Volume 607 Week 19 - Wednesday 26 March 2003 
Volume 607 Week 19 - Wednesday 26 March 2003 
[Volume:607;Page:4405] 
Wednesday 26 March 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Premier of Niue 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Young Vivian Premier of Niue is within the precincts of the Chamber accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I am sure members would wish he be welcomed. 
The Hon Young Vivian accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Business of Select Committees 
Membership 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Rod Donald to be a member of the Commerce Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill but without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. 
Questions to Ministers 
Prime Minister—Confidence in Ministers 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in all her Ministers; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because they are all hard-working and conscientious Ministers. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why has she stepped into the energy portfolio set up a new committee headed by Dr Cullen and cut right across 3½ years of work by the Hon Pete Hodgson; how does this show that she has confidence in him? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have full confidence in the Minister of Energy. The member might have noticed however that there has not been a great deal of new generation attempted in this country in recent years. We are asking some fundamental issues about a market model with short-term not long-term horizons. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in a Minister of Immigration who seems to discover what is going on within her portfolio about a week after everybody else has found out each scandal—the media and members of Parliament; and given that recent embarrassment in respect of her ministerial performance why has the Prime Minister not sacked her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I also have full confidence in the Minister of Immigration. I am waiting for one of the member’s scandals to stick. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Why does she not believe that the Minister of Energy Pete Hodgson could satisfactorily chair the new committee that has been established; and in response to the substantive question is she implying that he is responsible for the lack of investment in generation over the term of this Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The answer to the latter question is: certainly not. The Minister has done his very best to make a flawed inherited model work. With regard to the committee it is an infrastructure committee; it is looking at not only energy but also transport and water issues. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister think the circumstances surrounding the Japanese school Columbus in Auckland are scandalous; and further the fact that 20000 overstayers have failed to leave this country is scandalous or is it the case with her ministries that anything goes? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If the current Minister of Education is to be damned by that so is that member who was the Deputy Prime Minister when the school was established. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why has the Prime Minister decided to intervene in the energy market now in a way that creates maximum uncertainty by saying that she will change the market but not saying how or when? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have not decided to intervene in the energy market now. What I am doing is looking at a flawed model inherited from the former Government. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Will the Prime Minister be surprised to learn that neither the—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no comment during question time. That is a rule and that applies to Mr Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have just decided to give me the flick for an interjection by referring to me by name. I take it that for the rest of the day and for the rest of the time this Parliament is convened if members of the Government do the same similarly they will be named. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes they will be. 
Rodney Hide 
: Why does the Hon Parekura Horomia enjoy the Prime Minister’s confidence given that his executive secretary Gail Parata attended a Te Puni Kokiri capacity-building training wananga at which Maori Sportscasting International taught attendees how to avoid the Inland Revenue Department by being paid under the counter through TAB accounts or does she think that teaching people to dodge tax is a legitimate use of a $10000 Te Puni Kokiri grant? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: You could have taken that seminar. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have said to members that they are not to interject during question time. I tell Mr Chris Carter that he has had his last warning. 
Rodney Hide 
: Do you want me to answer that interjection? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No if the member wants to stay in the House he had better not. Carry on. 
Rodney Hide 
: I had actually finished. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think in fairness to Mr Hide we will let him start again. This time I am not amused and will be seriously intervening on any interjecting member. Please ask the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: Why does the Hon Parekura Horomia enjoy the Prime Minister’s confidence given that his executive secretary Gail Parata attended a Te Puni Kokiri capacity-building training wananga at which Maori Sportscasting International taught attendees how to avoid the Inland Revenue Department by being paid under the counter through their TAB accounts or does she think that teaching people to dodge tax is a legitimate use of a $10000 Te Puni Kokiri grant? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I know nothing of Miss Parata’s activities. However the member has been exposed in this House for certain activities in that respect in Fiji. 
Ron Mark 
: How could the Prime Minister possibly have confidence in a Minister of Defence who having ordered an inquiry into certain matters that included the dysfunctionalism of the Defence Force back in August-September 2001 who despite having received various draft reports for his perusal over the ensuing year after that and who finally having received the final report on 30 September 2002 has only just today—26 March 2003—seen fit to release it for public review? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am entirely satisfied with the process the Minister has followed. As people know since the new defence hierarchy was put in place a lot of the problems have become historic and we have been able to proceed then to look at the Hunn report in a new light. 
E-Government—Public Response 
2.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (NZ Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: What reports has he received on the public response to the Government web portal? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 The e-government unit of the State Services Commission reports a steady flow of inquiries and feedback from the public indicating that our one-stop shop approach has been very successful. There has been a significant and consistent increase in traffic tracking—25 percent greater than the track for the previous Government site. In February this year for example more than 96000 visitors were recorded and despite this increased traffic I am told that people are getting results back in under 1 second. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: How are individual agencies responding to increased usage of the portal? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: A number of agencies are re-using the information that people find valuable to recreate low-cost specialist portals to meet the needs of particular groups—for example work-site focuses on labour market information. I expect to see a number of those kinds of sites developed building on the work already done with the State Services Commission and the agencies. 
Ngati Awa Deed of Settlement—Kaingaroa Forest 
3.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Why does the Initialled Deed of Settlement for presentation to Ngati Awa provide for owners of Kaingaroa Forest land to pay access fees to use roads on a willing but not anxious arms length basis? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 The deed of settlement provides a mechanism for access across land offered to Ngati Awa in the Kaingaroa Forest to be negotiated on commercial terms in order to achieve the overriding purpose of ensuring that access can be obtained over that land into the future. The mechanism uses language commonly used in contractual documents where the objective is to achieve a commercial market rate. Owners of the forest land will be able to use this mechanism if they need to obtain access for themselves or their occupiers such as forestry companies operating on their land. 
Stephen Franks 
: What is the Minister’s idea of property rights that means Crown forestry licence holders can be threatened with having to pay again to use their own roads that they have bought and paid for when she will not even ask Ngati Awa to give an assurance they will not demand money they have no right to; and will she guarantee that the police will protect the foresters’ peaceful use of their own property? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: There has been considerable negotiation on this matter. There is a difference of opinion as to the precise nature of the rights and that is why the matter will now be referred to the court for a declaratory judgment on that part of the document. 
Mita Ririnui 
: Will the Ngati Awa deed of settlement affect the rights of the licensee? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: In the Crown’s view no. This is because the deed explicitly states in clause 4.7G(4) that it does not affect the rights of the licensee. The deed clearly states that “this clause does not affect the rights of the licensee under the Crown forestry licences”. As I have already stated the deed provides a mechanism to enable access to be negotiated on commercial terms. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: How long has the Government known that access would be an issue and why has the Minister left it to the last minute to resolve thereby putting in jeopardy the Ngati Awa settlement after 6 years of negotiations and a year after she signed the initial heads of agreement with them? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The matter has been known since 1995 when the licences were set up under that member’s Government. So in that sense it has been known to all parties that they would be affected by it. Yes the matter has been subject to negotiation with the parties but the parties are entitled to exercise their rights and the licensee has. Certainly we have been in constant discussion and negotiation with Ngati Awa and we will be signing the deed tomorrow. 
Dail Jones 
: What action will the Minister be taking to ensure that these property rights are capable of being registered in the Land Transfer Office against the title in terms of the Land Transfer Act and land legislation? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: If that is a matter of relevance in this instance it is for the court to declare upon that and we will wait for the judgment of the court. 
Murray Smith 
: What is the expected timing for Ngati Awa to meet mandating requirements and for the enacting legislation to be introduced? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Ngati Awa met mandating requirements years ago. When the deed is signed tomorrow it will be subject to the ratification of a governance arrangement and then reduced to legislation which will be introduced into this House. 
Dail Jones 
: Why is the Minister who is in charge of this area failing to ensure that a proper document is completed to enable these rights to be registered under the Land Transfer Act—a responsibility surely of this Government not of the courts? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Government has fulfilled its rights on behalf of the Crown in presenting a document. However as the member will know from time to time there are differing opinions as to the interpretation of that document. The court is the legitimate place for that legitimate difference of interpretation to be decided upon. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the Minister telling this House that the Government will prepare documents but that it expects the court to legitimise its otherwise possibly illegitimate document? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No. The Crown considers the document to be perfectly legitimate as do all the other parties. However there is one clause upon which there is a difference of opinion. 
Mentally Ill—Police Custody 
4.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does the ongoing situation of keeping unwell patients with a psychiatric illness in police cells constitute a crisis in mental health services; if not why not? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: No. Keeping patients in police cells when they should be under the care of health services is an unacceptable situation in isolated parts of Auckland. It does not represent a crisis in mental health services. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Given that in November last year the Mental Health Commission’s review of Auckland mental health services documented unsatisfactory planning delivery monitoring and funding of mental health services why are we still seeing stressed-out psychiatric crisis workers saying: “What is going on right now is unsafe and wrong. There is going to be another disaster like Lachlan Jones who killed his flatmate then committed suicide.”; and what does the Minister intend to do to protect patients and the public? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: In December considerable resources were put into the Auckland area to address that issue. We too are concerned that things have not happened as quickly as they could have happened. Waitemata has been working very hard to put both short-term and long-term strategies in place to address those issues. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Although political attention is always focused on the very small number of people needing forensic mental health services what action is being taken to address the 17 percent of the population who have mental health needs but who are not considered to be seriously unwell? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: The Government has done a lot of work in that area. For example from 1 July this year primary health organisations will be funded to provide services to people with mental health needs. Workforce development initiatives have taken place such as Te Rau Matatini and Te Rau Pani which recruit retain and enhance the Maori mental health workforce to deliver relevant and appropriate services. The Knowing the People programme which focuses on developing local solutions is currently being trialled by five district health boards. 
Ron Mark 
: How many more New Zealand families have to be destroyed and how many more New Zealanders have to die or be bashed or maimed before this Government finally accepts that its ideological drive to restructure mental health services in this country back in the 1980s—which was initiated by Helen Clark and followed on by Jenny Shipley—has been a dismal failure; and when will we see what the people of New Zealand want which is a competent thorough mental health service and a reinstitution of institutions in a form that will take care of those problems? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were three questions there. The Minister may comment on two. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Any death in the community or in an institution is unacceptable. I remind that person that the majority of deaths that occur in New Zealand are not committed by people who are mentally unwell and we have put a further $264 million into the mental health system since 1997. 
Sue Bradford 
: Which if any of the major recommendations of the Auckland mental health review have actually been implemented on the ground given that the holding of mentally ill people in police cells was one of the main reasons for the review and that this practice is still happening? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: A number of initiatives have been put in place to address that issue. There are three extra intensive care beds at Te Atarau; six community rehabilitation beds have been purchased; a further six packages of care is being contracted by the funding team and will be available in mid-April; an extra four respite beds are available through rest care in Auckland and the staffing vacancies in the Community Assessment and Treatment Team have been filled by locum mental health staff. So as of today there is only one vacancy. 
Judy Turner 
: With mental health workers admitting they are not completing or following many aspects of the formal policies due to their workload does she consider the advancing of funding to the Auckland area adequate when the staff clearly indicate no relief and patients are still being held in prisons; if so why? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Considerable resources have been put into the area of mental health in the Auckland area. In fact the total mental health staff numbers are 1079 just in the Waitemata area and of that number 989 are full-time staff. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Will this Government accept that deinstitutionalisation has gone too far and we do not have enough acute beds hence patients in police cells or enough rehabilitation beds so patients are discharged too early or enough community care workers because they are all leaving due to stress; and what is the Government actually doing right now to solve this crisis for patients in police cells today? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I have already answered the question about what we are doing today. There is no evidence to show that the deinstitutionalisation of mental health patients is at a crisis point as suggested by the member. 
Maori—Consultation 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: What is his ministry’s policy on consultation with Maori? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 The ministry’s policy on consultation with Maori centres on the need to make informed decisions about the potential impact of decisions on Maori interests. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is there any evidence to suggest that that is anything other than verbal claptrap given that on the 25th of this month the Waitangi Tribunal urged the Government to consult properly with Maori over concerns relating to marine farming reforms and that it went on to say in its report that the Government had failed to consult Maori adequately and actively protect Maori interests guaranteed under article 2 of the treaty; if that is the fact what is he talking about in his primary answer? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Crown has been aware of the Waitangi Tribunal’s findings for some time and is responding to those findings by undertaking a series of consultation hui in the second half of April. The consultation will focus on the two key areas that the tribunal identified. 
Janet Mackey 
: Will the Government’s aquaculture time line be disrupted by this further need to consult Maori? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No. The consultation programme has been designed specifically to avoid that problem albeit narrowly. 
Phil Heatley 
: Since there are hui planned to address Maori concerns about marine farming would the Minister also take the time to tell the majority of marine farmers who are not Maori and to tell members of this House when we can expect the aquaculture reform legislation to be introduced and what specifically has held it up for so long to date? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The aquaculture legislation will be introduced after the consultation with Maori has concluded. That has been part of the cause of the delay. 
Metiria Turei 
: While I applaud this consultation with Maori on this particular issue what assurance can the Minister give that the results of the consultation will support the tribunal’s findings that Maori have treaty rights in the coastal marine area? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The tribunal focused on two key areas. Firstly it said that the substance of the reforms including the move to a more planned approach should have been fully consulted with Maori. This was not the case at least in part because one cannot consult on a moratorium that one is not announcing. Secondly the tribunal said that the Crown should ensure that whatever it does it preserves its capacity to provide for Maori interests in marine farming in both the short and longer term. Our consultation process will seek to answer the question of how best might we do that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: First of all why has his ministry failed to consult Maori evidenced by the Waitangi Tribunal finding but more important why are we persisting with a separatist apartheid-like policy that states that we will consult Maori but nobody else? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Consultation on aquaculture has been occurring right through the 1990s. Consultation on this particular reform began more than 3 years ago. The consultation has been very very extensive. However it failed to meet two aspects of what the Waitangi Tribunal thought it should have met and those two issues will be addressed next month. 
Border Control—Biosecurity 
6.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: What confidence does he have in the Government’s biosecurity systems when in the last 6 months there have been at least nine breaches notably the gum leaf skeletoniser and the plum pox potyvirus and in the last week the fall webworm in Mount Wellington and the crazy ants at the Port of Tauranga? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Acting Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 The people of New Zealand can have confidence in the biosecurity systems of the Government because we are finding these incursions before they establish. Our surveillance is working. For example we picked up the one suspect fruit that had symptoms not dissimilar to plum pox which was what triggered the full investigation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister telling the House that because we found these nine incursions and breaches of our biosecurity systems in the last 6 months that says the systems are working and can the Minister also explain why the Government has not followed out its explicit commitment in its 1999 policy in respect of container inspections? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Given that there is the potential of over 100 new pests a day for every day of the year I think that finding only six in the last fortnight shows that we really are very good at surveillance. 
David Cunliffe 
: What have the Labour-Alliance and Labour-Progressive Governments done about biosecurity? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: This Government introduced instant fines for biosecurity breaches which I notice a recent editorial in a newspaper said that the Government was unable to do. It bought soft-tissue X-ray machines for every international airport to find illicit food and plant imports. We hired extra quarantine staff and detector dogs. We lifted the surveillance level of aircrew and passengers from 80 percent in the previous Government to 100 percent. We have spent more than $50 million extra per year on biosecurity than the previous Government. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Does the Minister have any new and immediate proposals to ensure that the totally unacceptable but increasing incursion of unwanted organisms which directly threatens this nation’s agriculture and natural environment does not occur at that accelerated rate? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Other than asking Mr Jim Sutton not to leave the country because those incursions seem to happen when he is away there is extremely good work asked for by the Greens that has been done on research into containers coming into the country as a risk area. The discussion paper has gone out to the people so that it can be part of the biosecurity strategy policy. 
Larry Baldock 
: Will the Minister consider directing the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to examine all high-risk containers coming into the country rather than the 24 percent it currently inspects; although expensive is that not a better use of resources than incurring the far greater cost involved in eradication or in foreign pests becoming permanently established? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: If every container were inspected there would be not only an extra cost of maybe up to $90 million but also the cost of delays and food going rotten in those containers as they sit in the ports. Those sorts of issues are being examined and are out there in the discussion on the container risk paper. The member should read the policy. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Given that sea containers are a major pathway for pest incursions into New Zealand does she consider appropriate the proposal in the draft Import Health Standard that biosecurity inspection of containers be carried out by the very same people whose business is dependent on the rapid release and distribution of the goods contained therein; if so why? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Because that particular policy paper is out for discussion and the policy has not been approved by my colleagues I can have no comment to make. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that during her watch nothing was done for 2 years—with the exception of the painted apple moth—why should this Parliament have any confidence that the Government will now take action against those most recent incursions? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I shall correct those facts. A considerable amount of work was done on the painted apple moth in those 2 years— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Nothing! 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I know that it was done because we paid for it and we increased the money that was paid from the amount paid by the member’s Government which was responsible for the painted apple moth arriving in the country. I come back to the question to make a correction. The Labour Government was not responsible for the painted apple moth arriving in the country. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You did nothing for 2 years. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Labour Government did a considerable amount of work on the painted apple moth. We know the mistakes that were made we have rectified them and we have learnt a lot from that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table two documents. The first of those is Labour’s biosecurity policy which explicitly promises 100 percent inspection of containers and the second is the Auditor-General’s report which shows that no action was taken against the painted apple moth for 2 years after the moth was reported. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House and Auditor-General’s report not tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the 1999 Labour Party policy promising decontamination of every used vehicle at the port of export something that the Prime Minister has failed to do. 
Document not tabled. 
Prostitution Reform Bill—Police Powers 
7.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Has he been informed of any Police strategy to address the problem acknowledged by the Minister of Justice in his reply to an Oral Question on 27 February 2003 that “gangs are acting frequently in the sex industry at the moment with far too little controls on what they are doing”? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes the strategy is noted in the police strategic plan to 2006. I have been advised in general terms of police efforts to counter the activities of gangs and other organised crime groups. This information is also contained in the police document  
NBCI Strategic Assessment: The Vice Scene in New Zealand to June 2001 
. 
Marc Alexander 
: Is the Minister aware that only the Wellington region still has a vice unit dedicated to policing prostitution and is that any reflection of its need given the location of Parliament? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: While I cannot give specific answers about the Wellington scene I can say that in Auckland the police are still actively involved in policing prostitution. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: What initiatives are the police pursuing to counter organised crime as identified in the briefing to the incoming Minister? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: A variety of initiatives are being pursued including intelligence gathering improving international cooperation to target transnational criminal activity and targeting the production and supply of methamphetamines. These initiatives contribute to the police goal of targeting organised crime as a national priority. 
Richard Worth 
: What is the real reason that criminal gangs are not being dealt with and to by the police under the powers that Parliament gave to the police last June in section 98A of the Crimes Act; the police have the power why are they not using it? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police use all the powers they have to detect serious criminal activity and this Government has given them more powers so that they can do it even better. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In the light of the estimated 21882 gang affiliates in New Zealand can the Minister tell the House exactly how he intends to support the 5781 sworn police officers who are now reporting that they are totally overwhelmed by the magnitude of the gang problem? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The number of gang members today compared with a few years ago has not greatly changed. Of course the police have the powers and they are getting more powers in order to police gangs which are amongst the groups of people in organised crime. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister consider that the rounding up and arresting of 12 sex workers in Auckland on a recent weekend contributes to the efforts that some police have undertaken to try to create a better relationship with people working in the sex industry so that they can assist in dealing with major crime like gang-related crime and murder which particularly affect Auckland; how on earth does he think that rounding up and arresting sex workers on a scale not seen for a very long time helps with that goal? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The relationship that the police have with sex workers varies; it has its ups and downs. But the police do make sure that if there are complaints about breaches of the law they are acted on. 
Larry Baldock 
: What additional resources if any will the Minister make available to police to assist them in ensuring that any licensing and zoning provisions that may be incorporated into the Prostitution Law Reform Bill if it is passed can be effectively monitored and that the undesirable operators will be controlled? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: While I am not responsible for the bill that will be debated later on today if it is passed the Government will make sure that the police are adequately resourced. 
Larry Baldock 
: Has the Minister seen the Police Association’s submission on the Prostitution Reform Bill which states: “Many police officers believe that the bill would simply legitimise the activities of criminals involved in overseeing pimping in the regulated part of the industry.”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is anticipating a discussion on an order of the day but I will allow the Minister to comment. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Obviously out in the public there are many views on the bill and later on today members themselves will have their opportunity to make their views known. 
Larry Baldock 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is a letter from the Archdiocese of Wellington from Cardinal Williams clarifying his position and the Catholic Church’s position in opposition to the Prostitution Reform Bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Larry Baldock 
: The second is a letter from the Salvation Army from Shaw Clifton clarifying its position and opposition to the Prostitution Reform Bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Larry Baldock 
: The third is the New Zealand Police Association submission on the Prostitution Reform Bill which refers to the matters I raised earlier. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Overseas Students—Fees 
8.  
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What are the implications of the increase in foreign fee-paying students at primary and secondary schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The key implications are the pressures on school property to accommodate increased student numbers; on staffing which is relatively serious at the secondary school level; and on the requirement to ensure appropriate pastoral care for students. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: To what extent does the increase of over 300 percent from 4537 in 1999 to 15259 in 2002 in foreign fee-paying students in schools over the past 4 years account for the teacher shortages lack of resourcing and overcrowding in New Zealand schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It should not cause overcrowding in that separate buildings have to be provided if buildings are not otherwise available. I understand that last year 800-odd secondary teachers were required to teach these young people. That is putting pressure on staffing availability and is one of the reasons the Government is looking at the possibility of capping numbers. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why does this Government not trust parents’ elected boards to make the decision about whether they have foreign fee-paying students at their schools and if they do decide to have them how many they wish to have; and why does the Minister believe he has a monopoly on wisdom rather than allowing the 2600 boards of trustees to make this decision for their communities? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If the member read the paper especially in relation to Auckland in recent times I think he would understand why it is important that the Government take a more active interest in this area. But on this question schools have responsibility for their own staffing. I have a responsibility for the overall staffing of the system and that is what I am carrying out. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does he agree with the reaction of Fraser High School’s principal Martin Elliott to the Government’s proposal to limit overseas fee-paying students when he said he was “used to some stupid things coming out of Wellington but this tops it off”; if not is he just buckling to pressure from his helpful friends in the teacher unions? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think I would like to have the last part of that question and give it to my Labour electorate committee and a number of my friends in the teacher unions. 
Metiria Turei 
: Given that the prevalence of foreign fee-paying students is now a demonstrable commercial and competitive business within the public education system how can the Minister possibly assure New Zealanders that the public education system is protected from the General Agreement on Trade in Services when public services are exempt from that agreement only when they are not provided on a commercial basis? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Easily. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister please advise what progress has been made in the Columbus Academy investigation? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: At least 10 Government agencies are now involved in the investigation. I am advised that an understanding has been reached with the Columbus Academy legal representatives that all the children and young people resident at the academy will leave New Zealand in the near future. 
General Agreement on Trade in Services—Consultation 
9.  
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: Has he been informed of submissions from the Council of Trade Unions and Local Government New Zealand that the timeframe for consultation on New Zealand’s initial offer in the General Agreement on Trade in Services negotiations was too short; if so will the Government refrain from forwarding an initial offer on 31 March 2003 as requested by the Council of Trade Unions? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Acting Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 Consultations on the initial offer on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) extended over a month but New Zealand’s broad approach in this area has in fact been discussed with the Council of Trade Unions and other stakeholders for around 2 years. The Government will make its best endeavours to submit its initial offers by the date of 31 March 2003. 
Rod Donald 
: Has the Minister seen the statement from the Australian Labor Party calling the Howard Government’s secret GATS negotiations an insult to the public because amongst other things the Australian Government gave the public only 6 weeks to comment on its GATS discussion paper and will he be writing to his Australian comrades to tell them they should be grateful because the New Zealand Government gave the New Zealand public less than 4 weeks to have their say? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No and no. 
Tim Barnett 
: What are the benefits to New Zealand from the GATS process? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Services account for almost 75 percent of New Zealand’s gross domestic product (GDP) and make up about 25 percent of our total exports. This is likely to be our fastest growing area of exports but currently our exporters are inhibited by trade barriers such as regulatory discrimination and non-recognition of professional qualifications. Because the New Zealand market is already relatively open it is our exporters who have the most to gain from multilateral decisions to reduce restrictions impeding trade in services. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm for the education of the Greens that since the first GATS agreement was signed in the mid-1990s New Zealand’s billion-dollar deficit in trade in services has come into a surplus with further huge export potential as he has just mentioned from this sector that represents 75 percent of our economy and only 25 percent of our exports? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is exactly right. New Zealand has benefited hugely from the liberalisation in trade. Under the Uruguay round for example it is estimated that the benefit to New Zealand has been between $500 million and $600 million per annum that we are no longer paying in tariffs. Under this round it is estimated that when implemented that could increase our GDP by 1 to 1.5 percent. Why the Green Party would not want that I simply do not know. 
Rod Donald 
: Is the Minister aware that Pascal Lamy the European Trade Commissioner has briefed the European Parliament on the European Union’s initial offer and why will the Minister not give the New Zealand Parliament the same courtesy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member has every right to ask questions as he is doing right now. What is more this Government has been more open and transparent in this process than ever before and will continue to be so within the constraints of respecting negotiating positions of other partners where confidentiality is expected. 
Rod Donald 
: Given that in answer to written questions from the Greens we have discovered that not a single Minister has done a single specific assessment of the implications of existing GATS commitments except for the study showing that GATS is an obstacle to mandatory local broadcasting quotas why is the Government proceeding to make further GATS commitments that will constrain future Governments? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The latter point is wrong and so is the first point. In fact Ministers quite recently have spent a lot of time going through the implications of the GATS agreement to be sure that this will be of net benefit to New Zealand. I can assure the member that it will be. 
Rod Donald 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is from the Labour chairperson of the Christchurch City Council strategy and finance committee refuting the claims the Minister made in this House on 27 February. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document is there any objection? There is. 
