of Justice 
: 
 I move  
That the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct is vital to maintaining public confidence in the New Zealand Police Force. This legislation has been designed to enable as much information as possible to be disclosed to the inquiry without fundamentally undermining the ongoing interests of the individuals concerned and the Police Complaints Authority. The unique circumstances surrounding the commission have highlighted the competing but equally important interests of the Police Complaints Authority the complainants to the authority the commission of inquiry and the New Zealand Police in relation to information provided to the authority in confidence. In summary four competing interests can be identified. Firstly the ability of the authority to continue to fulfil its statutory functions of investigating police conduct must be maintained secondly the privacy of complainants who have provided sensitive and intensely personal information must be respected thirdly natural justice should allow the police a fair opportunity to defend investigations they carry out on behalf of the authority and fourthly the commission should be able to effectively fulfil its terms of reference to inquire into the adequacy of any investigations carried out by the police on behalf of the authority. All those interests are important; some are also in conflict. 
It would be impossible to find a solution that everybody is entirely satisfied with. A legislative amendment to completely override the secrecy provisions that protect information provided to the Police Complaints Authority would not meet the privacy needs of the individuals who provided that information and it could compromise the ongoing ability of the authority to gather the sort of information in the future that it needs to do its job effectively. But without this legislation the commission of inquiry could not get any of the information provided to the Police Complaints Authority nor would the police be in a position to adequately defend their actions before the commission. That would undermine the ability of the commission to reach a fair and thorough conclusion and would also undermine the confidence of the public in the eventual outcome of the inquiry. This bill therefore is necessarily a balancing act between equally compelling but competing interests. 
Since this bill was read a second time Parliament has reached the consensus that some further direction in the legislation was desirable to reassure people that the confidentiality of information given to the authority would be taken into account. Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Stephen Franks was therefore adopted in the Committee of the whole House to give people that added reassurance. Under the provisions of that Supplementary Order Paper the authority must obtain an acknowledgement from the commission that the commission is aware of the confidentiality attached to information before that information is disclosed to the commission. The authority must also obtain an undertaking that the commission will take all steps necessary or desirable to protect that confidentiality such as restricting or prohibiting publication or excluding persons from hearings. Those steps can be waived with the informed consent of any person who had the benefit of confidentiality when initially providing the information. The commission already has the necessary powers to restrict or prohibit publication of information or attendance at hearings. No legislative authority is required to enable the commission to treat the information received from the authority in a sensitive manner. However the amendments explicitly require the commission to turn its mind to the confidentiality of the information it receives and to take the steps deemed necessary or desirable to protect that confidentiality. 
The Government and the Law and Order Committee would have expected the commission to give those important issues due consideration irrespective of the amendment and to use its powers to protect such information appropriately. However the amendments offer an added assurance and do not presume to direct the commission on when or how it must exercise its discretions. Whether those steps are necessary or desirable is still a subjective assessment for the commission to make on a case-by-case basis. I believe this bill represents the best possible balance and its unanimous support by this Parliament is testament to the fact that the information required by the commission in order to do its job should be disclosed to it. Information produced by the authority in response to information received from police investigating on its behalf continues to be withheld in order to protect the integrity of the authority. Complainants must give their consent before their correspondence to the authority is disclosed to the commission and the police will be able to access information to defend their investigations. 
In conclusion this bill will assist the commission of inquiry to restore the public’s confidence in one of the world’s best police forces. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 The Minister is indeed right that we are fortunate to have one of the best police forces that any country in the world could enjoy. Fundamental to that confidence is the belief that not only do the police act apolitically and independently but also that the police honour their constabulary oath and have standards the public can be comfortable with and proud of. For that reason the Government has launched its commission of inquiry. Fundamental to that inquiry is the ability of the commission to look at the police’s handling of complaints against police officers over the last 15 to 20 years. Under the Police Complaints Authority Act the police who provide evidence or testimony to the Police Complaints Authority have been assured of anonymity and of confidence in the giving of that evidence so that it could never be used against them and could never be published save in the case of perjury. In order to facilitate the work of the commission it is necessary to pass legislation so that the commission can have access to the files of the Police Complaints Authority. 
In order to facilitate that and to respect as much as is possible the confidence of the officers who have given evidence to the Police Complaints Authority Parliament last night unanimously agreed to an amendment to the Government’s legislation. The amendment requires the commission to give undertakings to the authority that it recognises the nature in which the evidence was given by police officers to the authority and that the commission will undertake to use whatever discretion it has in order to have the minimum undue publicity associated with that material. The concern expressed by the Parliament is that in a case started in the Whakatane District Court last year five police officers were subject to a private prosecution. That prosecution has since been dismissed. The five police officers received name suppression. If they had not received name suppression the mere fact that their names were mentioned in the District Court with regard to allegations of a quite serious nature would have led some members of the public to believe the officers were guilty. It is the old argument that where there is smoke there is fire. That was of great concern to members of all the parties on the Law and Order Committee and obviously to all parties in the Parliament so last night the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Stephen Franks was unanimously agreed to. 
The National Party Opposition is pleased to support the passage of this legislation. We think it is fundamental that public confidence be maintained and restored in the New Zealand Police. I would observe as someone who has been in public life for 14 years that I have never known a time when public confidence in the New Zealand Police has been as low as it is at present. I have never known a time when people who have normally been steadfast and loyal supporters of the New Zealand Police were questioning some of the activities that were going on. As a legislator I do not like to see that situation in this country and I am absolutely determined that this House must act to restore public confidence and faith in the New Zealand Police. It is indeed a police force that New Zealanders should be proud of. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill and I am pleased to open my speech by concurring with the member who has just resumed his seat that this is a time when unusually for New Zealand the conduct of our police force has been in the public eye. It is important for us to recognise that many of the allegations that lie behind that public interest are historical but they are none the less real interests and the public has expressed real concerns about them. 
I think all members of this House would agree that it is in the interests of every New Zealand citizen that the cloud that hovers above the police force be cleared up as soon as possible and as fully as possible. To that extent the Government is pleased to bring forward to the House this bill which will enable the public’s confidence to be properly restored. It does so by allowing the commission of inquiry to access under conditions of strict confidentiality the appropriate records of the Police Complaints Authority and thereby to ascertain for the public record the veracity of the processes. It is important that justice is done and that it is seen to be done. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is supporting the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill as amended by the Law and Order Committee. The bill may be barely 4 pages long but it is very important. The select committee should be complimented on returning the bill back to the House in such a short time. This bill was introduced into Parliament on 13 March 2004. The closing date for submissions was 14 April 2004 and here we are on 13 May considering the third reading. 
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Police Complaints Authority Act of 1988 to allow the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct established by the Governor-General on 16 February 2004 to fulfil its terms of reference to inquire into the adequacy of any investigations carried out by the police on behalf of the Police Complaints Authority. I and New Zealand First have the highest regard for our police force but we consider the force lacks resources—for example staffing. We have just heard a speech from Mr Ryall a National Party member. All I can say to him is that his Government had 9 years to do something about the police force and it is still in a mess. 
The select committee heard nine submissions in respect of this matter. They were heard extremely promptly and then it reported back the bill with amendments. The amendments make it a much better bill and that is why New Zealand First is supporting it. We do not want to see another inquiry into an inquiry; we want to see this matter brought to an end in the best possible way for the future of this bill. In the interests of the public we will support the passing of this legislation. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party to agree with the comments made by the Hon Tony Ryall and the member for New Zealand First who has just commended this bill. We will vote for it and we will vote for it with a good deal more contentment than we had when we feared that it would go through in a simple form that was essentially reneging on an assurance given to people who provided information to the Police Complaints Authority. 
In the form the bill was reported back to the House the Law and Order Committee had expressed its concerns and hope that the inquiry would respect the confidences entrusted to the Police Complaints Authority but there was nothing in the law to show that it really was determined that that should happen. There was nothing there to stiffen the spine of the inquiry should it need it against calls that are perhaps inevitable to “spill it all”. 
We can all understand that; this is an inquiry to try to reassure the public. The commission of inquiry will need a high degree of transparency to ensure that it is not simply seen as another cover-up. On the other hand that is always a concern when one is dealing with information supplied by people who might or might not have been involved in the incidents being investigated. 
The law has very long experience of dealing with co-offenders’ evidence giving immunities and then the awful dilemma—the unpleasantness—of knowing that possibly someone who is at least partially guilty is getting away with something as a result of that immunity. But the immunities are provided because otherwise we do not get the evidence and it is better that we incur some cost than see wrongdoers get away completely. In this case there was a statutory immunity. Effectively the statute says to people who give information to the Police Complaints Authority that they can be confident that their particulars will not be disclosed.  
There was an amusing incident last night when the amendment went through. I am not sure but I think Mr Barker was actually in mid-speech when a note was put under his nose to the effect that the Labour Party had shifted its position. Keith Locke tells me that it looked as if a note might have shifted a speech in full flight but the result was pleasing. It is an instance of how the process of the Committee stage is intended to work where collectively the Committee came to the view that the legislation could be improved. I do appreciate it and I welcome the Labour Party’s shift on that position in the end. 
I want to make a few comments though on why this bill is necessary at all and the responsibility I think the Government holds for the predicament that means it has to do something as public as embarrassing as expensive and as potentially damaging to people as a full-blown commission of inquiry into a matter that is squarely covered by the Police Complaints Authority process. This is sending an ad hoc watchdog to look at a permanent watchdog. It is an overt acceptance of the state to which we have fallen when there is so little public confidence in the institution. 
