Volume 614 Week 44 - Wednesday 3 December 2003 
Volume 614 Week 44 - Wednesday 3 December 2003 
[Volume:614;Page:10353] 
Wednesday 3 December 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Sex Offenders Registry Bill 
Referral to Justice and Electoral Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Sex Offenders Registry Bill to be transferred from the Law and Order Committee to the Justice and Electoral Committee and for the committee to report this bill by 18 May 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none. 
Business of Select Committees 
Membership 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Deborah Coddington to be a member of the Education and Science Committee 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. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Matter Awaiting Adjudication 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to refer to a matter that was raised by Mr Brownlee yesterday. Mr Brownlee raised a point of order relating to a question that was returned to him because it referred to a case pending adjudication before a court. He asked for advice on how he could approach the matter he wishes to ask a question about. I do not understand Mr Brownlee to be challenging the applicability of the sub judice Standing Orders in this case. I do not accept the argument that it is anomalous that the news media can discuss something that is not open to members to raise. The fact is that Parliament sets higher standards for itself than does the news media. With regard to matters awaiting adjudication these standards have regard to the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the courts—see Speaker’s ruling 6/2 (Supplement). 
When the question was returned to Mr Brownlee it was indicated that there were alternative ways of seeking the information sought. I suggest that the member explore those further—I obviously cannot redraft his question on the floor of the House—and I am sure that a satisfactory question can be crafted. 
Questions to Ministers 
Auckland Transport Package—Petrol Tax 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
 Will she rule out an increase in petrol tax being included in the Government’s Auckland transport package due to be announced on December 12 in light of her comments recently that a 15c a litre petrol tax increase to fund Auckland transport was “ridiculous in my opinion”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Final decisions have not been made on petrol tax in the context of the Auckland transport package. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How will the Government’s package meet the shortfall between currently committed funding and the total expected cost of completing the Auckland transport network in light of estimates by Government and Auckland officials that the cost of completing the network could be between $8.5 billion and $9.6 billion? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I welcome the member’s recognition that additional funding will be required. That will be met in a number of ways over a period of time. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers does the Prime Minister realise that the situation in Auckland is desperate—with delays costing individuals and operators thousands of dollars per year—in urgent need of for want of a better term a road development programme which should be addressed immediately; and if the Prime Minister does recognise that could the House be given some idea how it will be funded? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is why some of my most senior Ministers have been working with Auckland officials and Auckland mayors on a road transport package relating to public transport roading and other matters. The constraints on that are not merely constraints of funding but also constraints of capability and consents. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Government be considering all sensible funding options including the contribution that parking charges might make to both demand management and transport funding in Auckland? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. A number of measures are being looked at. Of course demand management is an important part of solving the Auckland problem. 
Larry Baldock 
: If the Government has to increase fuel tax to meet Auckland’s roading needs will the Government consider a reduction also in the amount diverted to the Crown account from fuel excise as a matching cent-for-cent procedure? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes the Government is prepared to look at that possibility in relation to the Auckland funding package. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the cost of fixing Auckland’s transport problem is at least $8 billion and can she assure the House that the announcement the Government is due to make next week will contain a commitment of funding appropriate to the size of the problem? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly the Government will be making a commitment to provide funding appropriate to the size of the problem but also to the nature of the solutions that need to be found. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Before the Government decides to tax the motorist yet again will the Government take note of the fact that at the moment it is collecting $1742 million per year from petrol taxes fuel taxes road-user charges and car registration fees and is spending only $1464 million on the roads? Surely there is a good place to start when the Government is looking for more money? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As the member knows the cost of capital is not covered in that series of figures. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What does that mean? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If an ex-Treasurer of this country does not know what the cost of capital means it shows why he was such a disaster! [ 
Interruption 
] 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to have heard the Minister’s answer to that question. We could not hear it in this part of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister might care just to repeat the answer. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The figures referred to by Mr Prebble do not include the cost of capital in relation to the roading system. The member may recall that during the last election the Automobile Association and the Road Transport Association—I think it was—claimed that the excise duty would have to double if the cost of capital were to be fully covered. 
Moth Spraying—Hamilton 
2.  
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: What action is he taking following an Occupational Safety and Health report into moth spraying in Hamilton which found failings with Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) medical reporting systems and with medical consultations by MAF-contracted doctors? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Biosecurity 
: No action is required from the Minister because changes have already been made especially to ensure workplace clusters of allergies are identified. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Can the Minister guarantee to the House that the proven under-reporting of health effects of spraying by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry - contracted doctors is not because those doctors are working in the ministry’s interests rather than in the interests of the patients; if so how does he explain the Occupational Safety and Health Service report and the anecdotal evidence of ongoing misdiagnosis? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I do not accept that those doctors are working for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. They are part of a health programme in place to ensure that people who have concerns who have allergies and who may think they will be affected by the spraying programme can be assessed properly by those doctors. They can then have a practical support plan put in place that will offer them advice about what they should do when the spraying is taking place. 
Janet Mackey 
: Can the Minister assure us that the spray has been approved as safe for use in New Zealand? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Yes he can. The appropriate regulatory authorities have approved Foray 48B for use. Components in the spray are commonly consumed in foods and cosmetics. It has been used successfully in a number of programmes around the world and indeed in New Zealand. 
Brent Catchpole 
: What action is the Minister for Biosecurity taking to ensure that the health of the people of Hamilton is his primary concern given the damning Occupational Safety and Health Service report and the fact that the spray volumes have been increased from 5 litres a hectare to an unprecedented 7 litres a hectare; or is it that like his fellow Ministers and other colleagues he just does not care? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Each of us has been constantly lobbied by the member for Hamilton West Mr Gallagher and his colleague Dianne Yates to ensure that we are protecting the health of people in Hamilton. If I can accurately point out the conclusions from the report it states: “Whilst the spray is essentially safe for public use there are a few individuals who will experience allergies respiratory problems or skin sensitivities.” It goes on to make some recommendations that systems be extended to identify workplaces that have groupings of affected employees and to improve the orientation. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Now that there is research evidence to support the anecdotal evidence that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has under-reported the human health effects of the spray programmes for the white spotted tussock moth the painted apple moth and now the Asian gypsy moth what is the Minister doing to ensure that Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry - contracted doctors accurately record all future health effects? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I do not accept the member’s accusation that there has been under-reporting. The conclusions from the report do make some recommendations one of which is that the medical director has undertaken and should undertake to improve orientation and monitoring of consultations that take place with people to ensure that health conditions are diagnosed and managed both properly and thoroughly. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Will the Minister be reviewing the Biosecurity Act to enable ex gratia payments to be made to employers such as Fraser High School who have continued to pay their staff during absences from work on account of the effects of being sprayed while at work; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I can say on behalf of the Minister that I am sure there will be not be a major review of the Biosecurity Act. We have made a lot of progress there and we have a strategy in place but with regard to payments the Ministry of Education has assisted the school in paying those teachers who are forced to be away during the programme of spraying in Hamilton. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Does the Minister or his officials take any responsibility at all for the effects of the chemicals that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is spraying on the residents of Hamilton and Auckland or does he simply believe it is someone else’s problem? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am sure the Minister is willing to take responsibility for the overall programme and the biosecurity of New Zealand. However the Minister hands over to officials the detailed operation of day-to-day activities. We have advice and have said in the House time and time again that the sprays used and the programmes used are safe for most New Zealanders. Those who have allergies and who think they may be affected should be part of the health-monitoring programme. 
Tauranga Surgeon—Patient Safety 
3.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Did her Chief Medical Advisor Dr Colin Feek reassure Mrs Shirley Crowley in September 2001 that Mr Ian Breeze would be stopped from operating as stated by Mrs Crowley; if so why did she or her ministry not then initiate an inquiry into Mr Breeze’s practice? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised that Dr Feek confirmed with Mrs Shirley Crowley in October 2001 that Mr Breeze had had constraints placed on his ability to practise and was not doing any major surgery. That was in relation to his work at Tauranga Hospital. Both the Health and Disability Commissioner and the Medical Council have undertaken investigation into Mr Breeze’s practice. They are the agencies with the legal jurisdiction to investigate any claims against Mr Breeze in accordance with the Health and Disability Commissioner Act the Medical Practitioners Act and now the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. Neither the Ministry of Health nor the Minister usually undertakes investigations into the practice of individual doctors. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why did no one in the health system stop this surgeon earlier when a number of people knew that when it came to Mr Breeze there were 13 cases of documented “serious complications” five of accident compensation “medical mishap” two of “medical error” and six complaints to the Health and Disability Commissioner? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The appropriate authorities did undertake action against Mr Breeze. On 29 August 2000 Mr Breeze had restriction placed on him by the district health board in relation to his colorectal surgery. On 14 December 2000 further restriction was placed on his colorectal surgery. In September 2001 restriction was placed on his general surgery and the Medical Council carried out a competency review of him in 2001. In the words of the Health and Disability Commissioner it was one of the most extensive audits ever undertaken with two advisers considering all colorectal surgery performed by Mr Breeze from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001. [ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite do not like hearing what has happened. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: When did the Bay of Plenty District Health Board first become aware of the unacceptable complication rate in Mr Breeze’s patients and why did they try to convince Mrs Shirley Crowley that her husband Lionel’s death was not due to medical misadventure? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am unsure of when the district health board first became aware of problems with Mr Breeze. The first complaint against him to the Health and Disability Commissioner was received in September 1999. However it was on 29 August 2000 that the district health board itself placed restrictions on Mr Breeze. That is some considerable time ago and it was action taken by the district health board. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: What action will the Minister take to investigate the case of Mr Breeze now that it is clear that the death of Lionel Crowley is only the tip of the iceberg and that for years Tauranga doctors have had concerns and have previously whistle-blown on Mr Breeze? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As that member knows the appropriate place to whistle-blow on any medical professional is the Health and Disability Commissioner or its body. [ 
Interruption 
] That is absolutely right and it is set out in the Medical Practitioners Act in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act and in the Health and Disability Commissioner Act. That is the appropriate place to investigate. I can tell that member that from September 1999 to October 2003 five complaints against Mr Breeze were received by the Health and Disability Commissioner. One did not proceed because it was not supported by the family. Of the four complaints investigated one was minor and no action was taken; in two cases no breach was found; and the third was the Crowley case. The appropriate authorities appropriately handled all complaints which is exactly what would have happened to Dr Scott if a complaint had ever been laid against her. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I seek leave to table an email from Mrs Shirley Crowley to Margaret Wilson dated 19 February stating: “All I want is an answer to why this tragedy happened. Will it happen to others as has happened before? 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The Minister concluded that answer with a statement that leaves a member in some serious difficulty and that is this: she said that is exactly what would have happened had a complaint been made against “her”—referring to another person’s professional background. Though that is a statement of the facts it is an imputation or an inference that that could have happened. It is wrong and she should not try that cheap little shot in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I reflected on it at the time and if Dr Scott had taken objection I most certainly would have intervened. On reflection I think I will ask the Minister to withdraw that last sentence. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you listened to my answer I set out the series of Acts and the processes that are undertaken and said it could happen to any medical practitioner. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not require that assistance. I ruled the last sentence out of order and that is it. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Internal Assessment Results 
4.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps have been taken to ensure that the results of National Certificate of Educational Achievement internally assessed standards are available to students? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 This year we have made access to internally assessed National Certificate of Educational Achievement results available online for the first time. This is designed to make student achievement more open and transparent for students parents and teachers. It is proving very popular with more than 10000 level 1 and level 2 candidates checking results in the first weekend alone. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Could he outline the advantages of making internally assessed National Certificate of Educational Achievement results available online? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Students can check their results if they think there is a problem with them. If something has been missed out or there is an incorrect result they can contact their schools and get it fixed up before the results are made available in January—a very good system. 
Refugees and Immigrants—Employment 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Is he concerned that information is not collected on a basis to enable him to answer my question in the House yesterday as to what percentage of refugees and immigrants have obtained paid employment within 6 months of arriving in New Zealand since the election of the Labour Government in 1999; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 No for four main reasons: first new migrants are ineligible for the unemployment benefit for 2 years; second because the household labour force survey tells us that over 88 percent of recent—that is within less than 2 years—migrants in the labour force were in employment; third because the Minister of Immigration has tightened up immigration requirements including sponsorship arrangements and links between qualifications and jobs; and fourth because we can identify the number of recent migrants needing a benefit and that number has dropped by 28 percent. In other words the information I have available is adequate for me to be able to tell a story that the member could not tell in the late 1990s because he did not have that information. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the number of immigrants getting a benefit be 28 percent lower than it was say last year when by his own claims and the claims of his Government none of them are on a benefit; and can he clarify what he meant in the House yesterday when he said that only 1.3 percent of migrants are on the unemployment benefit today and that migrants represent about 1.3 percent of those on the unemployment benefit as well as 16 percent of the Work and Income registered job seekers in Auckland when in answer to a written question lodged with his ministry it was stated that the ministry does not record that information and thus figures are not available; so why are he and his colleagues going about giving statistics when by their own admission they have no idea what they are? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: On the first point that was asked I just reiterate that the number of recent migrants needing a benefit has dropped by 28 percent since we became the Government. The figure I read out yesterday was that in the last 5 financial years 206813 people had residence applications approved. As at 31 October 2003 the number of migrants who had lived in New Zealand for less than 5 years and who were accessing an unemployment benefit was 2717—1.3 percent of total applications. 
Georgina Beyer 
: How many recent migrants currently need the support of an emergency benefit and how does this figure compare with that for 1998? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The number of recent migrants—for the purposes of this answer let me define recent migrants as people who have arrived in the last 5 years—who received an emergency benefit in 1998 was 6514. By October 2003 this figure had dropped by 53 percent to 3066. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Minister go about boasting about his $21 million spending spree on immigrants whom he helped off the dole and into employment when yesterday he could not even answer a simple question in the House as to what percentage of refugees and immigrants had obtained paid employment within 6 months of arriving in New Zealand and when the August 2002 briefing paper to the incoming Minister of Immigration stated the following: “The rate at which new migrants are employed is relatively poor at 50 percent.”; why is this Minister trying to put a gloss on the situation when he knows it is an unmitigated mess? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No boasting is going on. We announced in the Budget that we were providing $21.2 million over a 4-year period to assist migrants and refugees into work. I announced that in Auckland the other day. The problem we face of course is that while people do get jobs—and increasingly under this Government of course they do get jobs because we have much better policies in place—if people do go on to a benefit they tend to stay there in a way that is a problem for us. Therefore we are putting money into removing barriers such as English as a second language and lack of experience in the workplace. They are very very good policies. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the contribution of skilled migration to New Zealand’s economy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I note two pieces of information. Yesterday I underestimated the net economic benefit of migration. The Bell study reported that it produces a $1.7 billion per annum net gain to New Zealand. To quote from a recent discussion paper: “New Zealand is a country which has been built by immigrants. There is a longstanding acceptance of the positive role which immigration can play in meeting the demands for skill and capital to underpin economic growth.” I welcome the fact that the National Party said that and agrees with the Government’s policy on immigration. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If everything is so fine why is his Government giving people for example not loans but grants of $8000 to become taxi-drivers—grants that are not available to New Zealanders of course? Why is it giving $3500 per person to people of the type he described in his $21 million package—grants also not available to New Zealanders of course? Is it his policy to support everybody in the world but the New Zealand taxpayer? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: With an unemployment rate of 4.4 percent I think we are doing pretty well across the whole of the population here in New Zealand. None of the $21 million announced the other day is directed towards training for taxi-drivers. All I can say to the member is that I know we have improved dramatically on the policies he had in place during his time. I know that eats him up but we are doing a whole lot better. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I see that the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs to whom this question is addressed is not in the Chamber and accordingly I seek the leave of the House that this question be held over until the next sitting day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to defer this question. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question that is on the Order Paper has some quite specific information sought of a particular Minister. It is evident that the Minister to whom the question is addressed has no public engagements outside the House today. The Government has made a calculated decision to avoid her being accountable to this House during question time. That makes a farce of this process. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. If the member does not want to ask the question he does not have to. I call question No. 6 from Murray McCully. Question No. 7 Gordon Copeland. [ 
Interruption 
] I regard that as a totally inappropriate remark. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Member 
: I didn’t hear it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear it either. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That could only be an inappropriate remark if he was referring to Mr McCully or someone else. However he could have been referring to his colleague which would be entirely appropriate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is an attempt to comment. I want him now to stand and withdraw for any implication that that has. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will be removing some people from the Chamber in a moment very quickly. I want the member to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I shall do it for a second time. I withdraw and apologise. 
Border Security—Cost Recovery 
7.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: Will the Government reconsider its decision to recover border security costs from the private sector in light of widespread opposition to this from the travel and trade industries; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Customs 
: The only Government decision that has been made in relation to border security costs relates to cost recovery for supply chain security. This matter is part of the Border Security Bill which is currently before the Government Administration Committee and the Government awaits its report. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister concede that asking the private sector to foot this bill would send a message to New Zealanders and other countries alike that the Government does not work in partnership with its own citizens when it comes to national security obligations when other Governments do exactly that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. With regard to supply chain security I would not accept that argument given that a number of other countries have not taken direct Government responsibility for the provision of that security and therefore are charging back to the private sector. 
Shane Ardern 
: Given that that cost is a security cost not a trade access cost why is the Government dumping $20 million worth of tax on our export and import industries that traditionally has been paid for by the taxpayer or is this just the flatulence tax in drag? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. This of course is a requirement imposed by the United States Government not the New Zealand Government. [ 
Interruption 
] No we are talking about supply chain security which is required by the United States Government. If we do not meet those requirements our exporters will take far longer to clear United States customs. It is now a cost of doing business with the United States. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What opportunity is there for the public and industry to have an input into goods security cost recovery? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister has held a number of meetings with key stakeholders throughout the country. In addition the Customs Service in the very near future will be consulting industry to discuss the details of cost recovery mechanisms and the quantum. 
Shane Ardern 
: How was the $20 million tax on export and import industries arrived at and will it run foul of negotiated deals in the GATT negotiations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the latter no. On the former my understanding is that is the estimated cost of meeting United States security requirements. The member should take this up with the Government in Washington. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister intend to put in place those much-needed supply chain security measures if the private sector does not foot the bill; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the private sector is not prepared to foot the bill there is no reason why it should not face the additional cost which will be much higher of going through US customs without prior security clearance. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With regard to coverage of costs when on earth will this Government bring in its promised policy of every second-hand car being decontaminated off shore—a claim that its members made in 1999 in respect of their election policy—when fully half of the cars coming in today are coming in un-decontaminated sitting around in places like the port in Auckland for 3 weeks and contaminating the rest of the country? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The importation of second-hand cars from Japan has nothing to do with the supply chain security of the United States. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do you see the question? It states: “Will the Government reconsider its decision to recover border security costs ...” and I am referring to the fact that car carriage companies—companies that ship cars to this country—bear the offshore costs themselves. I am asking why he does not introduce that policy as promised in 1999 for all second-hand cars coming into New Zealand and thereby secure this country’s long-term biological needs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. He might not have satisfied the member but that is not my concern. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You allowed the question. The Minister then sought to redefine what it was all about when there is no specific definition as close as that. Therefore my question is in order. It is about border security and border security costs. I have given you an example— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister says he will answer it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am aware of no widespread opposition from the travel and trade industries to recovering the cost of security in relation to imported used cars that the member referred to. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Noting the answer the Minister gave to an earlier question from me does he mean to say that it is a question of if the private sector will not pay for these measures then the country will have to do without them or we will just do it on a laissez-faire basis; if so would that not make this country much more vulnerable to acts of terror? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I am not predicting the latter. It might make the United States vulnerable to more acts of terror in the unlikely event that they are sourced from New Zealand. But I point out to the member that the contrary to his argument is the notion that the Government if people are not prepared to pay simply gives up the rule of law—one that I would have thought his party should not want to promote too far in the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister recognise that given the strength of the New Zealand dollar and our worsening balance of payments position our exporters need encouragement right now not extra costs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The dollar goes up and the dollar goes down. I am sure the member would not argue that if the dollar were at a low level we should therefore increase taxes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the Labour Party’s commitment and promise in the 1999 election to have every second-hand car decontaminated off shore—just one more broken promise. 
Document not tabled. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I see that the Minister of Justice to whom this question is addressed is not available in the House today. I know how much he enjoys answering my questions in the House. I seek leave to have this question deferred until he is present. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to have this question deferred. Is there any objection? There is. 
Justice System—Confidence 
8.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he confident that the justice system is working in the interests of all New Zealanders? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Acting Minister of Justice) 
: 
 To a considerable extent yes. However improvements can always be made both in legislation and in operation. 
Ron Mark 
: How can anyone have confidence in a justice system when Maunu Nicholson a former sergeant-at-arms in the Nomads gang who stabbed four men in a New Plymouth bar killing one was sentenced to 10 years in jail; was a key instigator of a riot in Paremoremo prison that resulted in a number of prison officers being assaulted; and was released on home detention and whilst on home detention set up a P manufacturing racket and died of a drug overdose? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have not received any briefing on that particular case. If the member wants to raise a case in the House perhaps he could identify it in the original question so that the information can be brought to the House. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What major changes has this Government made to ensure that the justice system works in the best interests of all New Zealanders? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Major changes include new sentencing laws which have seen record sentences for the worst offenders; increasing police numbers in the police budget to record highs; new victims’ rights laws which for the first time have given victims enforceable rights; and new bail laws which make it harder for dangerous offenders to get bail. We have also introduced legislation to extend supervision for child sex offenders and increased penalties for child pornography. And that is just the beginning. 
Richard Worth 
: With reference to the primary question how is the justice system working for all New Zealanders when the courts are clogged with unresolved criminal cases and accused persons are having charges against them dropped because of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act requirement for expeditious trials? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The advice I have is that the number of stays granted over the last 5 years has not differed greatly from those granted over the previous 5 years. From 1 January 1994 to 31 October 1998 there were 38 stays of proceedings under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was not a responsive answer to the question. It is not a question of stays being granted; it is a question of cases being dropped. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister wishes to comment further she can. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The advice I have is that the relevant statistics are directly comparable and that there really has not been a significant change in the number of cases that have been stayed as a result of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act requirement that cases be brought on. The delays that existed in the past still exist today and this is a matter of concern to this Government as it was to the Government that the member would have represented. 
Stephen Franks 
: With reference to the primary question how can it be fair to all New Zealanders that a habitual offender like Rambo Barton an 18-year-old from Nelson had $26000 in fines wiped while decent people like Mrs Taylor of Mapua are harassed mercilessly to pay their trivial fines on time? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not able as the member knows to make comments about sentences that are imposed by the court. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Franks asked the question; he is entitled to raise the point. [ 
Interruption 
] I am making an assessment that as Mr Franks asked the question and he wants to raise a point of order he can have the first call. 
Stephen Franks 
: Both those examples referred to cases that have been disposed of by the courts and relate to a matter of practice and a matter for which the Government claims responsibility—the collection of fines. That is administrative and I therefore see no reason why the Minister should be able to hide behind the notion that this is something beyond her ability to comment on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is up to the Minister to decide how she will respond. If the member is not satisfied he can take an appropriate step then. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order which you did not take was that this matter is not sub judice in any way or effect whatsoever. That is the first thing. But the other point I want to raise is that if a member is the first to get to his or her feet and ask for a point of order and there are no other distinguishing features—not including the one that you sought to use—then that member should get the point of order first particularly when that member is senior in the House. That is my point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That point might be the member’s view but it is not mine. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In fact if you have not called anyone it is at your complete discretion whom you can call. On the other matter I say to you that your ruling is not satisfactory because you have given a ruling that implies that the Minister’s statement to the House has your support. It is quite wrong for the Minister to say to the House that she cannot comment on sentences—of course she can. She can choose not to—that is up to her—but for her to say that the member knows that she cannot comment implies to people listening that an unfair question has been asked of her and that it was unfair to ask her to comment on sentencing practices that are the result of laws passed by this Government. That is not a fair answer. What you should have said Mr Speaker is that the Minister could reply but that under the Standing Orders you cannot make her. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did not claim it was sub judice under the Standing Orders. That is not an issue. It is up to the Minister as to how she responds. There is no implication that I approve or not of the reply. 