Rod Donald 
: The second document is Local Government New Zealand’s submission on the GATS negotiations which includes a request for the deadline to be extended. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rod Donald 
: The third one is the Council of Trade Unions submission on GATS also seeking an extension to the deadline. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Water Supply—Quality 
10.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What initiatives has the Government taken to ensure the ongoing quality and supply of fresh water in New Zealand? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The Government has identified in its sustainable development programme of action that freshwater allocation and the maintenance of water quality are fundamental to our growth. Within that programme we are developing ways of ensuring that nationally significant water bodies such as Lake Taupo are protected and we are identifying a more strategic method of allocating water to improve on the current mechanisms. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Why has the Government identified water as one of the priority areas in the sustainable development programme of action? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Having enough clean water is vital for the health of New Zealanders and the growth of our economy. Right now different provinces in New Zealand are experiencing water shortages and the Ministry for the Environment is working with local government to ensure the ongoing quality and supply of fresh water. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Given the importance that access to water has for both our economy and our people why is this Government making it harder for water augmentation schemes like Project Aqua the expanded Rangitata irrigation scheme and the just announced Hawke’s Bay combined hydro and irrigation scheme by refusing to make any changes to the Resource Management Act which has those very sound proposals tied up in red tape for years? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I think it has already been announced by the Minster of Energy that there is ongoing work on the Resource Management Act particularly for large projects such as water management. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Given that the question referred to the supply of fresh water not the supply of potable water is the Minister suggesting that she can somehow make it rain more often or does she concede that it is actually rainfall that will govern the supply of fresh water? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The question was about the allocation of water and some local authorities such as the Taranaki Regional Council have shown a solution to managing a water shortage. The Ministry for the Environment will work with councils to ensure that the good lessons learnt by some councils are shared with others. 
Te Puni Kokiri—Capacity Assessment Grants 
11.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: What has been the total expenditure on capacity building and capacity assessment grants by Te Puni Kokiri since the commencement of the programme formerly known as Closing the Gaps and now referred to as reducing inequalities and what monitoring or evaluation has taken place to identify the benefits of these grants? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 The capacity-assessment and capacity-building programmes are collectively referred to as the capacity-building programme. Since July 2000 in the first year $9.2 million was expended. In the second year $8.6 million was expended and in the third year which is this current year $8.6 million was allocated. All projects funded by the capacity-building programme are monitored by Te Puni Kokiri in terms of its contractual requirements. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given that the evaluation framework for Te Puni Kokiri’s capacity-building programme provides for the organisation that has received the grant to evaluate its own performance—a process that the document calls “an empowerment evaluation” can the Minister explain how he expects any of those projects to be assessed with any objectivity? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I remind that person that there are two parts to that evaluation: those in the sense of over $2000 allocations and those of under $2000 allocations. It is important to say that as part and parcel of the evaluation it is important that the community is involved along with the ministry and other officials. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: What is the purpose of capacity building? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It has long been needed in this country. Capacity building is a programme that seeks to build the strategy structure systems and skills of whanau hapu iwi Maori organisations and Maori communities to control and undertake their own development and to achieve their own objectives. 
Rodney Hide 
: To assist in this innovative technique of self-monitoring and self-evaluation will he question his executive assistant who courtesy of a Te Puni Kokiri capacity-building grant had an all-expenses-paid trip to attend a training wananga in Auckland where at the morning training session on “admin finances contracts” Maori Sportscasting International explained how sportscasters are paid under the counter through their TAB accounts to avoid tax; if not why not? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I have answered that question several times before. I can assure that member that I have communicated my concerns to the chief executive at Te Puni Kokiri and that that staff member has been spoken to. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was whether the staff member was to be questioned about that not spoken to to assist in self-monitoring and self-evaluation. Being spoken to is not being asked about that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister recall the stern words of the Prime Minister about the importance of the evaluation process when the flagship closing the gaps programme was first announced and the dire warnings of the consequences to departmental chief executives who did not deliver the goods; if so how does he square those statements by the Prime Minister and Ministers with an evaluation process that is undertaken by the people who actually receive the money? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Quite easily. I inform that member that there has been a three-part strategy over that period of time. In the first year in relation to evaluation education cultural heritage the health sector housing social services employment and training and parts of Maori Affairs were evaluated and monitored in the sense of what they undertook. Six more evaluations were undertaken and the agenda is to do many more. I also say that there are different ways of doing an evaluation. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given the evidence in recent days of Te Puni Kokiri’s capacity-building grants being used to fund social functions attended in election year by representatives of some political parties is it not a fact that the so-called empowerment evaluations are nothing more than a smokescreen for a multimillion-dollar Labour Party slush fund? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Definitely not. I tell that member I am certain that in election year members on the Government side of the House could attest to having attended functions like most of those people over there on the Opposition benches. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is clear that the Minister is now trying to blame other members of this Parliament for attending a function for which the expenditure was clearly illegal. [ 
Interruption 
] It is illegal to hold a meeting and advise people on how to break the law. That is the first illegality and if the Attorney-General does not understand that she should. That is probably why she was a dean at the Waikato law school. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will come to the point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am trying to Mr Speaker without interruption. It is your job to instruct her not to interject. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ordered the member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: OK all I ask for is the same rules for everybody. The point is that the Minister sought to involve others in what was an illegal activity clearly because of the advice given by that ministry’s officials and paid for by the taxpayer and that is wrong. He should now be asked to withdraw and apologise or name us. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no member of this House was accused of illegality. I listened to it very very carefully indeed and I have had that confirmed by the advice I have received. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I seek leave of the House to table a document entitled “Evaluation Framework for Te Puni Kokiri’s Capacity Building Programme”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ethnic Diversity—Government Initiatives 
12.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Ethnic Affairs 
: What recent initiatives has the Government taken to recognise New Zealand’s growing ethnic diversity? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 Last week I formally launched the  
Ethnic Perspectives and Policy 
 document. That document will guide all Government departments on creating policy that is responsive to the needs of ethnic peoples. Government Ministers have directed their chief executives to implement that policy framework that takes into account the needs of New Zealand’s growing and diverse ethnic population which is almost 10 percent of New Zealanders. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What further initiatives has the Government taken to engage the ethnic communities of New Zealand? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am pleased to report that there have been quite a number of initiatives. They include Language Line the Government’s 30-language free-to-user telephone interpreting service that will be coming online soon. I am continuing with a series of very successful ethnic listening forums in New Zealand’s main centres. The Chinese poll tax reconciliation process is on track and I expect that to be resolved later this year. 
Pansy Wong 
: In the light of the Government’s hasty change to the English-language requirement that has seen members of the immigration consultants association experience a drop in business migrant applications from 2200 to 13 can he tell the House how the initiative of that English-language requirement contributes to growing New Zealand’s ethnic diversity? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I do not have responsibility for immigration issues. However English-language proficiency has a critical impact on a new Kiwi’s chances of gaining a job. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why on earth should the hard-working long-suffering New Zealand taxpayer have to pay for every other ethnic group coming to New Zealand when we cannot afford to pay for the people who have been here for decades and centuries and what happened to the policy of one country and one people albeit of different backgrounds? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The best response to that member’s question is my thought that at a time of international conflict this House has a moral responsibility to bring New Zealanders together rather than to divide them. I utterly reject the gutter politics of racial division. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will not have that nancy accuse me of gutter politics. You heard what he said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are ways to raise points of order and that is not one of them. First the member will withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before the member goes on on reflection I think that the Hon Chris Carter did make a comment at the end of that reply that I want him to withdraw and apologise for. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I assume Mr Speaker that you mean “gutter politics” and “racial division”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member should not compound the error. I want him to stand up and say “I withdraw and apologise.” 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Paul Adams 
: Has he received any reports that the Government’s initiatives to recognise New Zealand’s growing ethnic diversity are being undermined by attacks on new immigrants by politicians in their twilight years? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for part of that question. He may give a very brief comment. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: In my listening forums that have taken place—and three very successful ones have taken place so far with the Muslim community the Korean community and the Urdu-speaking Indian community—that issue has been raised at all three forums. 
Questions to Members 
Immigration—English Language 
1.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
: Has a committee meeting been set to consider the petition of Kenneth Wang and others requesting a review of the new English Language immigration tests? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee): 
 No. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: When will the committee hear that petition and is it his intention to invite receive and hear submissions from new migrants most of whom have been outraged by the exclusive policies of this Government? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the first part of the question is in order; the second is not. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I cannot give the member a precise date on which the committee will hear the petition. We have a lot of work ahead of us at the moment. But I can assure him that at some appropriate time we will hear that petition. 
Pansy Wong 
: In the light of the Hon Peter Dunne’s previous answer on 20 February regarding the Prime Minister’s statement of 2001 that a tough English-language test has an adverse impact on immigration can he confirm that the Prime Minister will have the opportunity to give evidence on her statement to support those petitions in front of the committee; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is a matter for the committee. It is not a matter for this House. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When I was reading my question the Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel interjected on me and attempted to correct my pronunciation of “Kenneth Wong”. It may look like “Wang” but one pronounces it “Wong”. I suggest she does language test training. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK that is one all. 
Points of OrderQuestion No 12 to Minister 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document  
Ethnic Perspectives and Policy: Helping Ethnic People Be Seen Heard Included and Accepted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order was raised last week in relation to the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). As I ruled then Standing Order 100 does not apply to prevent the No. 2 bill from being read a first time even if there is a similar bill on the Order Paper although I note that the earlier bill has now been withdrawn. I do not intend to go over this issue again. 
The other point that was raised related to the fact that the No. 2 bill is drafted in two parts while the first bill is drafted in 18 parts. It was asserted and I think that this is fair comment that this form of drafting has been employed so as to cut down the length of debate in the Committee stage. 
The Standing Orders do contain some provisions as to how a bill is to be drafted—see for example Standing Orders 251 and 252 requiring title and commencement clauses. But in the main there is little direction as to the form in which a bill must be presented to the House and the Speaker cannot control how it is drafted—see Speaker’s ruling 77/1. I therefore do not see how I can intervene in a Government decision to draft a bill in two parts rather than 18 parts. I think that this form of drafting however is a matter that the chairpersons should take into account in Committee in deciding when to accept a closure motion. I would expect that a considerably longer debate would be permitted on a part with numerous subparts than would otherwise be the case. This is something that I will discuss with the chairpersons when the bill is scheduled for its Committee stage. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to pick up on the implications of the ruling. I take it that that ruling now means that the drafting process is no longer independent of the executive—that is the Government can direct the form and process of drafting unimpeded by points of view from either the Clerk’s Office or the Speaker’s office. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it never has been and I want to tell the honourable member that in the 37 years I have been in this House I can recall no example when there has been any change to that. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Deed of Settlement—Ngati Awa 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Stephen Franks seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 a proposal to enter into a deed of settlement with Ngati Awa. An urgent debate is an opportunity to consider something that has occurred not something that is about to occur so the application must be declined on the ground that it does not relate to a particular case of recent occurrence. 
Defence Cooperation 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from the Hon Ken Shirley seeking to debate Government decisions to promote defence cooperation. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but it does not seem to me that the decisions result in a major change in defence policy. Rather they are aimed at delivering existing policies more effectively. In these circumstances I do not consider that this requires the immediate attention of the House. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I am not sure what advice you sought on this matter but this is perhaps the most significant decision on the structure of our defence forces. It is widely recognised that what was done in 1990 has not worked. We have had some 13 years of dysfunctionality and finally we have a policy announcement of a Government decision— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot debate my ruling. He can seek leave to have a debate. That is perfectly within his right. He cannot debate my ruling. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I seek leave to have a debate in accordance with the letter I submitted and that you have just read. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just seek clarification of your ruling on the earlier application. I understand you to have said that the application was turned down on the grounds that it related to a decision or a matter yet to occur when in fact I believe that my letter referred to the decision of the Government which has been made to proceed with a signing tomorrow. In other words the part that is yet to occur is simply executory. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will just refer the member to the first sentence in his own letter: “I request an urgent debate regarding a proposal for the Government to enter ...”. It is not a decision that has yet been taken. 
General Debates 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Today Cabinet’s policy committee was due to discuss New Zealand’s initial offer under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). On Monday next week Cabinet is due to finalise the initial offer that New Zealand is to make. The GATS is one of those arcane World Trade Organization treaties that make the eyes glaze over. Yet the decisions that Cabinet makes in the next week could constrain the ability of all future Governments to make policy and to provide public education and health services. 
We already know that the decision by the then National Government in 1994 to give GATS commitments on audio-visual services means that the current Government cannot introduce mandatory local content quotas. Does anyone here think it is right in a democracy that a Government cannot implement policies that it was elected on because some previous Government made promises to a bunch of trade bureaucrats in Geneva? 
But there is even more danger ahead in the GATS negotiations and that is the threat that GATS poses to our public services. The Government claims that public services are exempted from GATS but this is far from clear. Under GATS public services are exempted only if they are supplied neither on a commercial basis nor in competition with other service providers. As Paul Goulter from the Council of Trade Unions and many others have pointed out in a mixed economy like ours there are very few public services that neither have a commercial element nor are delivered in competition with others. 
Let us take public education as an example. We know that many public schools take private fee-paying students and thus have a commercial element. We also know that many parents have the option of choosing whether to send their children to a private or public school. Hence to say that public schools do not compete with private schools is a nonsense. Public education fails to escape the clutches of GATS on both those grounds. What this means is that public education is covered by the general provisions of GATS including the section on subsidies. Basically although this section is still under review it says that the Government should not give subsidies that distort trade in services and therefore the Government should not give subsidies to domestic service providers that it does not give to foreign providers. 
That leads us to the absurd situation whereby if a foreign education provider was to set up private schools in New Zealand it could apply to the Government to get exactly the same subsidies as the public school next door. It could also charge fees and have greater income than the public school and thus become a rather attractive alternative to the public system. Those new schools would stretch the Government’s education budget and the funding for the public system would decline even further making the public system even less attractive. We would end up with a two-tier education system with one tier for the rich and one for the poor—which is a system my colleagues in ACT evidently support. But get this: both systems would be subsidised by the taxpayer. 
Members might think that could not possibly happen that the Government would never allow it but it is not up to the Government. If the Government refused to provide exactly the same subsidies to an overseas education provider that it provides to the public system then the foreign provider could ask its Government to take a case against New Zealand at the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization would form a disputes panel consisting of three trade lawyers and bureaucrats to decide the issue. The panel would then decide in secret—the hearings are not open to the public—on whether New Zealand was breaching its GATS commitments in refusing to provide Government funding to the foreign private provider. If our Government failed to comply with the ruling of the disputes panel the World Trade Organization could then authorise sanctions on New Zealand exports. 
It is a disturbing scenario and one that might seem a bit far-fetched. Yet all the major institutions involved in education—the Post Primary Teachers Association the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Auckland University of Technology—are all saying that it is a real possibility. Moreover the European Union was so concerned about those issues that in the first round of GATS negotiations it put in a blanket exemption for all public services. If only the foolhardy New Zealand National Party Government had had the foresight to do the same! In this round of GATS negotiations the Government needs to amend our commitments so that public services are completely removed from GATS. Public health education and water supply are not the playthings of international business; they are the basic rights of citizens of a democracy and should not be flogged off in some desperate attempt to sell more mutton or beef overseas. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 One would think that with this nation’s proclivity for a bit of gambling a bit of a punt the TAB would be running a ticket on who will be the leader of the National Party in say 3 months from now. One would expect the TAB to come out and say: “We’ve worked out what the opening odds are and we invite people to place their bets.” It has not done so because it cannot work out what the opening odds are. One cannot get any one to place a bet on any person in the National Party unless the odds are really long because that person has no form. But if everybody has really long odds the TAB will not be able to run the thing at a profit. So they cannot have shortened odds. That is the underlying reason that Bill English is still the leader of the National Party. There is no one left to replace him; there is no obvious successor. 
Let us look at how bad he is and then ask why he is still there. This is the man who polled 7 percent in the last poll and he still has the job. He is now running third in the preferred Prime Minister stakes in this House behind not only the Prime Minister but also the leader of New Zealand First. Bill English came third in the poll and he still has the job. He has fallen from a rating of 21 percent as the preferred Prime Minister to a rating of 7 percent. He has lost two-thirds of his support since he got the job and he still has the job. How can that possibly be? He is outperformed in Parliament by the leader of the ACT party time and time again but he still has the job. He says he will join the war in Iraq even though he does not quite know whether that means sending troops and he still has the job. He has already given away the next election by saying that we will be a three-term Government but he still has the job. He has no policy position on anything but he still has the job. Instead of having a policy position he says we need a debate a dialogue or a national conversation or we need to review everything. 
Why is he still there? Is it because people think he can win in 2008? No; they do not think that. Is he there because people think he has some leadership or vision? No. What is the reason? I will quote none other than a National MP who said: “It would be the case that Mr English would be replaced in days if there was a logical alternative. I don’t think there is a logical alternative.” 
Who is in the wings? If there is no logical alternative what does an illogical alternative look like? We could try bright young futuristic and flexible-minded Don Brash. Here is what someone from the National Party caucus said about Don Brash: “There is only one alternative to the current leadership and that is Don Brash.” That same member of Parliament went on to say this about Mr English: “It is not far now from being irretrievable.” So it seems that something might be happening and that that something might be Mr Brash. Perhaps National will be re-elected with Don Brash at the head of the team by scrapping the dole by raising the age of eligibility for superannuation and by allowing a deregulating privatising and cost-cutting ideology to come back. Will it be a case of déjà vu and “back to the future” as we rerun the 1990s? I do not think so. Don Brash will not be elected any time in the next 5 years—and he will be 68 by then. 
Let us talk about Mr Brownlee. People like Mr Brownlee. They warm to him. They find him funny. They try to refloat him at high tide. So if Mr Brownlee were to become the leader of the National Party—assuming he does not float away at high tide—what might we get? The subtlety of—what? I say we will get the subtlety of a brick. Nuclear ships would be back in our ports and we would have a leader with a command of the English language that would make President Bush sound like a Shakespearean actor. We would also have an electricity market that proves its workability by not delivering enough generation. We would have a leader who went through the last election failing to write an energy policy for the National Party and failing even to get anyone else to write an energy policy for the National Party. I think it will be Richard Worth. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 It is quite clear that it would take the subtlety of several bricks to let that Minister know that there is an energy crisis in this country. It is hard to believe that the Minister of Energy has just stood up in Parliament and wasted 5 minutes talking a load of nonsense when industries in this country are shutting down by the day because he has his eye off the job. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to know whether it is appropriate to refer to a member in this House as a load of nonsense. I know it is not my job to look after the “Leader of the Opposition” but that is just not appropriate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is a vigorous debate as the general debate generally tends to be. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I assume that time has just come off my speaking time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No it has not come off the member’s time. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Accordingly I seek leave to start again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is free to seek leave. Is there any objection— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No Mr Speaker. I am sorry; I sought leave but the reality is that you are in charge of the House. You are supposed to keep order. You would know that that was a frivolous interjection on a member’s speech and I am asking you for the opportunity to start again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That does not come off the member’s time. Would the member please recommence his speech. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will recommence the speech by making the point that quite clearly the Government is very sensitive about the failure of the Minister of Energy to get on top of the problem that exists for New Zealand at the moment. That man came into the House today and talked a load of nonsense while industries in this country are shutting down because they do not have the power supply to stay open. We see Pacific Steel giving away a $5 million export contract because it does not have the power to deliver the goods. We see Panpac shutting down a $1 million contract because it does not have the power to deliver the goods. We see Fletcher Construction shutting down because it does not have the power to deliver some $3 million worth of export orders from its factory. How many others throughout the country are paring back their production because they do not have a safe and secure power supply? All we get from the Minister is the excuse: “The reforms in the late 1990s are all to blame.”—4 years later! Yet this Government has not made one change to those reforms. 
The member who attempted to interject a few moments ago will be facing this winter in his Dunedin South electorate or his Dunedin North electorate or wherever he comes from. He will be seeing the faithful members of the Labour electorate committee trundling along to meetings wrapped in blankets because they will not be able to turn a heater on; with a candle stuck to their heads because they will not be able to turn a light on; and all he will be able to say is: “It’s not our fault.” All I can say to Mr Benson-Pope—that obscure member from the south—is that in 3 years his Government has done nothing to change the reforms because they are fundamentally sound. 
Right now the market is sending a message to the Government to every generator in the country that there should be more generation. That message was sent in 2001 and Mr Hodgson chose to ignore it. He did not want to know what the market was telling him. He did not want to listen to the message that was coming through loud and clear. Did he go to any of the State generators and say: “I’d like to make a note in your statement of corporate intent suggesting that you are able to build new generation and return a lower level of profit to the Government.”? Not a chance! He and Michael Cullen as shareholding Ministers stuck their hands out for the big dividends that come because the spot-market price goes so high and New Zealand businesses and New Zealanders in their homes get screwed over the electricity price. 
The electricity industry in this country is 80 percent controlled by the Government—in other words 80 percent is under the control of Helen Clark and her Ministers. They sit over there and try to say it is somebody else’s problem. It is Mr Hodgson’s problem it is Helen Clark’s problem and it is time they woke up and started to do something about it. Mr Hodgson is not prepared to spend 5 minutes in the House talking about what he might do. Why? Because he does not have a clue. 
Not only is the electricity market in trouble so is the gas market. That is not because there is a lack of supply but because the infrastructure for gas has not been expanded as well as it should have been. Why? Because the Government has not dealt with the Resource Management Act. It has not looked into the Conservation Act. It has not set any targets for the delivery of energy in this country. We are a Western nation with reasonable growth but we are looking at the prospect of going backwards because we have no active energy policy in this country. I repeat—80 percent of the electricity industry is owned by the Government and we have industry shutting down. That is what would have happened in Russia during the worst excesses of the socialist Government of that time. Do Labour members care? They do not care one jot. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Ha ha! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I tell Mr Tamihere that he will have cold old people in his electorate this winter. Is he going to say: “Well 4 years ago there were some changes. We didn’t know what to do about them so it is not our fault.” 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On the basis that I think we have just heard a flash of leadership potential I seek leave for the member’s speech to be extended. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot seek that under  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 or the Standing Orders. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the generosity of the Government today I seek leave for my time to be extended by a further 5 minutes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to ask for that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. [ 
Interruption 
] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 A leader?—well so what! When the old people in my electorate face power shortages this winter they will be saying: “Thanks Max”. 
Max Bradford was told by the Hon Pete Hodgson at the time the energy reform was done that if one was to make a market in energy one should not do it with three generators but 10. But that Government could not make up its mind what it wanted. Mr Brownlee’s concern is that the market is actually working. As far as Tiwai Point is concerned I have spoken to Mr Campbell about it. I know precisely what his personal views are about the energy reforms and he would not agree with that member over there. He will react to the message that was sent. Tiwai Point will not buying in the spot price for the next 3 months because the message that has been sent as a result of those reforms is that we need energy conservation. 
I want to return to the issue of who the leader of the National Party will be. In Southland we say: “Where’s Bill?”. I have taken a photo today. It shows the National Party office in Invercargill. I notice that it is right next to L J Hooker’s real estate office and right next to L J Hooker is a closed-down Bank of New Zealand which used to be a television station that has also closed down. But even more significant is that this photo was taken at high noon—“Do not forget me oh my darling” and all that stuff and one can just see the cowboys riding into town—and nobody was there. There is only one car there and that is a taxi. I have some bad news for the National Party. I took another photo of that scene before high noon and there were no cars there at all. That was at 10 o’clock and I can understand why that was. Look what National Party members call themselves—“Nats”. If anybody was any good at graffiti it could be “Nits” or “Nuts”. This is the office of the Leader of the Opposition in the major city in Southland. 
I have some more bad news for National Party members. If we take a map and put some spatial information on the bottom half of the South Island what do we see? We see Clutha-Southland as the National pimple and the rest is Labour. We have the “Scarlet Pimpernel” in the Leader of Opposition’s office. Mahara Okeroa does more work in Clutha-Southland than Bill English. How do I know that? When Mr English went to his own electorate on New Year’s Day at Tuatapere four Ministers turned up—Lianne Dalziel Annette King Rick Barker and Paul Swain. They turn up and the compère says: “Where’s the Leader of the Opposition?”. “Oh here I am” says Bill. He had finally come to see his constituents. He then had the temerity to say that he had never been to “the chops” before. Hang on! This is the leader of the National Party—the rurally based party in New Zealand. He said he had never been to “the chops” not even in his electorate. That is quite something! It is no wonder that nobody is at his office. 
Bill English then complained about the Southland District Health Board. He said it did not have enough beds. The chairman of the board rang him up and said: “Come and see me Bill” and guess what? He has not seen him. Bill English will not go and see him. Worse than that not only will he not go to see the chairman but that chairman now reacts to Bill English’s press statements about him by saying: “Wait for the second one because the second one will say what he really means. The first one he doesn’t mean—he gets it wrong—so he will come back and fix it in the second one.” Here is the granddaddy of them all: Bill English announces publicly that he is having a birthday then invites only half the people in his town to come along. 
I seek leave to table this photo of Bill English’s office showing that nobody is there. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. Before I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters I advise members on both sides of the House that they need to exercise particular restraint in raising points of order during a general debate as speeches are limited to 5 minutes. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure what you mean by that. If a member feels that there is a point to be made he or she has an absolute right to take a point of order and you as the Assistant Speaker have an obligation to rule as to whether it is right. As someone who considers that his speech today was unnecessarily disrupted by an unruly Minister I am particularly aggrieved that you choose to give that information out as we are about to hear from another four Labour speakers. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for raising that issue. I will consider what he said and take it into account. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Four Ministers turning up on Harley Davidsons amongst the poor people of Southland does not disguise the fact that we will have an energy crisis and that Government in its fourth year is responsible. 
However today I want to expose the total duplicity of this Government over the leaking-homes crisis and express outrage on behalf of thousands of New Zealanders and homeowners who have been grievously let down. They have been failed by this Government’s timidity and weakness in coming to the aid of those in need of aid because of their leaky homes. It is outrage that the Government insisted that leaky homes were not rotten leaky homes but were issues of “weathertightness” and a media beat-up—the very words used by the Prime Minister. Political-speak has reached a new low. 
Not content with fiddling while the homes of New Zealanders rot beneath the floors and in the walls we have witnessed the spectacle of a team of Government Ministers in utter and total disarray. They have been engaged in some form of morbid pass-the-buck because the Prime Minister cannot find a Minister with the metal to say: “The buck stops here with this Government.” The Government has a poor imitation in Lianne Dalziel. She started the rotten social policy on immigration and now she is to be the “Minister of Rotting Homes”. She is content to tell people who have lost their life-savings in a rotten home: “Tough luck. You are on your own.” 