At bottom I believe that this is absolutely inevitable. We cannot maintain an incorruptible police force in a society that condones corruption. This week we passed in this House a bill that tells offenders not to worry about lying. How can we then tell the Police Complaints Authority and every policeman that we seriously detest false testimony? That bill actually tells people to lie in court. There is no exemption from the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill even for people responding to questions in court. They are instructed to lie and they get immunity for lying. What kind of Government can expect any kind of integrity in any of its institutions when it passes a law through this Parliament telling people to lie? 
That is not all. It is no wonder that the police are mistrusted. If the police are committed to their job they want justice to be done but they see a revolving-door justice system. That means that they watch criminals go through very expensive processes at cost and personal risk to the police who then get sent out by a system that lies in every sentence. When judges give a 24-month sentence they know it is a lie because every 24-month sentence is automatically cut in half. It does not matter how offensive the offenders are. It does not matter that they are thumbing their noses at the court. It does not matter that they show no remorse. If the sentence is less than 24 months it is automatically cut in half. The system is designed only to lie to the community and to victims. The whole system is set up on untruths. 
The police are working in this environment. They are working in a system that is full of institutionalised lying so the need for this inquiry will be repeated. We will find more and more occasions where police take justice or what they think is justice into their own hands because if they are working in a system that does not do it they get that reaction. Decent people think they will do what is necessary. I do not condone it I do not wish it but the climate for it is there. It is not an excuse but it is a reason. It is no surprise if we have a police force that appears to be out of control. 
During question time in this House this week I believe it appeared that the police were being told to get loyally behind a situation in which they were made to prosecute Shane Ardern. Meanwhile an art forger did not even get charged. That art forger happens to be the Prime Minister— 
Jill Pettis 
: Talk about the bill! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am being told to make this speech relevant and I believe it is relevant. We were forced to rush legislation in to deal with corruption or allegations of perjury and malpractice in the police because it was believed that the Police Complaints Authority could not adequately deal with them and because we could not trust the police to investigate for the Police Complaints Authority on their own. It is the climate that has created the mistrust. If this had been an isolated incident New Zealanders would not have been demanding an independent inquiry. The climate means that people think we need an independent inquiry and the climate means that the inquiry will be facing suspicion even as it goes about its business. 
The inquiry of course needs to get the information from the Police Complaints Authority. The inquiry will get it. ACT supports the inquiry having all the information it needs but what we do not like is being faced with a bill that is being brought in without any notice to anyone when the Government suddenly realised that it was getting itself into a political hole by appointing an inquiry that would not even be able to inquire. It would not be able to get the information it was supposed to inquire into. So the Government rushed a bill into the House to fix it without notice to anyone—basically a bill that acted in bad faith and that told unilaterally and retrospectively all the people who had given evidence to the Police Complaints Authority on the basis of confidentiality that they could no longer trust the State that the State would change the rules when it needed to get itself out of a pickle and that that material would no longer be confidential. 
Well we have gone along with it as the least of the evils. We have minimised the harm that that was going to do to the reputation of the Government. We did that by at least making it plain that the commission of inquiry must do all it can to protect confidentiality. It is a sorry second best. 
The whole need for this bill is because we have a Government that simply cannot be trusted that has frustrated the police by being soft on crime and that believes that lying is something one puts the weight of the law behind. The irony that we should have to be dealing with this bill in the week that the Government forced through the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill would be delicious if it were not so sickening. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will be supporting this bill as we did through its previous stages. It has been an interesting bill. In one sense in the way it has proceeded we have seen MMP in action particularly with Stephen Franks’ amendment last night to clause 6. I think we want to learn something from that. Even though we come from quite different philosophical bases—certainly the Green Party and the ACT party are philosophically very far apart—we should always look closely at each other’s amendments because sometimes we may actually agree with them. That was the case with various parties in this House when they looked at Mr Franks’ amendment to see whether it had any particular problems. 
We looked at whether it would restrain the commission and in reading it closely we found that it would not. The amendment clearly stated: “may be achieved without materially prejudicing the Commission’s ability to ascertain and report the truth”. So the commission still has control of its own destiny still can expose what it wants but it is advised by the rest of the amendment to keep the Police Complaints Authority material confidential particularly information that might identify individuals. So the amendment was a good example of the MMP process. 
At the start the Government was a little reluctant to go along with the amendment thinking it would constrain the commission and that was the argument it outlined. But it was good to see that at the end of the Committee stage the Government came to the party. Whether that was because it genuinely was convinced by Mr Franks’ amendment or just does not like losing a vote in the House I have yet to determine. But I will give it the benefit of the doubt that it agreed with the amendment finally. 
Mr Franks said there was a problem of the new watchdog this commission of inquiry looking at another watchdog the Police Complaints Authority. That is the situation. It is problematic that people have such little confidence in the Police Complaints Authority particularly in what it was doing back in the period 1986 and beyond. The heart of the problem is that the Police Complaints Authority relies a bit too much on police officers for its investigatory capacity and in a small town like Rotorua it may be that—and the commission has yet to determine what the real situation was—the police officer doing the investigations and forwarding the analysis to the authority had too close a relationship with the people he was investigating and was not necessarily coming to independent conclusions. Whether or not that is true that is the import of some of the newspaper coverage. I will leave it to the commission to work out what the real truth of the situation is. 
I agree with Mr Franks too that the more transparent the commission of inquiry can be the better. That way people will have faith in the outcome of the inquiry. We do not want everything to be heard in secret sessions and people to end up thinking that justice was not done particularly in respect of those people who are alleged to have suffered sexual abuse—if it did in fact take place. 
I think there is a need for the Police Complaints Authority to keep some of its information secret. One reason which I have talked about previously is that we want to encourage people to come forward to the authority including whistle-blowers in the police force itself. Other officers who do not like what is going on might be a bit scared to have that known amongst their fellow officers because of the consequences that may ensue from their in a sense narking on their fellow officers. A bit of protection is needed to encourage fellow police officers to inform on bad apples in the police force so that we can have a truly non-corrupt and non-biased force. 
The other category of people we want to protect is the complainants. Again sometimes in small towns or in difficult situations—as is the case with some of the people the commission will be investigating—young people people who are feeling under a bit of pressure from those who are more senior to them or the police in the district or whatever need to be protected to enable them to come forward to the Police Complaints Authority in the future. I think a certain degree of secrecy is required for that. We will deal further with those sorts of things in the new version of the Police Complaints Authority proposed in the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill which will be coming before us in more detail after the commission of inquiry report. It is currently in the House but has been moved down the Order Paper because of this commission of inquiry. 
Some complainants point to a problem in terms of a lack of information available about the proceedings of the Police Complaints Authority. Although it is right to keep the identity of certain complainants secret the proceedings of the authority itself are sometimes a bit too secretive or a bit too non-transparent—much more so than the proceedings of other complaint systems in other professions such as the medical profession. In those professions there is an ability to bring in name suppression particularly if the complaints are frivolous and there is a presumption of openness in a lot of the proceedings. With the Police Complaints Authority the presumption tends to be the opposite—that of secrecy. We have had examples of that. I have heard of examples of complainants being a bit dissatisfied with the results of a Police Complaints Authority inquiry in that all they have are a few lines to read giving the result and all the rest is done in secret. They do not believe that justice has been done for them and they cannot see evidence that justice has been done because everything has been done in too much secrecy. Somebody might complain of having been beaten up and claim to have a couple of witnesses but in the end the police officer’s word is taken and the complainant feels that it is all wrong. If the proceedings had been a little more open he or she would have got the whole picture and perhaps be more satisfied with the decision. 
One of the sections in Mr Franks’ amendment in relation to the commission is relevant to the Police Complaints Authority too I think. His amendment to clause 6 that adds new subsection 32(2C)—and which is now in the bill because it has been accepted—states: “(2C) Steps or restrictions referred to ... may be waived with the informed consent of any person to whom this Act extends the benefit of confidentiality in respect of any matter ...”. I think that could perhaps be applied more in relation to Police Complaints Authority proceedings. If the complainant in a case says: “I want it all to be open. I am quite happy for my information and identity to be known. I just want justice.” then perhaps the proceedings of the Police Complaints Authority could be more open than they are at the present time. Sure some of the police officers might be a bit upset that their names become known but in order to have a non-corrupt and non-biased police force I think we have to move more in the direction of openness in that respect and the Greens will go in that direction. 
I conclude by saying we do support this bill. It will help make us more confident in the operations of the police force and hopefully the Police Complaints Authority. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I have always been a great believer in coming to the point and I just want to make one observation about the speech made by the member who has just resumed his seat. It was the verbal equivalent of a tap dripping. 
I want to make three particular points about this bill. This amendment bill was always about the balance between confidence in the Police Complaints Authority process and the integrity of the police. It is the integrity of the police that has been called into question of late. I think one of things we can say about that is that the police always take their cues from the top. 
The bill cannot be allowed to set a precedent whereby information and the identities of those supplying information under the provision of secrecy occurs again and again. I think that is something that troubled most people on the committee—the fact that the bill does actually set a precedent. Like one of the previous speakers Stephen Franks I am not convinced that it will not happen again and again particularly as—as he rightly pointed out—we have just passed a bill that gives immunity for lying and because this bill breaks the code of secrecy for telling the truth. There is some irony in that which I think will cause us some problems down the track when we are thinking about ethics with regard to police accountability. 
The bill should not be allowed to compromise future investigations. I believe that it will ultimately inhibit future disclosures and that is part of the problem—the police reneging on the promise of secrecy. It is something that should not be done lightly and I do not believe that this first occasion will be the last. Ultimately it is also about restoring public confidence in the police by showing that the police are not beyond the law but are subject to it as everyone else is. The trouble is that we have here in some ways competing concerns and competing interests that sat uncomfortably with most of the committee. In his Supplementary Order Paper Stephen Franks has placated some of the disquiet but not completely. I think everybody in this House can see the need for this bill and for the Supplementary Order Paper which allowed it to have a somewhat better degree of secrecy and so maintain a better degree of integrity. 