Murray Smith 
: If the justice system is working in the interests of all New Zealanders why is there increasing difficulty in getting jurors to participate in the system; if the Minister of Justice thinks jurors play an important role in the justice system why does he not increase daily reimbursements for jurors so that people can be encouraged to fulfil their civic duty without it costing them a considerable amount in lost wages? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not aware of the difficulty in respect of jurors but if the member has a specific issue regarding those numbers I am happy to supply that information to him. 
Ron Mark 
: In respect of the case of Maunu Nicholson does the Minister agree with the Minister of Corrections who says that Maunu Nicholson’s home detention sentence was “well managed” and that it was “unfortunate that a person has died” or does he agree with all sane New Zealanders who think that home detention monitoring is so slack that probation officers who make pre-arranged appointments at regularly scheduled intervals never know what gang members on home detention are doing and that home detention on that basis alone has passed its use-by date and the whole Act should be repealed? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I already advised in my answer to the first supplementary question if the member had put down a question about the individual case I would have been well briefed to come to the House to answer it. I do note that that member made serious allegations in the House with regard to a home detention matter relating to two security officers being beaten up and we have never seen any evidence of it. 
Richard Worth 
: With reference to the primary question how is the justice system working in the interests of all New Zealanders when there are high rates of staff attrition in the courts there has been a loss of institutional memory among court staff and court staff are not being properly paid? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I think that question should be addressed to the appropriate Minister—the Minister for Courts. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you give us some guidance please? We do accept and understand that it is up to the Government when a Minister is absent to choose a Minister to answer questions. But surely there must be some guidance about putting up someone who is competent is aware of the portfolio and can at least try to answer some of the questions. Not to do so is to make a mockery out of question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is wrong. This Minister is the Acting Minister while the Minister is overseas. We have been advised as such. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect my colleague sought to have this question deferred until the Minister of Justice was in the House. He was declined leave by this Government which is its entitlement. But surely you should rule out the wasteful comments of a Minister who then tells my colleague to put the question to the proper Minister who is not here and whom he would have put the question to if it had been deferred in the first place. It is obtuse it is a waste of Parliament’s time and you should stop it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What is a waste of Parliament’s time are irrelevant points of order. The Minister was referring to the fact that the supplementary question was referring to a matter that is more appropriately directed to the Minister for Courts not the Minister of Justice. In this case she is the Minister of Justice; she is the Acting Minister. A question set down to her has to be answered by her when she is in the House. The Minister of Justice is overseas and will be overseas for some time. 
Stephen Franks 
: With reference to the Minister’s answer to Mr Russell Fairbrother’s supplementary question in which she referred to the Sentencing Act as an achievement in the interests of all New Zealanders how does she see that Act in the light of District Court Judge Ian Mills’ comment reported on 19 November in the  
Nelson Mail 
 that it was unfortunate he was not able to disqualify sickness beneficiary Shane Lee Anderson from driving after 16 charges of theft from vehicles as the charges “cried out for it” and at the same time he remitted $5000 in unpaid fines from previous offending? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not aware of the connection of that case with the Sentencing Act provisions where I referred to record sentences being imposed on the worst offenders. The Sentencing Act now requires that the interests of the community are taken into account in parole considerations and in respect of the worst offenders we have the longest periods of non-parole ever seen in this country before. 
Richard Worth 
: With reference to the primary question how is the justice system working in the interests of all New Zealanders when increasingly the courts detect big holes in the Minister’s much-vaunted sentencing regime and when the Minister sits on his hands and does nothing to deal with those gaps? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The irony of the question is that prior to the introduction of the sentencing legislation we saw people walk away with minimal sentences. We have now seen an enormous extension in non-parole periods over many many years which is designed to protect the community from the most serious offenders. 
Ron Mark 
: Accepting the contribution from the Acting Prime Minister is the Minister of Justice aware of the following case and what has he got to say to the family of Mr Victor Grey of Tauranga who along with another man was killed by a former gang member Charles Anthony Beale who was convicted of two counts of careless driving causing death three counts of careless driving causing injury and a further two counts of driving whilst disqualified and who has now to the horror of the victims’ families been given leave to apply for home detention? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That one is absolutely clear-cut because it is sub judice. The matter is before the courts and we cannot comment on it here—[ 
Interruption 
] I apologise with respect to Mr Prebble because I know what he is going to say—I will not comment on it here. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Going back to the main question is the House to understand that the Minister and the Labour Government are saying that New Zealand has a just system when we have one of the higher crime levels in the OECD and when this Government is defending a system where violent criminals— 
Ron Mark 
: Killers! 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: —killers are being sent home on home detention; would she please explain that to us? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I made absolutely clear this particular case is before the courts at the moment. If that member does not respect his legal background I certainly do respect mine. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am obliged to the Minister but I did not ask her about that case. If she has a look at the main question she will see that it asks whether she has confidence in the justice system. The question I asked her was whether she expresses confidence in a justice system that can send home violent murderers. I want to know whether she is prepared to repeat that statement to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s point is valid. The member asked the Minister to comment on the general system not on a specific case so I would ask the Minister to reply. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: We have a system of law in this country where a person is innocent until proven guilty and we also have a system where finite sentences are given and individuals cannot be kept in jail beyond the end of their finite sentences. Dangerous people are released into our community but the sentencing and parole legislation that has been introduced by this Government has now put the needs of the community ahead of the interests of individual offenders. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. All I asked was a simple question. I just want to hear from the Acting Minister of Justice whether she is prepared to get up in this House and say that the present situation where violent criminals and murderers are sent home on home detention is just. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question that was asked by the member. She did talk about it. That might not satisfy the member but she did address that question. 
Stephen Franks 
: I seek leave to table the report of the judge lamenting the loss of the power to disqualify which was taken in the Sentencing Act. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister of Corrections Mr Paul Swain to myself where he states that the management of Maunu Nicholson’s sentence was well handled. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table a report stating the circumstances in which Mr Victor Grey was killed. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table a newspaper report about the crimes committed by Mr Maunu—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it right or appropriate during a point of order which should be heard in silence for a Government member on the back benches to be interjecting? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is not. I now will be watching. Mr Mark will recommence his request. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table a newspaper report outlining the details of one Mr Maunu Nicholson who stabbed four men in a New Plymouth bar. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that newspaper report. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The interjection came from the MP for Napier. Therefore I seek leave to table a defence he had in a very important criminal case where he said that the defendant’s behaviour was due to the fact that the Treaty of Waitangi was not being honoured. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? There is. 
Small Business—Australia / New Zealand 
9.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: What recent reports has he received comparing the small—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is the one warning today. Start again please. 
Mark Peck 
: Tell that member we measure people from the neck up in the Labour movement. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was an insult from Mr Peck. He was talking about something—I think it was a comment made by Lloyd George about measuring somebody from the neck up—and I hope he was referring to himself; or it may have been an insult and I think he should explain himself. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member could perhaps restrict his points of order. That was not one. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This had better be a genuine point of order. That last one was not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Mr Speaker if you can tell me where his comments are in his question as written pray tell me now; otherwise it is a sincere and genuine point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ruled it was not. 
Mark Peck 
: What recent reports has he received comparing the small business environment in New Zealand with Australia? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 According to the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce small businesses in Australia—our largest trading partner—spend four times as long completing their GST returns as New Zealand small businesses do. This is one indicator only. The New South Wales Chamber of Commerce also reports that small businesses in that state spend on average 50 days a year on tax and industrial relations paperwork alone. This compares with a total average compliance burden of 9.5 hours a month in New Zealand according to the National Bank’s  
Small Business Monitor 
. While I am pleased we have a level of regulatory burden that is a lot lower and lighter than the Australians this Government is committed to working with business to improve the situation further. Next year’s small business summits will give those running small businesses a chance to have a real say in how that will occur. 
Mark Peck 
: Has the Minister seen the TMP/Hudson Global Resources job index report; if so could he tell the House what it states about the hiring expectations of New Zealand business? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The recently released TMP/Hudson Global Resources job index report was accurately summarised in today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
. There is a job bonanza in New Zealand currently. We have high demand for workers the lowest unemployment rate in New Zealand in 15 years low inflation low interest rates and a growing economy. New Zealand businesses are benefiting from this and from a very worthwhile Government. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Given that the New Zealand company tax rate of 33 percent is one of the highest company tax rates in the Asia-Pacific region with Australia’s rate at 30 percent and from next year Singapore’s rate at 20 percent why does he not advocate a lower New Zealand company tax rate to help boost investment and wealth-creating small businesses and to improve New Zealand’s sustainable economic growth? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Notwithstanding the matters raised by the member New Zealand businesses have a very very competitive setting and are doing very well. 
Mike Ward 
: Has the Minister seen the report of the Government of Western Australia on the effectiveness of its “buy local” policies which shows that 92 percent of state Government agencies purchased at least 70 percent of their requirements from local businesses; does he acknowledge that this policy—the “Buy Queensland First” policy and other Australian “buy local” policies—provides small businesses across the Tasman with a more supportive environment than their counterparts here in New Zealand have; and could he explain his Government’s reluctance to give a similar measure of support to New Zealand’s businesses? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked three questions and the Minister may comment on two of them. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I have not seen that report. 
Mike Ward 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He answered one of the questions. There were two others. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No he said he had not seen the report. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister aware that small dietary supplements businesses in Australia endure high compliance costs as a result of being regulated by the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration and can he assure the House that the Government will listen to the small dietary supplements businesses in New Zealand that are exhorting it not to regulate their industry through the heavy-handed and draconian Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration and expose them to higher compliance costs and the bureaucratic quagmire of a trans-Tasman therapeutic goods agency; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: We are aware of a number of dodgy things that have occurred in that industry in Australia and as a consequence the Government has moved to regulate the industry here. We are looking at this matter and studying it very closely. 
Mike Ward 
: I seek leave to table the State Supply Commission of the Government of Western Australia’s  
Buy-Local Policy. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Aquaculture—Moratorium 
10.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Why has he not delivered the promised legislative framework for aquaculture and why is it necessary to extend the moratorium for 9 months from March 2004? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 It is important to ensure that the proposed aquaculture law reforms are consistent with the proposed resolution of the foreshore and seabed issue and extending the moratorium will enable us to achieve that. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can the Minister recall promising in November 2001 that the new aquaculture legislation framework would be passed within 12 months way before the foreshore issue even broke? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I certainly intended that the legislation would be passed before 24 March 2004 which is why I set the moratorium date as it was. The reason it has been delayed is the Court of Appeal announcement of course. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What benefits can the marine farming industry expect from the Government’s aquaculture reforms? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Bad law has hampered marine farming for many years and this Government is fixing it. The reforms will enable clearly identified aquaculture management areas to be established and will introduce a streamlined one-permit consent system for marine farmers. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can the Minister assure the House that the Ministry of Fisheries has been helpful to regional councils in planning the future of marine farming and that the moratorium was not extended simply because councils have no faith in the Ministry of Fisheries or in his proposed legislation and have put all of their planning on the backburner? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I can offer that assurance and I can distinguish this moratorium from one that was imposed by the National Government in 1996 which was raised 3 years later in 1999 having achieved precisely nothing. 
Jim Peters 
: Why has the Government encouraged regional councils to plan for potential aquaculture management areas involving rounds of public consultations at this very moment in Kaeo and Russell and if it had a plan in mind can the Minister now say confidently and absolutely that regional councils and industry can place applications to be heard after 1 January 2005? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Northland Regional Council to which the member refers has certainly been on the front foot on this issue and has been well supported not so much by just the Ministry of Fisheries staff but also by the Ministry for the Environment. They have made some progress in identifying prospective aquaculture management areas. Provision exists in legislation that I have yet to introduce for an uplift—in fact provision exists now I understand for them to apply to the Minister of Conservation for an uplift of the moratorium over a small area should they choose to do so. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can the Minister confirm that the moratorium was extended not because of the seabed and foreshore fiasco but because regional councils throughout New Zealand have consistently told him that they have no faith in the draft aquaculture reform legislation that the Ministry of Fisheries has been unhelpful and that consequently they have had to put all of their aquaculture planning on hold—can he confirm that the complication is not with the seabed foreshore and Maori but with regional councils? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I certainly cannot confirm that. The member has got the wrong end of the stick. That said the fact that there is an additional 9 months will I am sure mean that further resolution of outstanding issues can be progressed. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of the fact that the Minister has just confirmed that his failure to deliver on his promise is because of the foreshore and seabed issue could he tell us what progress is being made with the oceans policy that was heralded by this Labour Government but which is something it has been very quiet on lately? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a little wider but I will allow the Minister to comment. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member may not have noticed that the Government has decided to progress the issue of foreshore and seabed before progressing aquaculture before further progressing the oceans policy and before progressing for example marine reserves legislation. Is it going to last for 10 years? No. The Government intends to make its position on the foreshore and seabed available well before then. 
Film-making—Regional Benefits 
11.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: How does Government support of New Zealand film-making benefit our regions? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 International productions such as  
The Lord of the Rings 
 and  
The Last Samurai 
 bring considerable economic and tourism benefits to New Zealand’s regions. However local films supported by the New Zealand Film Commission and the Film Production Fund such as  
Whale Rider 
  
The Locals 
 and  
Perfect Strangers 
 also have a significant positive effect on our regions including the West Coast Waikato and the Gisborne area. 
Moana Mackey 
: What specific examples can she give of regional benefits from these Film Commission and Film Production Fund – supported films? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
:  
Perfect Strangers 
 which was filmed on the West Coast of the South Island created significant employment opportunities increased the skill base in film making facilitated fund-raising for community groups and has increased the profile of the West Coast.  
The Locals 
 filmed in the Waikato brought economic injections into local business and saw the inclusion of Waikato bands in the film soundtrack. The international success of  
Whale Rider 
 including its most recent British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) children’s award for best feature film has resulted in increased focus on tourism to New Zealand in general and to the Whangara area in particular. 
Judy Turner 
: How can she claim that the Government’s support of New Zealand film-making produces any benefits for the regions at all given that Treasury figures indicate that the effect of recently introduced tax incentives for medium to large film projects could actually produce a net loss to our economy of up to $5 million as well as cause skills shortages and wage rises for the local industry? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Treasury would say that. However the evidence of the benefits is available all around New Zealand and in the more than 500 jobs for example for New Zealanders produced by  
The Lord of the Rings 
 series. 
Forestry—Government Policy 
12.  
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
 to the  
Minister for Industry and Regional Development 
: Does he stand by his statement made in reaction to Wayne Coffey’s criticisms of the Government’s forestry policies in which he said “Well I want to know from the industry because if that’s right … we’ll stop doing what we’re doing.”; if so can the forestry industry interpret this as a policy statement? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Industry and Regional Development) 
: 
 Yes I do and no it cannot. I made that statement after listening to Mr Wayne Coffey say on Radio New Zealand that the coalition Government views the forestry industry as “some sort of necessary evil” and that the Government was hostile to business and anti-business. On the contrary tomorrow in Rotorua I open a multimillion-dollar wood-processing centre of excellence. Thirty million dollars is being invested as I speak in roading in the north and on the East Coast of the North Island in heavily forested areas and millions of dollars are being spent on skill training market development and industry capability building. If all of that is evil and hostile to the industry in the considered view of industry members then of course the Government will stop doing it. 
Brian Connell 
: Given the Minister’s comments what will this Government’s response be when dealing with the growing number of foresters who publicly label its polices as inadequate—or will it try to bully them into submission also? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I noticed in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 this morning an article stating: “The New Zealand Forest Industries Council is distancing itself from criticism of the Government by the Timber Industry Federation chief Wayne Coffey ... Council chief executive officer Stephen Jacobi said that Coffey’s comments were profoundly unhelpful. The industry was working with the Government in the Wood Processing Strategy and a separate Forestry Industry Framework Agreement. ‘Obviously the industry would be better served by a forum that had everyone involved’ Jacobi said. He denied that the council was dominated by Carter Holt Harvey saying it had 18 core members.” The forestry industry and everyone that I know apart from Mr Coffey in the wood industry is supportive of what is going on and they are all invited to a meeting in my room before Christmas. If they think we are doing a good job we will continue doing it. If they do not then we will stop doing it and the Minister of Finance will have a lot of other things to do with the money we are spending now. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: What assistance has the Labour-Progressive Government provided for the forestry sector? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have already outlined some of the detail of the coalition Government’s constructive assistance to the wood industry. The wood-processing task force was the first time that any Government had taken such a comprehensive and representative industry grouping and brought its members together to address industry-wide concerns. The coalition Government maintains an ongoing dialogue with the wood industry sector and that engagement informs the policies and programmes we adopt to assist in its transformation. To give just one example we have invested $400000 in trade access work which has resulted in China recognising pine for construction purposes. We have also provided additional funding for wood-quality research initiatives which is a principal public and private initiative. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister believe that the Ministry of Economic Development has a role in assisting employees and contractors who have lost jobs and businesses in the current forestry downturn in the East Coast – Bay of Plenty; if so what is the ministry doing for those people? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Government’s response to issues like employment is a whole-of-Government response and the whole-of-Government response of this coalition Government is that we have the lowest level of unemployment in nearly 20 years. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Has the Minister seen any reports from the forestry industry on the coalition Government’s policies as they affect the forestry sector and what they indicated? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes and I think I have reported to the House on that. As I indicated I have regular meetings with the forestry industry along with my colleagues Jim Sutton and Pete Hodgson. Another meeting will be held before Christmas. Everyone in the industry interested in coming to my office knows that the door is open and that includes Mr Wayne Coffey. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Given the Minister’s undertaking to stop doing what he is doing to the timber industry will he also give an undertaking to stop what he is doing to all other industry sectors such as the yacht-building industry? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Government works in cooperation with industry and my comment was that if the industry at large wanted the Government to stop doing what it is doing then of course we would. I doubt whether that will be the case. But I did notice that in comparison the ACT party suggests that we should have the exchange rate at the equivalent of the US$1 now. At 64c to the US$1 it may be difficult for some exporters. At 100c to the US$1 it would be virtually impossible for many of them. 
Brian Connell 
: Why does the Minister not acknowledge what many in the forestry industry are saying: that they are sick and tired of empty rhetoric and what they actually want him to do is to reduce costs and fix things like the Resource Management Act? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I know that during the wood-processing task force issues like the Resource Management Act were addressed by a subcommittee of that task force and by the Government and issues are still being addressed. But I do not know of a time when the wood industry collectively and individually has been so supportive of Government actions as it is now. I would remind the member that during the whole time that the party he is now in Opposition with was in Government it did nothing whatever for the wood industry. That is on record and everyone knows it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was an unparliamentary comment made by the Hon Nick Smith who is clearly having a bit of a problem today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard an unparliamentary comment. If the member made that comment he is to withdraw and apologise for it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. I seek the leave of the House to table the wide range of very positive initiatives that National took for the forestry sector right through the 1990s in contradiction of what the Minister claimed. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Brian Connell 
: Having threatened to withdraw Government support from the forestry industry unless it pulls its forelock would the Minister be concerned to find out that many in the industry are hoping that that is a promise? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I made it clear in my statement I gave to the House that this is a consultative Government. If the industry wants the initiatives that this Government has taken is taking and will take to be ended then it has a chance to say so. I expect all who have been invited—and that is everyone—to come along and have their say. If that is what they wish I will readily report that to my colleagues and to the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table evidence that shows that when New Zealand First came to Government in 1996 the exchange rate was sitting at 69c to the US$1 and how under the careful stewardship of Winston Peters as Treasurer it was driven down to the 50c mark. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that evidence. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Questions to Members 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill—Consequences 
1.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to  
Steve Chadwick (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: Is she satisfied that the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill will not have unintended consequences if enacted; if not why not? 
STEVE CHADWICK (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: 
 No one can give an absolute assurance that unintended consequences will not occur as a result of any legislation. However I am satisfied that the purpose of the bill which is to provide for healthier working conditions for workers and the public will be achieved. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Bearing in mind the provisions of new section 23A(1)(ea) in the bill can the member give the House an unqualified assurance that wrapped and unwrapped cigars of such well-known brands as Schimmelpenninck and Van Hartog which exceed the requirement of 66 square centimetres in area for their packaging will continue to be able to be displayed; if she can give that assurance can she point to the section of the Act that provides it and if she cannot give that assurance can she explain why and where that is given authority also? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: I refer the questioner to a response today from the Associate Minister of Health Damien O’Connor to Mr Tim Oakes in reference to this very question which states that he does not however believe that Mr Oakes’ concerns are well founded in terms of points of display for cigar products. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has quoted from what I believe is an official document. I think she is therefore obliged to table that document. She is referring to a letter from the Associate Minister to Mr Oakes which deals with the point. If she is quoting from that she should be obliged to table it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That applies when a Minister quotes from one. I refer the member to the Standing Order. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are going to have a series of questions on this bill all of which relate to specific provisions of it. If we are to be able to proceed through this section of question time without disruption I submit to you that it would be in order for the member to answer the questions fully and properly because this is the one chance we will get given that the bill is about to enter its third reading. With regard to the question that I have just asked I know that the answer the member has given is disputed most strongly by the people to whom she has given it. Yet by not tabling the documentation referred to our ability to get to the heart of this matter which has significant implications for manufacturers in that regard is inhibited. So I submit that you should require the member to give full answers and where appropriate to table the appropriate documentation for all of us to examine. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that the member is not obliged to disclose her sources of information in answering questions. That is a specific comment made in the Standing Orders. Ministers are different from members in that regard. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not disputing your ruling in any way; it is completely correct. However it would be helpful for you as Speaker to point out that although it is only Ministers who are obliged to do so it would certainly be very parliamentary especially for a chairperson of a committee who is answering questions and quoting from a document to table it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: She is answering not as a chairperson but as the member in charge of the bill. The point made by the honourable member is an interesting one and could perhaps be discussed in the Standing Orders Committee. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that Mr Dunne asked for authority and I assume he meant authority within the legislation or the proposed bill in the first instance or any other authority if it was the converse. No attempt was made to give any authority in either respect but the member recited some comments from the Associate Minister. She has simply not answered the question at all. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: I seek leave to table the document of 2 December 2003—a response to Mr Tim Oates the general manager of Stuart Alexander. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I take supplementary questions I want to rule as I did on a previous occasion that I will allow two supplementary questions: one from the member who asked the substantive question and one other. I will try to spread that round the parties. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the member confident that as a result of the passage and implementation of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill we will see a renaissance and not a collapse of the hospitality industry as customers revel in the new clean indoor environment of pubs and cafes? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: Yes I feel confident that that is exactly what we will see. 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill—Effective Date 
2.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
 to  
Steve Chadwick (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: If the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill is enacted will it come into force immediately; if not why not? 
STEVE CHADWICK (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill): 
 Different provisions have different commencement dates in this bill. The prohibitions on the supply of tobacco products the sale and supply of toy cigarettes and the sale of herbal smoking products to under 18-year-olds will come into effect immediately after the royal assent. Other provisions will come into force at different times up until February 2005. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the member believe the claims made by the Ministry of Health that second-hand smoke inhalation kills 388 people each year; if so how on earth can she justify delaying the enactment of that part of the bill for 1 year knowing that by doing so she will be condemning 388 people to death? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: Evidence supplied to the select committee during the hearings of this bill certainly gave us that evidence in respect of 388 deaths per year. 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill—Fines 
3.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
 to  
Steve Chadwick (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: Is anyone liable for a fine under the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill if an enforcement officer detects smoking in a bar or club; if so what is the maximum fine? 
STEVE CHADWICK (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill): 
 Yes the licensee—that means the manager or the proprietor—is liable for a fine of up $4000 for a body corporate if it is proven that he or she did not take all reasonable and practicable steps to ensure that no one smoked in the premises. 