Meanwhile the same Minister is sanctioning the installation of the failed chief executive of the Building Industry Authority as its now highly-paid senior adviser. Why is that? What is his pay rate? What is his purpose? What hold does Bill Porteous have over this Government? Clearly he has been paid to take the rap for George Hawkins who was warned repeatedly of the problems and who mumbled stumbled and fumbled along saying that he was not told officially about the problem. Jill Pettis is trying to interject. Once again we have the fishwife in town; it must be market day! George Hawkins was warned in writing but he said he was not told officially. 
This leaky-building crisis is one of the worse cases of Government neglect and failure that I have seen in more than 20 years in Parliament. This Government started the rot in the 1980s with Clark Cullen Prebble Shirley Goff and the gang of free-marketeers stripping from New Zealand home-building laws all home protections in the name of reform and championing free enterprise. The responsibility lies fair and square with the New Zealand Labour Party. Everybody remembers that. Those same people threw out the codes then they let the cowboys in and the rest is history. When they are now asked to act like Pontius Pilate they change the language put out their damn spin and call it “weathertightness”. Everybody knows that we are talking about rotting homes and people have lost all their wealth. 
The Government had a chance to clean up the building industry when it announced the terms of reference for the select committee investigation into this issue. But did it seize the chance like any responsible Government in any Western democracy would do? No not this Government. It watered down the inquiry then produced a hopeless report. Last night on the radio Lianne Dalziel couldn’t answer even one question about what would happen when it would happen and how it would happen when it comes to rotting homes. The Prime Minister can laugh in the House as she did at question time. She is all arrogance. She laughs while hopeless incompetent Ministers maintain their jobs. They cannot answer questions in the House they cannot answer questions outside the House and they cannot debate: they just cannot do their jobs. Lianne Dalziel in charge of rotting homes? That is a classic is it not? She cannot handle immigration. She is hopeless. Every day that there is a new discovery she says she did not know about it. She was on  
Assignment 
. When she was asked if there was any evidence of any forgery and fraud she said no. The television camera showed all the evidence right in front of her and she said she would have a review. We had a catastrophe—the murder of a Japanese student in Auckland. All those students were over here illegally. It is true they came in 1997 as tourists but who allowed them to switch their status? Lianne Dalziel and Helen Clark did. They should stop this obfuscation and sheer duplicity and own up to the fact that they themselves are responsible. 
Lianne Dalziel was on the radio last night as the new Minister responsible for that issue—because George Hawkins was hopeless—and she could not answer one of the questions she was asked. Where among Western democracies would that sort of situation be tolerated? 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 As many members will know and as members of the New Zealand community already know: “‘National’s problems started much earlier than losing last year’s election.’ Clutha Southland MP Bill English told the National Party Balclutha branch annual meeting on Thursday night.” Bill English said: “There was a smell that came across the party early in the 90s ... too focused on the dollars not worried enough about the people who were missing out.” He went on: “The party had never been ahead of the non-National vote since 1996 and as the 1999 election loomed its party members seemed unable to change tack. ... The centre left now had 60 percent of the majority and Labour was expecting to run five or six terms”— 
Simon Power 
: This is embarrassing. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I say to Mr Power and Mr Brownlee that Mr English did not say “two or three”; he said “five or six terms in power”. The article continues: “His address to the party faithful on Thursday centred on winning back the punters and stopping the party decline.” I quote Mr English: “The groups which vote for us are the ones who are shrinking fastest. We lose 1.5 seats each election just on demographics alone. The new voters will be young and brown. If we’re not getting their vote we’re not going to get into Parliament.” Mr English said the young preferred to vote for smaller parties. He is certainly providing a National Party like that! He added that it was the same with the old and that only one in four older people had voted National. I again quote Bill English: “It’s a legacy of the mistrust older people now have for National ... If you decide you’ve been let down it’s harder to change your mind. ... There’s a perception that rich people vote National and it’s true. I hate that. It would do us good to drive some of those people away.” The article goes on: “Only 10 percent of New Zealanders earn more than $60000 while 1 million earn more than $30000.” The source of those comments was a report in the  
Southland Times 
 not last Thursday but 3 years ago. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am aware that the member on his feet is a new member. I wonder whether it would be worthwhile for the Chair to point out that the general debate is an occasion on which a member might express his or her own views rather than simply quote others’ views. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. While I am speaking I point out that I have already counselled members to exercise restraint because of the 5-minute speeches. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I thank Mr Brownlee for such an apt demonstration of his vacuousness. The source of the document was the  
Southland Times 
 3 years ago. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you going to allow that member to make those insults unchecked? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot comment on points of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When he resumed his feet he made some statements that were quite unparliamentary and if you allow that to pass without a withdrawal and an apology then clearly the rules have changed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that he should not have commented on the point of order and I ask him to withdraw. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I withdraw. Those quotations from Mr English the short-term leader of the National Party were from a source published 3 years ago. 
I cannot and the community cannot imagine a more powerful demonstration of the catastrophic failure of the National Party and of that leader that 3 years ago he warned his “former” rural heartland electorate of Balclutha—and those failed members over there—where the party was failing. Three years on what has the National Party done? Nothing! It has no policy and no leadership. Even Winston Peters is heading the leader of the National Party in the polls at the moment. 
Compared with that failure that vacuousness what has the Government offered over that period to the people of this country? It has offered a record of achievement. In the last 3-plus years we have had the strong leadership and the stable Government this country has been asking for. We have the firmest of platforms on which to build for the future. In the last 6 months alone we have made major improvements to primary health-care. Already the primary health organisations have signed up 500000 New Zealanders and a further 25 primary health organisations will be operating by the start of next month. That will mean 1.4 million New Zealanders enrolled in better health-care. 
We have a growing economy and an increase in economic activity. There are more people in real jobs and 15500 fewer people on the unemployment benefit than there were a year ago. There are almost 120000 more jobs than there were in December 1999. We have had a fairer deal introduced for victims. We know how welcomed the Victims’ Rights Act has been by members of the community. We have cut the costs of tertiary education to consumers and in the compulsory education sector the Government is funding more than 700 extra teaching positions this year alone. As further testimony to that commitment to our future we have expanded opportunities for young people with another 6000 Modern Apprenticeships. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 We know how effective the leader of the Opposition is being when every single Labour member chooses to attack him personally in the general debate. This afternoon I want to address the real issue facing the people of New Zealand which is the energy crisis and the complete failure of the Government to take the issue seriously and to do anything about it. Regardless of whether we have a market or State model the real issue is how we get more generation. As my colleague Mr Gerry Brownlee has pointed out if it is with regard to thermal energy the Government says “No” because of the Kyoto Protocol. When it comes to hydro energy the Government says: “No we have to protect the gorse.” 
It does not matter what it is the Government does not want to have new generation and that will have huge impacts on New Zealand’s growth and wealth. The single greatest barrier to meeting this country’s electricity challenge is the Resource Management Act. I was holding out in the hope that we might see some sensible reform but instead we saw one of the biggest con jobs that I have seen in a long time which will do huge damage. 
I want to challenge the United Future party today. The United Future party in its manifesto said it would be pushing for changes to the Resource Management Act. United Future members told us last week in the House that they had had a big score—a big hit because they had got two big changes to the Resource Management Act. Well it was a fraud. Let me tell members why. The Local Government and Environment Committee was briefed on the bill and I will read out to members what that written briefing stated: “The two key changes in the bill with respect to limited notification and appeals ... the Cabinet directed the drafting instructions in October 2001.” If those were the big hits that the United Future party achieved with regard to the Resource Management Act well we must have retrospective hindsight because the United Future party is claiming credit for them. Even Marian Hobbs stood in the House and told us that those were the big concessions to the United Future party. How come the instructions were given for drafting 9 months before the United Future party even entered into a relationship with the Government? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is that true? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is true. This matter is serious. If we are to address the economic loss of a billion dollars a year caused by the traffic congestion in Auckland we have to fix the Resource Management Act. If we are to have new generation stations for electricity we have to fix the Resource Management Act. If we are to be able to irrigate the lands that are currently suffering from drought we have to fix the Resource Management Act. I say to United Future members that they have sold out on the New Zealand economy. They have sold out on the farmers on the workers at Tiwai Point and on the workers at the steel mill in south Auckland because the changes they have made to the Resource Management Act take us backwards. 
I refer to Owen McShane. He put out a paper yesterday on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) in which he said that this bill was the single greatest challenge to and undermining of private property rights in the history of New Zealand. The United Future party proudly says in its manifesto on its website that it is here to stand up for private property rights. Last week its members voted for a bill that an expert on resource management says is the biggest undermining of private property rights in the history of New Zealand. I say to United Future members that it is not good enough. They should find their backbone because they will have support from ACT from New Zealand First and from National to get some decent changes to the Resource Management Act. Otherwise the consequences for this country are so serious. They are so serious in terms of energy in terms of roading and in terms of every possible respect of the New Zealand economy. I say to United Future members that they should live up to what they said to the electors or face political oblivion. It is as simple as that. They cannot say one thing to the electors at election time and another thing last week in the Parliament then find in the official documents that it is all an exercise in political sophistry. 
I challenge the next Labour member to say how come what the Minister says is different from what the officials tell the select committee. Stop telling porkies. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member well knows that he cannot use that last word. He will stand withdraw and apologise. That particular phrase was ruled out of order by the Speaker last week. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. I seek the leave of the House to table the official advice given to the Local Government and Environment Committee noting that all the changes to the Resource Management Act were agreed by Cabinet in October 2001. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
Nga mihi nui ki a koe i a koe e ako nei i te reo Maori. 
[ 
Much appreciation to you engaged in the process of learning the Maori language. 
] 
I do not know which party is facing political oblivion. I am not sure about that. I thought it was a major exaggeration when that accusation was made of the United Future party. That is a wholly questionable statement to make especially after the results of the last election. I think that member should be more accurate in his predictions. 
I am very pleased to be a member of the Labour Party because of its outstanding political leadership its commitment its courage its conviction and its strategic vision. What does it mean for Maori? I have been sitting here since 3 o’clock and I have not heard any of the previous speakers say anything about their Maori policy. All those members can do is acknowledge that there is a browning of the New Zealand population. [ 
Interruption 
] There is absolutely no reference to that member’s name. To me it sounds like a new brand of gravy. Get it right! 
Today I asked a very tightly framed question of the Minister of Maori Affairs. It was so tightly framed that it brought derisive laughter from the rest of the House. The reason that question was asked was to inform members of the National Party that there is an absolute purpose for capacity building. It allowed the Minister of Maori Affairs to explain the exact purpose to all members in this House. The purpose has nothing to do with that member Mr Hide holding up a photograph. Unfortunately we do not have a photograph of his latest booze-up but we know it was at Waiheke. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have to be fair about this. The Speaker has repeatedly asked members of the Opposition not to refer to the capacity-building function organised by the friends of Parekura Horomia and others as a taxpayer-funded booze-up. It would only be fair— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Speaker— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He has asked us not to do it and I am just pointing out that the Speaker himself referred to that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. The member will be seated. This is a perfectly debatable situation and I again urge members to restrain from raising points of order because all it attempts to do is break up members’ speeches. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why has the Speaker now ruled that members of the Opposition may not refer to this function as a booze-up but members of the Government can? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Because the Speaker ruled that during question time today. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At question time today I was asked to rephrase a question in which I used the precise expression that this member has just referred to and that Mr Brownlee correctly in my view has raised with you. With respect your explanation to the House leaves me completely bewildered. I put it to you that if it is good enough for members on this side to have to desist from using that expression then the same yardstick must be applied to members opposite. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. It is difficult to hear at times and I did not hear it that time but I will certainly be watchful in future. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: I was referring to capacity building and the questions that were asked by the honourable member. They referred to how much we had expended since the year 2000. We have spent over $23 million. But that demonstrates a courage and a vision largely absent from the National Party benches. Not only that but we have very positive policy statements. We have a strategic vision that has been translated into key policy statements which have led to key actions in capacity building health treaty settlements education and even Maori television—in spite of the kinds of criticisms that Maori television has been subjected to. 
What does Maori television do for the cultural milieu of Aotearoa? It helps to promote the language and the cultural understanding. It is a very very key mechanism for our cultural understanding in this country. Even the Assistant Speaker is engaged in learning te reo. Why would he do that? The reason is that he wants to be culturally involved in a very dynamic part of our society. I absolutely applaud that member and other members for that. What do we have on those National benches? We have a policy merry-go-round—no policy no vision no strategic direction—te korekore. All those members can do is sit there and interrupt absolutely eloquent presentations and speeches made by people like me on this side of the Chamber. If that is all they can do I suggest that they need to turn their minds to something more dynamic like members of the Labour Party do. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I want to spend my short 5 minutes on State-sponsored kickbacks State-sponsored graft and State-sponsored tax dodging. I also want to talk about hard-working taxpayers having to pay for a Labour Party booze-up. That is what I will be talking about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. We will not have that word used. I want more felicitous expression in this House. I have had quite a lot of comment from outside about that particular term. I do not like it used in this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not having any points of order from Mr Brownlee or anyone else. This is a general debate. There should not be points of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is risking leaving the House if he makes a frivolous point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I perhaps need to take that risk Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please take it now. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We have just had the Assistant Speaker rule that it was acceptable for a Labour Party speaker to use the term “booze-up” in connection with this particular incident. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I listened to him carefully when I was outside the Chamber and he did not say that. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: In which case I will refer to it as a taxpayer-sponsored Labour Party drinking session. We have heard questions in the House today asking what capacity building is. I have the pictures here showing capacity building in action—all paid for by a Te Puni Kokiri capacity-building grant. And they are standing around drinking Lion Red and Steinlager. They cannot pretend they did not know because I have here a picture of them on the same night standing around drinking. John Tamihere a Minister is in the background. He is enjoying the night as well—a night paid for by hard-working taxpayers. 
Not only that but this occurred on day 6 of the election campaign. Dover Samuels is shown at the party. It was held on 6 July during the election campaign. It was paid for by a capacity-building grant. The band in the background was paid for by a capacity-building grant as were the drinks. In the photograph Dover Samuels wearing his Labour Party rosette is campaigning for votes on the back of a Te Puni Kokiri capacity grant. 
Labour members cannot say they did not know about it because not only were two Ministers present but Minister Parekura Horomia’s executive assistant Ms Gail Parata was also there for the whole weekend. Do members remember Dover Samuels’ campaign manager Mr Shane Te Pou? He was at that Labour Party drinking session as was Dover Samuels’ executive assistant Daniel Phillips. 
We have heard in the last couple of weeks that over a period of 3 years Maori Sportscasting International has received $914964 before GST. It has received $1 million over 3 years. That money was overseen by a man who had been sentenced to 5 months for fraud. He has gone. The Prime Minister’s department was approached by TV3 about this man. He had resigned. No poroporoaki for him! There was no Maori farewell for him. Oh no—he was gone! He had gone to save the skin of this Minister and this Government. 
On the Saturday morning of the training wananga—paid for by a capacity-building grant—an administration finance contracts session was held. 
Simon Power 
: How did it go? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It went very well because the sportscasters paid for by the $900000 were taught how to be paid without the authorities knowing—without having to pay tax—because it was done through their TAB accounts; out of petty cash. I ask Government members whether they agree with this. Are they undertaking an investigation? Oh no—Helen Clark says: “We act only if a scandal gets some legs; if it sticks.” Why not just sort out the scandals now because this Government is winking at them. 
I want to read out a memo but first I will show members a photograph of Mr Waaka at the party with John Tamihere. I also have a good picture of him with a smiling Mr Dover Samuels which I will table. I will read out the email which was sent by his business partner Mr Sam Rahui to one of the people who worked for Maori Sportscasting. He was asking why he has not been paid. The email dated 2 October 2002 sent at 5 minutes to 3 reads: “No. Still making amendments to the amendments to the amendments. I will hopefully have that money (wages for you) this month. We are still running on empty because Mr Waaka still has his hands in the till.” That is what this Government is funding with its capacity-building grants. Does it do anything? Not at all—because there is a war on! As Helen Clark says: “We act only if it sticks.” 
I would like to share with the House a capacity-building grant and I seek leave to table the pictures that I have shown. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the pictures. Is there any objection? There is. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 In many respects the general debate today has been full of humour and its usual hot air and I am glad to see that the standards have not dropped. I would like to think that the contribution of hot air being made here will contribute to the international hot-air balloon fiesta that is happening in the Wairarapa this week and I invite all members of the House to participate in that fantastic event. 
The Wairarapa is another example of a region that is on the rise—if members will excuse the pun—and that was illustrated very vividly with the celebration of Kiwibank’s first birthday in Featherston last Saturday. It is an amazing story. We were graced with the company of the Hon Jim Anderton and of course the Rt Hon Jim Bolger. When a questioner from the audience asked: “Jim do you think they need you back in Wellington?” Jim Bolger’s resounding response was: “Well yes I think they do.” So I say to the National Party members across the House that they have a saviour in their midst—one who is prepared to come back and counsel them. They should get hold of the Rt Hon Jim Bolger; he might be able to give the Leader of the Opposition a few key pointers in being able to maintain his position. 
Nevertheless the first birthday of Kiwibank in Featherston was an auspicious occasion. That town has a population of approximately 1200 and about 500 of its people have subscribed to become members of Kiwibank. If every small community in the country with a Kiwibank had an uptake like that the achievement would be one of the most sensational for any bank around the world—per capita of course. 
It is also another illustration of how this Government has taken heed of the plight of the regions which were so awfully well-slammed frankly during the 9 long years of the National Government. That Government deserted its regions unfortunately. Labour has restored some of their faith particularly in the area of for example regional development. Funding that was taken away by the National Government through the business development agencies—the business development boards—that existed in that period has been restored in some measure to areas such as the Wairarapa. For example I know that we have had a couple of bites at the pool of funding for regional economic development that has been available to other New Zealand regions. That is proving to be an extraordinarily helpful tool particularly for local government and those people who are leading business development in our regions. It is all part of the innovation and growth strategy of this Government. It is but one example of the way we are restoring faith and I might add prosperity into the regions of New Zealand. Wairarapa is no exception in terms of receiving that. 
While I am speaking of my fantastic electorate I would also like to mention on a slightly more sombre note the most recent crime statistics. Although the media prefer to propose and promote probably the most negative of the results out of those reports in relation to our Rise Above It campaign in the Wairarapa I was very pleased to see a 15 percent decrease in family violence crime in the Masterton area of the Wairarapa. That was something that was given the “once over lightly” by my local media I might add and certainly was not even noted anywhere else. 
Now I do not claim that the Rise Above It campaign alone brought about such a result but that community effort along with our police and other community and Government organisations—the whole collaborative approach to taking on the unpleasantness of violence against children and abuse against anybody for that matter—is an example I would like to think all New Zealand regions might want to follow and perhaps put into practice in their own areas. I would be very very happy as we come up to the first birthday of our Rise Above It campaign and report back on the past year to our community in the Wairarapa to share that information with other members in the House if their areas could perhaps do with seeing the experience we have been through and what we have achieved in the Wairarapa. 
It is commendable that this Government has made extraordinary efforts to engage with the people of its communities. One example I can give of that is the recent visit by the Hon George Hawkins in relation to his duties towards the Fire Service. He went from the Hawke’s Bay area and down through my electorate—Dannevirke Woodville Pahiatua and even Eketahuna which had not seen a Minister since the last election. We do not get Ministers through there quite so often. But it was important that we had Mr Hawkins there. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The Government has enjoyed the tax take. Plenty was collected; plenty was thrown about. The Government has loved it. There has been money rolling in and money thrown about and everybody is happy. We have heard about it with capacity building. Mr Okeroa made three points about what capacity building is all about did he not? It is about courage vision and a keg. That is what it is all about. But we know we have heard and we have been forewarned that there are signs of a slow-down of the New Zealand economy. This Labour Government will not get the tax take it has enjoyed for the last 3 years and it will not be able to throw about the money it has thrown about in the last 3 years. The chickens are coming home to roost. Anyone can govern in a good year. I want to see the Government perform in a bad year—a bad year in which it will contribute. 
I put a little warning out to members of Parliament and to the public—particularly taxpayers. Short-term reactions to the war will obscure the underlying economic trends over the next few months. This Government will blame the war for a downturn. It will do that. This Government will be prepared to hide behind the war. It will not support our traditional allies in the field but it will certainly hide behind them when it comes to answering questions about the economy. 
Let us take four indicators that the economy is all turning to custard—four indicators that the Government has simply squandered the opportunity it could have banked over the last few years. First of all the two New Zealand consumer-confidence surveys have both shown sharp falls. The McDermott Miller survey showed the sharpest fall in confidence since June 2000. Confidence has been hardest hit in the rural regions according to the survey. The Colmar Brunton poll revealed a sharp fall in consumer confidence. Nearly 20 percent more people lacked confidence in the future of this economy than in the previous survey. 
Farm incomes are another measure. There is nothing new here. Farm incomes are taking a hammering and they will continue to do so. Everyone knows that the rural sector still pays most of the bills in this country and the sector will be hit very very hard. That is not just because of issues outside this country’s control with lower commodity prices and exchange rate but because the Government insists on putting up prices and costs to small businesses to farmers and to every business up Queen Street along The Terrace in Cameron Street—even in Whangarei. The estimated payout for dairy farmers is $3.60 down from $5.30 last year. We can argue whose fault that is and what that is due to but the reality is that the tax take will not roll in. This Government will have to be held accountable for throwing money about. It will hide behind the war and I warn members of that. The Government must be held accountable. 
Gross domestic product data is due to be released this Friday. Expectations are for an increase half that of the last three quarters. But this is the doozy of an indicator: the Prime Minister’s confidence indicator—that is what I call it—the knowledge wave conference. She has no confidence in the growth of this economy into the future. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to talk about why the Hon Bill English is under threat. His popularity is so low it is subterranean. He has a 7 percent approval rating. Single-digit gestures and single-digit signals are generally not to be ignored. The lack of electorate appeal that Mr English suffers from is a consequence of his failures as a leader his flip-flops on policy and his failures as a former Minister of Finance. His leadership woes are mirrored by the National Party which is in the mire. 
I am from Otago. Otago used to be a proud National Party seat not just for a few years but for decades. I was honoured to be elected in that electorate. I was honoured to be the Labour replacement for the prior National regime and I think I have insight into why National Party support is subterranean why the party is in a hole and why it is digging to China. 
There are two issues behind that. The first issue is economics and the second issue is Max Bradford’s electricity reforms. The electorate’s support—or abysmal lack of support—for the National Party is because the electorate knows that the alternative to English is Brash and it knows that Brash-National with ACT and Mr Hide— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Brash and Mr English. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I am sorry. Dr Brash—I did not mean to be disrespectful. The electorate knows that the alternative to English and National is a coalition of Dr Brash and ACT-Hide— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide please. 
DAVID PARKER 
: —ACT-Mr Hide. The electorate knows that that monstrous coalition would be a return to the austerity of the 1990s. 
In most overseas countries the ideology of fundamentalist neoclassical economics has been thrown out. It is too rigid. It is austere it is misguided and it does not work yet the National Party and ACT are both obsessed with that simplistic economic model that is just altogether too narrow to make good sense. Will they change? No they will die in the trenches. They cling to their simplistic neoclassical views. They still think that the issues of distribution and efficiency can be separated. They do not care if there is a great disparity in income and wealth. They speak and act as if that does not matter but we know it is wrong. 
Members should contrast that with our philosophy. We think social cohesiveness and equality of opportunity are important to economic prosperity and to personal security. We think the failed policies of the 1990s ought not to be returned to. We always hear National and ACT rattling on about how Australia has performed so much better than New Zealand and it is true. But those parties do not reflect on when that gap arose—in the decade from 1990 onwards. In 1990 Australia was No. 16 in the OECD rankings; we were No. 19. By the time the National Government left power Australia had gone up to No. 12 but we had languished and gone backwards to No. 20. 
Since the Labour Government has taken over we have returned to policies of growth. We have a 3.9 percent increase in gross domestic product unemployment is at internationally low levels and we have new jobs at unprecedented levels. Provincial areas like Otago—from Alexandra to Queenstown to Oamaru—are thriving. Unemployment is low people are doing well and the electorate knows we have got it right. 
I turn briefly to the electricity problems. We hear Mr Brownlee going on about how the Resource Management Act is behind them. No it is not; it is Max Bradford’s unjust electricity reforms. He forced councils in my area to sell electricity assets at knockdown prices. In doing so he changed the pricing mechanisms of the market in a way that he just did not understand. 
He did not understand and neither did his National Party colleagues. 
Ron Mark 
: Can you fix it? 
DAVID PARKER 
: Yes we can. The market model fails because the pricing for new generation has been changed from being costed across the electricity sector as a whole to a marginal pricing mechanism. It was not thought through. Mr Brownlee’s current answer is to think big. He says that he will go back to the Muldoon days and ram through new power projects—that is “think big” Clutha which was a waste of money. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill 
Second Reading 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill was first introduced on 6 November 2002. At the time the House voted 91 to 26 to refer the bill to the Commerce Committee. I thank my colleagues on the Commerce Committee for delivering the report on this bill to the House and allowing debate today. I have never been pressured to withdraw the bill as the Rt Hon Winston Peters mistakenly felt had happened. 
The Rotorua District Council on knowing last year that we were no longer having any success with the Easter shop trading bill moved quickly to attempt to close a longstanding anomaly that arose from previous bills relating to Easter shop trading. The conscience vote in the House in support of Easter trading in 2002 was lost 70 to 47. Our community did not take that decision lying down. We had watched previous attempts to liberalise holiday trading fail except for an exemption proposed by the Greens in 2001 that allowed garden centres to open. I cannot for the life of me see why that type of retail outlet is any different from mainstream retailers. 
The timing of the debate today is very fortuitous and I thank the House for allowing the debate to occur. It is only 1 month until Easter and the Rotorua district has been waiting for 13 years to clear the position allowing it to open for business on Easter Sunday. This Easter is a huge weekend for us being the middle of a school holiday and there being a Super 12 rugby game on Saturday in Rotorua where the Chiefs are playing. As a community we need to know where we stand and hopefully today the wisdom of the House will prevail for us and an ambiguity that irks our district will be cleared for once and for all. 