But at the same time I would say that this bill has been rushed far too quickly through the process. Why on earth was that issue not thought about right at the beginning? It seems to me that to rush a bill of this nature through the effects of which will have ramifications down the track does this Parliament a huge disservice because it does not allow for the full scrutiny that this bill should entail. Nevertheless United Future will be supporting this bill and we look forward to the potential of this Government not to shove bills through in quite the same manner again. 
Bill read a third time. 
Third Readings 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 3) the Coroners Amendment Bill (No 2) the Courts Martial Appeals Amendment Bill (No 2) the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 3) the Employment Relations Amendment Bill the Family Courts Amendment Bill the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 2) the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 3) the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
The provisions contained in what was formerly the Judicial Matters Bill will maintain and enhance public confidence in the judiciary and recognise the fundamental importance in a democracy of ensuring an independent judiciary and of addressing judicial resources. By enacting this legislation we are confirming New Zealand’s commitment to the United Nations’ Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. The United Nations endorsed the basic principles in 1985 to help member States in their task of securing and promoting the independence of the judiciary. The principles confirm that judicial independence is the cornerstone of civil and political rights such as the right to a fair trial before a competent independent and impartial tribunal established by law. It is the duty of Governments to respect and observe that independence. 
As required by article 17 the legislation establishes an appropriate procedure for the receipt and processing of complaints about judges and for investigation of serious matters of conduct. From time to time there have been questions about the process for handling complaints about judges. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner will ensure complaints are processed expeditiously and fairly under a process that has due regard for judicial independence. 
We have always been well served by our judiciary which is highly respected both domestically and internationally. We have never removed a judge from office in New Zealand but refusing to provide for that possibility invites disaster. The alternative is to establish a process in the face of a crisis risking both public confidence and judicial independence. The provision for the appointment of a Judicial Conduct Panel ensures proper investigation of serious allegations and avoids those risks. The requirement for investigation by a Judicial Conduct Panel supports Parliament’s role in the removal of judges. Natural justice requires a proper investigation and determination of the facts before a judge can be removed. The Judicial Conduct Panel will have responsibility for that investigation ensuring Parliament has a proper basis for its decision about removal. 
The next step is the establishment of the office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner which will now begin. The commissioner will be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner must be a person whose impartiality and integrity are beyond question and in whom the public and the judiciary have confidence. As Attorney-General I am required to consult with the Chief Justice on the appointment of the commissioner and to report to this House the outcome of that consultation. 
Security of tenure is also a cornerstone of protecting judicial independence. This legislation provides Masters of the High Court who will now be known as Associate Justices of the High Court with the same rights of permanent tenure as other judges. In accordance with article 16 of the basic principles the legislation provides an absolute immunity from suit to be extended to all judges. Judicial immunity promotes independence by allowing the fearless performance of the judicial function. It also helps in achieving finality in litigation. 
The Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary confirm the duty of each State to provide adequate resources to enable the judiciary properly to perform its functions. This legislation addresses judicial resources by increasing the maximum number of District Court and High Court judges providing for retired community magistrates to be appointed as temporary community magistrates and increasing flexibility by enabling judges to work part-time. The new 8-year term for the Principal Family Court Judge and the Principal Youth Court Judge enhances resources by encouraging continuous vigour and innovation in the role. As a result there will be a broader pool of District Court judges with leadership experience from which the Chief District Court Judge may be selected. 
I note some members of this House and submitters thought the legislation should address the appointment of judges. I have now released a paper on the judicial appointments process to provide an opportunity for wider discussion on this issue. As I have said before New Zealand has been well served by judges who have integrity and ability. However from time to time commentators have asked whether the appointments process can be improved possibly by the establishment of a judicial appointments commission to identify and recommend suitable candidates for judicial office. I again encourage all New Zealanders with an interest in this subject to make their views known to the Ministry of Justice. 
With the passage of this legislation New Zealanders can be confident that complaints about judges will be heard and that a robust fair process for deciding whether to remove a judge from office will be available if the need arises. The other provisions of the legislation contribute to the proper administration of justice by safeguarding judicial independence and enhancing judicial resources. I commend this legislation to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I think it is very pleasing to many members of the House to hear the Attorney-General speak about the importance of the independence of the judiciary. If only we had heard her speak before on this legislation which she has until now been strangely silent on. Having said that it seems to me as though the Attorney-General must be looking at different legislation from this because certainly the submissions from the High Court judges the Court of Appeal judges and the New Zealand Law Society were unanimous in their view that this legislation was an attack on the independence of the judiciary. So I think that perhaps the Attorney-General is looking at different legislation and certainly not the legislation that is before this House. 
Stephen Franks 
: The legislation she thought she had written. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: As Mr Franks has said it is the legislation she thought she had written. Perhaps the legislation has changed while she was not speaking about it. 
Legislation like this should come before the House to address evils and the evil in this case would no doubt be seen in relation to the appointment of unsuitable people and the disciplining of judges. The Attorney-General has correctly pointed out that this legislation does not address the issue of appointments and she herself has come under considerable negative comment from time to time with regard to her own appointments. Certainly the legislation does deal with discipline but only in relation to the removal of judges. This Parliament as the representative body of the people of New Zealand already has the right to remove a judge. Any member of this House can bring a motion to have a judge removed. The fact that none has had to be removed is an indication that the system works. It works because judges know it can happen and would happen if necessary. It also works because no member of this House is likely either to bring such a motion without some very good advice and reason to do so or to do so without the support of his or her colleagues in Parliament. 
What this legislation does however is to put disciplinary issues off to a commission that this Attorney-General will appoint. So this legislation is in fact an attack on the judiciary. The people of New Zealand are losing the right to be able to speak to their MPs and lobby Parliament to bring about the end of the tenure of a judge who is unsuitable and is acting unsuitably. That right is to be given away and given away to a commission that the Attorney-General will appoint. In other words the very Attorney-General who from time to time makes appointments that many people including myself consider to be inappropriate is to appoint the people who will decide on the actions of those particular people. That is not a move for independence; it is a move for dependence. The judges have rejected it and they have been ignored. They are the very people whom this legislation most affects. I have already in previous debates on this legislation looked at and spoken about the number of complaints—the few that there are—received about the judges in our New Zealand courts from one extreme to the other. 
There are very very few complaints. I note that despite that this legislation is still being pushed through the House and it is being pushed through with a very small majority. Only the Greens have joined with Labour and the Progressive Coalition on this legislation and all other parties have disowned it. Those parties have listened to the people who know best about it: both the judges and the New Zealand Law Society—the people who deal with the law. I do not think we should move past or just ignore the fact that this legislation is an insult to the people of New Zealand. Judges in this country are not elected officials and the people of New Zealand do not get a chance to decide who will be their judges. Many of us would say that that is probably a good thing. But people do currently have the right until this legislation is passed to get any member of this House as their representative to look at and question the actions of judges. That right will be lost because it is to go off into another sphere where a politically appointed group of people will look at that. 
The Minister talked about the appointment process but I note that the date when the new legislation on appointments is to come into force will be very very close to the end of her term as Attorney-General. She will by that time have had 6 years of interference in the judiciary—6 years of appointing people who should not necessarily have been appointed and of a person who has resigned from a District Court position being appointed as a Master of the High Court. Judges are now to be given complete tenure which they did not have before. That is the sort of action this Attorney-General has complied with—in fact she has been absolutely complicit in it. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Unreal! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: If there is anything that member on the Government side of the House who keeps calling out “Unreal!” all the time does not understand then I consider he should actually read the legislation. As he has not read the legislation he should perhaps be quiet. 
This legislation is a shame. It perpetrates a constitutional outrage upon the people of New Zealand. Unfortunately the media have not quite picked up on the importance of this legislation. It is another example just like the debate on the Privy Council where the issues are very serious. They should be going through to a referendum at the very least but that is being denied yet again by this Government which does not want people to go anywhere near the polls because it has certainly seen what has been happening to the polls lately. I think it is a terrible shame that everybody involved in this legislation says it is bad legislation—everybody from the Law Society to the judges. How often do judges make submissions to select committees? It is an extremely small number of times. They made a submission on this legislation not because they are frightened of having any independence or anything like that. The reason is quite the opposite of that. It is not that judges are frightened of any criticism because they certainly come in for a tremendous amount of criticism which they are often not in a position to deal with. Judges are already under massive public scrutiny. What they are concerned about is that this legislation is yet another attack on their independence and on their ability to do the job. That is a shame. 
The fact is that we will find fewer very qualified competent people in this country who want to be judges. We have already noticed over the last few years that there has been an attitude amongst many of the senior people in the legal profession of not seeking an office in the judiciary. One of the reasons for that is that they feel the position of being a member of the judiciary has been lowered and they do not want to have any part of that. They do not want to have any part of this legislation and nor should we. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to support the judicial matters legislation. Before that member scurries out of the Chamber she may like to listen to the riposte to the absurd and untoward accusations she made about the Attorney-General in that shameful speech. 
That member simply cannot have it both ways. She cannot on the one hand accuse the nation’s most senior lawyer of meddling in the judiciaryand then on the other hand grizzle when a transparent and proper process is set up to deal with matters of conduct. Where is the integrity in doing that? Moreover the member in making those baseless comments has seen fit to descend from the level of principle to the level of an individual case by referring to the recent instance of a judge who resigned and was then reappointed as a Master of the High Court—a case that all members would agree was most controversial. The member has drawn personalities into the debate and I think that that is regrettable. Let me say that if this legislation had been in force at the time there would have been no need for the Attorney-General to have to respond to the recommendations of the Chief Justice who had to make those recommendations in the absence of a transparent process like this. 