Rodney Hide 
: Once the bill comes into force what does the member suggest that the publican in say Wairoa does in response to gang members lighting up in his or her pub knowing that it is the publican who is liable for the fine not the gang members who are lighting up the smoke? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: If the publican can demonstrate that he or she has undertaken all reasonable and practicable steps no fine will be issued. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Have I got this right—anybody can go into a pub after this bill is passed pull out a packet of cigarettes and say to the owner: “If you don’t give me free drinks I’m going to light up and you’re going to get fined” and what is just about that? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: This is a public health bill. Individual provisions of enforcement never apply in public health legislation and it will be the will of the 75 percent of New Zealanders who do not smoke to exert their influence over the smokers and ask them to have their cigarette outside. 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill—Enforcement Powers 
4.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
 to  
Steve Chadwick (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: Does the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill provide enforcement officers with the power to enter pubs armed with air sniffers cameras and video cameras; if so why? 
STEVE CHADWICK (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: 
 Yes to allow the smoke-free protection officers to find out whether the Act is being complied with in respect of the premises being entered. 
Heather Roy 
: Given the member’s statement today that her bill is about social change and not about policing why does the bill have policing powers and harsh fines for bar and club owners? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: The bill does not have policing powers. Police will not be involved in this bill as that member of the committee well understands. This bill has smoke-protection officers who are public health officers employed by the Ministry of Health whose role is to educate licensees and premises-holders as to how to comply with the terms of this legislation. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the member believe that it is fair and reasonable that enforcement officers can enter a bar a club or whatever and if the person in charge is not present upon initial entry can video take photographs or take air samples without identifying themselves to anybody? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: Yes. 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill—Ships 
5.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
 to  
Steve Chadwick (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: Under the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill will crews on ships in New Zealand continental waters be able to smoke inside the ship; if so under what conditions? 
STEVE CHADWICK (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: 
 No. The bill’s provisions will not allow any smoking in indoor areas of an affected ship except in temporary residential-like areas such as the individual ship cabins for passengers or crew. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Can the member confirm that in fact the situation is that a Taiwanese crew on a Taiwanese ship in New Zealand coastal waters will be free to smoke on that ship but a New Zealand crew on a New Zealand ship which happens to be in Taiwanese waters cannot legally smoke; if so how did that unworkable politically correct nonsense come to be in the bill? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: This law applies only to those ships in New Zealand waters. 
Peter Brown 
: Will an officer on watch on a vessel carrying inflammable cargo such as a tanker be allowed to smoke in the wheelhouse or does he have to go on to the wing of the bridge to have a smoke? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: No. 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill—Marae 
6.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
 to  
Steve Chadwick (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: Under the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill will enforcement officers have the power to enter marae? 
STEVE CHADWICK (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: 
 This bill is not about power. However smoke-protection officers will be able to go to marae if those marae have a liquor licence or are employing employees for the purpose of that event. 
Heather Roy 
: Is it not political correctness gone mad when the “smoke police” can enter any bar and club but not a marae except under those circumstances? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: As I answered in the original question smoke-protection officers—and I am offended by the term “smoke police”—certainly can go on to a marae when a marae has a liquor licence for the purpose of an event. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How does she suggest these “attitude cops” will go on to the Ngati Whakaue Marae for example in Rotorua to enforce the law without the greatest degree of racial disruption? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: I am sure the member knows all too well about auahi kore who are smoke-protection officers who go around marae now—and Ngati Whakaue is one of them as the member well knows because he smokes outside—to educate people on the marae about how to be compliant with the smoke-free provisions of this bill. 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill—Rural Pubs 
7.  
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
 to  
Steve Chadwick (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: What sanctions does the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill provide for rural pubs that flout the law and allow their patrons to smoke indoors? 
STEVE CHADWICK (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: 
 There is no differentiation between rural and urban publicans in the bill. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Does she really believe that rural pubs such as the Shingle Creek tavern will take one blind bit of notice of this legislation; if so why? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: I have not visited those premises but I will when I get down to the South Island. I must point out that not every rural resident smokes. Seventy-five percent of New Zealanders do not smoke and they will appreciate the clean air in that hotel when this bill is passed. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I appreciate that the member in charge of the bill may not have ever been to a rural pub but is she telling us that no one in the Labour Party has ever been to a West Coast pub and what on earth makes her think that this law will be enforced? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not the member’s responsibility but she can make a brief comment if she wishes. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: I do not like the slur on the West Coast. I cannot give guarantees for my colleagues but I am sure that many of us have enjoyed the hospitality of a rural West Coast pub. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to raise this point of order as I might want to visit the West Coast again. I think that West Coasters are proud of the fact that they keep their pubs open. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I can always remember a predecessor—one of the members from the West Coast—Mr Paddy Blanchfield voting against 10 o’clock closing because he thought that would mean the pubs on the West Coast would have to close 2 hours earlier. 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill—Company Cars 
8.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to  
Steve Chadwick (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: Under the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill will employees be able to smoke in company cars; if so under what conditions? 
STEVE CHADWICK (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: 
 Not generally. However if all users of the vehicle agree and if the vehicle is not generally accessible to the public then smoking may be permitted. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Who will police smoking in company cars and who has to pay the fines if anyone is ever caught? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: I do not think that smoke-protection officers will be snooping around company cars. They have better work to do under the provisions of the legislation. 
Pita Paraone 
: How will non-smoking in rental cars be enforced? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: Just as I have answered in the previous question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Like any member answering a question the member in charge of the bill has to address the question that is asked. To say that the bill has enforcement powers and that the officers charged with that enforcement will not enforce those provisions surely cannot be an acceptable answer. That is making a complete mockery of what we will be doing in Parliament this afternoon which is passing legislation that provides for smoke police and gives them wide-ranging powers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the sort of thing the member can raise in the third reading. 
General Debates 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. I observed a news report today that referred to a coward and a bully and to his party as the home of fear failure and resentment. Who could that report be referring to? I cannot imagine who is being referred to. I can say though that the article was a response to the taxpayer-funded anti-immigration propaganda— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A member cannot hide behind the cowardly craven skirts of some other outside-of-Parliament article as some sort of excuse to offend the Standing Orders of this House. That is precisely what the Minister is doing. I know that she has not been here long but she surely must know that. She should be asked now to withdraw and apologise for the inference that she has clearly made about someone being cowardly. I am sure that she is referring to one of her parliamentary colleagues. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If that is what the member said would the Minister withdraw and apologise. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes the article was referring to Mr Peters. I withdraw and apologise. 
 It is propaganda because it is deliberately designed to mislead. It is propaganda because it is wrong. I believe in free speech and we as members of Parliament can say a lot more in this House because here we have more free speech than most. That is one of the privileges of being here yet I am not allowed to use words like “liar” “cheat” “fraudster” “coward” and “hypocrite” if referring to an individual member which I am not doing at this moment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member may not use those words. They may be appropriate to her but they are not to me. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not need any assistance. The words are not acceptable in this House because the implication is quite clear also. I ask the member to withdraw those words. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I withdraw. All members in this House are honourable members. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have ruled twice against this Minister in barely a minute and a half. I suggest that if she does it once more you should use your right to terminate her speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not need any assistance from the member in that direction. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: There is a side of me that wants to ignore this pamphlet because unwarranted publicity is something that this member is after. Publicity is what he is craving and to put it quite bluntly he does not deserve it. I think it is important that we place on the record of the House the abhorrence that every other member of Parliament who does not belong to the New Zealand First Party feels about this disgraceful publication and about the fact that New Zealand First spent not one cent of its own money on it but spent taxpayers’ money to put out this filthy lying propaganda— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is three times in 3 minutes. Not only is the member incorrect about New Zealand First not putting money towards this pamphlet— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No that is a debating matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —we are proud to and we did—but the point is that she cannot use a tirade of epithets and give abuse and get away with it in the way she just has for the third time in less than 3 minutes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I agree. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The right honourable member was correct in his first two points of order but not in the last one because the last statement was not a statement about him. [ 
Interruption 
] It was not—I was listening very carefully. It was about a pamphlet that she said contained lies. A pamphlet is not a member of Parliament and I think one is entitled to say that it is a lying filthy piece of propaganda or whatever the phrase was providing one is not referring to an MP. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that but I as Chair took the statement to be a reference to members of this House particularly to Mr Peters and his party and I ask the Minister to withdraw that. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I withdraw it. Every other right-thinking member of this House believes that it is abhorrent to put on the record false information misleading information designed to bring people into disrepute. This morning that member challenged me. He asked whether I upheld the rule of law because I said I was sympathetic to some postal workers who did not want to place this offensive material in people’s letterboxes. I make the point that I do not agree that postal workers are the ones who can decide what we receive. I have never said that they can make that decision themselves. But the point that has been made is that posties generally take pride in their work. They take pride in being part of this country’s infrastructure and they can take no pride in delivering what one commentator has described as a nasty little item like this. “Nasty” is the politest term I could describe it with. It contains distorted information. It ignores changes that this Government has implemented. It ignores the fact that those members opposite did nothing when they were in Government to resolve some of the problems they have identified. They have deliberately set about inciting racial hatred against all migrants to this country. 
I want to read out one of the emails I have received today. It states “Dear Ms Dalziel I am totally incensed by the latest report in our paper the  
Press 
 concerning the circular that will be coming through the mail and the slur it will make against all immigrants. Myself and family arrived from England 9 years ago. I brought money and my skill having been in business for 16 years previously and setting up a business here. It has certainly not been easy and we had put up with enough prejudice during this time as it is without this lunatic inciting more.” He carries on—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister knows full well—and Mr Prebble is wrong—that my photograph and signature are on that pamphlet and that is why he is wrong—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the post office has not been delivering them but it will. I guarantee it will. The Minister cannot use that phrase quoting from someone who has purportedly written to her—and I do not know whether anyone has. But she cannot then hide behind that person’s comments which would be unparliamentary if she were to use them. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I agree. Any quotations used must not be cast in unparliamentary language. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The email continues: “That man—and I use this term loosely—should never be in the position he is. I will personally be getting advice about suing him for libel and defamation of character if a circular enters my post box.” 
That is just one letter from an ordinary New Zealander who came to New Zealand 9 years ago. That is the impact that member is having on these people. I want to make a few points about this pamphlet. New Zealanders are not being squeezed out of their own country. They left in droves when that member was the Deputy Prime Minister. More New Zealanders than ever are coming back to this country simply because they can see some hope and some future here. The past 4 years have seen an average of just over 40000 migrants a year coming here so hundreds of thousands of Third World immigrants could not have come here since Labour took office. The pamphlet is filled with lies and deceits. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister completed her speech with a further series of unparliamentary statements then she sat down. She should be asked to withdraw and apologise. She has offended five times in 5 minutes. She should have been stopped as my colleague Dail Jones suggested if she intended to continue in the way she did. She must withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The Minister’s comments were directed to the member’s side of the House. There was so much noise that I did not actually hear them. Would the member please enlighten me. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I can only assume when she referred to lies and other things that she was looking in the mirror—so I will forget it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Earlier this week this Labour-led Government announced its intention to extend the moratorium on marine licences for a further 9 months from March of next year. As we all know statutory moratoriums are an admission of failure by any Government. They are a political failure they reflect indecision and they create uncertainty—and that is certainly what this decision has done to the New Zealand aquaculture industry. 
In November 2001 this Government’s Minister of Fisheries Pete Hodgson promised new enabling legislation within 12 months yet here we are 2 years later with a moratorium in place and now the Government admits failure and announces it will extend the moratorium for a further 9 months until 31 December 2004. Nothing can be more uncertain for any sector than to be facing a moratorium where there is no decision no framework and no policy—having instead an inept Government that just cannot make up its mind and does not know what it wants to do. That is a disaster for any country. 
In November 2001 the Minister described the existing legislation as outdated over-complicated and dysfunctional. Here we are 2 years later with it still in place still dysfunctional still outdated and still over-complicated—and he has not done anything about it. That is a failure by him as a Minister. It is a failure by this Labour Government Cabinet to address the situation and the country bears the consequences. 
The Government promised all manner of things. We were promised a framework to enable greater benefit to be obtained from coastal space without undermining existing rights. It sounded great. We had a promise to create an environment whereby aquaculture could make a greater contribution to the New Zealand economy and to clearly define to the public where marine farming would not occur. All of that has been promised but none of it has been delivered. 
I feel rather passionately supportive of the aquaculture industry. I actually held a warrant in 1990 as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I think I was the only Minister who has ever had a warrant for aquaculture. Mike Moore the then Prime Minister was very supportive of aquaculture and was determined to get it up and going. He realised—[ 
Interruption 
] What happened to Mike? A very good question because that Labour Government understood what development and progress were all about but no the Helen Clark brigade are now in power and they do not like things like development aquaculture wealth creation and prosperity—they do everything to close it down. 
The aquaculture industry in New Zealand is under-rated. It is much bigger than most people realise. Few realise that last year mussels alone earned $186 million for this country. Mussels alone earned more than the wine industry did in Marlborough. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is that right? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Yes mussels earned more in export dollars than the wine industry. That is not denigrating wine—Marlborough wine is splendid wine but the mussel industry is even more successful. There is tremendous potential for sea cages with tuna snapper the caging of rock lobster and paua—we have farming developments there with meat shell and pearls. The marine farming industry has identified that given the right environment it could be earning $2 billion for this country by 2020. What did this Government do when the industry is roaring to get going and wants a legislative framework so that it can expand and have that investment? It just increased and extended its moratoriums because it does not know what to do. It has no idea—none whatsoever. 
It blames the foreshore and seabed issue but let us remind ourselves that that issue is of its own making. The Prime Minister and the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations came out after the Court of Appeal decisions and said that they asserted Crown ownership and would legislate if necessary. Then they immediately backed off that position—right from day 1—and they have been scurrying backwards ever since. Instead they invented this nebulous concept of the “public domain” that no one owns. There are no property rights and there is no guidance. The moratorium is now in place and the industry is suffering badly. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 Today around New Zealand many dark clouds are gathering over our education horizon. I wish to describe three particular clouds today in the hope of sounding some level of warning. The first is the school network reviews or area reviews that have been going on throughout this year and I am told will go into next year as well. These have stunned whole communities—rural as well as small town communities. Middle Earth New Zealand in some sense is under siege. The talk of school closures and amalgamations has rightly jolted people into calling public meetings as their only and last response. The promised consultations have been compromised in some people’s minds by independent consultants who are being bankrolled by the Ministry of Education. A fait accompli attitude has descended upon a lot of communities around New Zealand. That has caused mistrust in many communities amongst parents and teachers. The Ministry of Education processes for managing change have in its own words been abysmal. The huge volume of emails letters and phone calls I have been getting shout out one message which is: “Leave us alone if we are producing good educational outcomes.” 
Second to that and accompanying it is the school housing reviews. These reviews added to the school network reviews are a further complication to what is happening. Heated conversations are being held around kitchen tables in school staffrooms in cowsheds and in shearing sheds. Those conversations are about when non-core school housing will be sold or when their rents will be raised to full market values thereby impacting on rural regions in a very big way. The recruiting of new teachers will be more difficult than it already is in rural areas I think particularly for secondary schools that are looking for specialist teachers. Existing rural teachers also are facing the prospect of less or even more expensive housing and therefore will consider either leaving or stopping teaching in which case even more schools will close as classrooms have no teachers. 
On top of that another cloud is the review of the Private Schools Conditional Integration Act. This in my mind is none other than a plan by the ministry to access 324 special character schools to see whether it can close or amalgamate any of them. The Private Schools Conditional Integration Act was as it states a guarantee into perpetuity—a treaty nonetheless. Does this Government want to unilaterally break or demolish this treaty? Would it do that for the Treaty of Waitangi? The Private Schools Conditional Integration Act is considered just as sacred. Certainly United Future believes that some schools may need to close but only if they are failing educationally or the numbers of pupils are so small that it is impossible to achieve good educational outcomes. 
United Future is sounding a warning that our children mums and dads families and communities are hurting and disturbed by the culmination of all these reviews on their horizons. This Christmas and New Year will be a very gloomy time for some communities. Does this Government want to have more educational egg on its face as a result? United Future calls upon Parliament to build an educational Middle Earth that too will capture the imagination of this world. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 In August Mr Ian Breeze a general surgeon from Tauranga was found guilty of professional misconduct on three charges regarding his care of Lionel Crowley who died of multi-organ failure following bowel surgery and the Health and Disability Commissioner has received six complaints about cases whereby patients have died. The director of proceedings urged the tribunal to find Mr Breeze guilty of disgraceful conduct. Doctors found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect are at risk of having their name removed from the Register of Medical Practitioners. 
If that had happened I would not need to be telling members about this case today. But it did not happen and the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal chose to find Mr Breeze guilty of a lower charge of professional misconduct. The director of proceedings pointed to Mr Breeze’s serious shortcomings established in this case and suggested that public safety considerations warranted the imposition of conditions on Mr Breeze’s ability to practise medicine. The tribunal however resolved that in this instance Mr Breeze should be fined. The decision was based primarily on the ground that: “As far as the tribunal is aware the events focused upon in this case are a one-off series of events.” 
The first question is why the tribunal did not know about all the issues surrounding the competence of this doctor. Mr Breeze had name suppression until found guilty. We now have a case before the High Court testing the validity of name suppression in such cases. One of the reasons is that this story is one of incompetence and cover-up. Today I do not want to focus on a doctor who to quote the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal “has now convinced himself about certain events which do not accord with the recollection of more reliable and objective witnesses and who continues to justify his failure to personally assess and monitor his patients’ condition by attempting to shield himself behind others.”; instead I want to concentrate on the system that allows this to happen. 
It is a doctor’s ethical and moral responsibility to report a colleague who he or she feels is unwell or incompetent. I am a doctor and I know that is our responsibility. But as the 2003 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of hospital chief executives and physicians showed support for reporting and addressing preventable medical errors was lower in New Zealand at 64 percent compared with the UK at 89 percent the USA at 86 percent Canada at 80 percent and Australia at 76 percent. This is because doctors do not know what to do. Time and again as I have investigated this case doctors told me they had talked about it but just did not know what to do. Although patients and their families now have an extremely clear line of reporting—that is a written complaint to the hospital’s complaint system and then a complaint to the Health and Disability Commissioner—doctors and other health professionals who are concerned about a colleague’s ability still feel uncertain. Even the Minister of Health got it wrong in the House today. One does not report to the Health and Disability Commissioner but to the New Zealand Medical Council. The message is clear: it is a doctor’s responsibility to report. Then the Medical Council will undertake competency review. Doctors should not fear competency review as this is not disciplinary action but a way to improve practice. 
In 1994 a doctor at Tauranga Hospital documented 13 cases in which Mr Breeze had serious complications. In 1995 a surgical review was undertaken I think by Mr John Simpson. Mr Breeze spent 1 day in Auckland but then returned to practising independently and this is when the trouble began again. If the public look at the Medical Council of New Zealand’s website they will see that no restriction on Mr Breeze’s practice is listed. But on 16 December 1999—the day before Mr Crowley’s operation—Mrs Mackey had been taken to theatre for removal of a cancerous polyp in the lower colon. It subsequently turned out that Mr Breeze had missed the tumour and months later a second operation had to be performed. There was a recurrence at the stoma site and the Accident Compensation Corporation accepted this as medical error. Mrs Mackey died of her secondary cancer a fairly short time later. 
On 6 December 2000 Mr Barry Baker was operated on for bowel cancer. A hemicolectomy was performed at Norfolk Hospital. Three days after surgery he complained of pain and distension in his stomach and was transferred to Tauranga Hospital’s intensive care unit. He went back to surgery where an ileostomy was performed. Four days later a third operation was required. On 28 December he showed signs of multi-organ failure and he died on 31 December. There is conflicting evidence about whether he had a perforated ulcer or a stomach rupture but there was no coroner’s inquest into his death. When the cause of death is uncertain in someone who has had three operations in 1 month I would have thought that would be mandatory. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 As we approach the end of 2003 it is time to reflect on where we are as a country and where we are as a Government and how far we have come. When I came into this House 10 years ago unemployment under the National Government was 9.1 percent Maori unemployment was 21.8 percent and Pacific unemployment was 22.2 percent. Ten years on under a Labour-Progressive Government unemployment is 4.4 percent the lowest level in 15 years. We are proud of that record. We are a Government that is proud of its achievements. It is time to reflect on the situation that we find ourselves in at the moment. 
The Opposition is an important part of a democracy. Don Brash has had time to settle down into his position. “Settle down” is certainly the term I would use as well. Even the dead-cat bounce that we saw for a brief moment which saw a quick rise in the polls has moved on. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Move on. That’s all over. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: That is right. It is all over. It is all downhill now for Gerry Brownlee and Don Brash because New Zealanders understand that under that party’s policies it is all downhill. The average New Zealander will see a declining standard of living because Don Brash believes we are going to have to cut tax for the rich and take the extra taxes from the average New Zealander. He will sell our assets down the drain. He will sell them out and cut from under us the revenue-generation capacity we have built up. He has certainly reduced the expectations of National Party members. I will tell members a good story. 
Judith Collins 
: Oh. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Yes it is a little sad. There is a little sigh from the National Party over there. I went down into the heart of National Party country—down into Southland—on Monday. Bill English has been down there for a while. He has more time to be down there now. 
Jill Pettis 
: Is he really down there? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: He is on holiday down there. He does not seem to be working too hard. I would have expected the people down there in the heart of National Party country to have some real issues to take up with me. Well I went to Queenstown. There was joyous celebration at the fishing industry conference about the way we are managing fisheries into the future. In spite of what Mr Shirley says people in the industry know that our management of fisheries has been sound and sensible and will lead us into the future. We are not going to rush into faulty aquaculture legislation. We will take our time and make sure that it allows us to continue with the growth we are realising at this moment. 
I moved down to Lumsden another part of Bill English country. What are they talking about there? Are they preaching doom and gloom? No they are struggling with the issues of growth. They are appreciative of the efforts of this Government in the area of rural health—assisting general practitioners with rural rostering and locum support schemes and the development of primary health-care organisations which they know will support rural practitioners up and down the country. 
They were praising us for Project Probe the ability for school rural communities to connect with the world. That was in Lumsden in the heart of Bill English territory. Maybe their view is a little different from that of Don Brash. That would not surprise me. I went to Te Anau. I thought look here is a more isolated community in the heart of Bill English territory and perhaps these people have issues with the Government. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I’ve been everywhere man! 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I say to Mr Brownlee that they have not. They are singing our praises also because they have growth in tourism with better infrastructure in place supporting their schools their medical centres and their general practitioners. 
This Government has done amazing things in rural New Zealand. It is not traditionally seen as the heartland of Labour support but if we can go into Bill English heartland territory and be praised for the initiatives of this Government I feel sorry for the National Party as it struggles around the urban centres of this country. 
Even in Mr Gerry Brownlee’s own electorate of Fendalton they voted for Labour because they knew we can drive growth in this economy that means real wealth creation. As we approach 10 years on from 1993 when I came into this House this Government has turned round this economy and is starting to develop real New Zealand pride. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 This afternoon I want to talk about an issue that should concern the whole House and should be above petty party politics. It is the issue of the secrecy of the Family Court and what is actually going on in the Family Court. I am one of the few people in Parliament who have at any time practised in the Family Court—I think my colleague Dail Jones would probably be the only other person who has—so I would like to talk from experience and also from the position of being a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
At the moment the committee is hearing about the Care of Children Bill. The submissions on the bill are concerned primarily with two things. One is same-sex parents and the other is the secrecy in the Family Court. At the moment about 10000 New Zealand families are separating every year. The Family Court has gone from being solely about trying to resolve disputes to being used to rark up disputes. Legal aid is being abused. I speak from the position of having at one stage been on the Auckland District Law Society’s legal aid subcommittee for family law so I do know from experience that legal aid is being absolutely abused. Domestic violence legislation is being abused the Guardianship Act is being abused—and it is being abused because that is the way to string out the other side and it is being done with the aid of taxpayers’ money. Every year $32 million is being spent by the taxpayers of New Zealand on family legal aid. 