As a district we have been poorly served since 1990. No previous member for Rotorua attempted to correct the schedule of exemptions attached to the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act in 1990. That was in spite of the fact that we had a previous Minister of Commerce as a local MP; perhaps there were simply bigger fish to fry. There are 20 other geographic areas that were granted an exemption to trade by the Shop Trading Hours Commission under the Shop Trading Hours Act in 1977 on the grounds of their importance as tourism areas. We have a very silly situation whereby Queenstown and Taupo are able to open for business and we are not. We were simply left off the list. Whilst those exemptions were carried over under the transitional provisions of the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act in 1990 the mechanism for granting further exemptions was abolished. As a result we were left out of the loop again. 
As well as geographic exemptions certain shops are entitled to trade; those shops providing food drink household and personal items and automotive fuel and parts of a kind that people may reasonably need to buy at any time may sell them. That is now patently absurd in a modern day and age. 
A Lincoln University study of Rotorua tourism shows that tourism accounts for $830 million annually in our local economy. We welcome over 1.4 million tourists per annum and during Easter accommodation regularly outstrips supply. Tourism also provided one in six jobs in our district and that means a lot to us. 
I have advocated for change since I was a district councillor back in 1995 and I have been consistent in my stand to get this anomaly corrected. That has been perceived as an interesting philosophical stance for a Labour member but I have no problem with it. My position is very clear as the electorate MP for a major tourist district. It is an extreme frustration that our visitor numbers are increasing every major holiday and the town has simply no option but to close its doors to a substantial economic opportunity year after year. 
The fines that our retailers brave if they choose to have their shops open during Easter are another factor that causes me some considerable concern. Every retailer who flouts the law is subject to a fine of $1000. Last Easter there were 31 prosecutions nationally and we do not need that added burden. That and the accompanying despair of the legislative process that has failed us to date have resulted in considerable tension. I do not support the approach of civil disobedience being proposed by a local leader of the retail sector this Easter. It is simply a reflection of the degree of frustration felt locally. It is on the grounds of working through an appropriate process that I am proud to sponsor this bill for the Rotorua district. This is a bill that the district council itself has written in response to the legislative lack of support in the past. 
I want to explore the opportunities that have been open to us prior to this local bill. We attempted to develop a joint local bill with our neighbour Tauranga but that is simply not legislatively possible. One cannot have a joint local bill. I then lobbied hard to get the numbers to support Rodney Hide’s bill. Any amendment that I proposed was not accepted and was seen to be outside the scope of that bill. I was aware of that but what other option did I have but to attempt to work within the proposed framework. Cheap shots were fired from the Opposition that I was a lazy member not doing my job for Rotorua. Well that description does not sit easily with me or with the community that I know and respect. I then worked with the council to develop this bill and also advised it that any attempt to include Easter Friday would probably not be accepted given the vote in the House in 2002. With the support of the Ready to Retail sector and major local tourism leaders such as Tamaki Tours Paradise Valley Springs and Skyline Skyrides I am proud to sponsor the local bill that is before us today. 
This bill was successfully referred to the Commerce Committee and the committee reported back to the House in February this year. The committee did not have a particular recommendation on the passage of this bill but noted that it would be up to the conscience of the House to decide. Those in favour of the bill are local retailers. It is they whom this bill will benefit. It is time that we sat up and listened to the people who will be directly affected rather than turning a blind eye to them because of our anomalous set of current shop trading hours. 
I stress that the bill does propose protections for workers who choose not to work on Easter Sunday. I remain satisfied that the provisions to cover the rights of workers that were agreed with the 
Green amendment in 2001 are carried over into this bill. 
I tend to agree with some of the submitters that this bill is difficult to consider given a parallel process that the Minister Margaret Wilson agreed to establish this year. That was after Rotorua did the work on this bill. There is a working-party established and it will not be able to report back to the Minister by this Easter. It was only after the tabling of this very specific Rotorua bill that any other approach was considered at my recommendation. I am pleased to have the Minister’s support. 
I do not accept that we need more research and data in order to help us reach a decision. We have had surveys census data time-use data and labour force data and a local review in 2002 showed us that 56 percent of Rotorua wants Easter Sunday trading. I believe that if a community wants the right to trade we should be able to proceed on those lines. I am determined to do everything I can to see Rotorua trading this Easter and this local bill is our last resort. I urge my colleagues to give their support to this bill. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 That member is another frustrated Labour member of Parliament. My heart goes out to her. I am glad the Hon Margaret Wilson is sitting in the House listening to her colleague pleading because the Minister has failed to deliver. She promised so many times to introduce to this House a sensible solution and reform of the outdated shop trading hours. Alongside John Tamihere Steve Chadwick is another frustrated Labour member of Parliament. 
It is a privilege for me to be the New Zealand National Party’s tourism spokesperson. In 1991 the National Government set up the New Zealand Tourism Board to support the tourism industry and we witnessed continuing tourism growth until today. Yesterday Tourism New Zealand welcomed the news that international visitors spent an estimated NZ$6 billion in New Zealand for the year 2002. This figure demonstrates the importance of tourism to the New Zealand economy. It has been contributing an increasing amount to our country’s foreign exchange earnings. 
More important I would like to tell the public that 60 percent of total visitors in New Zealand are ourselves Kiwis enjoying a holiday in our own country. Annually now throughout New Zealand we receive over 2 million overseas visitors and many more of our own people are visiting each other’s region. How many cities and regions in New Zealand will say nowadays they have nothing to do with tourism? Practically none. 
I have difficulty with the member for Rotorua—even though she is well meaning—saying that Rotorua should be singled out for an exemption because it is a tourism centre. New Zealand as a whole is a destination for international visitors. We learn that the Commerce Committee heard from one of the submitters Hanmer Springs—a fantastic little town in Canterbury—that it is also a vital part of the tourism industry. I agree and it should be granted the same exemption. Therefore it does not make sense for this House to endorse a piece of legislation that would allow retailers in a specific area to open on Easter Sunday on the ground that that area is a tourism centre. I would argue that New Zealand as a whole is a tourism destination. 
Business and tourism operators in Rotorua should take issue with their member of Parliament Steve Chadwick and have her work harder to try to convince her Minister the Hon Margaret Wilson that it is about time for her to bring sensible legislation to this House to allow business throughout New Zealand and employers and employees to choose whether they want to trade and work on Easter Sunday. This House cannot afford to pass this piecemeal legislation and to return to the bad old days where politicians would even decide the price of bread or where individuals could go to watch a movie—because movie theatres were allowed to be situated only on a certain corner in a certain street—or what import licences would be issued and therefore what New Zealanders were allowed to buy. It led to favouritism and it gave politicians the power. They did not trust the people to make those choices for themselves. 
It would certainly create a lot of unnecessary workload for this House. I can just see politicians on all sides of the House lining up telling their retailers and business people that they are going to champion a local bill for them to gain an exemption on the ground that they are a tourism centre. Indeed we have learnt from the Commerce Committee report—even though it refrains from making a recommendation—that in the committee’s point of view this area of shop trading hours legislation is already full of confusion and the legislation itself is outdated and in need of reform. The committee actually says—including I presume the member Steve Chadwick—that to pass this law is to add to “an already muddled area”. The Commerce Committee even though it refrained from making a recommendation has pointed out that the passage of this law would just add confusion to an already muddled area. 
There is also now we have been told another working-party being set up to look into this issue. If we pass this legislation it will undermine the working-party. What is the point of the working-party carrying on its review? If this legislation is passed we are simply inviting all members of Parliament to bring their local bill to this House. We should then invite the Minister to disband the working-party. Anyway I cannot say from past experience that the working-party might yield any tangible results. 
Apart from the above reasons I would ask members on all sides to consider very carefully before they vote on this legislation. I invite them to reject this legislation. Only by rejecting this legislation can we put pressure on the Minister to bring in sensible changes to the shop trading hours that will enable businesses employers and employees to make their own choices. 
I want to comment on and protest about the process of this legislation and other pieces of legislation relating to shop trading hours. In 1998 the ACT party had a member’s bill proposing drastic reform to the shop trading hours. That bill was referred to the Justice and Law Reform Committee in 1998. Over 100 submitters made written submissions. In 1999 when Labour came into power the bill was referred to the Commerce Committee and Labour members on that committee refused to hear submissions or to receive submitters. Over 100 submitters were not allowed the opportunity to comment on the shop trading hours reform bill. That bill was discharged in the House and was referred back to the select committee because the Greens had decided that garden centres should receive special dispensation from the bill. Since then shop trading hours remain an issue that is not resolved despite the numerous promises made by the Minister that she was about to bring legislation into the House that would enable members to debate the issues properly and logically. 
Once again I tell all members of the House that this legislation is a very bad example of our returning to the bad old days when politicians would bring piecemeal legislation to Parliament that would congest the workload but not achieve a lot during the process. I firmly believe that all businesses employers and employees in New Zealand should have the freedom to decide whether they trade on Easter Sunday. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has had a bill in respect of Easter trading in the members’ ballot system for years now and by some quirk of fate we have not had it selected. So this matter today is very serious for this party. I say that because the effect of our bill is to give local bodies—not central government—the power to make a decision alongside their ratepayers and their electors as to whether for example Sunday trading at Easter is what they want in the local area. In short the effect is to divest power from central government and to give it to local government which is best able to decide what is appropriate for that area. 
I am appalled to find that this legislation is before the House today not because I begrudge Rotorua obtaining this legislation but because Tauranga and Mount Maunganui are a far bigger area than Rotorua. The Tauranga and Mount Maunganui area is about three times the size of Tauranga and it will not be long before we are passing Hamilton. A liner goes there very frequently and 1800-plus come off the liner on a Sunday and cannot shop at Mount Maunganui. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is Margaret Wilson going to fix it? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Margaret Wilson promised the people there she would fix it. This is the Margaret Wilson of course who puts out reports under the headline “Margaret Wilson MP for Tauranga”. This is Margaret Wilson’s report and she calls herself the MP for Tauranga. It is totally false. For 4 years or longer she has promised the people of Tauranga she would do something about this. Here we are now— 
Hon Margaret Wilson 
: You can. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No I cannot. It is a member’s bill. It has to be drawn from the ballot. The bill has to be drawn from the ballot. That member knows full well that I cannot amend Steve Chadwick’s bill. I cannot add Tauranga to it. 
Hon Margaret Wilson 
: You can do what she does. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: OK then here is what I move and Margaret Wilson can give me the answer. I seek to move by way of leave the following: That the report of the Commerce Committee on the Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill be supported in its entirety and the following provisions pertaining to Easter Sunday trading within the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 be added for the benefit of all New Zealand. All that says is that this matter will be decided by the local body. I seek to table that. Before I finish I will ask members whether they are prepared to support it so that the Tauranga District Council can in concert with its own people and its own businesses decide whether we will have shopping on Easter Sunday. If other local bodies wish to do the same it will be decided by those local bodies. 
Can there be any member in this House opposed to the fairness of that? I do not say that we have the say; I say give the local bodies the say. I have been challenged by Margaret Wilson to do something about it and I just have. Let us not see this Labour Party or any of its so-called allies—[ 
Interruption 
] Do not back off now! The Attorney-General—this “MP for Tauranga”—said I should do something. I have tried every which way. In fact just 2 years ago—[ 
Interruption 
]—the member should not get into a lather—Margaret Wilson came along with an amendment to the shop trading hours. Margaret Wilson came along to Parliament with a bill and said— 
David Benson-Pope 
: If it involves work Winston won’t do it. Too much like hard work. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Look solar dome keep quiet—the member might learn something. There is that arrogant whip over there. He beats his gums every day. He is a useless member for Dunedin. He is absolutely hopeless. He will never go further than he is now. He has no chance. It is just a sinecure for an old guy. 
Rodney Hide 
: He’s an old man in a hurry. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: He is an old man in a hurry. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Come back to the bill. You have had your interjection and reply. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: He can keep quiet when I am talking. I was saying that Margaret Wilson came to the House with a bill to extend Easter trading. Do members remember? What did she do? She gave it to garden centres or nurseries. We sought to amend that and she voted it down. That is a fact. It is in  
Hansard 
. It is no use the Minister shaking her head. The Minister and her colleagues voted that bill down. The Council of Trade Unions got to them. That is what happened. 
I am reading about this bill introduced by her colleague that the view of the committee dominated as it is by the Government was: “We do not consider it to be advantageous to contribute to an already muddled area by recommending to pass a bill that provides a limited exception”. Limited! It is just Rotorua and that is it. It is not fair and it is not right. How can anyone support Rotorua and not support Tauranga’s case? I do not argue for Tauranga and Mount Maunganui alone. I am saying let our local bodies decide. Let local government decide in consultation with its businesses and ratepayers. Who can be opposed to that? 
We will find out today just how sincere the Attorney-General is. She puts out a four-page report— 
Margaret Wilson MP Reports 
. “Promoting Tauranga” is the first heading. 
Steve Chadwick 
: A busy Minister. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is New Zealand’s best-kept secret. The report states “Growing the Economy” but apparently not for Tauranga or Mount Maunganui. Here is another heading: “Keeping our Word”. She promised to do something about it. [ 
Interruption 
] It is no use saying “Winston this” and “Winston that.” Winston won by 11000 votes. 
Steve Chadwick 
: That’s right. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I know it is right. We had a bit of a blip in 1999 but by Jeez it has changed already. Here is another heading: “Margaret Out and About”. She will be out and not about if she will not support this legislation. I seek to move by way of leave the following: That the report of the Commerce Committee on the Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill be supported in its entirety and the following provisions pertaining to Easter Sunday trading within the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act be added for the benefit of all New Zealand. All that my bill states is that we should let the decision in respect of trading at Easter be made by local government. 
We are going to support the MP for Rotorua’s bill. How can we oppose it? But I am asking that member how she can in all conscience expect this House to have any sense of credibility when her colleague did her utmost to stop Tauranga and Mount Maunganui— 
Steve Chadwick 
: I tried to get you in on it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I know. I thank Steve Chadwick for that. But all I am asking is how she can be happy with her colleagues who are saying that in the case of Rotorua it is justified in the case of Rotorua we will ignore the Council of Trade Unions in the case of Rotorua we will ignore everything else but in the case of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui—one of New Zealand’s if not New Zealand’s fastest-growing provincial— 
Rodney Hide 
: A great place. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is a great place and it is going places except it is being hamstrung by this Parliament and by a list member who promised the heavens and has delivered nothing whatsoever. 
I seek leave to introduce the bill that I have referred to in this debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next member and I will be calling the Hon Margaret Wilson next I want to say that I have examined this matter and it is right outside the scope of the local bill. If it was a member’s bill then of course the member could seek leave. But this is a bill that has been to a select committee it has had a report and it has been referred back to the House. I shall have a further look at it. I assure the member that I will do that. But my first glance and my first discussion indicates that it is not possible to seek leave in that way. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I respect what you have said. But this House is the master of its own destiny. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is right. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: This House can accept this bill today despite what you have said. It can ensure that the people of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui if that is the council decision can have Easter trading this Easter Sunday. This House can decide that. None of us are hamstrung or confined by any parameters in respect of what I have suggested. Obviously I have discussed it with my colleagues and that is what I am seeking leave from the House to do. I think it is patently absurd and unfair that Rotorua our neighbour should get it and we do not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not rule on it at the moment but I will look at it in the next few minutes. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for looking into the matter. I would also ask that you consult the Attorney-General because we all heard her very clearly say that it could be done—that the motion could be moved. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. That is a debating matter. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I speak in support of the bill. I also support your relooking at the ruling Mr Speaker because as my colleague Steve Chadwick said we did seek advice from the Clerk to see whether we could extend her bill to include the Tauranga - Mount Maunganui area. The advice we were given was that it was outside the scope of the bill which is your initial ruling here. But I would very much appreciate if it could be looked at again. 
The reason I rise to support the bill is simply that it is unfair that Rotorua was inadvertently excluded from those cities that were exempted when the legislation originally went through. It has been my primary motivation for also promoting Mount Maunganui and Tauranga which suffered the same fate. Those two areas were in fact in the original legislation. For some reason someone was not keeping an eye on the ball last time and that meant that they were excluded. That has been grossly unfair to small-business people particularly in Mount Maunganui who have had to endure this for a long period of time. It seemed to me that very little was done right through the 1990s. It happened in 1990 and nothing was done to address it. I have tried several times but as we know this is a conscience issue and we are bound by the consciences of this House. I have consistently voted for Easter Sunday trading. I do not agree with trading on Christmas Day or Good Friday and I have made that quite clear. I recently met retailers in Mount Maunganui to discuss this issue. The question was raised with me as to why the local member for Tauranga did not do the same thing as the local member for Rotorua and promote the bill that would in fact have allowed this to happen now. That is a simple point—it can be done. 
I support the New Zealand First member’s bill that is in the ballot but one does not have to rely on the ballot when one is the local member. I do. If I were the local member then there would be a bill in this House for us to determine. That is a fact. I would have followed the example of my colleague Steve Chadwick instead of waiting for decades as Winston Peters has to get around to doing something. He has the privilege to represent those people and what does he do? He says: “Hello I’m going to wait for a ballot. I’m not going to take responsibility as a local member and promote a bill because some people may not vote for me as they may not like it.” That is the real reason. I suggest that the member goes to Mount Maunganui has a talk to the retailers and explains to them that I have been trying to keep the issue alive for them while the local member gets around to doing his job. As I said we are having a working-group. I am asking the working-group to meet those retailers in Mount Maunganui preferably on Easter Sunday—when they will find that nothing is open and they will not be able to get a drink a cup of coffee or anything to eat—so they can explain the circumstances they are in. Those businesses are not big businesses; they are people whose livelihood is dependent on taking that opportunity when other New Zealanders come into their town to enjoy that break. I have been very respectful of the fact that there have been religious objections to opening shops at that time. Personally I can understand that as far as Christmas Day and Good Friday are concerned. However my feeling is that because a lot of activities take place on Easter Sunday and because that religious festival is one of celebration I am therefore prepared to support opening on that day. 
The opening provisions that we have put forward do not require people to open. Most of the shops that we are talking about certainly in the Mount Maunganui area are owner-operated or they have family who come in and assist. Why should they be denied the opportunity to earn a living and why should the visitors who come into our beautiful city be denied the opportunity to have a cup of coffee lunch or dinner in that town? I support this measure. It is unfair that those areas that once could do this activity were excluded from doing it for no good reason at all except that it was an oversight. It is I think an outrage that we are nearly 13 years on since that happened and that no one has really been able to find a solution to help those people in Rotorua and the Mount—except for my colleague Steve Chadwick. She has had the courage to listen to her community and she has put forward a bill which is the prerogative of the person who has the privilege to represent the people in their electorate. I support the bill. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 The current shop trading regime was established by the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act which removed the restrictions on trading on Sundays public holidays and between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. generally. The Act was originally intended to repeal all restrictions but the current remaining restrictions Christmas Day Good Friday Easter Sunday and before 1 p.m. on Anzac Day were later added by a Supplementary Order Paper and passed on a conscience vote. The decision to retain some restrictions required the retention of a system of exemptions. One type of exemption was area exemptions for tourist shopping. However only tourist exemptions already in existence at that time were retained and Rotorua was not included as an existing tourist area. 
The purpose of this bill is to allow shops in the Rotorua district to open on Easter Sunday during the period from 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. I note that the Commerce Committee has not reached a conclusion but has noted that shop trading has traditionally been dealt with on a conscience basis. A working-party has been set up to fully review the law relating to shop trading and it considers that the sensible approach would be to wait for that work to be completed. I note from a letter to all MPs from the National Distribution Union that it also supports this view as does the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and the New Zealand Retailers Association. 
Arguments for supporting the bill include the need to respond to local commercial and tourist demands and the need to address some of the anomalies in the Act and enable some areas to trade over Easter. Arguments against include religious grounds—Easter is one of the most significant days on the Christian calendar—the need for retail employees to have some guaranteed days off for family and recreational reasons and indeed the need to just stop and take a breath in a very fast and frantic world. I think there is a huge unseen cost in human terms of having a workforce that is expected to work 24 hours a day 7 days per week. I believe that all those issues need to be taken into consideration as part of a wider review of the Act. Therefore I encourage members to vote against this bill and wait for the completion of the working-party review so that we can review our shop trading legislation fully rather than doing it city by city as with this bill. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I have to say that I was astonished at the Attorney-General’s speech to this House. The Attorney-General of New Zealand has been unable to deliver on a simple promise; a simple promise to have shops open in Tauranga and Mount Maunganui. Here is an Attorney-General who puts out a pamphlet that declares her to be “Margaret Wilson MP for Tauranga”. Well I do not know how to break it to the Labour Party’s Attorney-General but the good people of Tauranga have spoken. They have spoken consistently at the polls and Margaret Wilson ain’t the member for Tauranga! She never will be because she cannot do the business. There is a word for a person who says he or she is the member for Tauranga when that is not true and the idea that an Attorney-General would make that statement is truly shocking. 
I rise to support this bill on behalf of the ACT party but I am very disappointed that it is only for Rotorua. Why is Parliament having to decide who can open what shop and where when my bill would allow that for everyone? The Rt Hon Winston Peters would leave that decision up to the local councils. I see that Margaret Wilson was able to spend her 10 minutes explaining why she could not deliver for the people of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui and that is what I will comment on. Margaret Wilson the MP for Tauranga said this in her newsletter to the people of Tauranga: “I have constantly strived over the past 3 years to ensure that the needs of Tauranga are heard and understood at the highest level of Government.” That says it all because if she wants a bill for the people of Mount Maunganui and Tauranga she does not have to rely on days on which private and local orders are debated or on members’ days. Mr Peters has done it. He put a Supplementary Order Paper into the nursery bill in order to help the people of Tauranga but how did Margaret Wilson vote? Did she vote for the people of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui on Winston Peters’ Supplementary Order Paper? I am reliably advised by the Rt Hon Winston Peters and Mr Ron Mark that Margaret Wilson the “MP for Tauranga” voted against it. 
For 10 minutes we heard her explaining why she could not deliver despite her best efforts and her election-year promises to the people of Tauranga. In 1999 she said: “Vote for Margaret Wilson and shops will be open in Mount Maunganui on Easter Sunday.” I suppose the people of Tauranga did not keep their part of the bargain. I think she was still grumpy with them because they did not vote for her. I remember what she told them on the night of the election. She said that Tauranga is the redneck capital of New Zealand and the Hon John Tamihere agrees. However I disagree. Margaret Wilson the Attorney-General did get voted in on Labour’s list and what has she done? 
Steve Chadwick 
: She did try to do a joint bill. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: We heard from Steve Chadwick that the Attorney-General did try but she failed. That is what has happened. We now understand that the Attorney-General tried hard but she failed and what comfort is that for the people of Tauranga? The Attorney-General parades herself as their local MP and the best thing that can be said in her defence by Steve Chadwick is that she tried. The Attorney-General could put a bill up as a Government bill. She could take over Winston Peters’ bill as a Government bill and deliver on it. We are going into urgency next week and she could do it then for the people of Tauranga so that the bill would be in place by Easter. If this Government had any concern about Tauranga that is what it would do. 
Do members know what is going on here? No one in this Government wants Margaret Wilson to win the Tauranga seat. They realise it is not possible because the people of Tauranga remember what Margaret Wilson told them on election night and they will remember that she tried hard but did not deliver. 
We support this bill and I thank Steve Chadwick for her comments on it. However I ask the Parliament who are we to be deciding which shop can be open in which town or district? We should do one of two things: we should either leave the decision to the shop owners and the customers themselves or at the very least follow Mr Peters and let the local bodies make the decision. Who are we in Parliament to be deciding this? How is it possible that Rotorua can have a special case over Hanmer Tauranga or parts of Auckland or any other district? We do have an odd Government do we not? It is saying that people can trade on Sunday but they cannot smoke inside a shop any day of the week—even if the owner and the customers do not mind. People cannot smoke in a car-park or in Returned Services Association rooms but they can pick up a prostitute 24/7. There is no ban on that. 
I ask Steve Chadwick what the principle or philosophy underpinning this bill is. It is State-control over who can and cannot open a shop on Easter Sunday. What is wrong with the simple principle that it is the shop owner who should decide whether to open his or her shop for the use of customers? Are we not grown up enough to decide when we should and should not shop? Is that not a responsibility that the Labour Party is prepared to give to New Zealanders and to businesses? Will the Government decide when people can go shopping? With the greatest respect to the United Future Party I say that not every one in New Zealand is a Christian. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not know what Anzac Day has to do with Easter Sunday. I say to this Government that not every one is a Christian. If Muslims non-Christians or even Christians want to go down to the local hardware store and buy a shovel on Easter Sunday why should they not be allowed to do that? Why should they not be allowed to go shopping particularly when this Government apparently wants them to be able to smoke dope and go to the local brothel to have some fun? Why can they not go to the local hardware shop and buy a shovel and do some work? Why is that not allowed? Why can they not do it in Tauranga? The Attorney-General the self-styled “MP for Tauranga” said: “I promise I will deliver this to you if you vote for me.” but they did not and she did not. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I am one of those old-fashioned people who like—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a member’s bill on which people will have a conscience vote and I think they should be heard in relative silence. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I am one of those old-fashioned people who like commercial-free days and there are not many left. I believe they help communities and families but I am not sure that I am right. I think times have maybe moved on. I was on the Commerce Committee that heard the submissions on this bill and I was one of those who heard a request from amongst others the Retail Merchants Association which said we should not pass this bill but that we should pass more general legislation that will apply the rule proposed here throughout the country. It was hard for me as a member of that select committee to put it in context. One of the underlying issues is how significant a move is this? In a world where many other parts of our economy are already working on these days maybe it is not very significant. That is one of the matters that the working-group will be able to advise us on. There are large numbers of nurses and policemen and people in manufacturing industries like those at Tiwai Point and other large places of employment who already work on these days. Maybe the horse has already bolted. If it has then I probably approve of wide-ranging legislation to reform the law for all areas. 
A case in point in my own electorate is Wanaka and indeed Queenstown. We have heard Queenstown mentioned previously but it cannot actually trade on Easter Sunday at the moment though strangely it can trade on Good Friday. In Wanaka the population goes up by approximately 10 times its normal level for its biennial air show when its population swells from less than 5000 to more than 50000 people but the people in Wanaka cannot trade at that time. People in Wanaka say: “This is an important event for us economically. We should be able to trade.” and I find that argument quite persuasive. None the less I do want to have this put in context. 