Stephen Franks 
: Nonsense! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Indeed I wish that member would refresh his practising certificate and do something useful with his life. Actually I probably did the member a wrong. He has probably been doing some practising on the side. 
The judicial matters legislation is a necessity in light of recent controversy to preserve and promote the integrity and public standing of the judiciary. Which member of this House could possibly object to that aim? Or is the member who resumed her seat previously—of whom I add one could ask whether she had done the House the courtesy of listening to the response and I invite her to take the next call— 
Dail Jones 
: She can’t have two calls. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —after Mr Jones who I believe has a contribution to make. I invite her to take the next call after that if she is prepared to rebut the claim that this legislation actually strengthens due process. She will not because she cannot. This legislation is essential in order to promote the good management and the good standing of New Zealand's fine judiciary and I urge its speedy passage through the House. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The previous speaker for the Labour Party knows nothing at all about this legislation. The objection to it comes for example from the New Zealand Law Society which opposes the legislation’s proposal to establish the office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. It states that the legislation will undermine that most vital part of our constitution the independence of the judiciary. The Law Society takes the view that judicial independence which we need in this country will be undermined by this legislation. The previous speaker had nothing to say about that crucial point. 
In its submissions the Law Society also states that there is no need for legislation of this nature except in instances where a judge might be removed from office. Currently we in this Parliament have the right to remove a High Court judge from office and if we look back over our entire history to the British Westminster system we have had that right from around about 1700. We have had it at least since the establishment of constitutional government in New Zealand and of Parliament and the judiciary. It has worked very well in all that time because no High Court judge has ever been removed from office yet we could have done so by a simple motion in this House if so required. 
No one has asked for this legislation which sets up a Judicial Conduct Commissioner who will inquire into complaints about judicial behaviour. That is not just judicial behaviour in the court but also judicial behaviour in the judge’s private life. If a judge goes to a party allegedly misbehaves and someone gets grumpy about it that person can write to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and complain. It is hard enough to get judges today as it is because judges work to a code of trying to keep their private lives as well behaved as possible. They have to be like Caesar’s wife—totally above suspicion. Their standard of behaviour has to be more than immaculate. 
Now when anybody can complain about what judges might do in their private lives they will have to go through all the problems associated with a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. The commissioner will look at the complaint and then it will go to a Judicial Conduct Panel which will also have a crack at it. During the Committee stage we worked out that about nine steps would be involved as a result of this legislation. In the past there was just one. If that person was not satisfactory this House could dismiss that person—which has never happened. 
If it has never happened why do we need it now? No one has asked for it to happen now. I suspect it is part of the Labour Party’s overall plan to change the way of life in New Zealand. We have seen it remove the right of appeal to the Privy Council. We have seen it wanting to remove the title “Queen’s Counsel”. We saw it try to introduce what is called a “public domain” although how one can have a public domain on the wet bits the foreshore and seabed—given that the public domain was nearly always land-based and in the middle of the village—is absolutely beyond me. 
After all King Canute proved over a thousand years ago that one cannot stop the tide coming in yet the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark wanted to have public domain over the foreshore and seabed. The old public domain was in the middle of the village—on the hard dry bits. How on earth could she ever have dreamt of having a public domain on the foreshore and seabed? That was out of date a thousand years ago. King Canute proved it at that stage but that is part of the Labour Party’s policy of doing things—apart from its social policy of course with things like the Civil Union Bill. 
But getting back to this legislation one might say about the New Zealand Law Society complaints: “So what? They are just a bunch of lawyers.” The fact is that the Law Society very rarely comes out with a policy decision on legislation but on this occasion it did. When we go to the other extreme what about the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties? What was its view on the legislation? Now one might say that lawyers tend to be more conservative and the Council for Civil Liberties on the slightly more radical side of the spectrum. But the Council for Civil Liberties also opposed this bill terming it “an unnecessary complication to Parliament’s current right to impeach a judge.” That is the other end of the spectrum so what real support is there for this legislation? 
Once upon a time we might have had the Labour Party jumping up and down and supporting anything coming from the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties. We know that those days have gone and in the Committee stage the senior Government whip confirmed that that was the case. One might have thought that today it is the Greens who support the view of the Council for Civil Liberties. The Greens are forever jumping up and down and saying how we must protect individuals’ rights. We have had speeches about Mr Zaoui being locked up and anti-American speeches and all that sort of thing so one would have thought that the Greens would support the Council for Civil Liberties on this occasion. But no they do not. 
Just as the Greens supported the Labour Party in putting the Supreme Court legislation through and abolishing the right of appeal to the Privy Council so the Green Party is the only party—if we count the Progressive Coalition as a party at all—that is ending that 300-year-old right to impeach a judge. That right could be exercised by various citizens and British subjects given that Westminster was the mother of this Parliament when it passed the 1852 New Zealand Constitution Act. It is the Green Party that is ending the right of this Parliament to impeach a judge. The Green members are saying that they do not have faith in their own ability to decide whether a judge is doing the job properly and they want to hand it over to some other person appointed by a member of Parliament. 
What we are now seeing is that two major bodies—the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties and the New Zealand Law Society do not support this legislation. What will happen is that in place of us deciding if a High Court judge should be impeached a person appointed by a member of Parliament will set up a committee of less efficient people—people of a lesser standing—who will then decide on the future of the judiciary of New Zealand. That is a lowering of standards as I see it. We will have some fairly secretive body deciding the future of the judiciary in New Zealand. 
Mr Cunliffe can laugh but this Judicial Conduct Commissioner will be working to decide whether or not these people in the judiciary will be removed from their positions. As I said during the Committee stage and as the National Party person speaking today said it is an absolute constitutional outrage. 
Of course we are used to constitutional outrages on the part of this Labour Party. It is becoming second nature to us to see the way in which the Labour Party is ruining New Zealand’s judicial system. It cannot run the police force—we know how that is falling apart. We have seen how it is harder and harder to get High Court judges of the best possible calibre. Today we are introducing a system whereby judges of every kind will be subjected to so much scrutiny that one wonders whether anyone will really want to become a judge today. What is it worth to give up one’s private life absolutely and totally as a result of this bill should one want to become a judge? 
The Council for Civil Liberties went on to say that: “International norms have not been conformed with this bill such as the ICCPR. The bill provides merely for removal of judges not for judicial discipline.” That is the other interesting point—there is no provision for judicial discipline just for removal. “The removal provisions are subject to the absolute discretion of the Attorney-General of the day.” One member of Parliament not all of us will have that decision. The comment from the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties was: “There is no provision for complaint removal of any of the heads of bench.” 
It is not surprising therefore that New Zealand First opposes this legislation. We want to put New Zealand first and make sure that our traditions and conventions are maintained and that the New Zealand Parliament—all of us not just the Attorney-General—have the right to decide on the impeachment of a judge. Of course today the Attorney-General is not even a constituency MP. Today the Attorney-General is a list MP as I am and I think it is absolutely wrong that a list MP with no responsibility to any constituency can decide whether a judge stays or goes. That list MP the Attorney-General ought to be the one who goes and I am sure she will. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party on the third readings of the legislation that was formerly the Judicial Matters Bill. I am pleased on behalf of the Green Party to express our support for the legislation because we think it is important that finally in this country we are able to develop a process for dealing with complaints against judges—a formal transparent and fair process. It is important at a time when judges are under increasing scrutiny and criticism by the media the public and not least by members of this House. We believe that a process such as this is important not just to protect the public interest and the integrity of the bench but also to protect the judges themselves so that complaints made against judges can be dealt with in a proper manner and either upheld or dismissed so that they are not left to media campaigns and innuendo. 
It has been interesting to listen to the Opposition speaking on this legislation. There is a strange confusion in the reasoning at least to my mind because we hear the Opposition say that it wants to preserve the independence of the judiciary—and presumably this means the independence of the judiciary from political interference—yet what it wants to remain in place in terms of dealing with complaints against judges is a process that is left up to the political whim of Parliament. If we can muster 61 votes in this House we can oust a judge under the present system. 
It seems to me that if we are really talking about preserving the independence of the judiciary we need a process that depoliticises the investigation of complaints and allows them to be dealt with fairly and transparently. That is what this legislation was set up to do. 
Mr Jones said that the Green Party is party to the ending of a 300-year right that British citizens have to deal with judges. I make the point that it is not a right of British citizens at all. It is only a right of members of this elite club of ours that we call Parliament. Most ordinary people have no show of trying to deal with complaints against judges and Mr Jones would know that as well as I and other members of the committee do. We heard from submitters who came to the committee who talked about complaints that they had against the judges and who got nowhere. They were intensely frustrated because they felt that their concerns were simply ignored and— 
Stephen Franks 
: Half of them were nutters. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: That is the point. Whether or not their complaints have merit there needs to be a process so that any independent bystander can look and say that a matter has been dealt with in a fair and transparent manner and that is the end of it. At the moment we do not have a process that can reassure an independent third party that the matter has been dealt with in a proper way. 
 Judith Collins spoke on this as well. She made the point that any member of this House could move a motion for the dismissal of a judge. Members should note that the minority report of the National Party in the select committee report showed how the process did not work—and I made this point during the second reading debate as well—and it raised the matter of Justice Edwards who should surely have been removed from the bench. Because it was left to this Parliament to do something about it Justice Edwards was never removed and ended up resigning on his own account and received £1000 in compensation for his troubles. That is a perfect example furnished by the National Party on why the current process is entirely inadequate and why it needs to be taken out of the hands of politicians and given to a body that is able to look at the issue without fear of its own political favour. 