Most disputes about family law have nothing to do with family law; they are about family relationships. Most disputes are quite clear in law. Most matrimonial property issues are quite clear yet the court is being used in that way. Worse than that children are being used in that way. In addition to that the secrecy in the Family Court that allows it to happen and allows it to be seen also stops people speaking about it. Just last week in the select committee a submitter gave evidence to us that when he was in the Family Court he spoke to the judge and said he wanted to come to the select committee to give evidence on the Care of Children Bill. He was warned by the judge that if he did so he could well face prosecution. That was an instance of the Family Court thinking it was above Parliament. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Breach of privilege. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is a breach of privilege—absolutely. What that is doing is usurping Parliament’s position in this country. It is actually usurping the democracy of this country. I happen to know that Family Court judge and I am sure that as a very decent person he thought he was doing the right thing. But he was wrong and a major point of this speech is that the Family Court has become so intertwined with itself—so utterly incestuous; so totally without any shred of light getting in any media attention or anyone else’s attention—that it thinks it is above the law. And that is not good enough. 
I was thinking of naming the judge in Parliament today; however I have decided that because the matter is still in front of the court—as it probably will be for the next 15 years because that is the nature of Family Court proceedings; they tend to go on for ever and ever—I will in fact write to the Chief Justice. I prefer to do that rather than write to the Principal Family Court Judge and I will point out what is going on. 
It is about time that we as a Parliament dealt with this matter and it is about time we stopped having little arguments between ourselves and looked at this as a major issue. The Family Court should be a court of law that deals with legal issues and deals with them quickly and fairly. At the moment we have affidavits upon affidavits going into court everyone wasting their time taxpayers wasting their time and family relationships destroyed beyond any—any—hope of resurrection and it is being done with taxpayers’ money. Mostly it is about legal aid. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 In a speech last weekend by Mr Prebble the leader of the ACT party in reference to the trouble of his colleague Ms Deborah Coddington he said we should not blame a member of Parliament for the actions of a spouse. On that point—and it is a rare occasion—I agree with Mr Prebble. However in relation to Ms Coddington and the fiasco with Alister Taylor and his so-called publishing companies the issue is not Mr Taylor and his financial manoeuvrings; the issue is Deborah Coddington who for over 20 years was a director/shareholder of and had an intimate association with various companies that we know did not deliver the goods to people—ordinary Kiwis in both New Zealand and Australia. In fact they were ripped off. 
The issue in this House is Ms Coddington’s responsibilities. It is she who should be called to account for her time as a director a shareholder and an owner who had oversight of the financial activities of those companies. Her personal relationship with a co-director does not make her claims of lack of knowledge credible but her responsibilities as a director and a shareholder are her own responsibilities. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have a sustained attack here by Mr Cosgrove. My question is: how does that compare with a parliamentary staffer of that member who travelled under a false name to get free air travel— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: In fact Ms Coddington in the  
New Zealand Herald  
acknowledged she had knowledge that bills were not paid and that books were not published and delivered to people who had paid for them. In the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 22 and 23 November she said: “I wasn’t sure what the future would hold. The law and general practice recognises that a director of a company has two courses of action if he or she disapproves of the manner in which a company is being run—change the way it is run or resign. I tried to change the way Alister did business but I couldn’t so I resigned.” She goes on: “I wasn’t sure if there was any value in the company when I transferred the shares to my daughter on behalf of my four children but if there was to be any future benefit I wanted my children to have the chance of some benefit.” 
She is saying there that she admits she had knowledge of all the commercial activities of those companies. At various times she was a director a shareholder and an owner. She says she was aware of the activities. She resigned and because the rorting was going to go on she thought: “Hey! If there’s a profit to be made in it I’ll let my kids take that profit.” 
This is the person who is ACT’s spokesperson on consumer affairs and the Fair Trading Act. She resigned only when she thought it was politically expedient to do so—only before she became a member of Parliament. But the facts are that as a director she presided over the rorting of creditors. 
Mr Prebble also said in his speech that he pledged his support for Ms Coddington. Mr Prebble in his speech said the matter was just a “storm in a teacup”. Well I ask the taxpayers of New Zealand and the Inland Revenue Department whether it is a storm in a teacup when there is a $27000 GST default debt to that department owed by Roger Jamieson Ltd between April 1998 and April 2000. Is that a storm in a teacup when I am advised there were only two shareholders—one of whom was Ms Coddington at the time? I do not think that Graham Sawyer who is owed monies as a former employee in a company of those two individuals Mr Taylor and Ms Coddington and who won a claim against them in a New South Wales court thinks that it is a storm in a teacup—and he still has not been paid. I do not think that Mr Bernard Moore who was also an employee of those individuals who won a court case for unpaid wages in a New Zealand court and who has not received a dollar sees that as a storm in a teacup. 
For 20 years the bodies and businesses of people and creditors and unpaid debts have been littered around this country. I say that it is not good enough for Ms Coddington to say that because she transferred her shares she then had amnesia—she being an award-winning investigative journalist in New Zealand who has received awards for “excellence in financial journalism” and for the “best crime and justice feature”. 
I ask her today what the total debts were when she transferred her shares from the companies of Mr Taylor and herself. I ask her today to tell us who paid for those paedophile indexes. Were they paid for on the back of publications where monies were received from other people but those people never received the books—or did she pay? If she did pay there is an easy way to clear the decks. She should show us the cheque butts show us the bank statements and show us the invoices. 
She should produce them because she is a member of the ACT party that demanded absolute scrutiny from Donna Awatere Huata but never demanded it from Ms Coddington. All we ask for is some answers to those questions but all we get is silence. I say to that member over there that in terms of impersonating people I know that Mr Hide for years has attempted to impersonate a tall thin good-looking bloke with hair integrity and honesty but he has failed to date. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That was a very angry speech from the member for Waimakariri— suddenly the paragon of virtue the man who now wants to know what is on the cheque butts. Well we could ask him whose name was on the ticket. When he is prepared to answer that we might start to take him seriously. 
We know when the Labour Party is in trouble: its members come into this House stop talking about themselves and talk about everybody else. Was it not fascinating to hear Lianne Dalziel threaten to take Mr Peters to court for defamation? And is that not typical of how the current Government works? When it gets a little bit hot under the collar in a policy sense it quietly slides someone into court. Whether it is Winston Peters Nick Smith or Shane Ardern it just quietly slides the person into court. I want to make some comments about that in a few minutes. 
It was also very interesting today to hear Damien O’Connor talk about his trip to Queenstown where he talked about fisheries legislation. Everyone knows that Queenstown is not exactly the fishing capital of the world. He then went to Lumsden he said and then he was off down to Te Anau. A lovely little trip! It is a darn shame he did not go to his own electorate. If he went to his own electorate and started talking about the great advances that New Zealand has made under a Labour Government he would be laughed off the West Coast. 
He is a member who will be in trouble in his seat in 2005 if the Government is able to hold on as long as that. All of those great promises about the $120 million for the West Coast and all the other industries that were to be set up on the West Coast have come to nothing. Why? Because it has a member who does not give a tuppenny about the seat he represents. We now have a build-up of a picture of the Labour Party in trouble—a very vicious Labour Party at that. Harry Duynhoven breaks the law and the Government used every tool available to make his illegal action legal. Nick Smith gets himself in a position where he is out defending his constituents and even though the Government is going to change the law to make what he did lawful he is slung through the courts and his family is put through the stress of having to put up with that. Labour Party members sit over there and smugly laugh. They are nasty people who have very little care for ordinary New Zealanders. 
When it comes to that speech from Lianne Dalziel once again we get a bit of an insight into why Shane Ardern is before the courts at the present time. Even though we have the prosecuting sergeant agreeing with the judge that it was a frivolous case and that it should not go ahead—then having to stand up and take the great embarrassment of saying that he had been instructed on high to carry on. 
Simon Power 
: By whom? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well instructed from where? Was he instructed by the scurrying Gerry Cunneen who was whimpering between the Prime Minister’s office and George Hawkins’ office across to police headquarters to give them the message from Helen Clark to go ahead and put the boot in? Is that what happened? I cannot believe for a moment that the Commissioner of Police can be comfortable with the position the Prime Minister has clearly put him in. It is not the first time is it? 
Opposition members 
: No. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Oh no! Helen Clark can go out and make herself into one of the country’s most prominent art forgers and say that it is just of no account therefore the prosecution should be dropped and it is. But Mr Ardern takes a little ride up the steps of Parliament on a tractor—less than half the distance that Bob Tizard a Labour Party member took on a tractor up the steps of Parliament—and somehow because the Prime Minister decrees that he has acted in a reckless manner he finds himself up before the courts. The courts do not want it the system does not want it the police do not want it but Helen Clark wants it so it happens. That sort of nasty approach is what will unstick the Labour Government. 
Increasingly New Zealanders will come to understand that the Government does not care about them. We had the classic today—John Tamihere. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for an extension of time. These people have some messages they need to hear. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. No. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document from Meltzer Mason Heath of June 2003 which is the receiver’s final report of the state of affairs of Roger Jamieson Ltd listing a default payment of $26975.03. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table travel documents from 1991 showing parliamentary staff of Mr Clayton Cosgrove travelling under false names. 
Documents not tabled. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am delighted to have the opportunity to follow the deputy leader of the National Party and welcome to those ranks I say to Mr Brownlee. Thank goodness that the party has a rambunctious and jolly heart there. It certainly needs to be latching on to something with a bit of colour after the leadership coup that has seen the Opposition fall in the polls to a worse state than when Bill English was the leader. It must be desperate for the Opposition to see this traction slipping away—a bit like Shane Ardern going backwards down the parliamentary steps. But we in the Labour Party have had a fabulous party this week. We have had 10 years of solid leadership from Helen Clark. It is a wonderful thing that we have celebrated with pink jelly and chain-mail cloaks decorated with feathers. We have had a party that the country of New Zealand has joined in with. We did not see Don Brash rushing down the red carpet in  
The Lord of the Rings 
 parade. 
Government Member 
: He wasn’t there. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: No where was he? He was not even given an opportunity to speak. Poor Don Brash with his love of  
Abba— 
he really is out of sync with the rest of New Zealand Inc. But here we are and that crusty style of the new leadership that dry brittle crusty leadership is something that does not make us cringe here in Government. It reminds us of those 10 dreadful years when the members opposite were in Government; years built on greed and self-aspiration with no sense of community and no sense of togetherness. We do not want to go back there. I know that New Zealand is with us here. 
I want to focus on our wonderful partnerships with industry and local government that were so ably demonstrated this week with 
 The Lord of the Rings.  
What an industry that is! And what a Government this is! It put its hand on its heart when it came into Government and invested $145 million into the film industry in this country—something the Opposition did not even think to do in 9 years—and now we are reaping the benefit. We saw it with Kerry Prendergast standing there with a beautiful red stole on—very appropriately—next to our wonderful leader in her fantastically fashion-designed dress which the country noticed and was breathtaken by. She looked wonderful did she not? Her cloak was designed by Weta studios. We work with industry. It is absolutely fantastic that Francis Hooper of World—and the Opposition would know about World the fashion icon in this country; another industry on the map—said she should wear her wonderful outfit to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. We at our celebration on Tuesday certainly applauded the beautiful serene leadership in our party. We are not wrought by the division and splits that the Opposition has to face. 
This is a Government that through the film industry is putting New Zealand Inc on the map. We should be congratulating Barry Osborne for his fantastic  
Lord of the Rings 
 which we all enjoyed. Even the Opposition enjoyed it. What did we see there? We saw Viggo Mortensen wearing a shirt designed by a Wellington art student. We saw Orlando Bloom wearing a T-shirt that said: “I love New Zealand”. That is the sort of industry that we are inspiring telling our stories on the international stage. We have had more coverage from this week—in Singapore Australia and the United Kingdom—than from any money that this Government could put into Tourism New Zealand and it has come from  
The Lord of the Rings 
 alone. The Opposition members talk about the Government having no idea of industry but we know that there is economic analysis that indicates we will make $250 million for our investment in that film. And we have more. We have  
Whale Rider 
 riding the crest of the wave internationally now putting New Zealand on the map. Our films are winning awards from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts and that is absolutely the most exciting thing. That investment in the film industry will put New Zealand on the map and as a country we are all very proud of it. We do not want to go back to those horrible years when unemployment was at 9.1 percent. Now it is down to 4.4 percent. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Does anybody know who this person is on this Labour credit card? I have been here a long time and I have never seen that person in my life. This week New Zealand First distributed a pamphlet on immigration and it has probably had the greatest success of any political tract since the Great Depression. I want to thank the great publicity from some Government stooges and an Auckland postman for the fact that New Zealanders are finally learning the facts about this Government’s disastrous immigration policies. We have been swamped this week with responses and I am sure that Labour wants to hear some of them. These are from immigrants. One of them states: “Brilliant New Zealand First. You will be getting my vote along with at least 50 of my group which feel the same way.” Another immigrant writes: “I am an older New Zealander and it has been many years since I have voted but I am aghast at our situation in all respects. Great brochure.” A further one this one from a Chinese gentleman states: “I found your leaflet a breath of fresh air”— 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Just three? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No these are just at random. One wrote: “We need more people to speak out” and another one wrote: “Thanks New Zealand First for highlighting the problem with immigration”. A further person wrote: “Thank you for having the guts to stand up and say what most of us working taxpayer Kiwis are thinking. New Zealand with the blessing of Helen Clark is becoming the dumping ground for the world’s unwanted. I am sick of struggling to make ends meet and it makes me feel really mad when I have to pay health insurance to be sure I get treatment when I need it when my tax money is paying for non - New Zealanders to go on dialysis treatment and the like.” Another immigrant writes: “Immigration policy needs a severe audit. If we keep piling Third World immigrants”—his words not mine—“we will end up in a Third World country. It is no use bringing in uneducated and unskilled workers. Every new immigrant”—says this new immigrant—“must have a job offer before coming here and should be monitored by immigration officials. They must contribute to the economy before getting Government support.” The writer of that letter one more immigrant himself understands immigration issues better than the entire Labour caucus. This must be the most stupid Labour caucus in New Zealand’s political history. It brings in hundreds of thousands of immigrants and cannot give us the statistics. 
Day after day the Minister of Immigration has become New Zealand’s biggest political embarrassment. Day after day she cannot answer nor can Steve Maharey nor can the Prime Minister. They bring in hundreds of thousands of people then bleat about the collapse of the Auckland transport system. They bleat about the health education and welfare system costs. If people are sitting on a motorway in Auckland tonight with the traffic in gridlock for sure I want to tell them why that is. They are there because amongst other things 40000 people per year have been placed in Auckland from abroad. Forget about domestic immigration those people are coming from abroad and the Government claims to have some solution to Auckland’s structural problems. What a joke! Mr Maharey is prepared to spend $3500 on each unemployed migrant in Auckland to help that migrant get a job. What are those migrants doing here? How do they get here? What is going on? When did these Labour Party people last spend one cent to help a New Zealander get a job in the far north or in the provincial towns where gangs are killing each other? This Labour administration is arrogant distant gullible and downright incompetent over immigration. It is guilty of the most breathtaking cant and deceit and thanks to this pamphlet New Zealand is going to find out about it. [ 
Interruption 
] David Benson-Pope the walrus over there can shout all he likes. But I am telling him this: our correspondence our emails and our telephones are going off the wall and so is talkback and no amount of spineless intimidation is going to stop us. Everything we wrote in this pamphlet comes out of the briefing paper of the Minister herself. It is all from her own evidence. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Benson-Pope can shout and scream but he is a total waste of space and in 2005 we are going to make sure that he and his Benedict Arnold clique are gone. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to give a member of the Government Steve Chadwick the opportunity to withdraw and apologise for calling Winston Peters or myself—I am not sure who she was talking to—a racist during her interjections. 
Steve Chadwick 
: I said the pamphlet was racist. 
RON MARK 
: That is not what she said. I would like her to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I did not hear it. There was slightly too much noise. [ 
Interruption 
] She did not say it? All right. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I am very pleased to contribute to the general debate and first up to congratulate the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark on an outstanding 10 years as leader of the Labour Party and on 4 years as one of the most outstanding performers as a New Zealand Prime Minister in the history of this country. There would not be a more united Labour Party Labour caucus and Labour Government when compared with any other Government in the history of this country. The quality the competency and the popularity of the leadership provided by Helen Clark and her deputy Dr Michael Cullen are largely responsible for the united state the Government is in. I am proud of that unity which is the complete opposite of the disunity of the National Party Opposition. 
After 10 years of Helen Clark’s leadership we can see in the employment statistics for New Zealand that unemployment has dropped from 9.1 percent down to 4.4 percent. I feel particular pride in the drop in Maori unemployment from a level of 21.8 percent down to 9.6 percent. 
Georgina Beyer 
: How much? 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: It is 9.6 percent. It is the first time in 16 years that Maori unemployment has been below 10 percent. I am particularly proud of the fact that this Government has achieved a drop in Pacific unemployment from a level of 22.9 percent down to 6.6 percent. That is a huge achievement by this Government in reducing the employment inequalities in our communities. It has been as a result of strong leadership and a commitment to New Zealand and New Zealanders. 
I also want to talk about the state of the Opposition because it is important for our democracy that we have a strong Opposition. I am sad to say that since the election 18 months ago the Opposition has been in absolute disarray and disunity and this afternoon I want to raise the issue of the leadership of the National Party because it is a concern for New Zealanders. One day that leadership may impose certain policies on this country that I think will be disastrous for communities such as the one I represent. I want to mention some of the comments that have been made in relation to the performance of the National Party and to quote from our learned fourth estate—in this case the New Zealand Press Association—on the leadership of the National Party: “The latest trauma over the deputy leadership threw up a fundamental problem that has bedevilled the National Party for many months. No one knows what anyone else is thinking doing plotting or whispering and National desperately needs its leadership to settle down.” 
Another indication of the failure of the National Party leadership right from the start was the resignation of its deputy leader within a matter of weeks after the new leader had supported Nick Smith. The  
New Zealand Herald  
stated the other day that if the Opposition National Party continued to look incompetent in running its own affairs how on earth could it persuade voters that it was competent to run the country? The answer is that it is not competent to run the country. In the 18 months since the election it has clearly demonstrated its disunity in every respect and that it is not to be looked at as an alternative Government. Every politician knows that a house that is divided against itself cannot stand. The National Party has certainly demonstrated that it is in no position to form an alternative Government. 
Labour members are proud of the unity on this side of the House and we need that unity to be effective in Government—particularly in relation to our coalition partnership with the Progressive party as well as with United Future. That comes down to good management by the leadership in relation to how we progress issues in Government and in the House. It is a key issue in relation to how effective we are as a Parliament. 
 One of the concerns is in relation to what Don Brash represents in policy. We know that it is on record that he wants to sell assets. It is on record that he is looking at raising the eligibility age for pensions and that is a huge concern for Pacific communities and Maori as life expectancy for Pacific and Maori people falls well short of 70 years of age. If he raises the eligibility age from 65 to 70 a lot of Maori and Pacific Island people will miss out on a pension and that is just an absolute disaster for this country. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Ahmed Zaoui case is becoming a critical test of our justice system and our democracy. The security risk certificate procedure applied against Mr Zaoui is a “trust us” procedure. We are supposed to trust the three official players the Security Intelligence Service director the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Minister of Immigration to get it right in secret—that is to determine whether Mr Zaoui is a danger to national security. Trusting officials to determine a person’s future in private is the antithesis of true justice which should be open and accountable. 
New Zealanders are now seeing why we cannot leave it up to individual appointees operating in secret. In the November 29 issue of the  
Listener 
 the inspector-general Laurie Greig showed a prejudice towards asylum seekers and a lack of understanding of our international commitments to them under the 1951 refugee convention. He said: “We don’t want lots of people coming in on false passports (that they’ve) thrown down the loo on the plane and saying ‘I’m a refugee keep me here.’” It is well entrenched in refugee law that asylum seekers will often arrive with false documentation because they cannot apply at the local passport office in their country without being dragged off and jailed tortured or killed. 
We have also seen how the Security Intelligence Service cannot be relied on to get it right. In the Zaoui case the Refugee Status Appeals Authority comprehensively discredited the summaries and chronologies provided by the Security Intelligence Service. The summary simply repeated the slanders Zaoui had experienced in Europe—slanders that originated with the repressive Algerian regime which is more threatened by a democrat and peacemaker like Mr Zaoui than it is by real terrorists. Hence its slander and framing-up of Mr Zaoui. 
The New Zealand Police also repeated these slanders as the reason to detain Mr Zaoui. The Assistant Police Commissioner for Counter-terrorism Mr Jon White told the Department of Corrections on 6 December that Mr Zaoui was wanted on an anti-terrorist warrant—issued in fact by the brutal Algerian regime—and that he had been sentenced to death in Algeria something which the Algerian junta did to 1500 people mainly to stop exiled democrats like Mr Zaoui from coming back to Algeria. 
Yet Mr Zaoui has been unjustly detained in New Zealand for 12 months—10 shamefully in solitary confinement and he is now in court trying to obtain even a minimal summary of the accusations against him. He also wants the inspector-general’s review of that security risk certificate applied to him to at least consider his human rights. It would be unwise for us to rely on the inspector-general to deliver justice to Mr Zaoui. His track record is one of backing up the Security Intelligence Service and the police even when they are later found to be wrong—as with the raids on the houses of Aziz Choudry and David Small in 1996. 
It is clear from the proceedings in the Auckland High Court this week that a key source of the accusations against Mr Zaoui is one or more of the British American Canadian or Australian intelligence agencies. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot talk about the proceedings in court of a case that is going on. So far I have been listening to him carefully. He must make sure that he does not talk about the proceedings in court. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: We do know that at least three of the four agencies I have referred to showed their incompetence and political bias over the so-called intelligence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That is another reason why we cannot have intelligence agencies applying secret justice in our country. Now we have Laurie Greig coming out with prejudicial comments against asylum seekers. I hope Parliament will support my motion on today’s Order Paper that we recommend to the Governor-General that she remove Mr Greig from office for “neglect of duty” under section 7 of the Act governing the inspector-general. 
The Government is reluctant to do this but it was heartening to hear the Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel in response to questions by me in a select committee this morning say that she was “fully bound” by human rights commitments in the Zaoui case and that she was “very keen” to review the legislation applying to security risk certificates. But if the present law is inadequate and so many State agencies have got it wrong in the Zaoui case why will she not lift the security risk certificate off Mr Zaoui which she is authorised to do at any time. Mr Zaoui has suffered enough. Free him now and let him live here with his family as a legitimate refugee. I seek leave to move the motion in my name—member’s notice of motion No. 1. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has sought to move that motion. Is there any objection? There is. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move 
 That local order of the day No. 1 for the second reading of the Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill be postponed until after members’ order of the day No. 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move 
 That local order of the day No. 2 for the second reading of the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill be postponed until after local order of the day No. 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill builds incrementally on the foundations of the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 which was a world leader at the time by extending protections against tobacco smoke to all workers in indoor workplaces where two or more people work in a common airspace. The primary purpose of the bill is to extend the protections for workers volunteers and the public in the Smoke-free Environments Act; to reduce the harm caused to individuals by their smoking particularly harm from exposure to second-hand smoke; and to further restrict minors’ access to smoking products and the visual influence of smoking in front of minors; and to promote a smoke-free lifestyle as the norm. 
The 1999 legislation was instrumental in what we see today in terms of changing public attitudes towards smoking and the ever-decreasing rate of smoking amongst New Zealanders. Many New Zealanders now take smoke-free offices for granted and the time has come to extend those same protections to those who work in factories warehouses schools hospitality venues taxis shared work vehicles and the like. This bill will bring the legislation up to date with overwhelming public opinion—90 percent support—that is calling for comprehensive protections from second-hand smoke. We know how far we have come when we travel as New Zealanders to other countries and experience the contrast of cultures that have yet to embrace smoke-free lifestyles. 