I was interested in an idea that I heard for the first time today from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He said we should perhaps be delegating this matter to local authorities which is an interesting idea that I had not thought of before. Maybe the answer is to let different communities make the decision for themselves. On the whole although I think there is a need for a review of the law that review process is under way through the working-group that has been set up and I do not think we should change the law in an ad hoc way in the meantime. 
I will be voting against the bill to the disappointment of my colleague Steve Chadwick who is supporting this so vigorously on behalf of her community. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Even though a conscience vote will be taken this afternoon all nine Green Party MPs will be voting against the bill today. All of us support the position taken by some members of the Commerce Committee that although the law in this area is anomalous and in urgent need of review this bill is not the way to deal with it. Like those committee members the National Distribution Union the Council of Trade Unions and the New Zealand Retailers Association we believe that the most sensible thing to do now is to allow the working-group that has been set up to address anomalies in shop trading law to get on with the job and complete its work. The point at which the working-group’s work is finished will be the time for new legislation—which we will look at again of course. It is simply jumping the gun and somewhat silly to pass a law now that will only add to the inconsistencies and discrepancies inherent in the existing situation. 
The current legislation on shop trading is inequitable anomalous and outdated. If this bill is passed it will continue those inequities by extending an exemption from shop trading regulations on Easter Sunday to the Rotorua District. There is neither rhyme nor reason for the list of localities that have historically been allowed to open on Easter Sunday; and perpetuating the happenstance patchwork of exemptions is not the way to go. As well as the process issues involved there are also the feelings of the affected workers church people and businesses to take into consideration. In March 2002 the National Distribution Union undertook a survey of non - food shop trading patterns on a particular Sunday—not of course on Easter Sunday—in Rotorua to see how many shops were open. Of the shops surveyed 61 percent were closed and 39 percent were open giving the lie to the contention that the majority of retailers in Rotorua actually want to be open all Easter. 
An article in the  
Rotorua Review 
 in the same period cites the representative of a local retailers group as saying that although some shops are quite keen to open on Easter Sunday “others don’t want to as they won’t open on Sunday anyway.” The same article goes on to cite a survey carried out by the Rotorua Chamber of Commerce which showed only limited support for Easter Sunday trading. The executive officer of the chamber Mark Watson is quoted as saying that 44 percent of businesses that responded to the survey actually disagreed with the concept. Rotorua church leaders were also canvassed for their opinion and all spoke of the need for workers to have time off and for families to have time together at times like Easter and Christmas. Of course they also stressed the significance of those particular days being two of the most important festivals in the Christian calendar. Although many people in our society these days are not Christian I think we should still respect those major days. But above all and beyond the feelings of Christian churches and local businesses the Green Party believes that it is the voice of affected workers that must be heard in this debate. 
The union that represents shop workers does not want this bill to go through. The broader union movement as represented by the Council of Trade Unions does not want this bill to go through. There are very few days left on which workers can count on being entitled to a day off and Easter Sunday is one of them. I would hope that every Labour and pro-union member in this House would support the union call for greater work-life balance. The last 2 decades have stripped away many of the former protections that employed workers had. It is worth making a stand on the few that are left. All workers including retail workers must have some guaranteed days off so that they can spend time with their families for recreational reasons and of course for religious reasons if they are that way inclined. 
The Green Party continues to resist any further erosion of workers’ hours of work and statutory holidays and patterns of work that are disrupting people’s ability to participate in family social sporting religious and cultural life. The Green Party will be voting against this bill. The matters it contains should be dealt with more properly by the shop trading hours working-group so that in the end we have workable consistent law that will be supported by both retailers and unions and not another haphazard piece of legislation that will only add to the manifest inconsistencies already so apparent in this area. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will be supporting the bill as has been indicated by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. We want consistency for all of New Zealand in one piece of legislation. We do not want to see 120 or so bills for all the places around New Zealand that have the same type of tourist shopping facilities as Rotorua as has been suggested by the Hon Margaret Wilson. We want to see everyone in New Zealand dealt with in the same way. If Margaret Wilson’s promise to the people of Tauranga in the 1999 election was sincere she has had nearly 4 years as a Minister to put a bill into the House that would cover not merely Rotorua Tauranga and Mount Maunganui but the whole of New Zealand including the people of Wanaka whom David Parker has mentioned. They could be covered as well. 
That is what New Zealand First is trying to achieve today. As has been indicated we are trying to seek leave of the House for all New Zealanders to get the same benefit from the one bill with no one getting a march on somebody else. We are not being small-minded with regard to this legislation. We have said we will support the exemption for Rotorua. New Zealand First wants to take a broad approach and has no intention of kicking someone in the guts if we do not get our way. We are ready to support Rotorua; we merely say that support should go not just to Rotorua Tauranga and Mount Maunganui but also to the people of Wanaka and anybody else who might come within the frame. 
It is quite extraordinary to have heard United Future and the Greens being on the same side in this debate. It is quite extraordinary to hear the Greens take the Christian viewpoint on this issue—the longer one is in the House the more one learns. It seems the Christian viewpoint of the Greens is the same as that of United Future and maybe that is why they both support the Government from time to time. 
We have made it very very clear in this debate as to what we want to do. We have heard the Labour Party saying from time to time that it wants to empower local government. Is that not Labour’s standard phrase? We heard Government members saying “Let’s empower local government” time and time again throughout the debate on the local government legislation and that is what we in New Zealand First want to do on this issue. We want to empower local government so that it can make the decision as to whether the shops will open. I realise there will be a conscience vote on this bill but I hope that all those members of the House who support the empowering of local government will not oppose the leave that has been sought by New Zealand First. 
So far this year we have seen local government being empowered to do almost anything under the sun in terms of the local government legislation. For example it has been suggested—absolutely wrongly and mischievously—by the Mayor of Waitakere City that we could have a civil airport at Whenuapai. That is the extent of the empowerment that has been suggested. We are not going anywhere near that in this legislation. As the Hon Margaret Wilson has suggested this bill is merely about allowing people on this particular Sunday to go along to a tea shop in Mount Maunganui Rotorua Wanaka or wherever to have a cup of tea or as the case might be to buy an ice cream as they are going by. 
I hope the request we have made will have the support of all members of this House. The Rt Hon Winston Peters has had terrible luck or just bad luck with his member’s bill. It has been in the ballot for years and years—it is amazing how these things crop up. Perhaps the solution is for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to take a little holiday and then the bill will come up as was the case for Mr Peter Brown whose bill came up in the ballot while he was away for a few days. I am not quite sure how one gets to win in a ballot on members’ bills. However as far as New Zealand First is concerned we want to make sure that all of New Zealand gets the same opportunity which is why we make our plea to the House to support the proposal put forward by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 Jim Anderton the leader of the Progressive party has a saying that one should not die wondering but he would not be against that happening in the case of some MPs here. He will vote against the Death in Dignity Bill but I will vote for it as I also believe that people should not have to die wondering. 
In this case so that my good friend Steve Chadwick knows I will vote against this bill and I will outline the reasons for that. First of all I am one of those men whose wife takes him to hardware stores—and I break into a sweat when I go. I advocate that hardware stores should be closed more often rather than opening on Sundays and Saturdays. My mother used to take me to the nurseries and if they open more often that means more planting more trees and more work on my day off. 
As well as that I have a very old-fashioned concern for the workers of this country. As a result of the philosophies pushed by Mr Rodney Hide and those in his party I have observed that more and more people are working in unprotected conditions and that they are being forced to work longer and longer hours. That may be an old-fashioned concern but I think it is one that is shared by a number of people particularly those who would like to live as long as they possibly can. There is a gentleman whom Rodney Hide probably reads quite a lot of whose name is Karl Marx. He advocated that workers should consider the theft of their time because capital was very avaricious in that regard—the more it can eat up people’s time and the less it pays for it the happier it is. That is a thinker whom Rodney Hide should pay some regard to. 
In addition there is a slogan of the labour movement that states that we should have 8 hours’ work 8 hours’ play and 8 hours’ sleep. There are variations on that slogan but the general principle is sound and there is room within it to look at the changes that are occurring in our society. Let us look at them in terms of balance. First of all let us look at the lack of balance between people’s working lives and their free time. It is out of balance at the moment because it has tilted towards there being too many people working too many long hours at the expense of their health and their families. The other reason that I will vote against this bill is that I am not only old-fashioned but an old-fashioned socialist. I believe it is important for us to look at our collective resources and to find ways to spend less time working so that our health family life and community life are improved. 
The National Distribution Union has written a letter to all members of Parliament and it has some very cogent arguments as to how we can move forward on this issue in a rational way. The union wrote: “The National Distribution Union writes seeking your support to defer the bill to the Shop Trading Hours Working Group. This position was put to the select committee hearing on the 20th of February 2003 by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and the Retail Merchants Associations. Simply we believe it is sensible and efficient to utilise the agreed working-party process to develop workable consistent law rather than making law by exemption.” I believe the argument put forward by the union provides a sensible way forward. Once we look at it in detail it will allow us to move forward in those areas where it is possible to extend shopping hours but not in the ad hoc way that this bill proposes. 
I understand that Steve Chadwick is looking at the economic needs of her area and is therefore presenting this bill as a responsible member. However this bill allows for the creep effect. In other words Tauranga Levin or wherever else will copy Rotorua without our reviewing the law in Parliament in a way that will give proper protection to workers and to those communities that are pushed more and more into giving up time with regard to their own recreational and family needs. I hope we are sensible and look towards the solution that the National Distribution Union has put forward. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I put the question to members I will make a ruling on the point that Mr Peters raised. This is a local bill promoted by the Rotorua District Council. It is open to other district councils to promote their own legislation to deal with trading in their locality if they wish. It is open to the House to suspend its Standing Orders so as to turn this bill into a member’s bill dealing with a general law. But before it does that the House should act very carefully. 
This bill was confined to Rotorua when it went through the select committee process which means that neither members nor the public have had an opportunity to consider the wider implications of Mr Peters’ suggestion. However if the member insists—and I know that he will—on asking for leave to suspend the Standing Orders to convert this bill to a member’s bill of general application that will be put to the House. As the member rightly points out the House is master of its own destiny. In any case Mr Peters’ proposal is not clear in its terms. The bill has not yet had its Committee stage when the drafting details would be settled but the member has asked for leave to do this. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
A personal vote was called for on the question That the Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill  
be now read a second time. 
Ayes 55 
Alexander 
Collins 
Hutchison (P) 
Prebble (P) 
Awatere Huata 
Connell (P) 
Jones 
Roy 
Benson-Pope 
Cullen 
Key (P) 
Ryall (P) 
Beyer 
Donnelly 
King (P) 
Shirley 
Brash (P) 
Dunne 
Maharey (P) 
Simich 
Brown 
Eckhoff 
Mallard (P) 
Stewart 
Burton 
Fairbrother 
Mark (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Carter C (P) 
Franks 
McNair 
Tizard (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Goff 
Newman 
Turia 
Catchpole 
Hawkins (P) 
O’Connor (P) 
Williamson 
Chadwick 
Hide 
Paraone 
Wilson (P) 
Choudhary 
Hobbs (P) 
Perry 
Woolerton (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Peters J 
Teller: 
Coddington 
Hunt 
Peters W 
Tamihere 
Noes 63 
Adams 
English 
Locke 
Scott 
Arden 
Ewen-Street 
Mackey 
Smith L 
Baldock 
Field (P) 
Mahuta (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Barker 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Mapp (P) 
Smith N 
Barnett 
Gallagher (P) 
McCully 
Sowry (P) 
Bradford 
Gosche (P) 
Ogilvy 
Swain (P) 
Brownlee 
Goudie 
Okeroa 
Tanczos 
Carter J 
Gudgeon 
Parker (P) 
te Heuheu 
Copeland (P) 
Hartley (P) 
Peck (P) 
Turei 
Cosgrove 
Heatley (P) 
Pillay 
Turner (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hereora 
Power (P) 
Ward 
Dalziel 
Horomia (P) 
Rich (P) 
Wong 
Donald(P) 
Hughes 
Ririnui 
Worth 
Duncan 
Kedgley (P) 
Robertson (P) 
Yates 
Duynhoven 
Kelly (P) 
Robson 
Teller: 
Dyson 
Laban (P) 
Samuels 
Pettis 
Motion not agreed to. 
Prostitution Reform Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Prostitution Reform Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I have had a chance to discuss the leave that I am about to seek with the member in charge of the bill and with representatives of all the parties—although unfortunately I have not yet had a chance to speak with Stephen Franks. I will seek leave to make a variation with regard to how we handle this bill. The issue is that the whips have proxies for and against the bill. There are a number of amendments and we have taken those into account as best we can so that we have an understanding of how members may want to vote on the proposed amendments of which we have had notice. However during the course of the debate other amendments may well be put. That leaves the whips in the peculiar predicament of having a proxy either for or against the bill but with no instruction on how to vote on a particular amendment. 
My suggestion had been that we have one wide-ranging debate—which will allow the debate to flow and take its course and will allow members to make their contributions in whatever form they wish to—and that once the debate is concluded we conduct all the votes which would allow the members themselves to come down to the Chamber have an understanding of what the amendments are and vote accordingly rather than the whips trying to predict the thinking of those members with proxy votes. However there has been a further suggestion which I will incorporate into my seeking of leave that we have a wide-ranging debate on the title and a vote conducted on that; then if that vote is successful we have a wide-ranging debate on the balance of the bill and conduct all the votes including the amendments at the end of that debate. 
That is quite a sensible suggestion. It will allow members to make a contribution on the title and then if the vote on that is successful to make a contribution on the balance of the bill including all the amendments. It will allow members to come down to the Chamber at the end of the debate to vote en bloc on the amendments and it will certainly in my view be a sensible way for us to progress the bill. 
Accordingly I seek leave for us to have a wide-ranging debate on the title and a vote on the title including any amendments on the title and then if the vote on that is successful to continue with a wide-ranging debate on the balance of the bill with the votes to be conducted at the conclusion of that debate. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I would just like to get some clarification on how wide ranging the debate will be post the debate on the title and whether members will get more than one opportunity to take a call. There are a number of things that need to be identified. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 It is not for me to say but of course I envisage that the debate on the title will cover all aspects of the bill and that if members seek a second call that will be entirely in the hands of the Chair. If there is a debate on both the title and the second part of the bill both would be wide ranging to cover all aspects of the bill. Under the Standing Orders and subject to the Chair members would be entitled to up to four contributions if they wish. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I assure the member that certainly it is the will of the Chair to make sure that everyone has his or her say—especially those people who have indicated a special interest in this issue. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 Can I make one other contribution which may well help the member and other members. I think it is highly unlikely that any member will be seeking a closure on this bill although everyone has a right to do so. Obviously if it went on until 2004 we may well be encouraged to put a closure at that time! I suspect that if members do have a contribution to make over the next two or three members’ days depending on how long the debate goes for it is unlikely that anyone will be seeking a closure. The member can rest assured there will be an opportunity to make contributions if members wish. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am seeking clarification. It may have been discussed and it may be that there is a convention on this but I would imagine that even though it is a wide-ranging debate there would be some advantage in taking a reasonable sequence because some of the amendments will be very confusing if they are dealt with out of sequence. I wonder whether that could be an understanding of the Committee. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 Perhaps I can help the Committee with that as well. I had thought of that. I have discussed it with the author of the bill. My suggestion is that if the Committee were of a mind to give leave to structure the debate as I have sought leave to do then we would seek leave for the member in charge of the bill to have two or three contributions on end to set out what the bill is and to set out a sequence of the debate so that members can follow the debate through in that order. Of course given now that we are seeking to debate the title the debate will range over that but it will be wide ranging. It seems to me that the member could give us a lead so that there is a sequence because I think it is essential that that happens as well. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask Mr Franks whether that has addressed his point. Strictly speaking leave is not given for that but it certainly does help if the Committee agrees to a procedure or at least gives its tacit agreement to a procedure. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. In your earlier remarks and I did not quite catch them you said that people who have indicated a special interest in this bill might get more than one call—they might get several calls. I wonder how you will determine whether anybody has a special interest because I would like to register mine now. I am certain there are other members who have an equally concerned interest. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I assure the member that the information I have is from the first reading and from the select committee. I do not have any other inside information. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 Just to reiterate in case Mr Brown missed it each member has a right of up to four contributions at least. I suspect that the Committee would probably be lenient if a member felt he or she needed to make a fifth or sixth contribution. Leave would probably be granted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That can always be done by leave. Has everybody who wanted to speak to that point spoken? The first part of Mr Carter’s putting the leave was that the title debate be wide ranging. Is there any objection to that leave? There is not. Mr Carter then sought leave that there be a wide-ranging debate on the rest of the bill followed by the remaining votes and in so saying the discussion that has gone on here in the spirit of dealing with this. Is there any objection? There is not. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I now need to seek leave for the member in charge of the bill to make two or three contributions to set out the bill and the sequence of it. Then we can debate it in that manner. I seek leave for that. [ 
Interruption 
] He can have two contributions but he may need to have a third or a fourth and I think the Committee would be sensible to grant that. I seek leave for that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection to that course? There is not. 
Clause 1 Title 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I begin by thanking John Carter for that arrangement and thanking the whips and the musterers of the various caucuses for agreeing to those arrangements. It is a very sensible way of handling a complex matter. 
In the next 10 minutes or so if it is possible I will give an overview of the legislation and a bit of the thinking behind it referring members to the select committee report and also to the legislation. I will also attempt to make reference to some of the Supplementary Order Papers that I know are before the Committee this evening. 
I will start briefly with the commentary from the Justice and Electoral Committee which has an overview of the sex industry in New Zealand produced for the select committee by the New Zealand Police. What that does is lay out a whole lot of issues concerning prostitution in this nation. In short these are complex matters. They are not as simple as sex workers working on the streets and in brothels as members will see from pages 53 to 55 of the report. There is a great range of locations and situations involving prostitution in this nation. One thing that the Justice and Electoral Committee learnt in its endless debate on these matters was the law’s sensitivity in this area. Whenever one part of the law is changed a whole lot else can happen afterwards. 
There are about 5000 sex workers in New Zealand. It seems as though the turnover of workers is generally quite fast. We were informed that a sex worker spends on average 2 to 3 years working in the industry. Many people enter the sex industry often with a sense that although they are not unwilling there is not a free choice. Poverty issues around abuse addiction and so on are major reasons for many people entering the industry. Also many sex workers reported to the select committee that they had a problem exiting it; they felt trapped in an industry where grey areas of legality and semi-legality surround the occupation they engage in. The individual sex workers who spoke to the select committee made it very clear they were looking for clear sensible and understandable law—a law that did not point to them victimise them and label them in a way they did not think reasonable or fair. 
The law in relation to prostitution in this nation broadly parallels the development of the law in the United Kingdom. Essentially that meant a sudden move to prohibition at the end of the 19th century followed by a succession of changes to the law eventually resulting in what one could call a Clayton’s form of prohibition—a Kiwi form of prohibition—that allowed the existence of massage parlours that purported to offer genuine massage services. In effect they have been a front for a prostitution industry. That means that the act of prostitution itself has never been illegal but a whole lot of activities around prostitution are such as aspects of a conversation between a prostitute and his or her client or intended client the procuring of prostitutes and the running of brothels. Workers in intellectually handicapped centres reported to the select committee that occasionally sex workers were procured in order to provide some relief to people with disabilities. All of those activities have been illegal whereas the act of prostitution has not. 
A very vivid experience that the select committee had was to visit together with the police someone’s flat in Sydenham Christchurch and actually observe a single sex worker working from her flat in a very controlled environment. The police at that time told us that they did not think any laws were being broken. She received all her clients via the phone and had a regular clientele. On investigation we found that she was regularly breaking four laws in her day-to-day activity as a sex worker. So we have to address a range of dangerous elements that go into increasing the threats to sex workers. 
A question that the select committee spent a lot of time examining was the legal options that should apply to the sex industry. We could adopt the status quo. It is quite true that some opponents to the bill will say that the arrest rates are not particularly high and that the law is not really enforced. However as a member of this House I certainly want to know that legislation is of high quality and can survive rigorous examination. Frankly current prostitution legislation cannot. We could choose to legalise which is what the State of Victoria does. That choice would mean adopting a whole State intervention system whereby sex workers and brothels would be required to be registered and the industry would be subject to a very tight examination of the way in which it operates day by day. Or we could adopt what is called the Swedish model. We will be debating that later on thanks to an amendment from my colleague Dianne Yates. That model is one whereby the legal pressure goes off the sex worker and on to the client. The State takes the position of disapproving of prostitution and choosing to target the client. So far that model exists in Sweden and there is some debate on it in other European countries. 
But the model in the bill before us today which has been the model in New South Wales for the last 8 years—and the one I would certainly advocate and that the select committee supports—is decriminalisation. The concept of decriminalisation is simply that one looks at the activity identifies the risks in that activity that are unique to it and designs law that deals with those risks. Then one opens up the activity to all the other general laws that exist in society. If we take the activity of prostitution as an example we see that certain things are almost unique to prostitution including the whole issue of safe sex the coercion of the workers by managers offensive signage and workers getting trapped in the industry because of their convictions and because of public attitudes to prostitution. Those are all issues that require either special laws or special services. 
Combined with that many things within the prostitution sector would improve if the general law were allowed to apply to it including issues of environmental nuisance to do with parking or noise from brothels employment conditions health and safety and harassment in the street. Existing law in the Summary Offences Act can deal with issues such as harassment but at the moment the whole soliciting process corrupts that approach. 
That is the concept of decriminalisation and members will see that as we work through the bill which in a sense is very simple and straightforward. Part 2 runs through commercial sexual services which is what this issue is all about identifies the particular evils and produces particular law to deal with those evils for example contracts for commercial sexual services not being void health and safety requirements limits on signage and particular protections for sex workers. It also includes prohibitions of under 18-year-olds being involved in prostitution—not criminalising the young person but instead criminalising the client—and powers to enter and inspect premises which the health and safety approach obviously requires. 
The select committee was deeply frustrated by the fact that the two major states in Australia went through fundamental law reform but did not actually produce any review process to evaluate how they had done. Larry Baldock and I are able to endlessly exchange our perceptions of what has happened in New South Wales because there is no evaluation process on the ground. Our committee visited Australia informally and I also went there another time to see how the law was developing. We will share that information as the Committee stage goes on. The essence of it is that the New South Wales experience has been a successful one—albeit the environment of the sex industry in New South Wales is very different from that in New Zealand. It is centred on a city that has a population greater than this whole nation. The pattern of the sex industry here is very individual to this land. 
This legislation is designed around New Zealand risks and evils. We also have a series of amendments to the legislation. I particularly commend two of them. One is in the name of Phil Goff and focuses on the issue of people who have a known criminal past being banned from acting as operators in the sex industry. It also makes it a bit easier for local bodies to produce their own plans in order to focus on the particular siting of brothels in their areas. Those are two issues that the select committee wrestled with. We came up with a particular view and on reflection I can quite accept that those two issues are ones we should think about again. We have the Supplementary Order Paper here today to deal with it. There is also a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Lianne Dalziel. I think that one of the difficulties in processing a member’s bill is that the legislation does not go around Government departments prior to coming to a committee and the Immigration Service did not have sufficient time or opportunity to look at it. In now looking at it some gaps have been found and Lianne Dalziel’s amendment deals with those. 
I will finish in the minute before the dinner break this evening. I certainly commend those two Supplementary Order Papers to the Committee. I do not intend to be a dominant force in the course of the Committee stage but I will respond when I think it is useful. I commend the commentary on the bill and the legislation and I look forward to rigorous debate over the next hours and days. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I think that time is serving to my disadvantage here but I would like to start by saying that I am really interested in— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DIANNE YATES 
: I wish to speak in the debate on the title of what is now called the Prostitution Reform Bill which I think could probably be more aptly called the “Clients Protection Bill”. I note that the promoter of the bill Tim Barnett several times at the beginning of this debate referred to the bill as being about sex workers or as the “Sex Workers Bill” and herein is the problem. 
The Human Rights Commission prepared a paper on this bill in which the commission while not giving an opinion laid out the thinking behind relevant human rights instruments. Attitudes towards prostitution and this bill can be based on one of two basic premises. One is as Tim Barnett has said that prostitutes are workers—sex workers—and as such should be treated as any other worker and in this case the bill goes only part of the way. Although it purports to have health measures and protections and rights for the workers I consider that it benefits the clients rather than the prostitutes. I am sure any prostitutes with AIDS or who are pregnant will lose their job and I doubt that they will qualify for Accident Compensation Corporation payments. 
The other premise is that prostitution is as Mr Barnett said himself in his speech evil—it is something that people will not go into willingly and something that they want to get out of; I think he gave an average time of about 3 years—and that prostitution is exploitation of a group in society. The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women states in article 6: “State Parties shall take all appropriate measures including legislation to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.” The UN in this context uses the term “exploitation”. There is an international debate on how we prevent the exploitation of women and prostitutes in general. I do not believe this bill provides for the reform of prostitution in New Zealand as stated in the title which is why if we get that far I have put forward an amendment that could be called the “Swedish amendment” because it is based on the law in Sweden. It basically says let us get rid of the prosecution of prostitutes and let us get rid of the anomalies of prostitution in the law and in this country. Let us not decriminalise or even criminalise prostitution or make prostitution a legitimised occupation. It says let us prosecute the clients. Let us get rid of the demand and we will not need prostitutes and we will comply with the UN declaration about exploitation. 
Arguments about prostitution being always with us and being the oldest profession do not wash. Stealing will always be with us yet we do not decriminalise it and there is no suggestion we should do so. Arguments about driving prostitution underground do not wash. It is the clients who are underground and secretive rather than the prostitutes and I believe we should concentrate on the clients. 
I have spent a good time of my life teaching and I did not teach girls in particular to make a living off their backs but trained them for what are now legitimate occupations. I ask if we decriminalise prostitution are we going to pay spouses for sex also? We have trouble even trying to convince people that they should be paid or recognised for housework. I do not believe we should continue to exploit women and I do not believe we should totally commercialise society. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to compliment the member who has just resumed her seat because I believe she does not believe terribly much in this bill at all and she quite misguidedly thinks that she can amend the bill with one simple clause to make it go along the lines of the Swedish model. I tell her she is absolutely misguided if she believes she can change this bill and make it something along the lines of the Swedish model. This bill needs to be scrapped and we need to start again if we are to obtain laws based on the Swedish model. My colleague Brent Catchpole has a member’s bill that does just that. 