I do not believe that less competent and less qualified judges will take positions on the bench as a result of a process that will hold bad judges accountable for their actions. I do not see that at all. By establishing such a process the integrity of the bench will be preserved and it will protect judges themselves from the innuendo that comes from a process that does not allow those issues to be properly investigated. 
David Cunliffe pointed out in his speech the contradiction that is at the heart of the arguments. Members of the Opposition are continually criticising the Attorney-General. They have established a spurious and scurrilous campaign against the Attorney-General to criticise her consistently for her political involvement and the politicisation of her decisions. The criticisms are entirely unfair but Opposition members criticised the Attorney-General for political involvement in decisions and then on the other hand they wanted to preserve a procedure to leave those matters in political hands. That is the key issue and that is what this legislation is about. It is about taking complaints against judges out of the hands of politicians and putting them into the hands of a transparent and independent process. 
The Opposition talked about judicial independence. What does that mean? As I said during the second reading debate I do not believe that judicial independence means a licence to behave badly without any fear of sanction. Surely judicial independence must be about the ability of judges to be fearless in their findings without fear of political favour. This legislation does not change that at all. 
In fact the legislation was criticised by some for not going far enough and not dealing with complaints below the threshold where removal of a judge might be considered. So I think it is quite wrong to say that everyone who came to the committee criticised the legislation and opposed it simply because it set up a process. Many submitters said that it did not go far enough. 
Mr Jones misrepresented what the legislation will do when he said that under the system for example if a judge got drunk at some party someone could complain that complaint would go to the Judicial Conducts Commissioner a Judicial Conduct Panel would then be set up and it would go through that whole process. 
Dail Jones 
: It can happen. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: As Mr Jones knows that is a misrepresentation of what would happen in that case. The legislation states and we have a lovely flow diagram—an innovation of the Justice and Electoral Committee in various pieces of legislation to make interpretation of the legislation easier for the lay person—that shows that the Judicial Conducts Commissioner would receive a written complaint then he or she would acknowledge receipt of the complaint and notify the judge. The commissioner would not have to provide a copy of the complaint to the judge. The complaint may be minor and the commissioner may not consider it worthy to provide the judge with a copy. However the judge is always entitled to it. The commissioner would undertake a preliminary examination and either dismiss the complaint refer it to the head of bench if it is not sufficient to consider removal of the judge or he or she may conclude that an inquiry is necessary and then would recommend the setting up of a Judicial Conduct Panel. 
In the case of a judge who got drunk at a party and offended someone surely we would have to accept that it is extremely unlikely that that situation would ever go to a Judicial Conduct Panel. It would either be dismissed forthwith or at the most would be referred to the head of the bench and Mr Jones knows that as well as I do. It is about time that a proper process was set up to deal with these things and have the ability to hear and resolve complaints so that those complaints are not left to media campaigns and political innuendo. 
Mr Jones also made the point that the House has never removed a judge from office and asked why we need the process now. The Attorney-General dealt with that forcibly when she made the point that if we waited for a crisis in the judiciary before a process was developed to deal with judicial complaint then we would have a serious crisis. We would have a process that would really threaten judicial independence. It would be policy developed in panic and we have seen many examples of policy of that nature developed in the House. It has always led to problems and to our having to redo the issue because it was done wrongly in haste and out of fear in the first place. The Green Party supports this legislation. We support the development of this process and we commend it to the House. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party in the final stage of this legislation. It has been touted as increasing accountability of the judiciary and providing a complaints process. Indeed we just heard the member from the Green Party Mr Nandor Tanczos urging what he called the Opposition—it is quite interesting that we are all collectively called the Opposition now; of course they are the Government. 
Dail Jones 
: They are the Government. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Yes the member is there too. United Future is in the Opposition with us and we welcome it. We are a broad church. We welcome it. The Opposition pointed out that legislation that has been touted as a complaints process is in fact simply a complaints funnel. In fact almost all the complaints will simply drop out of that funnel back to exactly where they are now—that is with absolutely no change. They go to the head of bench and the head of bench will deal with them or not as the head of bench decides which is precisely what happens now with nearly every complaint. The only difference is that we have set up a mechanism that will be sitting there as a very attractive opportunity for someone with no respect for judicial independence and for people who think that there are simple solutions to the question: “Who watches the watchdog?”. This law will now sit there as a standing invitation to make what people will call the simple step of accountability meaningful—in other words putting someone else in there to decide when a judge’s conduct is unacceptable. 
We know that this Government will find a lot of things unacceptable that in a country that respects judicial independence and liberty has previously been seen as a matter of etiquette and judgment—in fact as a matter that we just endure because we know that once we give people the power to interfere with judges ultimately it will be misused. 
The legislation pretended to be comprehensive. The name of the original bill looks comprehensive but as far as judicial discipline goes all it is is legislation around sacking judges—hanging offences impeachment or removal. It has nothing to do with the broad run of complaints. 
ACT would have been able to support a straightforward reform of the kind that Mr Tanczos urged. If this had been legislation that stated that when an MP moves a motion to remove a judge—something that has never happened in our history—it then gets sent to a process of independent examination and a report back to Parliament so that whatever debate occurs is well informed we would have supported it boots and all. That is what we thought was desired. That is what we thought the Minister was talking about when she first started parroting the phrase “judicial independence”. What in fact she has done is to secure a power for her to stop an inquiry into judges and to stop any motion to remove a judge if she does not want it. 
She might be in a minority party as it is now and every other party in the House might want to remove a judge who has disgraced his or her office but the Attorney-General can now make sure that she can block that. She has three ways. She appoints the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. She appoints the Judicial Conduct Panel. She can disregard the panel even if it says that removal might be warranted. She can simply decline to initiate and this legislation takes away the power of any other member to cleanse the stables or at least to ensure that there is a debate. 
That Attorney-General’s power to block the removal of a judge could have had a very simple solution. It could have simply provided for example that following the report of a Judicial Conduct Panel there were proper grounds to consider the matter. Any member could move that motion. A very simple safeguard would have meant this was unexceptionable in constitutional terms; possibly only less unexceptionable because the panel then becomes the gatekeeper but still the Minister could have made efforts to secure a consensus around this legislation. This is a constitutional matter and with her high-handedness she simply ignored the fact that she had only a bare majority cobbled together by telling the Green members no doubt that some nice deal will await them further on for their own political advantage. 
This could have been a process that restored the reputation she trashed of the Attorney-General being the highest law officer the office of the representative of the rule of law in Cabinet. She could have gone some way to restoring that. She lost it over the Supreme Court Act. She could have gone some way to restoring it if she had made even the slightest effort to recognise the concerns of the opposition as we are now termed—that is the National Party New Zealand First ACT and United Future all concerned. 
This is not a matter that immediately attracts political attention. We were not grandstanding on this. We were concerned about the precedent. When we are in power we do not want our own colleagues coming to us and saying: “Why not tinker with your judiciary? They did. There’s the precedent. They got away with it.” They will not get away with it. Just as the Government thought that it could with the abolition of the Privy Council get rid of a patently independent international umpire and replace it with its own appointees within reach of New Zealand politicians’ appointment powers and just as that in the end came to cause the Government loss—and it is cited every time people want to refer to the high-handedness of this Government—so too this legislation will form part of that pattern. 
It does not stop at the Attorney-General’s grasp for the control of power to impeach judges. She has also given herself power to appoint a nearly infinite number of judges. She can stack the judiciary in a way that no Attorney-General has ever been able to do before. She can now appoint part-time judges. There is no lower limit on the extent to which it is part-time. They might be appointed to do a day a week. They are then counted as fractional judges so that when we get one new vacancy this Attorney-General could appoint 10 new judges. Again she could have reassured us that that was not her intention. 
We suggested a very reasonable safeguard. For example we suggested that there be a rule that no more than 25 percent of judges be part-timers. No not for this Attorney-General! This Attorney-General seems to want to be sure that when she gets one vacancy she can appoint 10 judges and up to an infinite number. 
That power to stack might seem a far-fetched risk. Why should New Zealanders be any different from the many other countries that have had politicians frustrated with the independence of the bench? Why would we be any different from Australia where 17 of the first 31 High Court of Australia judges were appointed from the ranks of serving politicians? Why should we be any different from the United States where Franklin Roosevelt got a bit frustrated with what he saw as the pedantic objections of judges in the 1930s who wanted to protect property rights and state rights and simply said he would appoint a whole lot of new judges? 
 That was the reason. Because there is a limit to the number of judges in statute and it requires an Act of Parliament to change it so that an Attorney-General cannot simply stack the judiciary. Well this Attorney-General has found a cute way through it—supported by the Greens. If she gets say five vacancies she would be able to produce up to 50 judges. She could create a situation where no new judge could be appointed for generations. I do not think she will do it and I hope she will not do it. However she made no attempt to reassure anyone—not the Law Society the High Court judges who submitted the Court of Appeal judges who submitted the civil liberties organisations or any other party in this House—that that was not her covert intention. The solution would have been so simple. This is an Attorney-General who rightly deserves the suspicion. She is sinister. She is the least-capable and most-sinister Attorney-General this Parliament has seen for many years. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future opposes the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Bill and the other bills into which the Judicial Matters Bill has been divided. However we support the Government’s decision to set up the office of Judicial Complaints Commissioner which will operate outside the judiciary. It offers a number of positive features. Firstly it centralises the complaints process. At the moment complaints are directed to the heads of bench from various courts the Department for Courts the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney-General. As the public gets used to the system complaints will be centralised in one place. That will result in more reliable statistics on the number of complaints made against judges. The statistics will be able to be objectively appraised and we will quickly learn of any problems arising within the judiciary. Those matters no doubt will be raised with the various heads of bench. 