This bill I would like to stress is not an anti-smoker measure. The Health Committee heard smokers tell us that they recognise all too well the risks of smoking for themselves and the people around them. About 80 percent of smokers want to quit. Many smokers also recognise that tobacco is one of the most addictive substances there is and that it may take several attempts finally to succeed in quitting a habit that almost everyone began as a young person. I feel the utmost compassion for the 700000 New Zealanders who are addicted to nicotine most of whom want to quit but find the effort daunting. Perhaps the enactment of this bill and its provisions which will provide 100 percent smoke-free indoor social venues and allow for future pictorial health warnings and for better consumer information about what it is in these products will allow them to live healthier fuller smoke-free lives. So the bill is not anti-smoker; it is about improving health and occupational health. It is about protecting all of us from the deadly effects of second-hand smoke which is a significant health hazard in the workplace and a significant public health hazard that kills an estimated 388 people each year—about the same number of people who die on our roads each year. 
As a midwife I know the impact of tobacco smoke on human health only too well. I have seen only too frequently the impact that second-hand smoke can have on our most precious resource for the future—young babies and children. Hopefully this bill will change attitudes so that there is less smoking in the home thus providing a healthier environment. In relation to young people although this matter has received much less public attention the bill makes important inroads into limiting the visibility “cool” factor or access by young people to smoking products. Cigarettes will be limited in their visibility in stores and in access to them by young people whether through illegal store sales friends family or vending machines. We have already reduced the smoking rate among young people to 21.3 percent. Let us keep that number coming down particularly for young Maori by sending them positive smoke-free messages. 
We all stand to gain from this law. Workers will not be exposed to a significant workplace habit. Employers will benefit from reduced accident compensation premiums reduced staff turnover and absenteeism and healthier staff. Smokers will benefit from clear boundaries about where they can and cannot smoke and may feel more supported if they decide to quit. Taxpayers will benefit from long-term further decreases in smoking rates and in the billions of dollars that tobacco costs our society each year not to mention the benefits for families and whanau of having fewer loved ones being sick or dying before their time. 
The bill was considered at length by the Health Committee and I would like to thank all the committee members both in the past term and in the current term for the way they carefully considered the bill and the enormous number of submissions. We heard 397 submissions and 7656 formal submissions were received. I would be remiss if I did not also thank the current and past clerks and staff of the committee for their work on this bill. I wish to acknowledge publicly the Ministry of Health officials who have provided absolutely outstanding service and advice often within very short time frames as well as parliamentary counsel researchers and all those people who helped us put this bill together. Congratulations on a job well done! 
I wish to thank the many hundreds of people and organisations that took the time to make submissions. Even those who do not agree with the final outcome of the provisions of the bill I thank for their input. The anti-smoking debate is one that has garnered a lot of public interest and debate in recent years and we on the committee benefited from hearing a wide range of information and views. 
In particular I want to thank the non-Government organisations members of which are sitting up in the gallery today that represent public health concerns about smoking. They have taken a lot of flak in recent times but let us remember and remind ourselves that they are genuine hard-working people in small and highly committed organisations who have been most helpful in providing expert advice that has been enormously valuable to us and for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Their input made it possible for the committee members to be confident that they made informed decisions on the issues with all the relevant information before them. I hope their future is assured. 
I am disappointed about the public debate in recent times which has diverted attention from what the bill is all about—the public health of New Zealanders. The focus has been on a National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research study of the Bream Bay Club which as I indicated in a press release was a misdirected effort because it contributed nothing to the debate about the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. Just because a ventilation system can provide fresh air does not mean ventilation is able to remove carcinogens released into the air from cigarette smoke. I find it ironic if not creative that the same groups that argued before the committee that ventilation was hopelessly expensive and unfair are now the ones that have tried to sell ventilation as the answer to our prayers. 
I wish to thank those in the Opposition parties who have been steadfast in their support for the health benefits of this bill. Their commitment in the face of overwhelming misinformation and rhetoric is to be applauded. The Green Party has demonstrated absolute support and has been unswerving in its commitment. I would like to thank MPs with personal and professional experience of the harm of tobacco smoke. I also want to mention Maori MPs who have seen and experienced the ravaging impact of tobacco-related diseases in their own whanau. 
Finally I want to thank and publicly acknowledge those who started the long 4-year journey to this point. I refer to Tukoroirangi Morgan who introduced the bill in 1999 and to the Minister of Health Annette King who significantly extended the original bill’s cover. The Minister has been supported unswervingly by Tariana Turia and Damien O’Connor who have given the bill their utmost support. The Prime Minister has also provided incredible leadership and knowledge of public health to support this bill. The previous sponsor of the bill who is sitting in the House today Judy Keall could never be forgotten because she said “It’s all or nothing.” I am proud to have followed in my esteemed colleague’s footsteps in sponsoring this bill and considering its provisions as the chair of the Health Committee. 
In conclusion it is time to embrace the cultural change that has already shifted New Zealand to being a predominantly smoke-free society while continuing to encourage and support those smokers who wish to quit. It is only logical that the current smoke-free provisions are extended to include all workers particularly those who are most at risk from exposure. I applaud the vision in the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill and encourage and support its measures which will go a long way to reducing the health and safety hazards of tobacco smoke in the workplace for all workers and all New Zealanders. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I thank the House for allowing me to speak on this very important and historic bill. I will certainly be supporting this bill for two major reasons. The first reason is that it is all about freedom—giving ordinary New Zealanders the opportunity to be free from second-hand smoke. The second reason is that it is one of the most important and effective public health measures that can be instituted—diminishing smoking and diminishing second-hand smoke. 
Firstly I shall speak on the question of freedom because I think that is the underlying principle behind libertarian philosophy. I see various members of the Libertarianz party from time to time and I discuss that philosophy with them. It certainly says that the most important thing is for individuals to have as much freedom as possible provided that it does no harm. Second-hand smoke undoubtedly does harm. It is measurable in New Zealand in the order of 400 deaths per year and the morbidity is considerable. Not only does smoking cause ill health and premature death for older age groups; perhaps even more significant children and babies in utero may be profoundly adversely affected by the effects of second-hand smoke. 
In 1999 the ministry sent a letter to the Minister of Health saying that the greatest gains would come from health promotion disease prevention and the integration of primary and secondary health-care. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the 1990 legislation in the form of the Smoke-free Environments Act had a profound effect on diminishing smoking and a profound effect on enabling ordinary New Zealanders to enjoy a smoke-free atmosphere in public places. The current legislation is particularly aimed at the workplace. If one considers the underlying principle that this legislation is to allow ordinary New Zealanders—individuals and workers—freedom from having second-hand smoke imposed on them then one sees that it is legislation worth having. 
There is no doubt that the legislation has its problems. I note that the extraordinary bureaucracy and prescriptiveness are somewhat typical of an overzealous socialist Labour Government having a field day. That was aptly described by the Hon Maurice Williamson when he drew attention to the fact that tobacco product displays are required to be in the typeface known as Helvetica in a Roman font and in upper and lower case and are strictly prescribed. So in one way or another the Prime Minister is determined to get the first three letters of her name inscribed in this legislation even if it means resorting to prescribing the typeface format of tobacco product displays! 
The other issue is the existing Occupational Safety and Health Service legislation under the Health and Safety in Employment Act which directly points out that second-hand smoke is a workplace hazard. That was reinforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Service manual which also required employers to remove second-hand smoke from the workplace. If that had been enforced perhaps one could argue that there would be no need for this legislation. But given the current climate and the history of New Zealand and the subtlety of the tobacco industry there is an absolute need in my mind for this special legislation to be there. 
From a personal point of view having worked as a research pathology registrar in the United States and having spent a career in obstetrics I have absolutely no doubt about the profound adverse effects of cigarette smoking. The images I saw of blackened lungs when I used to dissect cadavers have been indelibly imprinted on my mind—and not only from the point of view of the lungs but in respect of the whole organ system of the body. Perhaps far more important than that is the impressions that have been left with me as an obstetrician delivering profoundly underweight babies of women who had smoked heavily throughout their pregnancy. The absolute unfairness that those children should not have a chance ever to achieve their potential the absolute unfairness that those children were not free of all the adverse effects of smoke from the moment they were conceived have also led me to believe that it is vital to do everything possible to achieve a smoke-free environment for all New Zealanders to enjoy and particularly the children of New Zealand who often do not have a choice about it. 
During the deliberations on this bill I was amazed and troubled by the reasoning of some people—people I least expected to hear it from. I speak of the Hon Peter Dunne of United Future calling enforcement officers “health Nazis”. That was uncalled for it was inappropriate and it showed that he absolutely did not understand the basic elements of what this is all about—including the science that shows that ventilation systems are just not effective. 
It is important to acknowledge some of the people who have worked extremely hard over many years to ensure that this legislation comes into reality. Last Saturday I attended the Action on Smoking and Health 21st celebration and I want to acknowledge its determined workers who for a very long time were under unimaginable pressure—people such as Dr Murray Laugeson Trish Fraser Jennifer Lamm and Jan Henderson and many others over the years. Physicians other organisations such as the Cancer Society and the National Heart Foundation and individuals such as Professor Robert Beaglehole have made a huge contribution in the genesis of this bill. Within Parliament people from all parties have made big contributions. I acknowledge Tukoroirangi Morgan; Steve Chadwick; sitting up there Judy Keall; my colleague Dr Lynda Scott; and many others who have made important contributions. 
Lastly I want to say that I took the trouble to read through the debates of the 1990s when the Smoke-free Environments Act was in its genesis. The debates suggested that the sky would fall in and all sorts of terrible things would happen. But there are few people who have a sense of freedom who do not celebrate the fact that New Zealand buses trains and public places and even Parliament are now essentially smoke-free. It is patently obvious that I am a keen proponent of the major thrusts of this bill. The underlying philosophy that it will help to allow ordinary New Zealanders in our kindergartens schools and workplaces to be free of the adverse effects of second-hand smoke is worthy of celebrating and worth progressing as one of the most achievable public health measures of our time. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I rise to support my colleague Steve Chadwick the sponsor of this bill and I am pleased to follow the speech made by Dr Hutchison. When the bill is passed tonight with the support of members from right across the House it will be great news for the vast majority of New Zealanders and I take this opportunity to congratulate the people who have been involved in bringing it to this stage including Tukoroirangi Morgan and Judy Keall. I also congratulate all the public health workers many of whom are here tonight on their efforts. 
I start by saying that I smoked for 10 years—in my younger sillier days—and then was fortunate enough to be able to give up the habit. I started out probably not as a person who was absolutely committed to this bill being the way forward but having sat on the Health Committee for a year under Judy Keall listening to submissions from the top to the bottom of this country and hearing the evidence I can say that it is undeniable and irrefutable that second-hand smoke kills people in New Zealand. 
Each year almost 400 people die from second-hand smoke; over 4500 New Zealanders die annually from smoking itself. We all know family members who have lost their lives to smoking-related illnesses. We must do everything possible to eliminate that misery and waste. This bill is about protecting all New Zealanders from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke in our workplaces schools pubs bars and of course other public social areas. 
The arguments put up by the Opposition on this bill are no doubt the same ones that were used back in 1990. As the previous speaker said the sky did not fall in. Entertainment venues have continued and prospered but they can do better. There has been much rhetoric and scare tactics about the potential economic impacts of this bill and I am aware of the frustration and anger felt by some bar owners who perceive that the legislation will spell financial disaster for them. Right across New Zealand publicans have expressed to me the worries they have about the viability of their businesses. However I think the legislation presents more opportunities than problems. 
A bar on the West Coast the Blackball Hilton has been smoke free for almost 8 years. In the heart of good Labour West Coast families it has prospered and been smoke free. The passage of this bill will promote an environment in which families can bring their children to restaurants without the nuisance of second-hand smoke. It is a chance for non-smokers up and down this country who shy away from bars to enjoy themselves without being exposed to the dangers of second-hand smoke. It is a chance for restaurant and bar owners to increase their revenue and commercial opportunities. A recent example we have read about is the Loaded Hog cafe in Auckland’s viaduct basin. That cafe has increased its takings by 15 percent since instigating a smoke-free Tuesday night. To prove my point more family groups are choosing to visit such establishments. The reality is that there is a huge groundswell of support for the provisions that will be passed with this legislation tonight. 
It is important to remind bar owners who are concerned that this bill will have a huge impact on them that international evidence says otherwise. In New York hotel revenues have increased for the first time in 3 years in a smoke-free environment after some very difficult and challenging times. Polls there show overwhelming support for its new smoke-free workplace law. In California the results are stunning. Not only are bar revenues up but more important there has been a significant improvement in the health of hospitality workers. That is the key the No. 1 objective of this bill. 
In Australia Victoria’s smoke-free laws are proving to be so successful that Australian Capital Territories announced it will be smoke free by 2006. The states of Queensland Tasmania and Western Australia are reviewing their legislation. I visited a Minister of Health in New South Wales who was enthusiastic about our actions over here and about the passage of this bill and wanted a copy of it. I am sure we will see progress in New South Wales in the near future. Ireland the place my ancestors left to come to this country and a place associated with smoking and the consumption of alcohol will implement smoke-free pubs as from 1 January 2004. If Ireland can do it we can do it here—and make a success of it. 
As we travelled up and down the country one of the concerns expressed by submitters from both sides of the debate was the need to have a level playing field. Whatever came out of the bill it was important that every hospitality establishment was provided with equal opportunity into the future and without there being any disadvantage imposed on one group or the other. I believe that a great strength of the bill is that we have provided a level playing field. It means we have included sports clubs Returned Services Associations recreational clubs—any venue in fact where workers are employed. The bill makes no exceptions. Its one-size-fits-all approach will be fair to proprietors and workers and it will be easier for the public to adopt. 
There are many detractors of the bill who do seem to miss the point. The point is that we want to improve the health of New Zealanders and this Government is happy to support the efforts of Steve Chadwick through this member’s bill to achieve that. It has advantages for young people for Maori for Pasifika and of course for families as a whole. As was the previous speaker I am disappointed in Mr Dunne’s approach to this bill. Mr Dunne is a very good coalition partner and for the most part he does promote common-sense policies. However he has missed the mark on this one and I am disappointed. If California is anything to go by the bill will have the spin-off effect of encouraging more people to adopt smoke-free practices at home and encourage more people to enjoy hospitality venues that are free of smoke. We need to set a good example for our young people and we need to provide them with a safe environment in the future. 
I thank Steve Chadwick and I endorse this bill through the House. I congratulate her on all her efforts in recent times. Once again I thank and acknowledge all those people in the public sector for their efforts. In particular I thank Judy Keall who has always been passionate about protecting the health of New Zealanders through such legislation. It will be a pleasure to see this bill pass through the House. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tena ano koe ara tatou katoa for the opportunity afforded me to speak in the third reading of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. It is with some reservation and a large amount of ambivalence that I rise to indicate I will vote for the passage of this bill. As spokesperson on health for the New Zealand First Party I fail to see how I can in all conscience do otherwise than to vote for it. Yet I have severe misgivings about the direction in which this Government is leading us with this legislation. 
My concern stems from the fact that this Government seems to think that it knows best what is good for the people of New Zealand and to think that legislation is an effective way to get people to behave in the desired manner. While this legislation may be well intentioned it is also patronising. While any legislation should obviously reflect the values of our society there are some things that we just cannot legislate out of existence. I wonder how long it will be before members on the Government side of the House will attempt to make New Zealand a smoke-free country. This bill is certainly a step in that direction. What will be the next focus? Will we all be required to be in bed by 10 p.m. to ensure that we are getting enough sleep? Will we be denied employment if we do not have the correct body mass index ratio? That may sound ridiculous now but Governments have been known to do some pretty outrageous things in order to effect the desired results. Let us remember carless days. Governments lose touch with reality and become so arrogant that they think they know what is best for everyone. 
The thing that concerns me is that the alternatives to this legislation have been dismissed completely out of hand or not seriously considered. For instance why could we not debate the idea of letting bar owners choose whether their establishments would be smoke-free or not? There would be smoke-free bars and smoking bars—as indeed there are now in some places. I also feel that the clean air standard as supported by some members on the Opposition side of the House could have been given due and proper consideration. It could well have been a workable alternative but was not given a fair go. Because this Government had already decided the outcome of this bill it would not hear anything that might have threatened the holier-than-thou attitude that it is mired in. 
Bar and restaurant owners are concerned about the effect of this legislation on their livelihoods and we cannot blame them for that. That is in spite of the reference made by the previous speaker when he gave an example of a particular bar in Auckland’s Viaduct Basin that seems to be doing well because it went smoke-free at that particular time. However the essence of the story will be known if that same bar can say that it has received the same support from its clients 12 months out from that time. What guarantees do businesses have that they will not fall over as a direct result of this legislation? They have been bending over backwards to come up with possible compromises but their pleas have fallen on deaf ears because this Government never had any intention of considering any alternatives to this bill. So where does that leave the bar owner whose whole life is invested in his or her business? On very shaky and stressful ground I would hazard to guess. Sure anyone who goes into business takes a risk but the last thing a business owner needs is for the Government to march in and move the goal post on a whim without even a thought for those who stand to lose everything. Of course bar owners will try to accommodate the needs of their customers as they do now. What kind of ingenious law-bending tactics they will come up with in order to do so remains to be seen. However there is no doubt in my mind that if there is a loophole they will find it. 
 Another potential area of concern is enforcement. How exactly will this law be enforced and who will be liable if someone lights up in a bar? We know it will be the proprietor. Will the whole onus be on him or her to ensure no one lights up? If so has any consideration been given to the practicalities of such an arrangement? What will happen if patrons become belligerent and defiant about it which can easily happen when alcohol has been consumed? Has anyone thought about the potential danger to bar staff if it is left to them to police this law? And who will be prosecuted? Apparently it will not be the smoker which leaves only the bar owner or manager. I would certainly think twice about investing in a bar or working in one once this legislation has been enacted. 
The fact is that a significant number of people will not lie down and roll over when the Government says they should do so and they will continue to want to smoke when they are having a drink. I would hazard a guess that most people who currently smoke while drinking will continue to do so. That means they will find ways of having a smoke with their drink. The obvious place to do so will be outside the premises they are drinking in. That may be quite a civilised thing to do on a sunny afternoon in the middle of summer but it will be much less comfortable on a cold winter’s night to have a few drinks downtown. I foresee trouble ahead here with crowds of inebriated people standing around outside bars causing mayhem to those who happen to cross their paths or mayhem to the bar owner when they refuse to extinguish the cigarettes they have decided to smoke. 
There are also some grey areas of this legislation that to my mind seem to be unworkable. Who for instance will complain if everyone in a particular environment agrees that people can smoke there? Smoking then becomes a victimless crime with all the attendant problems of credibility and enforcement that come with it. What criteria will be used to determine who gets busted for smoking and when? And what about smoking in taxis on marae and on ships? Will those places be subject to random searches by overzealous smoking police? I think not. 
My colleagues in New Zealand First are opposing this bill and I have no difficulty with that. I want to take this opportunity to thank them for allowing me the freedom to exercise my view—unlike a number of Government members who oppose this bill but who are unable to exercise that view. Despite the foreboding I have in respect of this bill for the reasons I have just outlined I am voting for it because I want to do all that I can to arrest the rate at which New Zealanders particularly Maori are dying from smoking-related diseases. When looked at solely from a health perspective one sees this bill will go some way towards achieving that. I also want to see some consistency achieved in terms of workplace health and safety. It is not equitable that hospitality industry workers many of whom are young Maori are not afforded the same protection from second-hand smoke as other employees. The clean air standard would have been a workable solution to that problem had it been able to be proved effective. Since that door was closed before it was even opened the only alternative is to vote for the bill as it is. 
The sad fact is that Maori women have the highest level of lung cancer in the world. There is not much we can do to make that statistic look better so we have to do something about changing that disturbing reality. As I said earlier I do not believe we can legislate people into behaving in the way that we want them to. If we attempt to do so the price will be public apathy and disobedience and there will be even less respect for the Government from the public than there is already. We all know where we as politicians sit in the ranking of respected professions. It is really no wonder we have that rank when we are seen to be telling everyone what to do while taxing people to the nth degree. I would be happier to be voting for a bill or supporting a policy that had education as its central focus. Sure the smoke-free message is out there but is it really reaching the people who need to hear it? Could it be that they do not care enough about their future because they do not see themselves as having one so smoking is one way to get instant gratification? Maybe I am reading too much into the phenomenon of smoking but I do not think it would hurt to try to find out what motivates people to smoke rather than to try to ban them outright from doing so—and of course that does not include paying groups to lobby MPs. A policy that aims to get to the causes of a problem will obviously be more effective than any band-aid approach. 
I will cast my vote today in favour of this bill not because I think it is robust legislation but because as New Zealand First spokesperson on health and as someone who is concerned about the high rate of smoking-related illnesses and the fiscal effect it has on our health services I feel it would be hypocritical of me not to do so. Kia ora. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 We have had some great moments in our history this week and in my view the passage of this bill today is a great moment in this Parliament. Indeed it is a great moment in our history because I believe that the bill will do more to improve the quality of life of ordinary New Zealanders than probably any other piece of legislation before Parliament in this term of office. I am quite certain we will look back in a few years’ time with incredulity and wonder why it was that we allowed people to smoke inside public places and pollute the very air we breathe with a toxic waste that contains at least 50 known carcinogens. I am certain also that we will look back with incredulity and wonder why it was that the majority of us—the 75 percent of us—who do not smoke allowed the minority who do smoke to put the health of all of us at risk by their habit because the terrible truth is that every time someone lights up a cigarette indoors he or she puts at risk the health of any other person who happens to be nearby. I am certain too that we will look back and ask what all the fuss was about—all the predictions of gloom and doom all the filibustering and all the predictions of businesses collapsing because they are required to be smoke-free. 
I am not normally a betting woman but I confidently predict there will be a renaissance in not a collapse of the hospitality industry as customers revel in the new clean pleasant indoor environment of the pub and the cafe. Contrary to all the naysayers I confidently predict that bars and restaurants in New Zealand will enjoy a new life once we have cleared the air. In making that prediction I would like to quote from an article by a sceptic who visited New York recently determined that he was going to hate the newly imposed smoke-free regulations. I quote: “Neither the ban’s proponents nor the principles underlying it have anything to commend them” he wrote “except for one thing: it works. Its impact has been magnificent. I’m just back from a week in New York City much of that time in bars and restaurants and I have had a unique experience. Not only do my clothes not reek of tobacco smoke I’ve managed to enjoy all of my food and drink without being nearly asphyxiated by neighbouring smokers.” He went on: “In New York the impact of this legislation has been truly wonderful reclaiming the city from smokers who almost never act considerately. I’ll bet a jumbo packet of Marlboro Lights that it would work elsewhere too. So rise up and unite clean-air freedom lovers of the world.” he concluded “Let’s push to make our cities places in which we can all breathe freely.” 
The Green Party is absolutely delighted that New Zealand is taking up this challenge. We will be only the third country in the world after Norway and Ireland to have a smoke-free hospitality industry. We are delighted that we are once again leading the world in protecting our workers—all of our workers including our hospitality workers—from the hazards of second-hand smoke and ensuring that all of us can breathe clean unpolluted air when we go out socially. 
An issue that has been largely ignored in the debate—and Paul Hutchison touched upon this—is the fact that the Occupational Safety and Health Service has already identified second-hand smoke as a workplace hazard. So with the new health and safety legislation in force employers will have an obligation—a legal obligation in fact—to remove workplace hazards from the workplace. All employers in New Zealand including bar and cafe owners therefore already have an obligation to remove the hazard of second-hand smoke from their workplaces. So even if this legislation did not go through I am certain that we would see a raft of prosecutions from the Occupational Safety and Health Service as a result of complaints by employees in the hospitality industry that their health had been put at risk—as it surely is; as we know it is—by being continually exposed to a workplace hazard. We expect employers to protect their employees from other workplace hazards such as asbestos and toxic chemicals to name but two so why would we not expect them to protect their workers from the hazards of second-hand smoke? We expect to be protected from the hazards of drunk drivers so why would we not expect to be protected from the hazards of second-hand smoke? 