We should scrap this bill and start again. It is a confusing bill. We need only look at the amendments and the Supplementary Order Papers to see that. We have Supplementary Order Paper 56 from Dianne Yates to base the bill on the Swedish model. That will not work. Phil Goff wants to turn what is basically a decriminalised model into a legalised model and to license operators—for very good reasons. I say again that that will not work. Wayne Mapp wants to tighten up the existing laws: to maintain the status quo but with a little bit of tightening up here and there. That again will not work. Lianne Dalziel has introduced an amendment that restricts immigrants coming into this country from getting jobs in the sex industry or promoting that industry. All in all that indicates there are not very many people in favour of the decriminalised model. We should in fact scrap this bill and start again. 
One thing is for certain: this bill does not represent the reform of the prostitution industry if I can call it an industry. The title the Prostitution Reform Bill is not apt. It is not correct. In essence Gordon Copeland from United Future probably has a better title that is more applicable to what the bill does but I will not be voting for that title either. I personally will be voting against all the amendments I have seen tonight on the Supplementary Order Papers because I think this bill has gone in totally the wrong direction and to implement some of the amendments as outlined on the Supplementary Order Papers would just confuse the issue even more. 
If this bill was to have a correct title it would be along the lines of the “Pimping Reform Bill”. This bill opens the door for wholesale pimping in the prostitution industry and the people who get involved in that sort of activity will be rubbing their hands with glee thinking about the amount of money they can earn if this bill is passed. Or it could well be titled the “Pimping Advancement Bill” or perhaps the “Prostitution Advancement Bill” because if this bill comes through the House as it is written or even with some of these amendments we will see all sorts of expansion in the prostitution industry. There will be no boundaries for anybody to control the industry. The police will have no access to brothels unless they suspect that something extraordinary is going on. There will be no control whatsoever. 
When this bill was promoted it was advocated that it would assist prostitutes with their health problems. When the Justice and Electoral Committee visited Christchurch in particular the prostitutes told us in no uncertain terms—and indeed every sex worker who came before the select committee was equally categoric about this—that there are no health problems in the sex industry. Sex workers said they get all the advice they need and they get all the equipment they need free of charge I gather from the health service. So this bill somewhat deceives people when it states that it will tidy up the health concerns in the sex industry. 
The title of this bill is not apt. This bill if it comes in will lead to all sorts of adverse activities. It will give incentives to pimps it will give incentives to people to encourage child sex and it will give incentives to people to traffic in women. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I wish to move an amendment to the title of this bill. My amendment is to omit the words “Prostitution Reform Act 2000” and to substitute the words “Prostitution Solicitation Pimping and Brothel-keeping Legalisation Act 2003”. Although based on the feedback I have received this is not yet clear to the public by now it should certainly be clear to the members of this House that prostitution in and of itself—that is the buying and selling of sex—is already legal in New Zealand. In spite of that I noted during the second reading of the bill that a number of members continued to state simplistically that the aim of this bill was to decriminalise prostitution. Even within this House therefore it would appear that members remain confused about what this bill is intended to do. This bill will in fact decriminalise soliciting pimping—that is living off the proceeds of prostitution—and brothel-keeping the three things listed as crimes in the Crimes Act. If that is the reality then let us simply give the bill a correct title. 
I will continue to vote against this bill. I do not agree with the decriminalisation of soliciting pimping and brothel-keeping. Prostitution is an extremely high-risk and a dangerous occupation for any woman from both a physical and an emotional point of view. But without in any way minimising that reality prostitution is also bad for men and bad for families. I was staggered to learn that New Zealand has a higher per capita number of prostitutes than the Netherlands which is regarded as the “sex for sale” capital of Europe. I asked myself how that could possibly be. Then I discovered that the rate of sole parent and therefore fatherless families in New Zealand is 3.5 times higher than in the Netherlands. What do members think all those missing men do? If those men are married they commit adultery and that is a wrong against their wives. If they are fathers then every time that they make a payment of $100 for sex—the figure mentioned by Judith Collins—that is in effect money stolen from the support of their children. 
When we look at prostitution in those terms we see we simply cannot risk further stimulating the demand for prostitutes in this country. Yet in my view that is exactly what this bill will do. I ask all members to examine their conscience clearly and objectively on this issue. If they knew for certain that an additional 500 women would be drawn into prostitution as a result of our passing this legislation would they vote for it? Would they vote for it if the number were 100 10 or just one? In the  
Lord of the Rings 
 trilogy Sam said when they were approaching Mordor: “This was not supposed to happen Mr Frodo.” Frodo replied: “Many things have happened Sam that were not supposed to have happened.” Members should think carefully and examine their own conscience about whether the decriminalisation of soliciting pimping and brothel-keeping is supposed to happen in New Zealand in 2003. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 In rising to speak on this bill I want to begin by pointing out that the promoters of this bill say that its fundamental purpose is to protect or safeguard the individual rights of prostitutes. Would that be the reality of passing this legislation or would it effectively work to expand the opportunities for prostitution as an industry? I ask that question of those individual members who are wavering or who are on the fence on this legislation. Bills that are put to a conscience vote deal with complex moral and ethical issues yet one simple question must be posed: do we want prostitution to increase? In other countries including Australia where the prostitution laws have been liberalised the activity has flourished. I believe the problems associated with the industry could also potentially increase including child prostitution trafficking in women violence against prostitutes and blatant advertising for both the services provided and the recruitment of prostitutes. 
In speaking to the title one title could be the “Opening up the Trafficking of Men and Women into Prostitution Bill”. That could be a different title because that is significantly what the legislation will do. My personal opinion is that we have a regime that is too loose. As far as immigration is concerned we have seen a lot of different people coming into this country who should not be coming in. The regime is loose enough as it is and I believe that this bill will not help whatsoever. This bill allows for decriminalisation of prostitution and in my view in whatever form it is passed we will see more prostitution. I really believe that that is a fact. This legislation will allow for the increased exploitation of women and I do not believe that any amendments will stop that. I see where Dianne Yates is coming from—I see what is in her heart and I see the purpose of what she is trying to do—but at the end of the day we have to make sure we do not water the bill down in any way. I believe that we have to vote against any amendments to the bill because the whole bill needs to be thrown out and we need to look again at reforming prostitution by starting from square one. 
Reform is desirable if we are to eliminate a double standard. Currently the demand is legal and the supply is illegal. Changes are essential in order to protect and empower women in the sex industry. The bill is not the answer to that. It does little to minimise the activity by restricting entry into the profession or encouraging prostitutes to leave the industry. Law plays a major part in determining behaviour. That which is unpunishable by law becomes increasingly accepted by society. Prostitution is a trade that has always been around; so have burglary and drug trafficking. Does the logic follow that we may as well decriminalise those activities in order to protect the people involved in them? I think not. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I suggest that the bill before us should be called the “Prostitution Perform Bill” because those who believe that prostitutes are nothing more than free agents exercising their right to sell their bodies in a free-market transaction could not be more wrong about that. Instead of liberating sex workers this legislation will expand their opportunities in a crime-infested industry. The bill could easily have been called the “Politically Erect Women’s Career Degradation Bill”. Let us not be naive. One cannot separate drugs violence servitude and crime from prostitution simply by legalising prostitution. The result of passing this legislation will be an expansion of the sex trade and new opportunities for drugs and violence as well. Police monitoring and enforcement will become increasingly difficult—certainly more onerous and in all likelihood futile. Decriminalisation of prostitution will mean that brothels could and would be lawfully established in our suburbs and our communities with scant regard to the wishes of those communities. How do we expect to restrict the proliferation of brothels under this legislation? The rampant drug usage within the sex industry will end up with more locations to operate from—or is this just the first step towards the decriminalisation of the drug industry as well? Why do we not call this bill the “Anti-democratic and Ethically Challenged Bill”? 
Why do 8000 prostitutes have the right to foist their interests on the rest of us and to gain legitimacy over us in spite of our views? If their case is as compelling as that then at least let us have a referendum. Let us hear the wisdom and common sense of our fellow Kiwis who do not believe Mr Barnett’s claim that prostitution is an idea whose time has come. Its time has not come. Overseas experience shows that decriminalisation encourages more women into prostitution and without the fear of prosecution there will be increased competition greater control by gangs more pimping and an even greater risk of violence intimidation and female abuse. 
We could even call this bill the “Prostitution (Business Protection) Bill” because Mr Barnett does not simply want to decriminalise prostitution but wants the industry to have the status of a preferred business. He has dismissed suggestions that brothels be licensed because that would in his words “push smaller owners behind closed doors” and because prostitutes would be penalised by having to—again in his words—“face the same costs as large brothels to process applications”. So in complete contradiction to the practice of all other legitimate businesses that would welcome similar reductions in compliance costs Mr Barnett wants prostitution to have a preferred status. 
If the bill passes there will be a widening job market for women; that is for sure. They will be able to choose occupations ranging from Prime Minister to prostitute as legitimate jobs—from serving the people to being served up. The truth is that the push for decriminalisation the removal of the legal consequences of prostitution is only a hop away from ethical approval of prostitution. Where is our vision when we push to legislate for a legal tolerance of prostitution? That is nothing more than political correctness dressed up in a whore’s skirt and hoisted above the ethical Plimsoll line. Decriminalisation would be a victory of stupidity over common sense a damning indictment of the place in which we hold women in our society and a pathway of ethical bankruptcy for future generations. 
This bill should not be called the Prostitution Reform Bill because it reforms nothing. It is the “Prostitutes Perform Bill” in intent and effect. This bill is not the answer because when society makes an activity unpunishable by law that inevitably makes that activity acceptable. The supporters of this bill claim it will stop child prostitution but that is already illegal. Decriminalising the sex trade for those over 18 will do for underage prostitutes what lowering the drinking age has done for underage drinkers. Women did not demand the right to vote only to have their true worth denied and their status undermined through being seen as purchasable sex objects. How did we get to such a ridiculous state where valiant women have fought for the right to stand on their feet only to be rewarded with the right to be on their backs? This is not a reform bill it is a “perform” bill that crushes a woman’s spirit. 
I tell members to look to their children and to see their ethical inheritance. Neither the author of this bill nor its supporters in this Chamber who are attempting to pass this legislation will be there to pick up the pieces. They will deliver their vote and walk away and those of us who give a damn will be left to clean up after them. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise in support of the title of this bill in the name of Tim Barnett and in doing so I follow on from my friend and colleague Marc Alexander who set out his views in a very clear way. I think that reminded us all that there is a sharp division of members’ views on the bill we are discussing with people taking very different attitudes and approaches to it. It is good that we are starting the debate in the Committee stage by talking about the title of the bill and what that title is intended to mean when it comes to the law that we are trying to put through Parliament. 
I will not be supporting Mr Copeland’s amendment to the title because I do not think the negative connotations he feels we are trying to put in place are what is trying to be achieved. I start from the point of view that I am a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee and we wrote in our report that we neither condemn nor condone prostitution. This is not a prostitution promotion bill. This is a Prostitution Reform Bill because it reforms the current law on and the current legal status of prostitution on the law books in our country. I do not believe that any of us on the committee passed a moral judgment on prostitution. From my point of view we simply said that we recognise the existence—I think the words in the report were the “enduring nature” of the existence—of prostitution. Then having recognised that we asked what legal status prostitution should be given in order to protect the greatest number of people and to bring more justice into the law. 
Throughout the debate members have forgotten a lot of things about what is in the bill and when we talk about clause 3 the purpose clause we need to remember there is a specific reference at that point to no moral judgment being passed on prostitution. Mr Alexander mentioned the issue of child prostitution and this bill I believe will give us a better chance of fighting the coercion of younger people into working in this industry. Clearly very few members in this House—and I acknowledge Mr McNair who spoke earlier about this issue as well—would want us to promote prostitution to young people as their first career choice. What has not come out—and I hope it will come out during the Committee stage—is that we have put specific provisions in the bill so that prostitution will not be something that is promoted to people by way of career guidance at schools by the Accident Compensation Corporation when it is looking to encourage people back into work or by Work and Income if it is work testing or looking at different options for people. We are not putting prostitution into a category where we are saying we want to encourage people to work as prostitutes. 
I do not believe the number of prostitutes is necessarily important. I believe what is important is that those who do work in that industry can do so safely and with protection and that those who want to leave the industry are facilitated and enabled to do so. The fact that we are changing prostitution from an underground activity and acknowledging that it does exist will enable support systems to flourish around people who work in the sex industry. It will also mean in the case of young people working in the industry that there can be a zero tolerance approach to that because those who work as prostitutes will have legal protection so therefore will be able to report brothel-keepers who are using young people under the age of 18 to work in the industry. I spoke very strongly in support of that at the select committee stage. I do not think it is appropriate at all for people under the age of 18 to be working in the sex industry. This bill gives us the first chance to do something meaningful about that. 
Those are some of the reasons that I am supporting the bill. Of course no one could be induced or coerced into prostitution under the bill. Those safeguards and provisions are in there as well. I think the title of the bill sums up quite well what we are trying to do: we are reforming the law to try to create a new legal environment. We are not changing any moral environment here. I do not know whether the number of prostitutes will go up or down. I say it is more important that we have proper law. The Prostitution Reform Bill as named by Tim Barnett is well named and I will be supporting it. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I follow on from my colleague across the Chamber to say that I too support this bill and the title as it stands. We in the Green Party believe that this bill is all about reform—nothing else. It is reforming something that has needed reform for a very long time. Our laws on prostitution are based on 19th century prejudices and morals and on legal codes that are well over 100 years out of date. It is high time we carried out a genuine reform of something that to my way of thinking is a moral question. It is a moral question that should not be legislated. In other words we are making a choice here that affects people’s lives. Do we really say that we have the right to maintain the criminalisation of a whole section of the population for consenting acts of sex between adults? To me that is what this debate comes down to. 
Peter Brown talked about this bill opening the door to wholesale pimping. Nothing could be further from the truth. From hearing over 2 years a large number of submissions and from taking part in much debate in this area I have found interestingly enough that of the groups that opposed this bill some of the massage parlour owners opposed it the most. These days they are the people who do—some of them—make profits from dreadful in some cases exploitation of sex workers. They are the sorts of people who feel threatened by this bill not the sex workers. The sex workers see it as a way finally to begin to be able to fight back and end some of the grosser exploitations they are subject to. Some of them endure the most horrific working conditions in brothels and massage parlours. They and people like me see this bill as an instrument of their liberation of their ability to unionise should they so choose. The bill also increases their ability to form themselves into self-employed groups of women or men as some of them already do as they see this as a much more empowered way of operating. If this bill goes through it will help to break down a lot of exploitation—gang control and the worst exploitation by criminal men that happens in some parts of the industry. 
Mr Brown also talked about there being perverse incentives to encourage child sex and to encourage trafficking of women. Again nothing could be further from the truth. This bill makes it very clear that there are very very high penalties against any form of coercion. There are very high penalties against people who use sex workers who are under 18. The young people under 18 will not be criminalised but those who use them will be. This bill strengthens the changes to the Crimes Act that were made several years ago. Some people in talking to this debate are simply flying in the face of what the bill actually states. 
Mr Copeland talked about prostitution already being legal in New Zealand. Well and good; he is technically correct. But with 12 sex workers in Auckland just a few weeks ago being arrested in one weekend members cannot tell me that this is a legal industry. It is not. Women and men are still being persecuted and prosecuted for taking part in this occupation. It is a really unfortunate argument to say. “Why do we have this bill? People don’t suffer from prosecution any more.” Indeed they do and I cannot quite understand why the police at this time are taking such punitive action especially when in Auckland we also have unsolved murders in the streets around Karangahape Road and south Auckland. If the police were serious they would be bending over backwards to develop and maintain a good relationship with street workers and sex workers. They are doing the opposite by picking on them and by persecuting people more than they have for years. I have to wonder about the role the police are playing in Auckland at the moment. 
Mr Copeland also talked about prostitution as a physically and mentally high-risk activity. I do not think there is anyone in the House who would deny that. Certainly no one who sat on the select committee and no one who has had anything to do with the industry would. The very fact that prostitution is a physically and mentally high-risk industry is the reason we have this bill. Decriminalising prostitution will make health and other forms of social services much easier for sex workers to obtain. The very fact that the possession of condoms will not be able to be used any more as a factor in prosecuting sex workers will be a huge step forward. I find it iniquitous that in the 21st century we should have a situation where people can be prosecuted and persecuted because they are found with a large quantity of condoms. This is in the age of AIDS hepatitis and many other diseases. It is unbelievable. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill and to foreshadow Supplementary Order Paper 70 in my name which I believe addresses some shortcomings and some necessary protections for society as a whole in the bill as reported back from the select committee. 
I made a decision some time ago that no purpose would be served in making a criminal out of a person who works as a sex worker. I have heard no argument in the House during this debate as to why somebody who works as a sex worker ought to be a criminal—the more so of course given the fact that the person who is the client of that sex worker commits no criminal offence. It was a law drafted by men in favour of men at a time when only women were regarded as working as prostitutes. 
There are evils associated with prostitution. I have to say that I do not regard prostitution as normal. I cannot understand why people would work in such an industry other than maybe out of necessity if they had a drug addiction and were financing that addiction. The evils I am talking about surrounding prostitution are the evils of coercion and the evils of child prostitution and young people as prostitutes. We have addressed those evils in legislation already passed through the House in the last 2 years. 
I draw the attention of the Committee to the Crimes Amendment Act because when I mentioned it to some members they were not aware of the changes that occurred under it. That was an Act I passed as Minister of Justice in 2001. The Act made it an offence to be the client of a prostitute who was under the age of 18. That in combination with what is in this bill provides appropriate protection against young people both men and women being exploited at that age. That also enabled us to comply with the ILO Convention Concerning the Worst Forms of Child Labour. 
The other evil associated with prostitution is the evil of coercion. Last year this House made trafficking or smuggling of people an offence. The sentence for that is up to 20 years in prison and a fine of $500000. There was no way this House could have made it more clear that it was against the use of coercion to force people into a trade such as prostitution. Another problem with prostitution as it currently stands—that is that soliciting is illegal—is that we have tended to force that particular type of work into the shadows. As a result too often prostitutes fall under the control of organised criminal gangs. I am not talking hypothetically; I am talking about what happens right now. 
This House can pretend that prostitution is illegal. We all know that it exists. One can pick up the  
Dominion Post  
any day of the week and see a full page of advertisements for sex workers. We also know from the police submission to the select committee that more often than not criminal gangs are involved with prostitution. Having prostitution as a criminal offence is more likely to encourage that outcome than decriminalising the soliciting of services by sex workers. 
My amendments are designed to do two things. Firstly they are designed to empower territorial local authorities if they wish to pass by-laws to prevent places of prostitution being established in areas where plainly it is inappropriate for them to be and that is largely in residential areas but members might consider that areas adjacent to preschools or schools are also inappropriate. It is important that the local authorities have that power. That power as set out on my Supplementary Order Paper would expire 2 years after commencement because the advice I have from Local Government New Zealand is that that is the time period necessary for local authorities to amend their district plans to restrict the location of places of prostitution. I believe that any neighbourhood has the right to keep places of prostitution out of its area. There are commercial areas where prostitution may exist and obviously that would not cause any offence to neighbours; but to have legislation that would enable places of prostitution to be located in the midst of neighbourhoods is quite inappropriate. 
The second power I have set out on my Supplementary Order Paper is the power the police need to keep people with serious criminal convictions—convictions relating to violence sexual offences drugs arms and gang-related offences—out of running prostitution. We have in this country laws that state that if a person wants to sell a second-hand car he or she has to be a person of a suitable character. It would be plainly inappropriate to regulate for people in these sorts of occupations but we are trying to get away from saying that the occupation of prostitution is one that is quite appropriate to place in the hands of the criminal underworld. That is why my Supplementary Order Paper sets out the offences. People convicted of them would be prevented from being able to legally operate a place of prostitution. The police say that they need that power to ensure such people do not work in the industry. If a person operating a place of prostitution is convicted of violence or drug offences the chances are that such a person would use coercion against the people who may be working for him or her. As demonstrated in public opinion polls the community although divided in opinion about the matter of decriminalisation would be more comfortable about a law decriminalising the industry if it provided the protections I have set out on my Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that those unsuitable to be operating places of prostitution are kept out of it and if it ensured that territorial local authorities could prohibit places of prostitution from being established in areas where it is inappropriate to have them. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to speak against the title of this Prostitution Reform Bill. To me reform implies there are increased health and safety requirements. However I cannot see anything in the bill that will safeguard the men women and children who are involved in the sex industry despite this attempt to normalise prostitution by writing in health and safety requirements—such as that applying in any manufacturing workplace. There is no way that anything that happens behind closed doors in a brothel can be managed by the owner in the same way as in a manufacturing environment or any other workplace in New Zealand. 
The women mainly involved in the sex industry in this country deserve to be safe but I cannot see anything in this bill that does that. Any building that is used in a manufacturing environment or for the sale of goods must meet the requirements of the building code and be registered for the business. The registration is usually checked on a pretty regular basis—at least annually. I believe that if this bill was really serious about health and safety for prostitutes then the same building safety regulations would be in place and some external agency could go in and check on them. But unfortunately they are not. I know that the buildings that are used for these purposes are normally not up to reasonably good safety standards. I believe if this bill was serious it would ensure that there were regular checks and also registration to ensure the safety of the people working in these buildings. 
To me reform gives the impression that something is better than it was. This bill does nothing to promote the safety of the men women and children who are working in this industry. Reform implies that this work is a legal safe career choice but there is no safety inherent in the bill. I would like to think that safety included safety of the environment. There is nothing in the bill that does that. If the work is legal then the industry really needs to follow the same requirements as any other workplace. The health and safety measures in this bill imply the industry is self-regulating but without the interference of some other body those measures cannot be enforced. The bill has a very serious flaw in this area. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I was not going to speak in the course of this debate. I have a clear position that I will vote against this bill so I hope it tumbles at the first hurdle which is the debate on the title. But I cannot sit here idly and listen to the comments that the Minister of Justice made in a speech that I believe was riddled with legal error. In case others might think that there is merit in the legal comments that he has offered to the Committee I would seek to correct that and briefly deal with three points. The first point that the Minister made is fair enough in itself and it is a response to what others have said. The suggestion is that there is something in this bill that will deal with the problem of child prostitution and he was accurate in his comments to say that that is an issue on which this Parliament has already passed judgment in a condemnatory way and that this bill will do nothing to deal with that particular issue. The law is in place to deal well I would argue with this hazard of child prostitution. 
In this debate we are involved in talking about the ability of Parliament to legislate moral values. That is a fraught exercise on any view of it. I have always felt that the most that a Parliament can do is provide indicators of the type of behaviour that we would seek to encourage. When we get to a position as we are in this bill of seeking to legislate moral values I am certain we will fail in that quest. 
The second issue the Minister spoke about which is directly referable to Supplementary Order Paper 70 that the Minister is promoting is the by-law provision. Some members seated opposite will immediately be able to see the error of that proposal. They will be people who are in the Chamber tonight who know about the processes of local government and the interrelationship between the Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act. An integral part of the Minister’s proposal is that there be interim by-law control. The explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper contemplates that those by-laws will have a short-term effect and in due time will be replaced by provisions in a district plan. Those who know this area of planning law will know that a local authority may immediately in terms of the relevant planning legislation by way of plan change introduce interim prohibitions. That in itself would be if a local authority were so minded sufficient to deal with the planning issues that arise in the context of what is seen to be unsavoury activity damaging to the public interest. 
The third aspect that the Minister has pushed hard at members of this Committee relates to the involvement of criminal gangs in this area. There is no doubt about it such gangs do exist. But last June this Minister pushed through changes to the Crimes Act in a new section 98A that sufficiently dealt with the issue of participation in organised criminal groups. So I would say for those who are undecided in the way that they might vote on this bill that what the Minister has proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 70 achieves nothing at all. I hope members might reflect on that. It is not appropriate I suggest for the Minister to offer flawed legal advice to the Committee that may have as its objective an attempt to woo support for his position because his position is wholly and utterly flawed. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I rise in support of the title of this bill and I will be voting in favour of it. I will be doing that because of the word “reform”. The word “reform” in this bill is not to be interpreted as those who have been addressing this issue so far say to change the law that has been operating because no laws have effectively been operating. That was demonstrated by my learned colleague the Minister of Justice who said that in June of 2001 he passed the Crimes Amendment Act for the prosecution of those people who used children in pornography. To my knowledge there have been no such prosecutions. That tells us one of two things. Either all the talk in this Parliament about child prostitution in this country and all the billboards by well-funded reactive elements by the airports that talk about child prostitution are not basing their arguments on fact. Or it tells us that the police do not know what is going on out there and are not able to enforce the law. 
So on the evidence itself of an amendment to the Crimes Act in 2001 we clearly either do not have child prostitution or we have no way of detecting it. It may well be the latter. In the police report which is appendix B to this bill the police say: “Due to the hidden nature of the sex industry there is very little quantitative data available on the numbers of people involved.” I want members to reflect on that. If we do not know whether there is a problem how can we make those assertions about the problem? If we do not know how big the problem is assuming there is one how can we make any changes? We hear figures from this well-funded institute the Maxim Institute which has got to the churches and we see form letters and it quotes the increase in prostitution in New South Wales. The one fault in that argument is that no one knew what the starting point was. So when one gets those inflammatory figures one must say that someone has a hidden agenda here. And the hidden agenda is an agenda based upon a moral position and people attempting to impose their moral position on other people who do not share it. 
I have huge respect for the churches. I have huge respect for every person who has copied the Maxim Institute form letter and sent it to me because they are taking part in democracy. But unfortunately I cannot fail to be convinced that they are other than pawns in some bigger campaign. Their fear of doom is being parlayed by other people who should know better—to thwart the bill’s going through this House. 
The reason this bill is well named as a reform bill has been ignored by all speakers I have heard thus far. The word “reform” goes on through the life of this legislation at least for the first 3 to 5 years and is contained in clause 9N of the bill. The bill establishes that a Prostitution Law Review Committee must be set up. It has two responsibilities. It must assess the number of persons working as sex workers in New Zealand and any prescribed matters relating to sex workers or prostitution and it must report on its findings to the Minister of Justice. Then no sooner than the expiry of 3 years but before the expiry of 5 years there must be a review of the operation of the Act since its commencement. There must be an assessment of the impact of the Act on the number of people working as sex workers and on any prescribed matters relating to sex workers or prostitution. It must assess the nature and adequacy of the means available to assist persons. It must consider whether any changes are necessary to the law. It must consider the overall picture. Once we have a starting point from which we can look at reform we can stand up in this Parliament and argue sensibly. We can put our personal bandwagons to one side we can stop our inhibitions that are motivated by fear we can put our childhood hang-ups on the hook at the back door and we can say: this is the data we have; either there is no problem or if there is we can apply our collective intelligence and bring in a change. And then we are talking about reform. Until then we are shooting the breeze and we are expressing our own individual fears and hang-ups. 