The legislation also makes dealing with complaints the key function of the commissioner instead of it simply being an ancillary function of the various heads of bench. We will therefore be able to gauge any loss of confidence in the judicial system and hopefully can nip it in the bud. I have no doubt that although the legislation does not have any legislative provisions for the sanctioning of judges—and I will refer to that again shortly—the commissioner will have the ability informally to have quiet words with heads of bench if the commissioner sees some trend occurring either in a particular judge or among judges and therefore pass the message on. 
But United Future cannot support this legislation because the Judicial Conduct Commissioner is a stand-alone function and we believe that that will cause a huge amount of problems for the way that the commissioner starts life. The judiciary does not want this Judicial Conduct Commissioner and therefore the commissioner will start life behind the eight ball. Winning the confidence of the judiciary and proving its worth will be a task that the commissioner finds hard to do when starting from behind. 
That could have been avoided with a wider review of judicial processes especially the appointment process for judges but also judicial training and education and the amalgamation particularly of the complaints function and the appointments function into one body. The implementation of a Supreme Court for New Zealand was a development that screamed out for a review of appointment procedures. For the first time the Attorney-General has almost total control over the appointment of the judiciary in all levels of our system. The Government I note reluctantly has issued a discussion paper on judicial appointments commissions but with no commitment whatsoever beyond simply issuing the discussion paper and receiving the responses. It has done that simply to get the Greens’ vote on this legislation and see it passed. The lack of backbone of the Greens in this respect is very clear. 
In turn National’s approach is nonsensical constitutionally naive and visionless. National says that there is no need for the legislation—that it has never been used and therefore is not needed. However by way of an example National refers to the case of Justice Worley Bassett Edwards who in 1913 started getting into serious difficulty in the eyes of the profession because his courtroom behaviour had become intolerable. There are reports even at that stage in 1913 of his bias towards a female respondent in a particular case but also of his attacks on the legal profession. The Auckland law society—a conservative body I am sure at that time—was moved to pass a resolution stating “with deep regret” its conviction “that the administration of justice had been imperilled and public confidence in the Supreme Court shaken by Mr Justice Edwards’ failure in recent years to maintain that judicial and impartial attitude in civil cases which had distinguished the holder of such an office”. An overwhelming majority of Auckland lawyers signed it. What did the Government do? Of course it sent him to Wellington thinking that Wellington was a softer touch. But even the then Wellington law society complained about it. This matter was taken to the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice who of course was in a position to move the removal of the judge but he simply said the Government would not take any steps. Therefore nothing was done about the judge until he was retired early in 1921 on a full pension with £1000 in compensation. 
So for National to say that effectively this legislation is not needed is nonsensical. Clearly if Justice Edwards had been facing this legislation a public complaint or lawyers complaining to the commissioner would have resulted in an inquiry by an independent body and quite likely a conduct panel would have been formed and the matter would have proceeded. 
National also says that the legislation should provide for heads of bench to discipline judges and that there should be an outline of some of the abilities they have in order to sanction judges—such as censure counselling and public apology. However to do that goes against the separation of powers and I believe that it is constitutionally naive for National to think that effectively putting statutory obligations on judges to censure will do anything but try to fuse the separated powers instead of keeping them separate. For heads of bench then to be subject to court action because they have not sanctioned or have not taken or considered taking steps would be intolerable. It would open up a situation where people sued heads of bench for that and also where criticism was encouraged within the legislative branch of Government of the fact that judges were or were not upholding certain provisions. It seems to me that that is a step we ought to be extremely reluctant to take. I think that the leaving aside of the things that judges can do—the sanctions that they can take as a statutory function—is the proper course. 
The National Party’s approach is also visionless. It says that it thinks there should be a review of appointments but states nothing in terms of what its alternative policy is. Does National support a judicial appointments commission or has it not even thought about it? What would it do? I challenge National to come up with some sort of policy on this rather than simply saying that appointments should have been considered. That smacks of the same visionless statements that we see from National throughout where it is very quick to criticise but very slow to provide any constructive alternative. 
Judicial appointments commissions exist in a number of countries—Canada New South Wales the Caribbean and Britain. This legislation was an opportunity to have a commission that would cover appointments complaints and an educative function. The opportunity has been lost. Even as notable a figure as the Hon Sir Anthony Mason has recommended independent commissions and has pointed out that if there is a complaints commission it is important that it is not simply a commission that does that solely. He said: “If the system of accountability for less serious complaints is sufficiently open and transparent it will go a far way to satisfying the demand for judicial accountability as long as it is coupled with (1) a mechanism for handling serious complaints on grounds justifying consideration of removal and (2) the provision of education research and other assistance to judges. From the perspective of accountability the principal emphasis should be placed on processing serious complaints and the accountability complaints function should be seen as part of a total function which has as its object the enhancement of judicial performance and judicial services. The fact that a body is intended to enhance judicial performance and services will create a much more positive impression.” 
That is what should have happened here. The warnings are there that a complaints process by itself will cause far less acceptance by the judiciary. There was no urgency to put this legislation through before the whole area of judicial appointments was considered. The Government should have got the discussion paper out sooner it should have waited till it had run its course before going ahead with the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and it should have issued the statutes in conjunction with the creation of a judicial appointments commission. The way that the Government has gone about it seriously undermines and will seriously undermine the effectiveness of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner because of its rashness. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 3) the Coroners Amendment Bill (No 2) the Courts Martial Appeals Amendment Bill (No 2) the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 3) the Employment Relations Amendment Bill the Family Courts Amendment Bill the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 2) the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 3) the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bills read a third time. 
Forests Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
 on behalf of the 
 Hon Pete Hodgson Minister in charge of the bill 
: I move  
That the Forests Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill amends Part IIIA of the Forests Act 1949 which relates to indigenous forest and was inserted into the Act in 1993. The bill was introduced into the House in July 1999 by the then National Government. The bill as now reported from the Committee of the whole House has confirmed modified and added provisions. 
The bill implements Government policy on SILNA land which was allocated to Maori under the South Island Landless Maoris Act 1906. Of the land still under SILNA ownership about 17300 hectares are forested. SILNA land was exempted from the 1993 amendment to the Forests Act because the Government of the day had not determined its policy on that land. The current Government’s SILNA policy package is a balanced one which provides $19.7 million over a number of years for conservation covenants sustainable forest management plans and improved application of the Resource Management Act. It also funds moratorium payments for SILNA owners in exchange for forest protection giving those owners some income while they consider the options for the future of their forests. Areas of SILNA forest at Waitutu and Lords River are excluded from the policy as they have been dealt with under separate conservation agreements in legislation. 
SILNA owners have a very firm view of their ownership rights a view reinforced by the approach that Governments have taken to the SILNA issue over a number of years. Considerable consultation and discussion with SILNA owners made it clear that they would not accept any legislative measures that made no distinction between SILNA forests and other indigenous forests. The bill therefore makes such a distinction. 
On the domestic timber market SILNA owners will be exempt from the sustainable forest management requirements of the Forests Act that apply to all other Maori and non-Maori forest owners. However owners of SILNA land can voluntarily place their forests under these provisions and receive Government assistance to develop sustainable management plans. The domestic timber market exception does not extend to exports of timber from these lands. The bill reimposes controls on timber exports from those lands so that the same statutory controls will apply equally to all indigenous timber exporters. 
The bill precludes compensation to owners of SILNA land for the impact of the changes on them. That was the subject of some comment in the Committee of the whole House. However the provision is consistent with the 1993 amendment Act which precluded compensation to all other forest owners. In any event the impact of this no-compensation provision is expected to be negligible. The only relevant change is the reapplication of export controls and there is little or no foreseeable export market for the hardwood chips exported from SILNA forests in the past. Also there is already a domestic market for sawn indigenous timber. 
The bill does provide a mechanism for assistance for financial loss if export contracts signed before the bill’s introduction are frustrated by its enactment. Few if any such claims are expected. To the benefit of owners of SILNA land a provision has been added to the bill to make payments for conservation covenants income tax exempt. The bill also provides that the $18.55 million Waitutu Forest settlement is income tax exempt. A Supplementary Order Paper made it clear that this provision applies to the whole $18.55 million settlement including the $5 million in kind component of it. This is as Parliament intended in 1997 when it legislated on the settlement and as the select committee that considered the current bill also intended. 
The bill as introduced contained considerable liberalisation of the export controls in order to allow export of all sustainably produced indigenous timber products. However consistent with an election promise the Government decided to retain the existing controls on the export of indigenous timber. These prohibit the export of woodchips and logs but allow the export of some items including sustainably produced sawn beech or rimu finished or manufactured products and personal effects. The existing export controls have been in the Forests Act since 1993 and are a publicly acceptable compromise on an issue that historically has been highly controversial. Indigenous timber is regarded as a heritage material that should not be exported in low-value-added form. The Government considers that indigenous timber production should be a low-volume high-value business with an emphasis on domestic use but with an opportunity for exporting finished products of high value. The existing export controls serve this purpose and the bill streamlines administrative requirements for finished or manufactured products by removing the need for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to approve each export consignment. Also the Government has proceeded in the bill with an exemption from export controls for planted indigenous forests. 
The Government’s position on export controls is consistent in important respects with the recommendations of the Primary Production Committee in its 2002 report  
A Sustainable Future for Our Indigenous Forests 
. In particular the committee recommended retention of the ban on exporting indigenous logs and chips. 
Before I sum up there are just one or two little technical amendments proposed in the original bill that have been confirmed and others have been added. The aim is not only to improve the administration of the Forests Act but also to foster best practice in sustainable forest management. The transitional provisions originally in the bill relating to the West Coast indigenous production forests have been dropped because those forests form a Timberlands-managed forest and are now part of public conservation land. Consequently a Supplementary Order Paper deleted the redundant term “West Coast indigenous production forest” from the interpretation section of the Forests Act. 