Contrary to what the naysayers claim this bill is widely supported in the community. Thousands of New Zealanders are quietly cheering from the sidelines—and some in the gallery here today. They are like me literally counting the days until they can go to work or out for a drink and breathe clean unpolluted air and not have to come home smelling like an ashtray. We have witnessed a campaign of resistance against this legislation with endless filibusters and a concerted attempt to undermine and ridicule this legislation. Let us remember that there has been similar resistance—similar dire warnings—wherever legislation like this has been introduced. In California and New York the critics were absolutely adamant that it would not work and that it would be a disaster. Well it simply has not been a disaster. The overwhelming majority of Californians and New Yorkers are absolutely delighted with their new smoke-free environments. 
A core argument of the opponents of this bill is that people’s property rights should take precedence over the rights of people to breathe clean air and to have their health protected when they are out in public places. The fact is that there is a fundamental flaw in that argument. If smokers were only harming themselves by their habit then those arguments might have credibility. But they do not because there is a simple irrefutable fact—and it is probably at the heart of this legislation—that up to two-thirds of the smoke from a cigarette is exhaled into the air as second-hand smoke and all of us every single person who is around that smoker breathes it into his or her lungs even if he or she does not smoke. That is the heart of the problem that we are addressing in this bill. The National Heart Foundation has warned us that bars and places where smokers congregate pose the greatest risk to passive smokers because of the concentration of smoke in those places. It is incredible that many parties are suggesting that we should continue to continually expose workers to those concentrated doses of cigarette smoke. I am confident that we will see reduced staff sickness and absenteeism in the hospitality industry as well as reduced chances of litigation. 
The Green Party is pleased that two of our amendments have been accepted in the legislation: one prohibiting the sale of toy tobacco products to under-18-year-olds and the second removing penalties from individual smokers. We are pleased that we will rely on social pressures not heavy-handed penalties to get smokers to comply with the legislation. We are confident that the legislation will work despite the predictions to the contrary. It has worked overseas so why would it not work here? We know that the vast majority of smokers are aware that they are putting the health of other people at risk when they smoke indoors and that they readily accept the necessity of going outside when they smoke. We are pleased that the legislation will extend to herbal products and cannabis—were it ever to be decriminalised. We find it odd and extraordinarily hypocritical that some of those who are most in favour of keeping penalties for cannabis smokers and who rail against and demonise cannabis are the very ones who are opposed to any penalties or restrictions on smokers. They appear to be happy to allow families children and the rest of us—and our bodies and lungs—to be poisoned by second-hand tobacco smoke. 
As I wind up I thank in particular the chair of the Health Committee Steve Chadwick the previous chair Judy Keall Action on Smoking and Health and all the people who have worked to make possible the great moment that we will witness tonight with the passing of this legislation that will vastly improve the quality of life of all New Zealanders. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill with sadness—sadness at the loss of yet more personal freedoms under this authoritarian Labour Government. This bill has had a long protracted path through the parliamentary process and there have been casualties along the way. The casualties I refer to are those of truth and integrity. This debate especially of late has seen truth and integrity seriously compromised. Let me explain. The Ministry of Health claims that second-hand smoke inhalation kills 388 New Zealanders per year. It turns out that there are not 388 people dying each year with second-hand smoke listed as the cause of death on their death certificates. The figure is a Ministry of Health estimate only. Let us not forget that this is the ministry that contracted lobbyists to lobby its own Minister and other MPs to support this bill. The Ministry of Health researchers calculated their death estimate by reading up other studies and doing some basic arithmetic. The literature search turned up these things: firstly estimates of New Zealanders’ exposure to second-hand smoke from Ministry of Health surveys; secondly the number of New Zealanders who had died in 1997 from various diseases such as lung cancer and heart attacks; and thirdly the relative risk of contracting those diseases from second-hand smoke based on overseas studies. So with this bit of arithmetic and some heroic assumptions the Ministry of Health researchers came up with the number 388—388 deaths due apparently to second-hand smoke in 1997. 
There is no doubt that smoking is bad for people but the effects of second-hand smoke—what this bill is all about—are inconclusive. In 1998  
The Economist 
 a well-respected newspaper published an article about a controversial World Health Organization study linking lung cancer and passive smoking. The World Health Organization was convinced that this link was strong. It found however that non-smokers married to working with or raised with smokers were no more at risk of lung cancer than anyone else. The World Health Organization has long admitted that links between lung cancer and passive smoking are weak and these findings were not what it expected or what it wanted. The study was summarised in three paragraphs and buried in a hefty World Health Organization document. Second-hand smoke’s perceived dangers have been used worldwide to rally public support against the tobacco industry especially in pressing for a ban on smoking in public places. Groups like Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) love to quote overseas examples—most common are the successes of Los Angeles and New York. The California example is a very unfair comparison. The climate there is conducive to outdoor drinking and dining. If we had this advantage in New Zealand indoor smoking would not be an issue at all. The New York example is much more enlightening. ASH claims that an authoritative new study on smoke bans in New York hotels and restaurants shows that they have not harmed business. This bold statement is not backed by recent reports from New York bar owners. They report that since the ban took effect in March business has dropped nearly 30 percent. The law has already been softened to allow separate ventilated smoking rooms. Ms Kedgley’s claim that people no longer go home smelling of smoke is not quite what it actually seems. 
 Here in New Zealand many bar owners have said they will flout the law. They believe the Ministry of Health lacks the smoke police to enforce the legislation so they are confident of getting away with it. But good law should be enforceable and routinely enforced. The ministry has 17 part-time enhancement officers or smoke police—call them what you will they still do the same job—and no intention of policing the new situation. This highlights the absurdity of politicians trying to legislate to stop any behaviour of which they disapprove. I have contacted every Returned Services Association and club in the country as well as many restaurants and pubs. Clubs have members who pay a membership fee. Returned Services Association people have to pay a fee to go to their local clubs. Yet the Government now thinks it will be able to tell these people how to run their premises. The Government thinks it is going to tell business owners how they should run their businesses—but is the Government there holding the hand of business owners who take the risks when they go under? No not a bit of it. Minimum air standards would have been a happy compromise between the rights of smokers and non-smokers but ventilation systems were ruled completely out by the select committee. Minimum air standards were not even considered. They are simple: if a minimum air standard can be met smoking should be allowed on the premises. If it cannot there should be no smoking. 
Opposition Member 
: That’s common sense. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Exactly right—it is common sense which is being completely ignored. The penalties in the bill are an interesting story. The Labour members did not want to have any penalties at all and to be fair to Steve Chadwick she says this bill is about social change not policing. However the Government’s supporters at the select committee did not agree with it about penalties. They wanted penalties so they came up with the $400 fine for individuals who light up in public places and the $4000 fine for licensees and managers who allow smoking on the site. However during the Committee stage an amendment was put forward to take away the $400 penalty for individuals who light up. It seems now that individuals are no longer responsible for their own actions. Those who will carry the can even if they have asked people to stub out their cigarettes are the bar owners the licensees and the clubs who run their own businesses—the governing bodies. That is wrong. The Greens and United Future have to take some responsibility for this situation. They were adamant that there must be fines and it is them that the business owners and clubs have to thank for the $4000 penalty they might have to pay as a result of this legislation. 
I mentioned lobbying. Lobbying has been a point of discussion for several weeks now ever since my colleague Rodney Hide unearthed the fact which he raised in the House that the Government had contracted its favoured lobby groups specifically to lobby MPs and Ministers. The Government has admitted its guilt and it has announced that the five groups involved have had their lobbying money withdrawn—but doing it in the first place was clearly wrong. The exemptions in the bill are also very enlightening. Marae are exempted unless they have an early childhood centre or offer work on their premises yet Maori women have the highest incidence of lung cancer and young Maori women continue to smoke in increasing numbers. We talk about lung cancer and its correlation with smoking. What sort of example is this exemption sending to the most vulnerable people? The other group who are exempt are prisoners. One can smoke in prison but not when one is a law-abiding citizen who wants to go out for an evening on the town. 
I would like to quote from Abraham Lincoln: “Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.” What has Parliament achieved today? It has made a legal activity illegal in public places. This authoritarian Government is again telling people what is good for them. The nanny State is telling people how to live their lives. Yet another freedom has been taken away from us today. I am a non-smoker; all ACT MPs are non-smokers. ACT does not advocate smoking but we believe that people have the right to choose to smoke despite the risks and to take responsibility for the consequences. Legislation banning smoking in public places takes away that right and assumes that New Zealanders are incapable of making decisions for themselves. This is very poor legislation and it will not see the number of people dying from smoking-related diseases reduced by even one. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next speaker can I say to people in the gallery that under Speaker’s Ruling 8/1 no contributions can be made from the galleries without prior permission being given by the Speaker. A contribution made without authority is an interruption of the House and will be treated as contempt. I am now asking the Serjeant-at-Arms to go to the gallery and act accordingly—to inform people that they cannot interrupt during the course of a debate which is between members in this House. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A member of the Government made an unparliamentary comment during the last part of the previous speaker’s speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry I did not hear it. If the member made an unparliamentary comment I would ask him to desist. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Would you like me to say who it was? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All I can say is that I never heard it. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did ignore the unparliamentary comment but one was made and I did take offence at it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Then can I ask the person who made it to stand and withdraw under Standing Order 117 Personal reflections. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I think I am the person being accused. If the comment was unparliamentary I would like to know what it was. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am taking the honourable member’s word. Everyone here is an honourable member and I accept what he said. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 The vote on the third reading of this bill will be a conscience vote for the members of United Future. Attitudes within our caucus vary. Some of our caucus will vote for the bill because they want to see lives saved—a goal I think all of us agree with. However I want to take these few moments to express my own views on this legislation as one of those—and there are still some within the House—who have not yet spoken on the bill. 
What weighs with me is that the proponents of the bill turned down a win-win situation and I shall explain that. All of us share the goal of wanting to reduce deaths from passive smoking. I share that goal. My argument is with the method and strategy adopted in this bill. Let us take the example of RSA clubs. I for one with or without a mandate from the people could never walk into an RSA club on a dark wet night and say “Sorry gentlemen but if you want to smoke you’ll have to go outside.” I wonder whether any member of this House could or would do that. 
If I am right about that how can we hide behind this bill? That is exactly what it does. Our returned servicemen are not children. We owe them our freedom and then we use that freedom to come here to Parliament to deny them the freedom and the right to have a cigarette. I think that is wrong. When they made their sacrifice for this country we gave them cigarettes to help them ensure our freedom and our liberty. I apologise for my disobedient tear ducts but I do not take the sacrifice of those returned servicemen lightly. 
All of that is bad enough but the real tragedy in my view is that we do not need to travel down this particular road at all. My colleague Peter Dunne brought to this House a perfectly sane common-sense middle-of-the-road solution—a clean air standard for our clubs pubs and restaurants coupled with designated smoking and non-smoking areas. That is something that with a little give and take—with a little MMP; with a little freedom to allow people to exercise their own conscience—could have achieved the goals that this bill’s proponents seek whilst at the same time recognising the legitimate interest of our war heroes and others in living their lives free from undue totalitarian restrictions. It is a tragedy that that solution made in good faith and backed up with scientific evidence was rejected by this House. 
I would like to refer too to the comments made by Green Party member Sue Kedgley. It seems that on many of these issues Green Party members are not interested in the science of the matter. They are not interested in looking at real objective evidence. They are not interested in whether one is able to achieve—as I have said with a bit of common sense and give and take—a perfectly reasonable outcome for all concerned. 
Of course on other issues they likewise ignore science research and good evidence. I refer in particular to their attitude towards the smoking of cannabis which according to the Green Party is something that is healthy to do and minimises harm to people’s brains especially— 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is misrepresenting our views and I object to it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the honourable member to look at Speaker’s ruling 30/1 and then she can make her point about misrepresentation when the member speaking has finished his speech. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I appreciate your ruling on that because I was merely responding to a number of extremely inaccurate and hostile comments from that member in respect of the United Future party. It would be quite unfair if I were to be stifled in wanting to respond to them. 
The reality is that the Green Party favours the smoking of cannabis especially when it has been genetically modified to increase its potency. That is simply a complete double standard. I have absolutely no respect for Green members coming along to this House tonight and trying to take some sort of moral high ground in relation to cigarettes which have been freely smoked in this country for generations. As I have already said cigarettes were officially promoted by the Government of New Zealand when it suited our purposes which were to calm our soldiers’ nerves down when they went into battle on our behalf. I reject the double standard and hypocrisy involved in that and the criticism that has been wrongly levied at United Future without any evidence or scientific back-up. The hard reality is that ends do not justify the means. 
I will be voting against this bill but I do so with some reluctance and disappointment because as I said before I think that with a bit of give and take and a bit of goodwill we could have reached a much superior outcome. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 In a debate like this I am certainly pleased to be part of the National Party caucus which on issues regarding tobacco alcohol prostitution and the like allows members to make a conscience decision. I am here today appreciating the ability to make a decision based on my conscience and I will certainly be voting against this bill. It is yet another piece of legislation that will be labelled anti-business legislation. We have the smoke-free legislation today and tomorrow we move to the matter of 4 weeks’ holiday—yet another hurdle that will make it harder for businesses in New Zealand to do business. 
I want to comment on the views of my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison which he holds very firmly and which obviously differ completely from mine. He says this is a matter of freedom and I say “Rubbish!”. [ 
Interruption 
] It is not a matter of freedom. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: He’s a doctor. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The member keeps interrupting and saying that he is a doctor. Yes he is a doctor a very good doctor and that is why he holds such convincing views—because he has dealt with the damage that tobacco does. If the Minister would mind not interrupting and would allow me to speak he could hear my point of view. 
Jill Pettis 
: “And I’ll hang myself on my own.” 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Am I going to get a fair go or not Mr Speaker? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Of course you are. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Paul Hutchison said that it was a matter of freedom. The freedom I have is to choose whether to go into a pub. That is the free choice that should be available to people. I happen to live in a small rural environment and the only facility we have about 2½ kilometres from home is a pub. I drive past it every night when I happen to go home and I see that friends and colleagues have gone to that pub to have a beer and a smoke at the end of the day. They choose to do that. I do not like the smoky environment—I am an asthmatic. My choice is not to go into that place. 
Paul Hutchison and other speakers have spoken about the fact that when this legislation is passed people will be able to take their families to restaurants. Most of the restaurants in Christchurch are already smoke-free. They have become smoke-free because the market has demanded it. And that was the solution to this issue tonight—to allow pubs like the Blackball Hilton which Mr O’Connor spoke about to operate smoke-free because they see the business advantage in doing so. How can Mr O’Connor stand here and say the current legislation is working well on the West Coast and refer to the Blackball Hilton then stupidly support legislation that takes away freedom of choice? The bill takes away the freedom of that hotel operator to decide whether he wants to run a hotel bar in a smoke-free environment or a smoky environment. It takes away the choice of West Coasters to go into that pub and have a smoke. I say to Mr O’Connor that they have not got that choice. He should get real. When this legislation is passed and enacted that mate of his who used to go into the pub and have a beer will not have that choice any more. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Plenty of choice. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: So the Minister should not keep interrupting and saying he does have that choice. This legislation takes that choice away. 
The other thing Paul Hutchison spoke about—again it has been repeated by people like Sue Kedgley—is that this legislation will save our young people from suffering the effect of second-hand smoke. This legislation bans smoking in pubs. Our young children should not be in pubs but they will be in their homes where their parents smoke so I ask Mr O’Connor how this legislation helps those young people. It does not and that is another one of those mistruths that have been promoted by people like that Minister who have accepted the edict from Helen Clark that every member of the Labour caucus is to vote for this bill regardless of their conscience. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr O’Connor interrupts again. I could name many members of his caucus who have come to me and said that they do not support this legislation. They think it is stupid they think it is unreasonable yet they have been whipped by Helen Clark and told they are not allowed to follow their conscience. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: My further criticism of this legislation is the shambolic way in which it has passed through this House. It has been called a member’s bill under the name of now Steve Chadwick yet we had the Associate Minister of Health Damien O’Connor saying before the dinner break that he was pleased to be sponsoring this bill. The real fact is— 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: I was supporting it. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: He said “sponsoring” and he should check his  
Hansard.  
The real point is that at all times this bill has really been Government legislation; Labour members are being whipped by the Prime Minister so none of them are allowed to vote according to their conscience and that has been confirmed to me by a number of those members who are prepared to be honest about it. 
The Associate Minister Damien O’Connor also spoke about how even-handed this legislation is. I would have some acceptance of the credibility of that statement if there were any penalties at all for people who disregard the law and light up cigarettes in bars. But because of the logic of the Greens that particular segment has been taken out of the legislation and all liability now rests with the publican. Somebody can come into a bar defy the law light up a cigarette and not face any penalties at all. That is totally unfair and illogical. 
During the long Committee stage I asked a number of questions that remain unanswered. I asked about what thought had been given to the effect of this legislation on passers-by going along the footpath outside the pubs and cafes down Courtenay Place when a number of patrons affected by liquor are standing there smoking their cigarettes. The interjection from the junior Government whip Jill Pettis was that I should not be ridiculous and that it would not happen. I asked who will clean up the cigarette butts and who will provide ashtrays for people standing on the pavement and smoking. Again I got the same interjection from Jill Pettis—that I should not be ridiculous and that it would not happen. I say to that member that those examples will happen and no thought was given to them during the select committee process. 
The other point that became evident was the large amount of money—$13 million – odd a year—that has been spent by non-Government organisations to try to educate people about the dangers of smoking. It is valued work. The more money we spend trying to stop people from taking up this repulsive habit the better. But some of that money was spent on lobbying members of Parliament and that was unacceptable and outrageous. 
I want to conclude on something I mentioned earlier. This legislation would be unnecessary if the public of New Zealand expressed strongly enough their dislike of smoking environments. That would mean that a lot of hotels on the West Coast—not only the Blackball Hilton referred to by the Associate Minister—would see the advantage in operating a smoke-free environment. If more hotels did that then I might go back into hotels to enjoy a beer. That is the way this issue should be decided. Let the operators see the advantage in providing a nice clean environment. That would be the appropriate way to do it. 
I conclude by acknowledging the importance of the hospitality industry to New Zealanders. Most New Zealanders partake of the hospitality industry on many many occasions—by the day and by the week—but it may be something that members on the other side are unfamiliar with. What those members should have done was to go out and see the good work the hospitality industry creates and how it assists the very community of New Zealand. This bill will make it harder for people to operate within that industry now. The talk about there not having been an economic effect in other parts of the world particularly America is just rubbish. There will be an effect on the profitability of these businesses. There will be an immediate decline in revenue as people adjust to this new legislation. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Look at the facts. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: For Damien O’Connor to say that will not happen means one of two things: either he is economically illiterate or he knows that people will just ignore the law. Either situation is not acceptable and this is not satisfactory legislation. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me start by saying that all New Zealand First MPs are opposed to smoking in terms of what it does to people. I know we have one smoker in our midst. [ 
Interruption 
] He is very famous and a very effective politician but I can tell members that he does not recommend smoking to anybody. Smoking is a habit an addiction arising from habit. I can say that there is not one New Zealand First MP who will recommend it to anybody. We are totally opposed to encouraging young people or anybody to take it up if they do not already have the habit. 
But this bill is not the way to address the issue. I say to those members over there and I think many of them are sincere that if they are really concerned about smoking to the degree they say are they should ban it. They should make it illegal but they should not stand in this House and talk about the virtues of tossing people on to the street. Those members should not talk about the virtues of saying: “I am going to walk into a pub and you are going on the street to smoke.” because that is not the way to go. If they are really passionately against smoking they should ban it but right now it is a legal activity. 
I have five children and none of them smoke. I smoke the odd cigar. With a glass of whisky it goes down very well. But it is only the odd cigar—one every 5 or 6 months. I am looking forward to Christmas because my wife says I can have another cigar at Christmas. 
Earlier on somebody spoke about freedom. I think the emphasis was put on freedom to work in a smoke-free workplace and on freedom of choice to walk into a pub that allowed smoking—if one wanted to have a smoke—or to walk into a pub that was a non-smoking pub. I want to talk about the freedom we all enjoy as a result of the guys who put on khaki and the guys who put on the light blue and the navy blue. They put themselves on ships and in aircrafts—Spitfires—in the Battle of Britain. There were Kiwis there and they were very fine soldiers. They fought not only for the freedom of this country but for the freedom of the Western World. They put it all on the line. Many of them came back—thank God—but many did not. Those who came back had been encouraged to smoke by previous Governments. They had been given free cigarettes and were encouraged to smoke and relax. They were encouraged to go into the mess room and have a beer and a fag. 
I say to members that there are still some of these folk alive now although they are getting pretty ancient. They go down to their Returned Services Association club and watch the All Blacks on a big television screen and they order their pints of beer and they have a cigarette. Imagine if one of the people who support this bill walked into a Returned Services Association club. It is a cold winter’s day and the All Blacks are about to play. There is old Joe who fought for this country in the war. He might have Ron Mark with him because Ron Mark has a definite connection with military people and ex-military people. He might indeed have the Rt Hon Winston Peters with him because there is definitely an affinity between old soldiers and Winston Peters—they love him. He might even have me there. There is an affinity and an empathy between merchant navy officers or ex - merchant navy officers and people who fought for their country. [ 
Interruption 
] That member has plenty to say. What if he were to walk in there and see Joe smoking? Would he ring for the enforcement officer? If he is not prepared to ring the enforcement officer and say: “Come here Joe is smoking.” then he should not vote for this bill. If members do not have the gumption to ring the enforcement officer they should not vote for this bill. It is meant to be a conscience vote. If they cannot turn old Joe in then they do not have the gumption to do the job that they are advocating that somebody else should do. 
Imagine if the enforcement officer came in. If the bar manager or the barman behind the bar or the man in charge is not actually there when the enforcement officer comes in—and he can come in with a camera a video and an air-sampling machine—that officer does not even have to tell anybody that he is an enforcement officer. If the person in charge is not there when he walks in he does not have to say that he is an enforcement officer. What would old Joe do? He could be quite nervous now. He could think that this guy who has walked in is an enforcement officer so he might run to the toilet. It is raining outside it is cold outside so Joe runs to the toilet. Under this legislation the enforcement officer can follow him to the toilet and photograph him smoking. 
If the members over there want to vote for that they are not voting for New Zealanders. There is not one New Zealander that I am aware of who would support that. [ 
Interruption 
] Lynne Pillay has got plenty to say. Does she agree with secret cameras? That is what can happen under this bill. I was speaking to the Hon Damien O’Connor only a little while ago and I asked him whether I could divulge to the House the information he had told me and he said that yes I could. There has been only one prosecution of restaurants in the umpteen years— 
Steve Chadwick 
: So why are you worrying? 
PETER BROWN 
: Because the Government is putting the fear of God into New Zealanders who fought for this country; that is why I am worried. That member knows that this law is not going to be policed. Government members know that if they would not turn Joe in they certainly would not turn in Black Power gang members if they were smoking in their local pub. Those members should have the courage of their convictions and say that this is not right. This bill is not fair on New Zealanders. It is not fair on the young ones and it is not fair on the old ones. I guarantee that there would not be many young New Zealanders who would turn in their grandfather or their great-grandfather—not one of them. As much as they do not like smoking they would not turn them in. 
This bill is ridiculous and to prove just how ridiculous it is let us take the clause on ships. Who the dickens is going to police the ships? Steve Chadwick in response to a question earlier on this afternoon about a tanker carrying inflammable goods—the crew of which would never ever smoke outside the shell of the ship—said that an officer cannot smoke his pipe or cigarette in the wheelhouse. He is the only one there for goodness’ sake. 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: Give it away. 
PETER BROWN 
: I have 2 minutes. I think the member wants me to have an extension of time. I think he is learning something. I think I have touched his conscience. I think Lynne Pillay is now worried. She is going to vote for the spy brigade. What chance of success does this legislation have when 17 enforcement officers are going to carry it out? 
Lynne Pillay 
: I would be 6 inches taller if my parents hadn’t smoked. 
PETER BROWN 
: I think the member wants to tell me something. There are people who currently go to a bar and a club so that they do not smoke at home. They go to a bar and a club so that they do not smoke in front of their children or their pregnant wives. What do members think this bill is going to do? Those people are going to go home and smoke in front of their children. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Ha ha! 