I want those who have foreshadowed doom already and made a mockery of the title of this bill by proposing fatuous amendments to just reflect on this. If they will continue on that line they will not be passing any law that has any rational sense. They will make the lives of many people miserable including those men who use prostitutes. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (NZ National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 It will be very hard to convey some of my sentiments on this bill in a 5-minute speech but I will make my best effort. When I became an Associate Minister of Health in 1990 one of the first briefings I had from the Ministry of Health was about the biggest threat that faced New Zealand and it was to do with HIV/AIDS. I was told that if we went down the same path as Amsterdam Rotterdam Hamburg or Glasgow we would see the most stunning levels of the infection going through our intravenous drug user community our sex worker community and our homosexual community. It seemed to me that there was some logic in being a pragmatist rather than a moralist. I understand that there are people in this Parliament who feel strongly about the sale of someone’s body for money and I do not think it is a particularly nice concept. If someone asked me whether I would like my daughter to be a prostitute when she grows up my answer would be no. I do not particularly like the idea that my sons might grow up to be homosexual but they might. If it does happen it will be best to live with it in a way that tries to minimise the harm and the damage to those people rather than sitting in judgment and saying “I’m going to outlaw and ban it.” That has not worked in any form of moral code for human beings at all. 
Larry Baldock asked a question today about the involvement of gangs in prostitution. I tell that member that the biggest gang involvement was that of the mafia in the United States who were involved in corruption and coercion within prostitution while it was totally illegal. It does not make sense to say that if it is kept illegal the gangs the underworld and the corruption will somehow be kept out. If anything I think the logic works the other way. 
What we are talking about here—or at least I hope that is all we are talking about—is a matter of “willing seller willing buyer” conducted between consenting adults away from the public gaze. I certainly do not want young children involved. I do not want coercion involved. I do not want drug industries involved or immigration breaches stolen property or gangs involved. If any of those things are involved then I welcome the police using all their muscle and might to go in and clean up those aspects of the industry. I do not think there are many members of this Parliament who do not want that to happen. 
As an Associate Health Minister I funded the Prostitutes Collective to go out and give condoms to their members saying: “Don’t have sex without one of these because there is a dreadful virus that knows no boundaries and it can kill you and your client and your client’s brother and sister who may happen to sleep with someone else.” I remember an elderly lady once said to me at a meeting “What you are talking about with prostitutes is disgusting.” and I said “What if your son visited one?” to which she replied “He never would.” But some people must visit prostitutes because there are 10000 sex workers and they must have some clients. Even if that woman’s son did not visit a prostitute he might fall in love with a young lady who had been going out with a guy who had been with a prostitute at some stage and as the HIV virus knows no boundaries he might be infected as well. We all have an obligation to try to be sensible about that. 
I came at the subject from the same perspective I used in regard to the clean-needle exchange. I do not like people using heroin. I think it is wrong that they use it but I would rather that they use clean needles than share HIV and hepatitis and all the other dreadful viruses. There are some lunatics like the Catholic Action Group which thinks that that is something God visits on people who are evil. The Catholic Action Group sent me an email saying I would burn in the furnace for eternity because I supported fornication. I am happy to admit to that—my hand is now up. I am a fornicator and I hope other members are prepared to say they are as well. I am happy to say so. I have done the maths and using my physics formula I have worked out that if the furnace is 5000 degrees and my 82-kilogram frame were thrown into it I would last 3.2 seconds—that is hardly an eternity. I do not think I will burn for a long time at all; the Catholic Action Group is an outrage. 
I heard other things in this House during the time of the homosexual law reform that really riled me. They were mainly from my own colleagues—John Banks Norman Jones and others. Fran Wilde was told that she would go—she would be history—because she was advocating the “immoral” decriminalisation of homosexuality. She was not actually making it compulsory she was just decriminalising it. Norman Jones said we would see homosexuals copulating on the side of the motorway as we drove home at night; it is in  
Hansard— 
have a look. I have not yet seen one homosexual copulating on the motorway as I drive home. 
I do want to get this clear because I do know where the moral conservative view comes from and I understand it. We need to make sure that this legislation stops all the nasty elements because I do not want people being coerced into prostitution and I do not want young people being involved in this. I remember that the day after we had negotiated the contracts with the Prostitutes Collective for the funding of condoms the police went into a brothel in Christchurch posing as TV3 cameramen. One officer went upstairs into the bedroom took his gear off and lay naked beside a young lady who said “What can I do for you for $100?” and he said “You’re busted.” Give us a break! That is ridiculous. We had the police totally working against what the Ministry of Health was desperately trying to achieve. 
I know that Phil Goff has some concerns and so do I in regard to whether prostitution will be stuck in residential neighbourhoods and whether local authorities can license it and so on but I ask members to think about this. If it is a case of willing seller and willing buyer between consenting adults do members think they have a dog’s show of ever making it stop? It has been around long before politicians have been and it has been around since before we were around—but only just. It will always be around because of necessity. We are not all as handsome as Peter Brown. We cannot all visit the ports of the world and get it for free like he did. Some of the poor bastards who look like I do have to pay when we go around the world—I have not but I am sure that it will happen one day. 
Where is the victim? That is the question I ask the moral right—if that is what those people who oppose it are called. The example of the homosexual law reform is really good because the next thing I got was the Keith Hay brigade—which was pretty much made up of the people who fund the Maxim Institute—coming to me and saying: “You support the Homosexual Law Reform Bill and you’re dog tucker in your electorate. You’re gone. You will never be re-elected.” It scared the living bejesus out of me. I thought “Wow. They’ve got such networks and funding that this will impact on me.” But guess what—it made not one jot of difference. I got elected in 1987 and carried on. 
The best example can be provided by Fran Wilde. People in this House said to Fran Wilde: “Listen here. You’re gone. You will never be re-elected. You’re history.” In 1987 after she had passed the bill she got an increased majority. In 1990 she withstood the blue flood of National seats that took over the Wellington area. We won Miramar and all sorts of seats but we did not win Wellington Central because Fran Wilde stayed on. She then stood for the mayoralty and got one of the biggest votes ever and in my view Fran Wilde is one of New Zealand’s very valuable citizens. She saw a need to fix something and she did it. 
I hope that as members debate this issue they will understand that we are not advocating the evils of child prostitution or coercion corruption or anything else—I would be on the ramparts fighting against that as well. I am asking members to please think about something that will always occur behind closed doors whatever members legislate tonight and whatever members think is morally right or wrong. Why do we not just say that it is not a criminal offence? 
I know that New Zealand audiences never see this but what amazes me is that no one in New Zealand ever understood that prostitution has always been legal here. It is stupidity if I go down to one of the brothels tonight and say to someone “Here’s a hundred bucks will you do something for me?” no one is a criminal; but if the prostitute says “Give us a hundred bucks and I’ll do the following—” she alone is a criminal. If that is not a law made by men for men I do not know what is. 
Members who think the Dianne Yates solution is right to make everybody a criminal have got to be dreaming. That would be about as successful as prohibition was in the United States in the 1920s. That makes everybody criminals for something that will carry on happening. I ask everybody in this Parliament to think about this issue carefully to get away from their prejudices in the background which will really affect them and to vote accordingly. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 It will be no surprise to anybody in the Chamber but I will be voting against the title. I believe that the intent of the bill would be indicated by the “Society Reform Bill” rather than the Prostitution Law Reform Bill. A lot has been said tonight about hidden agendas and I suggest there could well be a hidden agenda behind even the title of this bill. When we look at the bill and what it is trying to do and what it is actually going to achieve it is not about really improving the lives of prostitutes in this country. It is about trying to change society’s attitude towards prostitution. It wants to reform society’s attitude. Although we have heard some speakers earlier say we should be tolerant and accepting of what is done between consenting adults it is amazing how often they then turn round and say we are bigoted because we have a moral stand on something; that somehow or other we are out of line. All the tolerance goes out of the window. Suddenly we are the ones with baggage we are the ones with childhood hang-ups. But actually we are the ones who are fighting for something that is very very important. 
I have not heard anybody throughout this whole debate since I joined the Justice and Electoral Committee show me any evidence of anywhere in the world where liberalisation of prostitution laws has resulted in protection for children under age; where it has resulted in healthier happier and more wholesome prostitutes. The evidence simply does not exist. 
What is really the situation in New Zealand right now with prostitution? I heard many times in the select committee that there were 8000 prostitutes in New Zealand. That figure has been quoted by the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective on many many occasions. Yet tonight I heard Tim Barnett say there are 5000 prostitutes. I do not know what has happened to 3000 prostitutes in the last few weeks but I rather suspect that it is because we have begun to realise that 8000 prostitutes in this country puts us at the highest per capita rate of prostitution of anywhere in the world; that suddenly there has been a recognition by those who are in favour of this bill that they need to shrink that number in order to avoid that label. 
If we have 8000 prostitutes then we have a ratio of 0.2 percent per head of population. Holland which is known as the most liberal nation in the world with regard to prostitution as has been said already has a ratio of 0.16 percent. Nobody in his or her right mind would say on a visit to Holland that the prostitution situation there is healthy and wholesome and has resulted in no exploitation of women or that it has managed to protect children from getting involved in under-age prostitution. 
In fact I spoke recently to the president of the Police Association who has made a personal trip to Holland to study the situation and he came back convinced that if we follow the direction that is outlined in this bill we will end up with a situation very similar to that which exists in Holland. The only nation I have been able to discover that has anything like a positive move with regard to prostitution is Sweden which has a ratio of only 0.03 percent per head of population. Sweden has only 2500 prostitutes so that is a much much smaller ratio than what we have in New Zealand. 
We have heard a lot about the Swedish model and what it would produce. Tim Barnett has mentioned there are 500 prostitutes being trafficked into Sweden as a result of its law change—which has 80 percent approval within its population I might add. But that 500 figure has to be taken into account with the 100000 women who are trafficked across the borders in Europe every year. That is 100000 women who are drawn into prostitution. These are not women who go into prostitution to make some money to help get out of a lifestyle that they do not like; these are women who are taken into slavery. I hope there will be time during this debate for me to show members a movie in the parliamentary theatre that is based upon the true life story of a 16-year-old woman taken from Russia and into prostitution in Sweden. Because that shows the reality of what we are talking about. 
Those who are in favour of this bill I can only describe as well-meaning but very naive people who are putting their heads in the sand in the hope that simply because we want something to happen and because we pass a law for it to happen it will happen. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to talk on this very important Prostitution Reform Bill which I do not support. I do not support it because I am not convinced by any of the evidence I read anywhere in the literature that it is going to benefit either those involved in prostitution or society in general. 
If one looks at the statistics surrounding the various prostitution models that are available—the decriminalisation model in New South Wales the legalisation model in Victoria or the Swedish model—one sees that none of them has demonstrated over time that there has been an overall benefit in either of the two parameters that are really important which are those of helping the prostitutes themselves or those involved with prostitution or helping society in general. It is fine to call a bill a reform bill but there has to be good evidence to demonstrate that that actually will happen. The word “reform” does imply “to make better by removal of faults or errors”. 
It is ironic that prostitution itself is not illegal in New Zealand and that has come about by the fact that I understand Parliament has never consciously debated whether prostitution should be legal in New Zealand. It has certainly come about by a Victorian legacy that we have had and have accepted in New Zealand but I think it is important that that actual debate does happen before we frame a bill that is likely to be enduringly successful. 
The title of this bill is inappropriate because of this question of whether it truly will be reform. I have put an amendment to call this bill by a title that truly reflects its aim to decriminalise such activities as soliciting living off the earnings of prostitution pimping and coercion. Consequently I think the name should reflect what the bill purports to do. I have suggested it be called the “Decriminalisation of Prostitution and Related Activities Bill”. On any of the criteria that are stated in the aims of this bill I cannot see any objective evidence of reform actually being achieved. 
I shall go through those five aims. One is protecting children from exploitation in relation to prostitution. Certainly the present law does protect them and I do not think there is any extra protection that this bill affords. 
Secondly there is the aim of creating an environment that is conducive to public health and this clearly is hugely important. I pay tribute to the AIDS Foundation and those involved in the campaign in New Zealand to bring about the safe-sex message. Unfortunately there is no evidence that I can see that this bill will improve that situation. I would very much like to see that happen. 
Consequently I have also put a second amendment in anticipation of this bill going through that it be tested in 5 years’ time. One of the strengths of this bill is that there is a monitoring mechanism and that is very important. We want to know objectively in New Zealand if this bill is enacted whether the situation is improved. If it is not then the legislation should be scrapped in those circumstances. The second amendment I have put is that this bill if it is enacted will expire 5 years after the day on which it receives the royal assent unless a majority of the House of Representatives resolves otherwise. 
There is an onus on the committee that is to monitor this bill to ensure that it does its job very thoroughly in terms of both the benefits for those involved in the sex industry and the benefits or otherwise for society. I would be very appreciative if the Committee supported those two amendments. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I support the title of the Prostitution Reform Bill—“reform” as my colleague Mr Fairbrother mentioned before being the operative word. Any reform of this particular industry has been a long time coming. I will speak on a quite narrow aspect and perspective that I have had in my experience in this industry. 
This evening I have heard people talk of coercion of gangs and their relationship with prostitution and so on. People might be interested to know that I would say that in my day in the late 1970s—in 1976—the State inadvertently coerced a person such as me into becoming a prostitute. That was because I was a transsexual. In those days society’s attitudes towards people like me were certainly not as kind as they are now or as considerate I might add. In that time when I applied for the unemployment benefit I was told to take my skirt off put my trousers back on and go out there and get a job. I refused to do that. I stood up for my own human rights and said: “No I am a transsexual. This is me.” 
No employer would take me on in that particular mode. I found that if I wanted to earn a living as the person I wanted to be I had to go into the sex industry. It seemed about the only job that was available to me to earn a so-called honest dollar. I started off in the strip clubs. Because of the lousy pay that our boss paid us at the time—something like $35 a week—we were expected to supplement our income by picking up clients in the strip club itself and to increase our income in that way. That was my first taste of it. It was not a very pleasant affair at all. I soon came to realise that that would be my lot for some time. It was the only area of society where I could participate and feel like I was part of a group of people who were in a “like minority” kind of way marginalised by society. We bonded in some respects in order to support ourselves. 
If I were to have that choice over again I would say that this country would not tolerate the inhumanity of enabling someone like me at that particular time to have no particular choice in the matter. It was wrong. “Reform” is the operative word. I never want to see that happen again to anybody. I might add that I was about 17 years old when all of this started to happen—under the age limit in terms of the protections we want to put in this bill and I fully support them. It is strange that the State in its own way at that time inadvertently and unknowingly helped a person like me into the sex industry. It was wrong. I never wanted to go into it but there I was. 
What did I find there? I found a marginalised society that cared about a person like me and we had to stick together because the rest of society abhorred us. Yet strangely enough the clientele who came along to seek our services were ordinary men predominantly but women sometimes who sought the services of a person such as myself at that time. These were fathers uncles and grandfathers—ordinary New Zealand citizens who felt the need to access this kind of service. I know I will hear somebody say that this is outrageous but I expect that in some cases our service protected family relationships because some people have slightly different preferences in terms of their sexual activity from what they might find acceptable within their home. They found an outlet for it through the sex industry. 
I support the fact that the industry must be made much more healthy and much more appropriate. If that kind of activity is to proceed—and it does and it always will—then we have to give people both the client and the prostitute the best chance of health and safety. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 One of the aspects of tikanga Maori that I most admire—and I hope the Committee will let me try to explain this in the best terms I know how—is the concept that we move forward into the future by backing into the future. My understanding is that the thought is that we make decisions about our future from that which we can learn from what has gone before and I admire that. 
The sponsor’s intention is to bring about through this legislation harm minimisation. However if we are to look at what has gone before then we need to look to the experience of Victoria Australia. In fact as time has passed since 1982 with the Victoria legislation the state has been embroiled in a series of ongoing legislative tweaking to redress the consequences of the supposed reform. It has had to bring in licensing and local planning controls to limit the size of brothels to outlaw advertising to establish a prostitution control board to register prostitutes to have mandatory health checks to criminalise street prostitution and to have mandatory disclosure to landlords. The Victoria publication the  
Age 
 newspaper reported in 1999 that there had been an increase in the number of legal brothels from 40 to 94 in just a decade. This number needs to be added to the 84 escort agencies. However the real growth in Victoria was in the illegal sector which trebled in 12 months and outnumbered the legal members and establishments of the industry. For instance Victoria now stages the annual Sexpo which illustrates how acceptable the industry is now. It is reported that women in booths at the Sexpo will sell their services of a kind for the same price as one can buy a pottle of frozen yoghurt at the next stand. 
The misbelief that once decriminalised women in the industry will be able to choose their own working conditions and their own clients and have industry health and safety standards in place are misplaced. The truth is that it has become much more difficult in Victoria for women to set up in business for themselves due to the illegal monopolisation of the industry by brothel-owners. For instance the average going rate on the market for brothels is A$1 million. Mandatory disclosure means that prostitutes setting up in business face exorbitant costs due to inflated rentals. Brothel managers and owners demand anywhere between 50 to 60 percent of the takings making it now a fact that it is very difficult for prostitutes to earn a living. 
Safety has been reduced. Jocelyn Snow of the Prostitutes Collective of Victoria in her study of the impact of legislation on the conditions of exploitation faced by prostitutes found “The worst thing was the clients—the arrogance the smell the violence the demands. One in five clients still request and get unsafe sex.” The 1998 study conducted by the Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health done in conjunction with the Prostitutes Collective of Victoria stated that 40 percent of men in the study did not use condoms when exploiting prostituted women. 
Street prostitution was very much in the news during 2001. Residents in the main prostitution area of St Kilda demanded action from the state Government because the prostituted women were being abused in the porches and gardens of St Kilda residents. A residents’ spokeswomen said that there is now an open-air uncontrolled unmanaged all-day brothel. 
Legislation that was intended to eliminate organised crime from the sex industry has in fact had the reverse effect. It has brought with it an explosion in the trafficking of women into prostitution by organised crime. Convicted criminals fronted by supposedly more reputable people remain in business. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
: 
 I do not usually speak on issues such as this. On conscience issues I usually cast my vote and quietly get on with life. I have thought about this bill quite a lot and I want to say that in my 12 years as an MP I have never had any representation from the prostitutes who obviously live in my electorate—because if there are 8000 of them I should have approximately 120 or 130 living in my electorate. I have never had any representation from them for any reform or protection etc. 
This is a moral issue and I do not mean that in the sense often used by people of the “moral high ground” or the “moral right” or the “moral left” or all of those things. I mean it purely in terms of what we believe as individuals to be right or wrong and what we believe to be acceptable reasonable and a position of common sense—what we feel comfortable with as individuals. 
At the age of 18 under this bill people will legally be allowed to have sex for sale. That of course happens—daily. But we see in society the very great difficulty that even publicans to take a simple situation have in determining who is 18 when people come to the bar and ask to buy alcohol. The same applies in supermarkets clubs etc. Surely then it would be an absolute defence to be able to say: “I thought she was 18 your honour.” It would have to be proven that there was intent to have sex with someone under 18 in terms of the guilt associated with having sex with an underage prostitute. 
It seems to me that we have a simple dilemma. We have to consider that if we go through the process of what we call reform and make it more acceptable to have prostitution out there we then have to be accepting of the fact that should this bill succeed a private training enterprise or indeed a State-owned training provider would be in a position to train people to work in the sex industry—because obviously there may be some merit in being properly trained to be in jobs in the sex industry. Perhaps we might have apprenticeships. Perhaps we might have courses for careers advisers. Perhaps we might have unit standards student loans an industry training authority national certificate qualifications etc. etc. Some people might think that is a bit far-fetched but equally people in the era when New Zealand had dry areas would have seen it as quite far-fetched for there to be hospitality courses in how to make cocktails prepare drinks and wait on people etc. It is not far-fetched; it is perhaps just a few years distant. 
Ms Dianne Yates’ amendments to deal equally with the solicitor and the solicited should be supported if the bill continues because we are then in the position of having equal treatment. 
I have not come to this from some sort of high moral ground approach. I have tried to come to it from what I believe in my gut. As someone who was a school counsellor for a few years and a high school teacher for a number of years should a student have come to me as a counsellor and said: “Mr Duynhoven I have decided that I want to be working in the sex industry.” what would my advice have been and how could I have defended my position if prostitution were seen to be legally acceptable and reasonable? I am not as entertaining or as engaging as Mr Williamson or indeed others who have spoken in this debate. I have tried to approach it from a very rational and reasonable approach. I have children as many in this House do. Like many of us I would be horrified if one of my children—either male or female—said: “Dad this is what I want to do with my life.” or “Dad I can make some quick money doing this and buy the car the boat the house or whatever it is I want.” Where do I stand in my position relative to that child if prostitution is acceptable in society? I have heard the arguments. It is a difficult position for many people to be in but on balance I have decided not to support this bill. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I have listened to this debate in the hope that it would indicate a rational way through what is becoming an increasingly complex set of questions. When I spoke in the second reading debate I said that I had found it very hard to make a decision even after sitting through all the evidence and chairing the select committee for the second stage. I have now been through the amendments that are proposed and recognising that this is the title debate have tried to think what it is that is likely to emerge from that process overall. 
I indicated that I would oppose the bill in the form in which it was reported back because it did not do what it said it would do. It was not the simple decriminalisation that people were promised. It did not rationalise the law as could have easily been done since prostitution was already legal and all we needed to do was to get rid of the anomalies in solicitation. Solicitation could have been confined to hard sell aggressive interfering sale and we could have left the pimping law pretty much in place. As Mr Goff said our anti-trafficking law is already a form of anti-pimping law and maybe that could be rationalised. It could have dealt with the underage problem with more practical remedies or dealt with the mechanics of enforcement of law against child prostitution. It does none of these things. 
So I look at the bill and I look at the amendments to see how it has been fixed. When going through the problems the first one I identify is that the bill as a reform for prostitution is patently a bid for legitimisation or normalisation or destigmatisation of an activity that most people believe is undesirable. I listened to Mr Williamson and to his comparison with homosexual law reform and I was confirmed in my fear. I myself supported homosexual law reform—in fact I think I was pretty influential in the speeches made by one or more of the MPs who supported it. But I did not expect then that what has happened would occur. 
What we have seen as a result is that homosexuality has moved from being something that was unfairly and improperly treated by the criminal law to becoming a privileged status—for sexual orientation to be added into human rights law. Although I can discriminate against rugby players if I do not like rugby or I can discriminate against occupational groups—students social workers or even returned soldiers—if I do not like their values or their views I am not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals however much I might think homosexuality is undesirable. Here of course I am using “I” as “one”. What is happening here and we can see it in the definitions in this bill is that prostitution is redefined as commercial sexual services and prostitutes are redefined as sex workers and the objective is normalisation or destigmatisation. 
The next stage of course as I think is clearly signalled in Mr Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper is for prostitution to be treated by the law as an activity that it is verboten to criticise. I say that because Mr Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper recognises that local authorities who exercise the powers he wants to give them could be prevented from doing that in terms of the courts holding that it was an invalid form of breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I think that is a signal to this Committee that what is happening here is not what the bill promises. 
The bill is not about protecting human rights protecting people from improper police practices or protecting them from the inability to enforce their contracts and the other disabilities that are presently attendant on prostitution. The bill goes the other way. After all the amendments we have seen the bill still has no practical means of enforcing health and safety rules for example. There are provisions for inspectors but the police must get warrants if they want to check on someone’s age. The inspectors may not enter homes. It is clearly contemplated by this bill that the preferred mode of operating a prostitution business is from home—by happy little cooperatives of self-employed prostitutes. Mr Goff’s bill goes further in that direction. He exempts the health and safety provisions. They are not to apply to self-employed prostitutes in brothels of fewer than four workers. Even the rhetoric about health and safety in that area has been proved very quickly to be hollow by the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Justice presumably with the support of the Labour Party. Labour members on the Justice and Electoral Committee made it very plain that their voting was on a party basis. 
I also look at the provisions relating to the police and their ability to enforce the under-age provisions. Mr Fairbrother when speaking about Mr Goff’s amendments said he was not aware of anyone being prosecuted for the offences that were put into the Crimes Act only a year and a half ago. Mr Goff made a big play of the fact that he had put these offences into our law already. Why have there been no prosecutions when the police told us that a good chunk of the prostitution at the moment is carried out by under-age workers? What is going to change when this bill deliberately makes it necessary for the police to get a search warrant before they can even enter premises and check on someone’s age? The select committee rejected suggestions that young workers should be obliged to carry identification. We have made a law that expects identification to be carried for drinking but not for selling one’s body. It may well be that there should be identification for neither but I cannot stand the insincerity that goes with a bill that purports to be a reform and instead sets out to create a smokescreen and lays the ground for a privileged status. 
I look also at this as bad law. It is a strict liability offence for a newspaper to accept an advertisement from a 17-year-old prostitute. The newspaper has no means of protecting itself. If the woman lies if she gives false identification if she induces the newspaper to take the advertisement by any trick whatsoever she is utterly immune from prosecution. The newspaper has no way of protecting itself. That is a deliberate decision in this bill and the select committee considered it at length. 
There is a provision in the bill which was intended to be protective that says that welfare benefits cannot be denied by reason of a refusal to take work as a prostitute. Of course it is redundant now that Mr Maharey has abolished the work test but at the time that we were considering this provision we also considered whether it might not be a backward or unintended inducement to prostitution. A very easy way of avoiding this stand-down would be to go from one form of employment to prostitution perhaps for one night and then one could not be required to go back to work. That possibility was pointed out at the drafting stage. Various drafting solutions were offered but they were rejected by the majority on the committee because those members have no intention of seeing this law work in its terms. They want this bill to be a smokescreen. 