In conclusion I would like to thank all of those involved in developing this legislation particularly members of the Local Government and Environment Committee of this Parliament members of previous select committees and departmental officials. I also want to acknowledge the support that the bill has received from other parties in the House. I welcome the enactment of the bill and I look forward to the improvements it will facilitate in the protection management and use of New Zealand’s privately owned indigenous forests. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Here we are in 2004 this bill having been introduced to the House under urgency in 1999. If that is this Government’s idea of urgency then God help us if it ever decides to go on a go-slow. 
Essentially this bill deals with the issues of private property rights versus sustainable forest management and here there is a huge inconsistency on behalf of this Government. It was not very long ago that the Holy Grail of sustainably managed indigenous forest on the West Coast was held up as a classic example of where we wanted to go. What happened? Overnight this Government decided that no we would not do that that those products could not be sold and it closed the business down. But down south the SILNA owners are able to clear-fell their forests willy-nilly. We are now at the point of trying to tell people—and I agree with this; this is the thrust of the bill that the National Party agrees with—“OK let’s come under a sustainable management regime and then we’ll let you deal with your product as you see fit.” 
Well one would think that would be the argument but having got people to come on board what did the Government do? It turned round and slogged them with an export control component. This is the component I really struggle with. If we have sustainably managed forests does it matter how that product is used after the tree has been cut down? Does it matter when the tree is on the ground where the product goes? The point is that forests are meant to be sustainably managed. I find it a major contradiction that Jim Sutton is swanning around the world arguing for free-trade agreements with New Zealand at the same time as we are limiting free enterprise back here in our own country. To me that is a huge contradiction. 
I want to make this a relatively short call but there is one other part I want to address. We have spent something like $150 million in the last 12 months importing indigenous forest products. Is there not some hypocrisy in the argument that says one cannot export indigenous products from one’s own sustainably managed forests yetimport them from another country? 
This is the real issue. Those products are coming from countries like Malaysia and Indonesia—and we can bet our bottom dollar that those forests are not being managed on a sustainable basis. I bet members of the Green Party will want to stand up and take a call on this issue because it must be worrying them. Here in this country we are managing our forests on a sustainable basis yet we are importing from countries that are not managing theirs on a sustainable basis. We can drive people out of our high-country farms we can buy stations at hugely inflated values but we are told that we cannot use our own resources as we see fit even when we do so on a sustainable basis. 
The other issue I want to conclude with is this: if we are then impacting on the balance sheets asset values land values and cash flows of people who have legitimate private property rights why are we not stumping up with some form of compensation? This bothers me. The argument is—and I have heard it put by various members of the House—that when others lost their property rights or the value of their forests like farmers did in the 1990s they did not get any compensation. Well two wrongs do not make a right in my view. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Which Government did that? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It does not really matter which Government did it—it happened. The point is that we cannot do much about our history but we can do a lot about our future. I know that when Mr Shirley gets up to take a call he will argue that point just as strongly as I have because it is simply not right. We need to stump up with some compensation for these people because it is the only source of income they have. They are forest owners. 
The great irony is that back in 1906 we could not give this land away to those people quickly enough. We did not think the land had any great value but now that it does now that we want to protect our heritage and our indigenous forests we want our principles but we do not want to pay for them. I think that is clearly unreasonable and unfair. Having achieved the Holy Grail of sustainable management we should let people get on and manage their assets. 
One other component occurs to me as well. Rather than ask for a voluntary regime to stop people clear-felling their forests I believe that this bill should have taken the ultimate step and simply said that it will be compulsory for people to manage these forests sustainably. But the quid pro quo would have to be that once they have managed those forests sustainably and to our satisfaction as a country then they can use and market those products as they see fit. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to takea very brief call on the third reading of the Forests Amendment Bill. The Minister read out the reasons for this legislation very well at the beginning of the debate. One aspect I am very pleased about is the flexibility this bill gives the Minister in deciding what to do in respect of thedisposal of timber that has been illegally harvested. At the moment it has to be used as firewood and it seems to me that the bill will enable some more creative solutions to be found in that regard. I support the third reading. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 This is a very very sorry day and it is one that in 1906 this House when it passed the South Island Landless Natives Bill as an Act of Parliament a statute would never have envisaged. It would not have been envisaged that all these many many years later this House would so lightly disregard the work of the commission of inquiry in 1888 the work done in the 1890s and the work done in the Cabinet of the day in trying to bring to this House in 1906 what was then thought to be a fair opportunity for people who had missed out by Government inclination on their share of the tenth part of the land purchases in the South Island. That is the historical basis to the bill that is before us now and it is a very very sorry day that we have come to this point in time. Those people took the legal opportunity that was presented to them by the Government of the day—because we know that this land was in the minds of people then wasteland of little value—and over decade after decade their descendants hoped for the promised ability to exploit the natural resources that they had been given. Today in 2004 the land is transformed from the wasteland of 1906 into the precious resource that our indigenous forest is and those people are being denied their proper and rightful opportunity to develop their forests. I do not mean development in an exploitative way which no true forest owner would do but development in a planned managed way so that those people are able to develop fully the economic benefit and the opportunity that is theirs—the one that they have cherished for so long. 
The Minister over there on the Government benches can lightly and very quickly speed through a few speech notes and talk about an acceptable compromise. To whom is it acceptable? It is certainly not an acceptable compromise to the owners of the SILNA lands. I doubt whether the honourable member for Te Tai Tonga who should be here to speak on behalf of his people believes that this bill is an acceptable compromise in 2004. I very much doubt whether the other members who make up the Maori bench on the Government side of the House think so either. As I said last night I am very very sorry to see that they are not prepared to stand here on behalf of their constituents and put a case not only to us over here on the Opposition benches—and we would have listened with great interest—but also to their own Ministers their own Cabinet and their own Prime Minister. This bill is for some people a complete sell-out. I know that some owners of these lands have done a compromise deal with the Department of Conservation: three blocks in the last 2 years. But under this bill the vast majority of owners will still not be able to enjoy the economic benefit that they should be enjoying. The issue before the House is therefore this and Doug McPhail put it very well in his monograph which was prepared for the Minister: should the Crown wish to reach a fair and reasonable solution it is necessary to fully recognise the facts of history and recent actions in relation to the people their land and their forests. 
What are the facts of history? I have gone through some of them previously in the debate on this bill.  
Hansard 
 records them well as do the commission of inquiry notes. The 1906 Act was very promising despite the wasteland nature of the land and it enjoyed the support of the Minister and Prime Minister of the day. I will just interpose at this stage and say again that it is very very interesting to find that in two contrasting Crown Law reports disparaging comments were made about James Carroll the then Native Minister. There was a suggestion that he had been ambiguous in what he said in his speech in the second reading debate yet every member of this House knows that when a Minister leads a second reading debate on behalf of the Government he or she deliberately and very carefully puts the intentions of the Government of the time out there. I find it very very disturbing that almost a century later Crown Law officers by various methods have begun to place uncertainty and ambiguity in the mind of a Minister such as James Carroll—unless it was to fit in with the Government of the day. 
That brings me to the second major issue I want to bring to the House which is this. In 1993 the then National Government disabused all private forest owners of their rights without compensation. The fact is—as the previous speaker has said—that it was done without any compensation at all. Compensation was not given; it was exactly as he has said. But this Government willingly gave away $120 million of our money to people not to mill our forests because those forests were New Zealand taxpayer - owned forests. This Government was as large and as generous in its goodwill to the West Coast as that yet it cannot see that in this particular instance there is an opportunity to give equity to private landowners who by Government intention and legislation are being deprived of their right to the forest on their land—to mill it. That is the issue. The fact that the then National Government of 1993 did not see fit to do the same and made private forest owners into imprest public benefactors— 
Brian Connell 
: It’s history. 
JIM PETERS 
: It may be history but sometimes history is very interesting. They became imprest public benefactors. Again on reading the notes from 1996 to 1999 I found no intention other than that. All I saw there—as I said yesterday—was the Hon Nick Smith heading down to Rehua Marae and apologising to the people there for his haste his complete lack of communication and his complete lack of a wish to communicate with them at all and then saying the situation had to be fixed and it should be done then. Any thoughtful owner one who along with his or her forebears had waited for the promise to be realised said no to that. It is to the credit of a former New Zealand First member of the House Tu Wyllie that he came back and said exactly that in this House at the time. So from the mishmash of two major parties—one previously and one now—when dealing with this issue we come to 2004. Those are some of the reasons we should look at the history of this issue and those are the facts of the matter. 
In the Local Government and Environment Committee we endeavoured to see how we could do better than this bill did with regard to clause 25 “Compensation”. We sought and we were very thankful for sound advice from the Ministry of Forestry and the Department of Conversation with regard to some of the issues we had. We looked at how the relative values of SILNA forests under sustainable management compared with values under a clear-felling regime and at whether a proper comparison could be achieved of the economic value of the forest with and without an export trade in industrial wood. So we looked for those statistics with regard to beech and rimu. Basically it was rather difficult for people to really get out of the statistics what the losses were but it was quite certain that for the 11 years from 1993 until the present time there was a loss. How much the loss was could not be quantified in the short time that we had. There was also a loss arising from the economic controls on land use activities issued by the regional council and the district council in the early 1990s. 