PETER BROWN 
: The member laughs. I can tell her that my own father quite a while ago—he was an ex-soldier—did not smoke in front of me and my sister because he did not want to encourage us. He would go down to the pub have his cigarette and his beer there and come home. This bill is going to force those people home. There will be some who give up smoking as a result of this; there will be others who do not. There will be young women who go on to the street to have a cigarette because they cannot smoke inside a hospitality house. That is absolutely ridiculous. 
Jill Pettis 
: Where have you been all these years? 
PETER BROWN 
: Jill Pettis should ask her husband. He is an ex-sailor. I think he has done a little bit for the country. She should ask him. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 2; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; United Future 2; Progressive 2. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As much as I like a smoke-free environment—and I say that sincerely—I do not like seeing ladies dressed in T-shirts. I think it is unbecoming to Parliament and I seek your ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you Mr Brown. 
Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill 
Second Reading 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I move  
That the Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill be now read a second time 
. In considering this bill and reporting it back to the House the majority of the members on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee have recommended that the bill not be passed. I think that is most unfortunate and I want to explain why to this Parliament. 
I will briefly remind colleagues of what this bill was all about. It was simply a piece of legislation to enable the Rodney District Council to facilitate the design financing construction operation and maintenance of a road to be known as the Weiti Toll Road to be constructed across the Weiti Estuary from Whangaparaoa to meet up with State Highway 1 at a place called Redvale. The whole idea of the legislation was to deal with major congestion on the Whangaparaoa Peninsula. Traffic coming out of that long peninsula has to travel away from Auckland for a number of kilometres go round the end of the peninsula then travel back to Auckland through highly congested conditions. It takes at peak traffic times a long period of time to travel that distance and that is costing the people of the region huge amounts of money. It has been estimated that if this legislation had gone through and the toll road had been built then between $7.5 million and $10 million could have been saved each year. 
It is fascinating to reflect back on what happened when I introduced this legislation into Parliament. I would like to quote from the Hon Judith Tizard an Associate Minister of Transport and the Minister advising the Prime Minister on Auckland issues. Do members know what she said when I introduced this bill into Parliament? She said: “I rise to support the passage of this bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee. This bill has been the subject of a great deal of consultation. I thank the Rodney District Council for the great lengths it went to in informing Auckland members of Parliament across all parties.” She supported the comments I had made on introducing the legislation and she went on to say that she supported it. She said: “This is a project that has a great deal of local support. I have seen surveys of the Whangaparaoa community that indicate that the vast majority of residents support it.” There we have an Associate Minister of Transport the Minister advising the Prime Minister on Auckland issues saying this is good legislation yet the Government is actually stopping its passage. 
What happened? The answer is dead simple. The Greens got at it. The Greens got at the Labour Government and the Labour Government buckled. After one of the Government’s own Ministers said that this was good legislation that this toll road should be built the Greens got at it and this oh so strong Labour Government led by this oh so competent Prime Minister Helen Clark just buckled. This legislation was introduced in August 2001 and here we are at the end of 2003 and nothing has happened. The traffic out of the Whangaparaoa Peninsula still sits there in a gridlock. People cannot get in and out. Millions of dollars are lost every year and the Labour Government has done nothing. 
Labour members will say that their land transport amendment bill their generic legislation will solve all the problems and that the Penlink toll road will be able to go ahead. I invite Government members to reflect on this. This legislation was introduced in 2001 to enable the road to be built but nothing has happened and the people have suffered the ongoing congestion and gridlock for a further 2 years. But in that time the people of the region have also been advised that whereas they had expected another piece of roading in Rodney to be a free public piece of motorway—and I am referring to the sector of motorway called the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2) from Orewa to Puhoi—that piece of motorway extending State Highway 1 north from Auckland is not going to be a free public motorway; it is also going to be a toll road. One of the most rapidly growing areas of New Zealand is being treated by this Government totally unfairly. The Government is now saying that not only will the Penlink road have to be a toll road but also ALPURT B2 will have to be a toll road if it is to be constructed in the next decade. 
I ask Government members this: if the ALPURT B2 motorway the motorway from Orewa to Puhoi which affects the same people in the same region has to be a toll road is it not reasonable for the Government to pick up the Penlink toll road deal with it and build it? It is unfair to lumber the people of Rodney with two toll roads to try to solve those traffic woes. The Rodney District Council area which is only a small area of New Zealand has massive traffic flow from the Auckland region yet the people of Rodney are being hit with two toll roads. At the moment Transit has not picked up that project. It is not in its 10-year plan. That means that if the Penlink legislation which the Labour Government is blocking today does not go ahead the Penlink toll road will not be commenced until 2013. It is not in the 10-year plan it is now 2003 so it will not be commenced until 2013. That is ridiculous. 
I want a Labour member to get to his or her feet and tell this Parliament when construction of the Penlink toll road will commence. If it is not in the current 10-year plan when will it commence? How long do the people of Rodney have to suffer before the construction of that toll road which the Government has blocked for the last 2 years can commence? The Rodney District Council has gone through all the costs. It has purchased the land; the land is sitting there. The road is ready to be built. It has called for tenders. None of it can go ahead because Labour is blocking this legislation. This Government having done that it is incumbent on it to sort out the mess. 
At present in the Auckland region only three major projects are ready for construction. Of all the roading in the Auckland region all the motorway requirements only three projects are ready for construction. They are the motorway from Orewa to Puhoi which is ALPURT B2—and at the moment the Government is saying it has to be a toll road—the Penlink road and the Greenhithe Bridge. They are the only three projects ready to be constructed right now. I want a Labour member to get to his or her feet and tell the people of Rodney and the people of Whangaparaoa what the Government is going to do about the Penlink toll road. Labour members have blocked the legislation for 2 years. The Rodney District Council has had the huge expense of getting ready for the construction of that road but it is being blocked. What is Labour going to do about it now? Are Labour members going to tell the people of Rodney that they do not give a damn and they are going to do nothing or is someone going to get to his or her feet and tell the people of Rodney that that road will be constructed starting immediately? 
That is what the people of Rodney deserve as Labour has blocked this legislation for more than 2 years. The people of Rodney deserve to hear from a Labour member tonight what the Government proposes to do about this major roading project. I think Labour owes it to the people of Rodney to put this right. Labour has stuffed it up because it has kowtowed to the Greens. It has buckled to the Greens. Labour has screwed up this roading project and it should now make clear to the people of Rodney its plan to fix it. The people of Whangaparaoa cannot get out of that peninsula because of a major traffic gridlock. 
Labour having blocked this legislation having buckled and kowtowed to the Greens owes it to the people of that region to explain clearly why the Penlink road is not in Transit’s 10-year plan and when construction of the road will commence. It is incumbent on the Government to accept that responsibility and explain to the people of the region what will happen. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 As one who lives in the North Shore area and has lived at the end of the Whangaparaoa Peninsula for a number of years I would rise in support of Lockwood Smith on his bill but he has been telling the people of Rodney to listen to what Labour has to say about this bill. But United Future has come along and thanks to the hardworking efforts of our MP Larry Baldock in the transport area the Land Transport Management Bill has now been passed. That legislation makes way for that bridge—which is much needed in the Rodney area—from the Whangaparaoa Peninsula across to Redvale. So we will not be supporting this bill because we have already supported legislation that has done the job this bill intends to do. The people of Rodney can rest assured. I do not know how long Lockwood Smith has been in this House but United Future has been here for 18 months and the job is done. The bridge can be built; it is all under way. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This local bill proposed the building of the first public-private partnership road in New Zealand and the first private toll road in New Zealand. It was setting a major precedent and for that reason the Local Government and Environment Committee gave the bill very careful scrutiny when it came before us. The first public-private partnership in New Zealand was proposed to be a partnership between a relatively small local council and a large multinational corporation. As one might expect in that situation when we analysed it it turned out that a rather unequal partnership was being proposed. 
Public-private partnerships do have something to offer in building New Zealand infrastructure but only if the relationship is a fair one where the public interest is preserved and the risks are shared fairly. That was not going to be the case with this bill. The road itself was quite hotly contested locally by those who felt that it undermined the development of the Whangaparaoa area as a self-contained community where people were beginning to develop local jobs for local residents and that it would encourage Whangaparaoa’s future as simply a dormitory for Auckland. So in terms of planning it was a bad move. The road would drive through an ecologically sensitive area towards the Weiti estuary and through a quiet local community that got no benefit from the road and fiercely opposed it. 
Part-way through our consideration of the bill the Government announced a new policy package to overhaul transport legislation generally and provide in a general sense for public-private partnerships and toll roads. The criteria announced in the Government’s statement in February 2002 were simply not met by the provisions of this bill. The committee considered that it was not appropriate to pass one-off legislation for one road that was clearly at variance with Government policy and generic legislation that was about to be produced. So Parliament eventually put this bill on hold until it could be considered alongside the new Land Transport Management Bill and benefit from the policy development work that went into that. 
As the committee went through the bill and took advice from a number of departments it was clear that the bill itself was seriously flawed in favour of the private partner and against the public interest. So the committee recommended that if this bill were going to proceed some major alterations needed to occur. The committee believed that the concession period of 50 years proposed in the bill was far too long. If the road could not pay for itself faster than that then there was not a very good case for building it and it recommended shortening the concession period to 40 years maximum. One might note that the Land Transport Management Act has an even shorter period in it and that was regarded by the private partners interested in building such a road as acceptable. 
Part-way through with the help of the Department of Inland Revenue we discovered that the profitability of this road was based on a tax rort—a form of double-dipping whereby the tax department would end up paying a considerable part of the profits that the private partners in this road were going to get. So on the advice of the Department of Inland Revenue we recommended that that should be fixed and that clause 14(7) should be deleted in order to prevent a depreciation tax issue which was simply not fair play. It remains unknown whether the road would proceed without that clause which was to be a significant contribution to its profitability. 
We also thought it was appropriate to put a limit on the time that tolls could be charged on this road. It was OK to charge tolls until the road had been paid for and a reasonable profit obtained by the private partners but there was nothing in this legislation to prevent those tolls going on ad infinitum raising money for people who had already been well paid for the work they had done. So we recommended that there should be a clause to say that after the capital costs of the road certain preliminary costs and a fair return had been recovered then the road should revert to being a free road. 
There were serious privacy implications in the bill as introduced in terms of the rights it gave private enforcement officers employed by the private partner in the road to collect personal information from road users. We suggested that those provisions should be deleted. In fact the enforcement powers given to the private agents of the private partner were we thought quite inappropriate. The New Zealand police force enforces our traffic laws on public roads. It should also enforce them on private roads and only the bare minimum of enforcement powers in terms of the payment of the toll itself should be handed over to private agents of the private partner. 
With those amendments we reported the bill back and Parliament eventually decided that it was appropriate to put it on hold until it could be considered along with the generic legislation and that is what has happened. However our work was not wasted because those provisions from the careful consideration the select committee gave the bill became the basis for much of the work that went into the Land Transport Management Act which we have just passed. So the question of concession periods the question of the balance of risk between the public and private partner the question of tax and depreciation arrangements the question of protection of privacy and enforcement have all informed the work that has gone into the Land Transport Management Act. 
The Penlink bill is now simply unnecessary. If the Penlink road can meet the criteria of the New Zealand Transport Strategy and the criteria of the Land Transport Management Act then it can proceed under that generic legislation. However if it does not have the support of the communities through which it passes if it does not take adequate steps to minimise the impacts on the environment of building the road if it does not contribute to better integration of transport management and if it does not exhibit the various social and responsibility clauses in the Act then it may struggle under that legislation and that is as it should be. The bill should now be discharged because it is no longer necessary but I think its process through Parliament has been useful in that it has been a kind of a dry run for the larger bill that followed and eventually overtook it. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 A few days ago I think on 21 November to be precise the Minister of Transport went before a local government forum and asked it to please come up with a road he could toll so as to prove his critics wrong. He is in dire straits. He needs some roads to toll because he wants the Land Transport Management Act to work. I notice that there was no speaker from the Government in the Chamber initially in this debate. I sat back and refrained from taking an earlier call waiting for a Government member to explain the Government’s view on this bill. 
This bill has been effectively sabotaged by the Greens and we are not prepared to support it. I heard Paul Adams talk about his colleague the expert on transport—the man who is so dedicated to transport he did not even want to get on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and is not on that committee as a permanent member. He just appeals to go on the committee time and time again. He is known—[ 
Interruption 
] The member is throwing a little back to me. I remind the Hon Harry Duynhoven that when I had to go on the committee as a voluntary member we had only 5 members of Parliament and I just could not afford the time to go there all the time. United Future is a party that has come in and bragged about transport. Larry Baldock is a reasonable guy but he is known in Tauranga— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: This is Paul Adams. 
PETER BROWN 
: This is Paul Adams? But he was talking about Larry Baldock. I want to tell Paul Adams that Larry Baldock is known as “Toll Road Baldock.” Actually he is not known as “Toll Road Baldock” but I will not tell the member what “Baldock” is changed to when it gets into Tauranga. 
New Zealand First is opposed in principle to toll roading; we are opposed to the concept of toll roading. We basically believe that every dollar spent by the motorist should be spent as effectively as possible. There is no advantage to the motorist to be had from building huge toll plazas. It is not the best use of the motorist’s dollar to pay for people to man toll road plazas 24 hours a day 7 days a week. It is not the best use of the motorist’s dollar to pay for administration costs and it is not the best use of the motorist’s dollar to pay the profit on toll roading. Toll roading is no good to the community unless the tolls from a particular road can be spread on to other roads. It absolutely fails to address the core problem with regard to roading. 
Auckland roads are in a mess and Auckland transport is a mess. I was talking to transport operators the other day. They told me about some of the problems and they are significant. 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: What did the member do about it when he was in Government? 
PETER BROWN 
: That is a good question and I will tell the Minister because he wants to understand exactly how a political party is committed to transport issues. We transferred some of the money from petrol that goes into the consolidated account into the roading account and that was to have been done on an ongoing basis. Had that been continued right now a lot more money would be going into roading than there is currently and we would not be putting on the 4.7c per litre or whatever it was that Labour put on petrol the other day. 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: Father Christmas too! 
PETER BROWN 
: The Minister asked me a question and I gave him an answer—and a Merry Christmas to him. If the Government is serious about addressing the Auckland congestion problem in particular then it should take time out to talk to New Zealand First. We are a political party that regards transport and roading as a high priority in terms of the development of our economy. But the Government is talking to United Future and the Greens. With due respect to those parties we can get what United Future knows about transport and roading on the back of a postage stamp in block capital letters and still leave space for the Greens to get their contribution on it too. 
New Zealand First opposes this bill but we will not support the Government or even give the impression we will support its Land Transport Management Act. We think that Act is totally wrong. The Government knows that it is totally wrong and it will come up with something new on 12 December or some time like that. Harry Duynhoven knows that Act is wrong; he knows that it does not work. He is one member of the Government who at least knows something about transport and he knows the Government has to do a lot more in that area. We are in the invidious position of not supporting this bill and not supporting the alternative. 
Before I conclude I will just say that the people of Rodney want the Penlink roading project to be put on Transit’s 10-year plan and I believe that they are entitled to that. That is a reasonable entitlement. New Zealand First opposes this bill. We know that throws the matter into the lap of the alternative which we also oppose so we have no alternative but to abstain from voting on this bill. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to follow my colleague Peter Brown from the New Zealand First Party. He is a man of principle and that principle is that New Zealand First cannot make up its mind on this bill and will abstain from voting on it. 
Simon Power 
: No they can’t find Winston Peters. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: When the leader of New Zealand First is back that party may well decide which way it will jump on this bill. Mr Brown and I have served together on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee over many years. However I have to say that it was a little rich of him to have a go at United Future for not having a permanent member on the select committee. I remember that when I was formerly the chair of the select committee I used to make special provision for Mr Brown to be a temporary member on a regular basis. 
I want to turn to the purpose of the Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill. This bill was put up with a view to expediting a toll road in that particular area and events have really overtaken it. The Land Transport Management Act which is now in place will really take over what the bill was intended to do. It allows for public-private partnerships in the building ownership and management of roads which will allow for the provision of roading where otherwise the normal funding mechanisms would not apply or would not see that road built for the foreseeable future. I am sorry that the Minister of Transport is not available to be here tonight to talk on this bill because that is one of the issues he has spent a huge amount of time and work on. As members know I have not been on the select committee for some time and as a result of that I have not been directly in touch with this particular bill for a little while. But I know from discussions with my colleagues and from the work that was done on the Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill and the Land Transport Management Bill while I was a member of that committee that this bill was considered seriously. The Government certainly feels that the bill has really been overtaken by time and the events that have followed particularly with the enactment of the Land Transport Management Act. 
On 12 December an Auckland transport package is to be announced by the Minister of Transport. It will outline the future direction not just for roading in Auckland but also for all transport needs in Auckland. The purpose of this bill is one of the cases that has merit—of course it does. That is why it will be considered with all the other cases alongside it to determine the priority for addressing roading and other transport needs particularly of course in the Auckland area where there are such big problems resulting from many decades of non-investment or insufficient investment in transport links. The issue is not just one of roading but also of rail ferry services public transport buses bus lanes and integrated transport systems that simply have not been developed to keep pace with the population. The issue in Auckland is a simple one: the city is outgrowing its infrastructure and that really does need a considerable amount of effort work and money to be spent. The Land Transport Management Act provides a mechanism whereby all projects can be considered on an equal basis and have their merits fairly considered and then as a result those that are of the highest priority will go ahead. 
The Government intends to vote against this bill simply because time has overtaken it and its purpose has been overtaken by the Land Transport Management Act. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 National totally opposes the Government’s move to discharge this bill tonight. I listened carefully to the Associate Minister’s comments on the bill when he said Labour does not think this bill needs to go through because in 9 days’ time Labour will make an announcement in Auckland that all the projects—roading and public transport projects—will be assessed again and ranked and then the Government will do the top ones. How totally pathetic is that? Aucklanders know that those projects have been assessed time and time again. At the beginning of the year the Penlink project was high on the order of projects to be done in Auckland. In fact Auckland had the majority of the top 30 projects on the nationwide roading strategy that was released in January of this year. But by the time the final version of the strategy came out Auckland had very few projects in the top 30. 
Now we see a new plan that the Associate Minister has announced tonight whereby on 12 December the Government will rank the roading projects again rank the public transport projects with those and then come up with a list that has a road a bus lane and a train station on it—and everyone in Auckland is meant to thank the Government and say that is novel. Mr Duynhoven knows that has been done in Auckland time and time again and that it will solve absolutely nothing. 
My other point is that this bill was introduced on 12 December 2001. At the time of the bill’s introduction the Government told the councils in Auckland that it supported this legislation but instead it has changed its mind backed down introduced some other legislation and said that that legislation will solve the problems of Auckland. The Government already knows that it will not do so. If the legislation that Mr Duynhoven told the House has overtaken this bill and will solve all the problems is so good why is there to be another announcement on 12 December? I thought that the problems had been solved a few months ago so what is the point of another announcement? Is it just more spin for Auckland or is it that the Auckland mayors are saying to the Government the same thing that they are saying to us: that this Government has failed in terms of Auckland’s roading? We know that it has. 
We know that the Rodney District Council wants this legislation. We know that the Labour members of Parliament in Auckland do not want it. 
Simon Power 
: Why? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The reason is political. The reason is that Labour holds no seat north of the harbour bridge so it does not want this bill to go forward. The reason Labour does not want this bill to go forward is that everything in roading now is done on the basis of political patronage through Mike Williams’ Transfund-Transit committee. Everything is done on the pork barrel. The man from Otago is gone; he is history. His local newspaper when asked about him says that it cannot understand why no one ever sees him. He is the invisible man from Otago; the man whom nobody knows. I do not even know his name. 
This legislation would have had the Penlink road being constructed right now. If the Prime Minister had confidence in Mr Duynhoven he would have been up there cutting the ribbon on the Penlink road next year. I read Matt McCarten’s book over the weekend. Matt McCarten identifies Mr Duynhoven as being the person the Prime Minister wanted to give a ministerial post to but knew that he was not up to it. She tried to think of another option for him. We know what that was. Mr Duynhoven had to sit out for 3 years come back in to the House chair the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee play around with his beloved transport committee—but without any responsibilities—and get the House to legislate in order to keep him here. For that Mr Duynhoven is eternally grateful to the woman who kept him out of Cabinet because she has kept him in Parliament. Mr Duynhoven could have cut the ribbon on the Penlink road but he will never do so. At the end of the day the political ideology that says we must not have a toll road has won the day. The Government has capitulated to the Greens and has put extra rounds of consultation and environmental concerns into the transport legislation. For goodness’ sake a road has to be socially responsible! That all means that not one dollar will be spent on Penlink. 
We can imagine the great announcement that Mr Duynhoven has told us about tonight. He will be in trouble with the Prime Minister for that because that was a secret for the 12th. That is why Mr Duynhoven could not be in Cabinet. He has blurted out here in the House that roads and public transport stuff will be ranked together according to whether a project is environmentally sustainable and socially responsible. We know that roads in that area will not be ranked but buses and trains will be. That is Labour’s cunning plan. There will be more buses and trains more subsidies from the Auckland Regional Council paid back through the Auckland ratepayers and no more roads for Auckland. 
It all could have been so simple. This bill went to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which Mr Duynhoven formerly chaired. If he had worked a bit harder and concentrated a little on the job in hand then he could have got this legislation through. National members tried time and time again to push through this legislation but we could not get there because the numbers were against us. At the end of the day the majority jumped to the Prime Minister’s tune and Mr Duynhoven jumped higher than most to her tune. This legislation could have been passed and that would have ensured that a road was being constructed as people drove north this Christmas. The road would not have been opened by then. The Prime Minister probably would have opened it; she probably would not have let Mr Duynhoven do that. Instead she would have opened it probably in the middle of next year. 
That piece of roading could have been being built right now. Instead we see nothing. We see no road at all. We have only Mr Duynhoven’s plan as announced to the House tonight that on 12 December the Minister of Transport will hold a press conference in Auckland and announce that all the roading projects and public transport projects—and no doubt some walking ones—will be considered and re-ranked against each other and then the top ones may be funded. What a load of absolute nonsense that is! If that is the best that Mr Duynhoven has been able to do as Associate Minister then it is no wonder the Prime Minister had to talk to Matt McCarten say she had a chap who needed to be given something but who needed to be kept out of Cabinet because he could not be trusted there and ask Matt McCarten what could be done with that chap. 
Darren Hughes 
: No. 13. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: That member lusts after being No. 13; he lusts after getting ranked as high as that. We will wait to see whether he ever rises to those giddy heights. Mr Hughes is the only 20-year-old who has to ask a 45-year-old for a date to get publicity from that. Probably she was a 55-year-old actually. That aside this legislation should have been passed and the road should have been being built right now. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak on this bill. I have to say that the response of the Government to this proposal is simply indicative of Labour’s failure in the whole area of transport. When Labour came to power it inherited a state of gridlock in the Auckland region. It tried to pretend that it was pro-Auckland pro-business and all the rest of it and that it was going to sort out that region’s transport problems. However it has totally failed. Its response to this toll road proposal is simply indicative of the extent of its failure. It will not let this bill go through even though it would actually allow the people of the Rodney area to take the situation into their own hands and to create their own solution which they are prepared to pay for. The Government will not allow even that to happen. 
Instead of approximately half the money collected from the petrol tax every year going into roading this Government—because of its cosy arrangement with the Green Party—is putting that money into walkways cycle tracks railways and shipping. It is putting it into all sorts of things apart from roading. So right now less money than ever before is being invested in our roads. Given the problems that the Auckland region and other cities around New Zealand have that is an absolute disgrace. 
There is another issue here. I heard Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith the instigator of this bill talking about how the Government seems to have turned its back on the Rodney area but he forgot one simple fact—that the Rodney district and the Northland region in general are held by National members of Parliament. The real reason why this Government has walked away from the Northland and Rodney areas is that National Party members hold those areas not Government members and their cronies. 