We had another similar debate in the select committee. Drafting was done for us in relation to protecting neighbourhoods from concentrations of kerb-crawlers. Mr Goff’s bill deals with brothels. Brothels generated no complaints. I do not think there were any complaints to our committee about the location of brothels but there was serious complaint about concentrations of street prostitutes and the needles the noise the drinking the broken glass and the criminal element that was attracted by street workers. Mr Goff’s amendments do absolutely nothing about that and the committee rejected any provisions to deal with it. Mr Mapp’s amendments may deal with that or may give some power to do so but not directly. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 It is my intention to support the passage of this legislation through the House. I do so not because I wish to condone the actions of those who partake of this industry but nor do I wish to condemn them. I believe that it is up to every individual to determine what fits within his or her definition of morality and values. I do not believe and will never believe that the Government can legislate for morality; that is for each and every individual. But I see this bill as providing equity to a law that is currently very inequitable. While I respect the fact that it is not perfect as many speakers have said tonight the facts of life are that no legislation that passes through this House will ever be perfect. 
But I do want to make a couple of observations and if I may make a couple of statements. For those who have spoken in the Chamber tonight about the terrible impact that this legislation will have on the sex industry in New Zealand I have this message: “Get real!”. Eight thousand people work in the sex industry in New Zealand. If on average they have three clients a night my calculation is that that is 24000 people. If they work say just 5 days a week that is 100000 people. The people who use the industry are largely men. In my opinion there are about 1 million eligible men in New Zealand which tells me that 10 percent of the current population of eligible New Zealand males is going to brothels. That is a pretty big number. I cannot see that number expanding terribly and I will tell the Committee why. If this bill becomes law I will not be skipping home to my lovely wife and telling her: “Just before I came home tonight I popped into the local brothel because it is legal now Honey.” She will have a message for me and it will not be a very nice one. I also say that just because homosexuality has been legalised in this country I am not gay; nor will I ever be. It is not something I am interested in. I live my life by the morality and values I set for myself not by those this Parliament sets and I believe that is the way others should live also. 
I have lived in five countries and visited about 50 during my business career. The sex industry is alive and well and nothing anyone has done has managed to change that. In my opinion we as parliamentarians have to do two things. First we have to try to make the industry as safe as we possibly can for those who work in it. I could not care less about those who use the industry; it is their own choice but that is what we have to do for those who work in the industry. 
Secondly we have to do the most we can to stop the most vulnerable from being involved. I believe that if we adopt something like the Swedish model and the view that we can somehow drive this industry underground the youngest and most vulnerable will still be involved. They probably become involved because they come from broken families. They probably do have a hurt past and I wish they were not there. As parliamentarians I wish we could do something to stop that and something to help them. But I just do not believe that this problem will somehow stop because we do not pass this legislation. Again I have this message for those people who have told us that if we legalise this industry we might as well legalise drugs burglary and murder. It is: “Get real!” They are crimes with victims; this is a crime largely without a victim. 
The last thing I have to say is that I am not a terribly religious person but I found it pretty hard to take when of the 220 letters and 123 emails I had those who opposed the legislation came largely from the Church. I simply look at the history of the Church and the reasons behind the massive financial settlements for crimes that have taken place and it looks a bit hypocritical to me. 
Finally I wish to speak in support of Phil Goff’s amendments. I do so because I respect the rights of those who go to these establishments. That is why I am voting for the bill. I also respect the rights of the great many New Zealanders who do not want to use the industry and who do not want to see it in their faces every 5 seconds. Local governments should be able to control where brothels are established so that they are not set up all over New Zealand and all over suburbia. We do not want to give people the message that somehow we are giving the green light to a red-light industry; nor do we want to set ourselves up as the Bangkok of the South Pacific. However we live in the year 2003 and it is my opinion that we need to move into it. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak again on the title and again I will be voting against it. My reason is that I do not believe that it truly encapsulates what the bill will do. The word “reform” has within it an implication that it will improve the situation—that we will be heading in a better direction. That is all we who are opposing this legislation are asking for. We are asking for an assurance that the lofty aims of the bill will actually be achieved through this legislation. 
When I first joined the Justice and Electoral Committee to begin looking into this bill after it had been to select committees in previous Parliaments Tim Barnett told me that it was based upon the New South Wales decriminalisation model. The first question I asked was whether the committee had gone to New South Wales to study what had happened there. The answer was that no one had but that Tim Barnett and Dr Wayne Mapp had made personal journeys to look at the situation in that state. Just recently I received the itinerary of their trip and I understand they spent approximately 2 days in New South Wales looking at the situation there. This House is about to vote seriously on this legislation—and I genuinely hope that we are able to defeat it—yet in spite of the nearest model to the one proposed being only about 1200 miles away in a place where a decriminalisation model has been in place for the last 10 years at least no one apart from two willing select committee members has spent more than 2 days there. I find that staggering 
It is true—and Tim Barnett has mentioned this before—that there is a great deal of debate about what is really happening in New South Wales. We of course promote certain statistics that we have come in contact with and there are people we have spoken to. The  
Sydney Morning Herald 
 has written considerable articles about the real situation in New South Wales and others with another view say that all is wonderful and rosy for prostitutes across the channel. All I ask the Committee today is that if we are genuinely serious about the consequences of this bill upon New Zealand society we ought to be stopping right now and sending a proper delegation to New South Wales to investigate for a period longer than 2 days what is really taking place there. 
Other people also went to New South Wales including the journalist from Television One who went there to do an  
Assignment 
 programme. The evidence they brought back and put on television in New Zealand did not convince me in any way that there was an improvement in the lives of prostitutes in New South Wales; nor was there any improvement in the number of under-age people getting involved in prostitution; nor was any cleaner or less criminal an element involved in the prostitution industry in New South Wales. 
Others have said that we are attacking this issue only from the moral perspective but that is not true. We are simply asking for legitimate evidence that this bill will achieve something of the aims it purports to have. I do not therefore support the name “Prostitution Reform Bill” for this legislation. No matter how we feel about the desire for prostitutes to have a better life the desire to have clean and safe sex and so on we cannot categorically say that this bill will achieve anything like what it aims to achieve. I think a better title would be the “Expansion of Prostitution Bill” because this bill is not just about prostitutes themselves; it is about the expansion of the prostitution industry through decriminalising pimping and brothel-keeping. 
If the Prostitutes Collective had come to Parliament and said that some things were going wrong in massage parlours and that they faced difficulties because the only law that made their activity in any way illegal was the law that stated that it was against the law to solicit in a public place and that they would like to see that law changed then I might have been able to come around to saying that we could do something about that. It would be a very minor tweak to the existing law. But this bill goes much further than that. It is good news for pimps. In fact the title ought to be the “Good News for Pimps and Brothel-keepers Bill” because they are the ones who will be the beneficiaries of this legislation. Prostitution always involves the exploitation of those who are involved in the sex industry because it is the brothel-keepers who make more money by far than they do. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I rise very briefly to speak to this bill. I want to support it. I have taken quite a long time to reach that decision spending about 2 years listening talking and working in my own electorate which is Wellington Central. The reasons I want to support it are twofold. First I support it for reasons of the health and safety of the workers involved in that particular job. I want to support them and ensure that their health and safety are secure. Many times I hear people saying that they would not like their child to be involved in the sex industry. If a child of mine were involved my greatest hope would be that they were safe and healthy. I kind of share the member’s opinion that the morality or judgment of that work is for that person alone. 
The second comment I want to make comes from people in Wellington’s large civil service who have said: “I would not be in this job if I had ever been convicted of the work I had done previously.” In other words had they been charged as a prostitute—a profession they had worked in earlier in their lives—they would not have been able to change their careers. I would like to say to those people who profess Christianity that the ability to change the direction of one’s life if one wants to is incredibly important—and I am not making any moral judgement about that. A criminal conviction for prostitution is not a great thing to have on one’s record if one is going for a job in the public service. It is a crime at the moment but it is not a crime that hurts other people. 
The last thing I want to say is that I did one of those things that MPs do in their electorates where they send out letters to people and most of them put them in the bin. But over 800 people I think replied. About 500 said they supported decriminalisation about 100 said they had no opinion whatsoever and about 160 were against. Because this is a conscience issue I do not vote on those numbers alone but I found it interesting. 
I have been trolling and working and thinking about this issue over the last 2 or 3 years. I went through this very strong feminist stage thinking oh my God this is dreadful; here am I a strong feminist and what am I doing? Feminists wrote to me quite strongly but some of the most brilliant human wonderful letters I have had and visits to my office have been from prostitutes. Some of them might have been members of the Prostitutes Collective or whatever but they have boosted my belief in the humanity of people and in their goodness and humour. I want to use this opportunity tonight to say thank you. There has not been one miserable thing or one negative closed object. It has been warm and human and loving and I want to thank those people because I admire them for that. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I support this bill not for any health and safety reasons and not for the protection of prostitutes but because it is an issue of individual freedom and personal liberty. This bill is not without its flaws but I believe that we can change that when we have a change of Government. 
I made a deliberate decision not to have a knee-jerk reaction to this bill. Because there is a personal vote on this bill I explored all areas of it just like the member who spoke before me. There were many issues to consider. I had to consider things like whether I want to live in a country where sex is reduced to a mere commodity and let us face it having sex is not the same as just going out to buy a hamburger or to fill the car with petrol. Actually it is already legal to buy sex but if the prostitute knocks on the window of a car when it pulls up at the traffic lights and offers sex for money then he or she is breaking the law and I do not think that is fair. People have asked—and I have asked this myself—whether I would want a son or daughter of mine to be a prostitute. Of course we would not want that. There are a number of jobs though that we would not want our sons and daughters to do but we do not pass laws banning those jobs. 
There has been much lobbying of me by people who have said this bill should not be passed because it is anti-family legislation and will lead to break-ups of families. But there are many things in this society that are anti-family. Extramarital affairs are incredibly destructive of families but do we pass laws to ban extramarital affairs? Research has shown that when people live in de facto relationships the children are at much more risk of the parents breaking up than if the parents are married. I have been in a de facto relationship for 27 years now with four children. Are we to pass laws to force me to get married because research has shown that the relationship I live in is anti-family? 
As I say essentially this bill comes down to an issue of individual liberty and I say people have a right to be wrong. They have a right to make the wrong choices. I personally do find prostitution morally repugnant because it reduces that most private and personal exchange to a mere commercial transaction. But the important thing is that I do not have the right to force my personal or moral views on to anyone else and on to people who are not physically harming anyone. It is not as John Key said the State’s role to legislate for morality. The State is there to protect people’s freedoms and that as I said includes the freedom to fail and the freedom to say and do things that I might find personally abhorrent. But as long as there is no initiation of force it is no business of mine to force other people to obey what I think is my personal credo. If people do not like prostitution they should recognise it is not mandatory. They should look away and I believe they should stop trying to force their personal views on to everybody else. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I have been listening to this debate and to be honest I am a pastor so I am a Christian. I am a man of God so therefore I am a shepherd of people and I must commend the various speakers from the various viewpoints on this bill because this has been an excellent debate. I do appreciate the various viewpoints that have come into it. But I have learnt that in life there is relationship between cause and effect and I am very concerned at the breakdown of the family unit in this nation. 
I want to address the issue of prostitution from a man’s perspective because I am the father of two boys and two girls. I know that sex is wonderful; it is one of my favourite pastimes. I love sex. But I have learnt that whereas I as a man love sex my wife enjoys lovemaking and there is a vast difference between the two. I am probably more concerned in the society I live in for my boys breaking into immorality than for my girls doing so because a man is attracted by the gaze of his eye. That which he sees with his eye attracts him so that is why when we see girls in the industry we are discussing we should not be surprised that they are dressed to attract men. Women on the other hand love to be loved and unfortunately because of the moral decline in our nation that is an art that we men are beginning to lose. 
I have dealt with many girls who had gone into prostitution as they have endeavoured to come out of it and I appreciate Georgina Beyer’s honesty about the memories and the pictures that are in her mind. I have a past life that I am not proud of and I also know what it is to live with pictures in my mind of things I am no longer proud of or pleased to have been involved with. To change the pictures in one’s mind is extremely difficult and can be extremely painful. 
This is a conscience vote and I appreciate that. So I looked up the definition of “conscience” in the dictionary. Firstly the dictionary states that it is a moral sense of right and wrong. Of course I realise that many people will have a problem right there because I have heard that said. But prostitution is a moral issue whatever way we want to look at it. Many people are of the opinion that nothing is morally right or wrong any more. In fact even the mention of the word “moral” sets alarm bells ringing for them. However I did not write the dictionary so let us look at some other definitions that may be less offensive to them. We see the second definition states that “conscience” is a consciousness that one’s actions are right or wrong. To me that goes way beyond what may be a personal viewpoint or preference. To me it means that when I am really honest with myself in thinking the situation through in the case we are currently dealing with I would have to ask myself whether this industry would be good for my wife daughter or granddaughter to be involved in. 
Many of those who are supporting this bill say they would not like their own daughters or granddaughters to go into the prostitution industry. Therefore if that is what they are saying and they are truly going on the basis of their conscience they would have to vote against this bill. I think that is an important issue because so often in this world we come to matters of opinion. As a Christian I am thankful that I do have a God in heaven who has given me an instruction manual that clearly lays out the principles for life. He is not one who restricts because he is oppressive. Totally to the contrary of that he is one who gives graciously. But just as even in this House we have a Speaker to keep it in order and if we chose to ignore that authority figure we would just end up with chaos so in the world we live in there is a moral code to protect us from ourselves and our own fleshly desires which I personally know can be very very strong. The sex drive in men is one of the strongest drives we have to fight against and that is why many men with pornography on the Internet and all those other things are having a great amount of trouble. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I want to take a short call in support of the bill. I do so on this basis. This bill is not as Deborah Coddington would have us believe about personal responsibility and liberty. Personal responsibility and liberty are about having a range of opportunities and choosing options on an informed basis when one has the capacity to participate in them. Those people who are afflicted by working in this industry in terms of prostitution are often exploited and vulnerable. They often come from communities that are easily exploited in terms of their social and economic class in society and in particular are Maori. But lately and more in terms of numbers they have been Asian. Those issues are of great to concern to us. 
I wanted to agree with Paul Adams with regard to male folk’s love of sex. I do think that it is reciprocated but I could not mislead the House because I cannot possibly talk about that from experience. I just think that. 
I support the bill and the amendments in the name of my senior colleague the Minister of Justice the Hon Phil Goff on this basis. I come from a family in which I was brought up by a very strong Catholic mother and I went to Catholic schools. So when a paper is tabled in the House from my own bishops that is a very clear steer to me. Notwithstanding that I do not accept that paper for a bunch of reasons. I say we should come clean about what occurs here. Does prostitution happen? Of course it does. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Are you sure? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I am sure and I will come to that right now. 
John Key 
: You are not making a personal statement are you? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: There is an issue about a rite of passage for want of a better term. Whether one has been to a mate’s stag party or wherever one may have been with one’s mates in one’s teenage years—and I appreciate that Murray McCully has never been to any of those joints—I want to say that I have been to them. I just acknowledge in terms of my growing up and the communities that I mixed within that those things have occurred. 
Stephen Franks 
: Did you inhale? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I have inhaled. Bill Clinton might not have inhaled but I think a number of us have. I just want to put that caveat on my position. 
My only concern in supporting the amendments in the name of my senior colleagues Phil Goff and Lianne Dalziel is that there are not enough for want of a better term belts and braces around the support of the vulnerable—[ 
Interruption 
]—and John Key knows more about those than me. My concern is that there are not enough protection mechanisms in place for those who are exploited and vulnerable and who may see prostitution as the only option available to them. In the event that this bill is supported to the extent that it goes through the House we need to put in a lot of effort into ensuring that there are enough support mechanisms and groups in our communities for our womenfolk in particular—but of late there has been a larger incidence of young males—who have difficulties. It is very important that this legislation is not seen as the legitimisation of the only opportunity those people have in terms of turning a buck. I say it is very important that we put in place a number of support mechanisms to ensure that the exploited and the vulnerable are not pursued to the extent that prostitution is the only way they have of getting out of their difficulties. To that extent I will be supporting this bill. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 When I came down to the Chamber to listen to the debate this evening I was not really intending to speak but I felt almost compelled to do so and having got the call obviously I will do so. This debate has been something of a confession and other members have talked about their previous lives—some quite explicitly. I guess it is not appropriate for me to discuss the prostitution industry because frankly I know little or nothing about it. I am perhaps loath to admit that; perhaps I should have done some research on the issue. But I have like every other member received a huge amount of correspondence from people on both sides of the argument. I came down to the Chamber this evening with no preconceived ideas whatsoever. We have heard from those with very strong religious convictions about the morality side of this issue and that must be respected. We have also heard a more liberal attitude expressed by members who recognise that times change and society must move on. I listened to that especially given my connection to the ACT party because we see ourselves as classical liberals. So I face this issue with some real dilemma. 
In thinking about some of the expressions that have been used in the Chamber I recall that when we watched movies we used to refer to prostitutes as scarlet women. In those days and even in biblical times prostitutes were driven from society. Yet clearly society had a real need for those women even 2000 or 3000 years ago. Of course our society in New Zealand has changed from the earlier days of our establishment in this country to a time where prostitution has become accepted. It has become if one likes a normal part of society even if it has not had legislative acceptance. 
But what concerns me more than anything about this bill results from my experience as a member of our society. I think back to some of the real debates we have had in this House or that others have had in this House well before my time and remember how the particular social policy that was put forward voted on and accepted by this House has been an unmitigated disaster. I think about the royal commission on welfare and about how the domestic purposes benefit was to be a marvellous example and a lesson to the world on how we could help people—especially women—in real need. Of course who amongst us would deny that that is a very sensible thing to do? Yet we can look at the explosion in the number of women on the domestic purposes benefit now. I am not drawing a comparison in terms of numbers; it is just a reality that sometimes in this Parliament we get it wrong. 
On another issue I think of how we spoke on and argued at length about the Resource Management Act and said it would be wonderful legislation for the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think of how we lowered the drinking age for teenagers allowed alcohol in supermarkets and introduced alcopops—lolly water. That has been an unmitigated disaster. Whether Parliament is prepared to admit to that does not really matter; to me that seems to be the reality. So I look at what Parliament and our politicians have done over the years in the area of social change and frankly I see far too many messes—and somebody else has to pick up the pieces after we get it so very wrong. 
I will be voting against the bill not out of any moral indignation or religious belief—far from it. But I just do not believe that we have heard enough argument or reason to change a status quo that I believe most of our society is quite happy to accept—albeit in an imperfect way. The status quo seems to be what to me anyway is acceptable at this time. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 We heard tonight a very good definition of the classical libertarian philosophy of life from both John Key and Deborah Coddington which is basically that adults consenting freely should be able to do whatever they like and it is no one else’s business. 
I could not listen to them speaking in that way without my mind going back to the national values summit which was convened here in Wellington by UNESCO last October. I went to that summit as did a number of other MPs from a variety of parties in this Chamber. It was a most interesting day. UNESCO has made a real commitment to advance the whole cause of character and values education in the education curriculum at schools all over this planet. It has decided it is the most important component in contemporary education. On that day a number of very prominent New Zealanders addressed that summit: Dame Silvia Cartwright Celia Lashlie Apryll Parata Gregory Fortuin and Rosalind Hursthouse the professor of philosophy from Auckland University. I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. The very loud conversation going on next to me is very distracting. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call for order down at the back of the Chamber please. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Thank you. Those members were breaking my line of thinking. I would like to have the opportunity to express this very clearly. 
During that day with all those prominent New Zealanders there during the discussion that went on about character education and so forth some things emerged very clearly. The first thing was that young people are not convinced by argument and teaching as much as by example. There was a very strong call from that conference to ask schoolteachers whether they are giving a good example to the children they are teaching and to ask New Zealand parents whether they are giving a good example to their children. Suddenly to my surprise the conference began to point its finger at this House of Parliament and it began to ask very strongly what sort of example we are delivering to the young people of this nation. Young people are saying we should walk the talk. They do not want to listen to our talk; they want to look at our walk. I ask every person here tonight to re-examine his or her conscience and to ask himself or herself this question: what message is the passage of this bill delivering to the young people of this country? I will not answer that question for members but I want them to ask it of themselves. 
There was discussion in this Chamber that somehow or other a vote for this bill would be a vote for the moral right. I say to members that there is no such thing. There is morality and there is immorality. Other people in this debate have said that we cannot legislate for morality. What on earth do we do every time we pass a law? I cannot think of a law that has been passed since I came here to Parliament that does not have a moral dimension. That slogan about not being able to legislate for morality makes me think that people think that morality is just sex. Well it is not. Morality is a very very broad definition of a whole lot of things. People can do doctorate degrees in morality. I ask members to believe me when I say we are legislating for morality every single day in this Chamber. I do not believe that that argument holds any water whatsoever. 
I would also like to add this point: I was one of those who supported homosexual law reform. At that point in time in this nation there was a groundswell of opinion asking that this House no longer consider people who were engaged in homosexual acts as criminals and that it stop sending them to jail. I was one of those people who said that that was wrong and needed to stop. 
In respect of this bill which aims to decriminalise pimping and brothel-keeping in particular I ask where the groundswell of opinion is in this country that specifically asks this House to decriminalise those two things. I have looked at the submissions that have come here to the Justice and Electoral Committee with some care and I have seen that a lot of those submissions were about things like safety health not stigmatising prostitutes and so forth. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the short title of the Prostitution Reform Bill and to reaffirm that I will be voting against it. I stand as a Maori woman in this House not purporting to represent solely the interests of Maori women or solely the interests of Maori but as someone who comes from a community that discusses issues like prostitution and the impact of alcohol reform on our communities and the things that they want to see happen. 
After the last time we debated this bill in the second reading I went home thinking about all the contributions that had been made in this House. I looked for the Maori word for prostitution but I could not find one. I could not find a Maori word for prostitution and that reaffirmed for me a lot of the messages I receive from a number of communities that I move in. We need our kids to have positive messages and positive affirmation of who they are as Maori. Where does prostitution fit within that picture? A lot of the debate tonight has tried to drive some moral conscience wedge between those who are for prostitution and those who are against it but that is not what it is about. It is about how this bill will affect vulnerable communities and people whom I am a part of representing. 
If I could stand in this House and say that the bill would fix up a lot of the issues surrounding problems involving young Maori in this industry I would vote for it. But I cannot say that because we have had contributions in this House that highlight the number of young Maori who are being prosecuted and being picked up by the police and with or without the Prostitution Law Reform Bill that would be happening. Why? Because that is what is happening in our society. They are vulnerable. They are vulnerable not just from prostitution; they are vulnerable because of drugs and alcohol they are vulnerable because they come from lower socio-economic groups and they are vulnerable because they lack opportunity. 
Where is the direction in terms of this bill for young Maori in our country? I say that it has none. We are trying to dress up this bill by saying it is about providing rights for individuals because it does not affect groups. It does. It affects groups in far more ways than people care to comment on tonight. They will not comment on it because they really do not want to tackle the implications or the impact that the decriminalisation of prostitution will have in communities like mine. 
So I cannot vote for it. I cannot vote for a bill that again seeks to try to make changes in a bad way to law. I cannot vote for it passing through this House. We have a mishmash of amendments sitting on the Table that say to the Committee that prostitution is all right as long as it is “not in my backyard”. What is that saying? We are kind of saying that people can do it but they can do it in that corner. Well over in that corner are people whom I represent. Over in that corner are people who will always be excluded and to the side and none of the things in this legislation will help the issues that are facing them. 
It is bad law but during the progression of this debate I will continue to advocate that it is important that when we debate the bill we recognise the impact it will have on many vulnerable communities. What are we saying there? Are we saying that we currently have the matrix of social policy and networks to support vulnerable groups and populations with existing problems of drug and alcohol abuse? No we cannot say that. We do not have that level of support now. If we did have it now then we would feel a little bit comforted by the fact that the decriminalisation issue would have some kind of buffer already within the social fabric or community in terms of services provided to our communities. But we do not have that. We struggle every day with these issues and decriminalisation of prostitution will continue to compound that. 
I want to acknowledge all the contributions tonight. It is a rare opportunity for each and every individual member to say what he or she thinks. In speaking to the title of the bill I do not support either of the two amendments offered by colleagues in this Committee. The reason is we need to ensure that when we are talking about the aims of this bill we acknowledge that it protects those who are already in the industry and moves towards normalisation. I cannot support that. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I must offer my sincere compliments to the member who has just resumed her seat. I know that in the first instance she voted for this bill to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I know that she served on the select committee and she sat there and listened intently with an open mind. She has put the case against this bill far more eloquently than I could do and I compliment her on that. 
We have heard speakers here tonight suggest that prostitution is not a victimless crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wherever prostitution has been liberalised in this world the industry has expanded. There is plenty of evidence if people want to go and search it out and I invite my friend John Key to do so. The Internet is full of information. Young women in particular have been coerced and enticed into prostitution against their will. We have heard of the vulnerable people who have gone into the industry some willingly some not so willingly but there are many many young women in the world today in countries where prostitution has been liberalised who are in the industry because they are victims of a crime. That is what we have. 
I have heard people say that they will support this bill but do not want their daughters involved. Let me tell the people here that their daughters will not come home and tell mum and dad that they are now prostitutes and ask them to agree. They will not tell their parents. I have seen them on ships by the hundreds in this country—probably schoolgirls earning money by selling their bodies because they have been to some degree enticed on to ships to sell such wares. 
Wherever in the world this industry has been liberalised the industry has expanded. John Key thinks that there cannot be any more and he has made some rather frivolous calculations to illustrate his point. I tell Mr Key that wherever prostitution has been liberalised it has expanded rapidly. We can expect it to be a front for more drug abuse. We had people come across from Australia to face the select committee and also to tell us privately although very few MPs turned up to hear them. They gave us details and showed a video showing some of the events in Sydney. 
We have a confused support basis over there. Mr Barnett wants this bill based on Sydney on New South Wales laws. Phil Goff wants to move to Victorian laws. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: That’s nonsense. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is not. Mr Goff’s amendments take us down the Victorian path. He is legalising it and licensing it. That is what Victoria has done and it is a long way from what they do in Sydney and New South Wales. Dianne Yates wants to move to the Swedish law. She wants an amendment to base this legislation on the Swedish law. New Zealand First would support the Swedish law and I would certainly support it. But her amendment will not do it. I believe she has serious and willing intent to achieve that but her amendment will not do it. If it is passed tonight it will just send a confusing message. 
Progress reported. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.