To come back to the present time contrary to what the Minister said in his hasty statement I say this bill is not an answer. The answer today is not as the Greens said last week to go out to the hikoi—to front up sit down fold one’s arms and put one’s feet up—and have a good chat. This bill should have been preceded by intense and lengthy discussions given the knotty issues that are still involved with regard to clear-felling compared with the concept of long-term sustainable management. We should have seen attention being given to providing funding and help in terms of modern resources and technology for the people affected by the South Island Landless Maoris Act. Most of all in closing I want to go back to my comment on the original Act. That was a unique Act for a special group of New Zealanders and was the result of the earlier failure of the Crown to remedy the issues of the day. The time had come as Sir James Carroll said and generations have passed away with a promise unfulfilled. I am sorry to say it looks as though that will be the case in the future too. We oppose the bill. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I find myself substantially in agreement with Mr Jim Peters the member who just resumed his seat. This is an affront to anyone who understands and respects property rights. The Forests Amendment Bill and the actions of the Government in bringing this bill here today really remind us that consistency is certainly the last refuge of scoundrels. 
The reason the Government wants to bring the bill in and address SILNA issues is an attempt to make it as best it can compatible with the Forests Amendment Act of 1993 when the then National Government stripped the property rights off all indigenous forest owners in New Zealand. The point is that the Government says it is trying to be consistent but it is trying to be consistent with something that is totally wrong in principle. 
If we look at the issue of the forests we see that in 1906 the settlers were very happily doing a deal with local Maori. They graciously gave them a block of land that was regarded as wasteland. It was in remote mountainous areas covered in dense forest. The Waitutu and those areas have some of the densest forest in the country. In those days the forest was the enemy. We were in our pioneering era. One had to clear the forest to convert it to farmland and the market was awash with timber. We used to build our houses out of heart rimu studs up until about 1950 or 1960 when treated pine became available. There was no value market for wood products. The forest was a challenge and a burden that had to be cleared. 
So those Maori owners essentially got what at that time was a wasteland but the world has changed. With the clearance of Sumatra Borneo and the Amazon basin we now know that the world is no longer awash with high-value specialist timbers and they have now assumed a scarcity that gives them an extraordinary value. People now do not use those timbers profligately as we did in the past with low-value high-volume uses; we now concentrate on high-value low-volume uses. 
That is good. That is what the market is dictating but what does the Government say now? It says: “Oh no. We were happy to give you compensation for this wasteland that we knew was no use to you.” But all of a sudden it is of value and of use so the Government is saying: “Oh by the way we are taking away your property right and we are not going to let you harvest it.” So now the Government has done this scramble-round brought this bill to the House and said that because the previous Government took away the property rights of indigenous forest owners elsewhere in the country it has to do the same—as best it can—to these owners and give them some sort of partial compensation. 
That is a nonsense in principle. If we look at what happened in the substantive amendments of 1993 to the Forests Act we see that it is an outrage. Generations of New Zealanders have cleared their forests often with Government taxpayer subsidies. But what is happening to some of the more responsible people who did not want to clear their forests but sustained them carefully managed them and husbanded them? The Government is now saying that they can no longer clear their forests and by the way they cannot continue to harvest any products from them. That is an outrage when for generations we have dished out taxpayer subsidies to people to clear their forests—often just to burn them off. It is an outrage to property rights and it is wrong in principle. It was wrong in 1993 when the National Government did it and it is wrong today when this Government is perpetuating that policy which is so lacking in principle. 
Of course we had the outrageous situation of the West Coast Accord where on State lands a substantial area—recognised by experts as one of the best examples in the world of truly sustainable beech forest management—would be harvested to the point where it was proposed that one tree per hectare would be extracted on a 15-year rotation by helicopter. One would never see where the trees came from—the wind blows down vastly greater areas than that. But what did this Labour Government do? It closed that forest down. Because of its mantra and because of its chardonnay latte-swilling set that had never been to the West Coast the Government aided and abetted by the Greens said “No”. It closed the operation down completely and said that not even one tree per hectare could be taken out by helicopter on a 15-year rotation. 
In so doing the Government was prepared to renege totally on another property right. That was the property right the Labour Government entered into in 1987 with the negotiated West Coast Accord which was signed by the Hon Phil Goff the Minister for the Environment of the day. He pledged that there would be forest management on a sustainable basis in perpetuity but the Labour Government just tore that policy up. It was an outrage another affront to property rights and a continuation of the very sorry story associated with the indigenous forest policy of this country over recent decades. 
We then come to another aspect of this bill that is absolute nonsense. Mr Connell has touched on it. What the Government is saying in this bill is: “Oh and by the way not only are we taking away your property right severely restricting you—though in extreme cases you can still harvest your forests—but we’re going to put an export ban on the product. The Government is going to dictate to you how you can export your product.” That is like saying to strawberry growers that they can export their product only as strawberry jam or telling woolgrowers that they can export their wool only as woolly jumpers. 
It is a nonsense when Government becomes that prescriptive and members should think about the illogical nonsense associated with it. The objective is sustainable management of our indigenous forests. Once we have cut the trees down— recognising they have been harvested within a sustainable regime—it does not matter one jot what we do with the product. The market will determine that. Given the global market today people can be very innovative. In an earlier stage of the debate Mr Copeland mentioned someone he knew who had beech barbecue chips which are specialist chips for smoking. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Manuka. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Manuka—but beech chips are also great for smoking let me assure the member. That is a high-value product yet because of the mantra and the silly nonsense we get out of the Green Party that influences this Labour Government it says: “Oh no. Chips are bad. You can’t export any chips.” As long as the product is harvested on a sustainable basis it does not matter a jot what it is. The market will determine that. The pressures on high-value sustainable wood products will ensure that the market gets the best value for them. 
So this bill is a nonsense and the ACT party will strongly oppose it. It is an affront to property rights and a continuation of the appalling policy of indigenous forest management in this country. It is another loony left policy. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 For reasons that I have explained at both the second reading and the Committee stage United Future will support this bill. Notwithstanding I must confess to still having some qualms of conscience about the way the bill treats the owners of the South Island Maori forests and the straightjacket nature of the outcomes from their point of view. I hope the Government may not regard this bill as the end of the matter but rather a start point for a more detailed and sympathetic look that might both achieve the major policy goal of this bill with regard to the ban on the export of sustainably produced wood-chips and other sawn timber from indigenous species and at the same time give some more flexibility by having regard to the actual on-the-ground state of the beech trees contained in and on those lands. 
 During the Committee stage I drew the House’s attention to my own experience with West Coast beech. Only one in every five trees is suitable for timber because around 80 percent of the trees are way past their maturity date and have rotted right down through the middle—a reality that can only be ascertained when the trees have been felled and dissected in a sawmill. 
I will put that another way: once the millable timber has been removed from beech trees for the purpose of furniture manufacture or similar a huge amount of waste often remains. This opens up opportunities for wood pellet fuels. If the SILNA forest owners were able to find an economic use for that waste material be it within New Zealand or overseas why would we stop them doing that? 
In addition to the reject-quality timber—because of rot or similar—the waste material can also include branches and using modern technology extraction the stumps and even the roots of trees. Such whole-of-tree strategies are now increasingly common in places such as Scandinavia the USA and Germany. Literally nothing gets wasted—everything is put to some good commercial use. Who would possibly quibble with such outcomes when surely they represent simple commonsense? 
What I am saying is that we should not rob the SILNA forest owners of those kinds of export opportunities without good and sound reasons. Surely it is not beyond the wit of Government officials to ensure that the millable beech and rimu is taken up the value chain into furniture or similar before it is exported whilst at the same time allowing export opportunities utilising the waste material to proceed. 
As I mentioned at the Committee stage of the bill a determining factor in United Future’s support is also the letter received from the Waimumu Trust seeking the rapid passage of this bill so that it can advance its claim for compensation with the Waitangi Tribunal. That claim will now go ahead. It will start to be heard immediately that word of the passage of this bill reaches the Waimumu Trust people and its legal counsel. So like it or not the reality is that the Government has not heard the last of this matter. 
 I want now to raise a further matter which has also been touched on briefly by Brian Connell. Last year New Zealand spent $284 million importing into this country so-called special-purpose timber. But very few of those imports were from verifiable sustainable forest sources. At the same time we insisted that our own indigenous privately owned timber industry should mill and market only against high-level sustainability criteria. That is a complete mismatch that does nothing for world conservation utilises scarce overseas funds and has adverse economic impacts for our indigenous timber industry. With that in mind I have raised with the Government the possibility of banning such importation to New Zealand unless in line with our practice here it is sourced on a verifiable sustainable basis. That would do no more than create a level playing field in favour of our own forest owners. 
It is extremely important that the Government continues to look at the matter because fledgling industries in New Zealand using beech for say furniture manufacture need—if they are to become serious export players—to first develop strong domestic markets. However that will not happen if they are undercut by rival furniture manufacturers here in New Zealand who are able to pick up equivalent or superior timbers imported from overseas derived from the clear-felling of virgin indigenous forests in places such as Indonesia Malaysia or Africa. 
I am disappointed that the Government has indicated to me that it is not prepared to move on the matter at this stage. It believes that it would be difficult to impose a blanket ban on imports of such timber without inviting retaliatory measures from our trading partners. I beg to differ with that analysis. On the contrary I believe that New Zealand has a strong moral case to argue when it comes to non-plantation virgin forests or indigenous timbers. Fair international trade for everyone means meeting sustainability criteria equivalent to that established for our own forests. 
We have a proud tradition of displaying some leadership in those kinds of areas. I think for example of our nuclear weapons position which has earned us the respect of the international community. I see no good reason why we cannot do the same for the sake of the world’s forests and their preservation for future generations. After all it is not just New Zealand but the whole globe that is called to wise stewardship of those scarce and fast-disappearing forests. 
In short some tidying-up remains and I hope that the Hon Jim Sutton the Minister of Forestry will ensure that the work in the area I have mentioned continues on into the future until those matters are resolved. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Forests Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 94 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 21 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 5.22 p.m.