This bill was intended to alleviate the gridlock traffic problems in the Whangaparaoa area. I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee that considered this member’s bill but I understand that Labour supported it going to a select committee. From what we have heard today in the debate the bill was then blocked by the Green Party. We know that the Green Party is anti-roads at the best of times so it would certainly be anti large roads which this one would be. 
But this situation is just part of a very sad picture for the Rodney region. Not only does it have gridlock in the Whangaparaoa Peninsula area; it also has the most outstanding disaster zone in terms of roading in New Zealand sitting right in its midst. The northern motorway our premier motorway stops dead in the middle of a paddock in Orewa then winds down through a residential area before eventually hitching up with a very dangerous stretch of State Highway 1. This project called the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2) a 7-kilometre stretch of roading should have been finished as soon as the resource consents came through from the Environment Court. We know that those consents were held up for about 6 years but earlier this year all of them came through. 
Before Labour became the Government Transit New Zealand promised that completion of that motorway would be its No. 1 priority. In fact it was hanging out waiting for the consents to come through. But after the change of Government the membership on the boards of Transfund and Transit changed and instead of the project being the No. 1 priority all of a sudden it was shoved right down to the bottom and according to the original plan it probably would not have been completed for about another 15 years. This Labour Government has shepherded that absolute disgrace of a major motorway stopping in a paddock. It is a dangerous part of the State highway and costs according to Transit $1 million a week in lost opportunities for the people in the Northland region. This Government’s response is simply to say “Tough!”. Well I say it is not good enough for a Government to turn its back on State Highway 1 which is part of its jurisdiction and part of its funding regime. 
Instead we now have the Land Transport Management Act which I understand from talking to the sorts of companies that should be lining up to invest in these public-private partnerships is virtually unworkable. They ask why anybody would invest their money in one of these toll road proposals given the terrible conditions that this Labour Government puts on them. The Government is heralding the Land Transport Management Act as the answer to New Zealand’s traffic gridlock problems—“We’ll fix it all with toll roading.”—but meanwhile it is delivering to the country legislation that will not even work. Again that is simply indicative of this Government’s failure to come to terms with one of its most important priorities which is to provide infrastructure so that New Zealanders can get on with doing their jobs running their businesses and building wealth and productivity for this country. 
I understand that right now in the Auckland region only three roading projects are ready and able to go. They are the ALPURT B2 road—now that the consents have all gone through—which would cost about $140 million; the Penlink road which would cost about $50 million; and I understand the Greenhithe Bridge proposal which is also ready to go. 
Dail Jones 
: It’s under way. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: It is under way I understand. But the Government has $225 million in Transfund’s bank account that is earmarked for projects in Auckland that will come on stream one day and it should be saying that as that “one day” is months if not years away it will put some of that $225 million into completing ALPURT B2 and into getting the Penlink road on the go. That would be the sensible thing for this Government to do. Will it do it? Absolutely not! 
I have one concern about ALPURT B2. I have talked to the Minister of Transport so he knows about the shambles at the end of State Highway 1’s northern motorway. He admits that it has to be fixed but I have one huge difference of opinion with him. He says that the road that completes the northern motorway from Orewa to Puhoi should be a toll road. Well I say that is irresponsible. It is State Highway 1! State Highway 1 is funded by people paying petrol tax money by that money going into Transfund’s bank account and by the Government using that money to build State highways. Any deviation from ALPURT B2 being a State-funded highway is a total abrogation of responsibility by this Government. 
It is quite distressing for a Northland MP to see the way in which this Government has been dragging its feet on roading issues. It costs that region so much every single day in lost opportunities and in the extra cost of transport to anything going on in Northland. Many Aucklanders do not go north when they could or when they want to because they know they will get stuck in traffic. Why would people have a beach house in the Kaipara district when they would be stuck on the motorway for ages? That is one of the reasons why Labour has been dragging its heels on these issues. It wants to keep people in Auckland where its voters are—we know that—instead of allowing them to go and live in the north which is an area with a bunch of National members of Parliament who are actually doing a very good job in this House. 
The fact that this bill is about to be voted down by the Government is again indicative of its failure even to be concerned about completing infrastructure. If it voted for the bill that would be a very very good indication that it does care. I say that it does not care. It will vote the bill down and that is a disgrace. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill be read a second time. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Abstentions 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill 
Second Reading 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Following discussions at the Business Committee and with representatives of the various parties I seek leave for this bill when it has concluded its second reading to proceed to its Committee stage and third reading. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill be now read a second time 
. I am very pleased that the Local Government and Environment Committee has dispatched this bill and I would like to acknowledge it straight out as part of my initiating remarks. I would like to compliment and thank Jeanette Fitzsimons who is the chairperson David Parker who is the deputy chairperson Shane Ardern Larry Baldock Dr Ashraf Choudhary Sandra Goudie Ann Hartley Nanaia Mahuta the Hon Damien O’Connor Jim Peters the Hon Ken Shirley and the Hon Dr Nick Smith for their contributions throughout the committee’s deliberations. 
This bill was referred to the select committee on 4 December 2002 so it is only just over a year since it first went before it. The committee heard a number of submissions—seven to be precise. I would like to thank the committee for finding the time to deal with this bill. I recognise and acknowledge its very heavy workload. It got through the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill as expediently as it could. 
The committee has come back with some recommendations which I support. I think the recommendations are fair and also are consistent with more modern legislation that has come to pass in recent times. The Government supports the legislation. I have to say that I personally heard select committee members wonder from time to time why on earth a bill like this actually needed to be before them. However with the new powers now delegated to local government under the new Local Government Act 2002 there will be less of this type of legislation coming before the committee in the future one would hope. 
The Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill establishes public afforestation in the Masterton district. It gives more flexibility to the council as trustee of the Trimble Forest and to the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Ltd as trustee of the Trimble Trust. For example the foundation created by this legislation will be able to undertake activities in areas outside the boundaries of the former Masterton County Council subject to the marginal discretion allowed by the bill. Also it will distribute proceeds outside the original county boundaries but still for the benefit of persons within those boundaries. It also sets up the Montfort Trimble Foundation as a publicly elected body corporate that promotes public afforestation. 
To give a little bit of background the bill establishes—as I have just mentioned—the Montfort Trimble Foundation as a charitable trust with the intention to administer proceeds arising out of the Trimble Trust and the harvesting of the Trimble Forest. Under the will of Dr Montfort Trimble who died in 1940 a charitable trust was established for the purposes of public afforestation in the then area of the Masterton County. In 1942 the Masterton County Council used income from the Trimble Trust to purchase a 127-hectare forestry block known as the Trimble Forest which was administered under separate trust arrangements. Currently the Masterton District Council administers the Trimble Forest trust while the Trimble Trust is administered by the Guardian Trust. The Trimble Forest is now being harvested and the proceeds from the sale of harvested timber are expected to exceed the cost of replanting. 
I shall give a quick summary of some of the recommendations from the select committee. On the powers of the foundation the select committee recommends that the Montfort Trimble Foundation’s capacity to carry out or undertake any business or activity do any act or enter into any transaction in order to further its objectives should be limited to activities related to public afforestation so the committee recommends inserting the word “related” in clause 6(1)(a). 
The select committee also discussed the matter of the removal of board members. It recommends adding a new clause to specify that the Masterton District Council or Guardian Trust may remove a board member only if the board member is unable to perform his or her duties adequately or for neglect of duty or misconduct. 
The committee also recommends on the matter of casting votes amending the bill to omit the provision for the chairperson to have the casting vote because under the Local Government Act 2002 chairpersons are not allowed a casting vote and this amendment will ensure consistency with the Local Government Act. 
Some of the wider distributions that this bill enables will help to enhance such things with regard to afforestation as amenity and flood protection. The beneficiaries of such afforestation because of the establishment of this foundation will be primarily those living within the former trust areas of the Masterton County but also a percentage—although it is capped—of the proceeds can be distributed outside that particular area but inclusive of what are now known as the Masterton District Council boundaries. 
I add that in the Committee stage I have a small amendment to make because officials omitted to do a small thing that is a consequential effect of a unanimous decision to strike out a piece of the bill. I flag now to members that I will propose that amendment which is currently on the Table for members’ information. 
In conclusion I thank all those people who I hope will support the passage of the bill. It is primarily non-controversial and will be of benefit to the environment I might add. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Although I was not fortunate enough to serve on the select committee for this bill I have followed its passage with some interest. It affects parts of the electorate just over the ranges from my own so I have taken a quiet and understated interest in the passage of the bill. 
Members of the National Party will be supporting its passage through its stages. That is not to say that we will not be questioning or looking very closely at the amendment the member wishes to propose during the Committee stage of the bill as one would expect. It would be only right that Opposition members were able to give this sort of scrutiny to the last-minute clauses that this Government is prone to pop into legislation willy-nilly. I am surprised it has not been completely rewritten by way of Supplementary Order Paper at the last minute. We will watch with interest as the Committee stage proceeds. 
Georgina Beyer the local member for the area this bill relates to has done a good job of outlining the contents of the bill. I certainly do not want to waste the House’s time any longer than necessary over the provisions of the bill. It is important from time to time that the House does enable local legislation such as this to proceed in a timely fashion. Putting aside the issue of the one amendment that the member proposes which as I say we will be looking at in detail we will be supporting the passage of the bill. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a real pleasure to speak to the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill. I would like to thank the member for Wairarapa Georgina Beyer for bringing the bill to the House for the legislation changes required to assist the foundation to widen its scope in the area of forestry. That was well overdue. As a local boy in the district I know that forestry is a major employer taking over from the rural sector. As a bit of background I would like to mention that my great-great-grandfather landed at Castlepoint in 1845 being the first European to drive Romney rams inland cutting his way through the virgin bush. 
Simon Power 
: Yeah? 
EDWIN PERRY 
: Yes I say to Mr Power. He was one of the first to meet the local tangata whenua which is my whakapapa on my mother’s side. 
I would like now just to quietly go through the bill and mention some of the areas the member for Wairarapa has mentioned. The first of these is the introduction. “The bill establishes the Montfort Trimble Foundation a charitable trust intended to administer proceeds arising out of the Trimble Trust and the harvesting of the Trimble Forest. Under the will of Dr Montfort Trimble who died in 1940 a charitable trust was established for the purposes of public afforestation in the then area of the Masterton County. In 1942 the Masterton County Council used income from the Trimble Trust to purchase a 127-hectare forestry block”—which was mentioned by my colleague from the Labour Party—“known as the Trimble Forest administered under separate trust arrangements. Currently the Masterton District Council administers the Trimble Forest trust while the Trimble Trust itself is administered by the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited. The Trimble Forest is now being harvested and the proceeds from the sale of harvested timber are expected to exceed the cost of replanting. The bill provides” [ 
Interruption 
]—Mr Ken Shirley knows all about forestry owning a block in my little valley of Tinui—“for the trustee of the Trimble Forest to make distributions to the Foundation from the proceeds of the harvest of timber and for the trustee of the Trimble Trust to make distributions from capital and income. The main object of the Foundation is to promote public afforestation as defined in clause 5(1)(a) … The bill also defines the Foundation district as being the area that constituted the Masterton County as described in the 1931  
Gazette 
 and is shown in Schedule 2 of the bill. This will be the area of primary benefit and reflects the requirement in Dr Trimble’s will that the bequest be used for public afforestation in the Masterton County as it was at the time of the bequest. The bill therefore allows for distributions to be made outside the Foundation district provided the distribution is made either in respect of objects within the Masterton District or for the benefit of residents and ratepayers of the Masterton District. The bill also limits the percentage of distributions that can be made outside the Foundation district. 
“Objects of the Foundation … We are concerned that the extended objects contained in clause 5(1)(b) may override Dr Trimble’s intention as expressed in his will to provide for public afforestation. … For example the Foundation’s object would not cover riparian planting where tree planting on a riverbank is used as a form of flood protection. We believe such planting constitutes public afforestation and would therefore be a legitimate activity for the Foundation. Accordingly we recommend the inclusion of a new clause 5(1)(a)(vi) inserting the phrase ‘amenity and protection plantings and their maintenance’ as part of the Foundation’s object. 
“Powers of Foundation … We believe the Foundation’s capacity should be limited to activities related to public afforestation and consequently we recommend inserting the word ‘related’ before the word ‘business’ and before the word ‘activity’ in clause 6(1)(a). This should ensure that the Foundation has the capacity to perform any task necessary provided it is pursuing its objective of promoting public afforestation. … 
“Remuneration of Board members. We recommend inserting a new clause 22 to provide that Board members are entitled to receive remuneration to be determined by the Minister of Local Government in accordance with the fees framework for members of statutory and other bodies.” 
New Zealand First has the pleasure of supporting this bill going through to its third reading tonight. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 As some have observed there has been a revolution in the Chair and it is about time. ACT New Zealand is delighted to support the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill. It was indeed an honour to serve on the select committee that considered this bill. The point I would like to make at the outset however is that when it was introduced we were told it was a matter of some urgency. A number of very sincere local folk came to the select committee and stressed the urgency associated with this bill. I have to say that this Government has shoved this bill back and back and back down the Order Paper because of Steve Chadwick’s “Restriction of Freedom (Smoking) Bill” which was rammed through tonight. All members of the House would observe that this bill has been shunted down the Order Paper. 
Georgina Beyer the local member has done a good job in supporting her constituents up to the point where she bowed to her Government and to her shame let this very important matter be shunted down the legislative agenda. That is really not good enough for a local member with a very important local bill. When we look at our Order Paper we notice that local bills have a priority over members’ bills yet the local member for Wairarapa supported a Government-driven agenda to have it demoted down the Order Paper below that “Restriction of Freedom (Smoking) Bill” advocated by Steve Chadwick. 
This is an important bill. One could ask why it needs to come to Parliament which is always a valid question. This is very much a local issue. We know that the Trimble Trust forests are being harvested. I understand that harvesting started in 2002 and this will continue until about 2018. I just hope for the trust’s sake that the forestry price picks up a bit. It has to be rock bottom at the moment under this Government which has almost destroyed the forest industry sector in this country with its policies. We had quite a bit of publicity about that last year. We know that sawmills all around the country are closing and the exporters are really feeling the pinch and suffering badly. The current valuation of the assets of this trust are I understand about $1.98 million and that will be ploughed back into the local community. 
The issue does arise that it was set up under the old Masterton County Council which does not exist any more and it is always a difficulty through time with local body amalgamations to pick out a sector of what is now a much broader community and assign the benefits to what is now a relatively small part of the total community. I note too that the bill provides for some cross-boundary benefit and that is a good aspect of it. 
So ACT supports this bill. We regret that it has taken so long to get to this stage. It was quite urgent and I think it is disappointing that the local member did not stand out against her colleagues but allowed it to be shunted down the Order Paper in deference to Steve Chadwick’s “Anti-freedom Bill”. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave that the bill be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. 
Clauses 1 to 28 and schedules 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Although I understand why the Committee would make that move in order to expedite matters I am a little disappointed. I was hoping we would enter into a long debate about the title of this bill and we might have been able to have a pretty detailed discussion about whether it truly reflected the intentions of the legislation currently before the Committee. It is my intention to take two very short calls on this matter— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: On the title? 
SIMON POWER 
: On the title that is right—and then two on the commencement date and so on clause by clause. But no I intend to take two short calls—the first on the bill in general and the second relating to the amendment tabled by Georgina Beyer which in my haste to take a call I have been unable to get a copy of. So I hope to return for a quick second call on that point. 
The substantive matters contained in this bill have been well canvassed by the member in the Chair as well as by my honourable colleague from New Zealand First who is clearly resident in the Wairarapa. I did not realise that but— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I did. 
SIMON POWER 
: The Hon Ken Shirley said that he realised that. That is because he has a forest on the man’s land does he not? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Just down the road. 
SIMON POWER 
: Is that right? Oh OK—very good. So all we are doing here from what I can gather essentially in respect of some public afforestation is allowing the areas outside what used to be presumably the Masterton County Council—is that right? [ 
Interruption 
] The Chairperson is nodding at me frantically. Presumably that was before Brian Elwood’s amalgamation in the late 1980s. He is a former senior partner of the firm I work for incidentally—in case anyone in the Chamber is interested while I try to kill 5 minutes. He is an interesting fellow and a guy who did a great deal for the law in Palmerston North as well as going on to be a long-serving mayor of that city before the amalgamations of local government occurred. But I digress in this wide-ranging debate. [ 
Interruption 
] Thank you. 
Obviously the major point here from what I can gather briefly is to extend the powers of the trust the trustees and council in order that matters outside the immediate jurisdiction of what was the county council can now be taken into account in respect of the administration of the various trusts involved. It seems to me to be legislation that nobody in the Committee would have good reason to object to. I look forward to a second short call on the amendment tabled by Georgina Beyer. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Again I take a very short call on behalf of New Zealand First. I note for the benefit of the Committee clause 5. The reason clause 5 is of minor importance is that it reflects the actual intention that was in the bequest and will of Dr Trimble so many years ago. Clause 5 also in this new unanimous subparagraph (vi) reflects the thinking of the Local Government and Environment Committee that a will or bequest ought to be carried through—no matter how many years ago it was stated—in the complete and comprehensive terms of the intention of that testator. 
We had a suggestion made to the committee that the present council may have wished to have built a public stadium a sports ground or something else which would have been far far removed from the original intention of Dr Trimble. Bringing that to the minds of the Committee or of any people in other councils who are contemplating a change from the original intention of bequests they are handling I say that the integrity of the will and the integrity of its intention have been preserved here with the addition of “amenity and protection planting and their maintenance:”. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I would also like to comment on clause 5 of this bill. As my colleague from New Zealand First Jim Peters observed this clause “Objects of Foundation” is the key clause of this bill. I particularly refer members to clause 5(1)(a)(v) which is to provide for the conservation of native and commercial forests. But the foundation is also for the economic use of timber—both of native and commercial forestry. I think that that is a very good provision. It is all about the multi-use of forests be they native or commercial exotic planted forests but it contrasts dramatically with this Government’s policy in the way it has closed down the conservation and management of West Coast forests. The Labour Government reneged on its accord by which we had the multiple uses of West Coast native forests. 
Perhaps the member in the chair the member for Wairarapa could comment on that because on the one hand we have here a trust being set up that is providing for the multiple uses of both indigenous and exotic forests—and I certainly support that; I think it is a very wise thing. But on the other hand how does she reconcile it as a member of the governing party that has closed down the commercial use of indigenous forestry elsewhere? Does she see an inconsistency in that? I think that this proposal is right and her Government’s policy is wrong. How does she reconcile the two? I would certainly like to have clarification from the member in the chair on that issue. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 In that brief interlude I have now had an opportunity to read the amendment proposed by the member in the chair. I understand it is the member’s first opportunity to sit in the Committee chair so I cannot let this moment pass without asking a question as my colleague the Hon Ken Shirley did and at least give the member an opportunity to stand and answer a question. If she cannot answer the one that Mr Shirley posed about the slight philosophical inconsistencies between this legislation and other Government actions perhaps she can answer this question. Presumably the proposed amendment in the member’s name is to address what looks to me like a drafting difficulty in the sense that although clause 8(1)(b) has been struck out in the report back on the bill a reference to “subsection 1(b)”—which would of course no longer exist—is still contained in clause 8(2)? I wonder whether the member would take the opportunity to— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Explain the point. 
SIMON POWER 
: That is what I thought Mr Shirley. I just wonder whether the member would take the opportunity while she is in the chair of the Committee to explain whether I have got that right or wrong and the implications if we left it in there and did not vote for her amendment. Through you Mr Chairman I now invite the member in the chair to address that issue. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I am delighted by the member’s request in offering me this opportunity to give an explanation. However I am defeated because the honourable member has indeed answered the question himself. I can confirm that he is correct in his assumption as to why this amendment has been put. It is due to a drafting error because of the striking out by unanimous decision of clause 8(1)(b) as it was. So this amendment refers to clause 8(2). It precisely states: “To omit the words ‘together with the amount of distributions made under subsection (1)(b)’—lines 14 and 15 on page 4 of the bill.” 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Are you going to answer my question? 
Simon Power 
: Answer Ken Shirley’s question about the inconsistency of the philosophy behind this bill. 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: It is my understanding that the Government does not perceive that there is an inconsistency in its particular policy with something that is a local bill and is a local desire. I think the Government agrees that ideally these kinds of bills would be decided at a local level and given that the new Local Government Act would provide for less of this kind of legislation going before the Local Government and Environment Committee for example. So in answer to Mr Shirley’s question I think the difference is something that he obviously perceives to be there. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I cannot let it rest there because I thought the member had a grasp of the bill she has brought to the House but it would appear not. I just draw your attention again to the clause 5 “Objects of Foundation” which states that the objects of the foundation are “(a) to promote public afforestation by—(i) the production and care of timber for economic purposes:”. It also provides for the use of both native and introduced exotic species in that context. The point is this: people on the West Coast wanted to continue the sustainable management of their forests. They put a proposal to this Labour-led Government by which they were going to take out by helicopter only one tree per hectare on a 15-year rotation. That is considerably less than the wind blows down yet this Labour-led Government closed that proposal down completely and overrode local wishes. 
Here as the member in the Chair observes it is the local wish and the local wish should prevail. I think that is what I heard her say and I agree with it but could she explain the inconsistency of that with what she is supporting in this bill. She has brought to the House a local bill that is at variance with this Labour-led Government’s rhetoric of not letting people harvest even the timber that the wind blows over if it were an indigenous species. West Coast people talked of one tree harvested per hectare by helicopter extraction on a 15-year rotation and this Government closed that down. It overrode local wishes and reneged on the West Coast Accord signed by the Hon Phil Goff when he was the Minister for the Environment in the Labour Government of the 1980s which promised sustainable management of indigenous forests on a commercial basis in perpetuity. 
The Labour Government reneged on that promise; it would not allow it so my question is why is it being allowed in this local bill brought to the House by the member in the chair when it is apparently at variance with the rhetoric of what this Labour-led Government has done? 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I think the member might better direct his questions to the Minister who deals with those particular matters. However I have to say that the foundation being established will not be dealing with native forests which is what the West Coast Accord was about. It does not talk about the harvesting of native forest as was the situation with the West Coast Accord so in my view there is an inconsistency there with the member’s argument. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I intended to reserve my comments for the third reading but the Hon Ken Shirley has alerted me to the issue I was going to raise then. I can make a very clear distinction for the member in the Chair between the issue raised by the Hon Ken Shirley and the issue I wish to raise. That distinction was added to and I was so pleased—almost thrilled—to hear the member say that this was a local issue. 
This House will shortly be looking at the South Island Landless Maoris Act lands and those lands are a like situation. The situation in clause 6 of this bill—“In order for the foundation to further its objects”—is exactly as the Hon Ken Shirley has said. The member has helped us by saying that this is a local issue. The distinction though is that these are privately-owned forests—unlike the issue that the Hon Ken Shirley has raised. That involves State forests which are up to all but 15 percent of the West Coast. The Minister’s encouragement to me is really tremendous. Now I have an inkling that the Government must have waited for the bill—thinking about the South Island Landless Maoris Act land as well—and put together the like situation of privately owned forest incapable of being developed by the owners as they wished which was the intention at the time of the language of the South Island Landless Maoris Act. 
I am encouraged by the bill. I am very pleased to hear the member in the chair say that she supports local objectives. Clause 6(1)(a) states that the foundation “has full capacity to carry out or undertake any related business or related activity”—namely in this case providing for the supply of timber for public wants assisting the council to establish forests and providing for native and commercial forests. For those reasons alone New Zealand First gives this bill its enthusiastic support. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Georgina Beyer to clause 8(2) be agreed to: 
to omit the words “together with the amount of distributions made under subsection (1)(b)”. 
Amendment agreed to and clauses 1 to 28 as amended and the schedules agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill be now read a third time 
. In seeking the third reading I acknowledge the wide-ranging debate and discussion that have occurred on the bill. More seriously I thank first of all the Masterton District Council for bringing the bill forward and taking the initiative to have the Montfort Trimble Foundation established so that it may do what it desires to do. In the second reading debate I complimented the Local Government and Environment Committee on its deliberations. Notwithstanding that the committee had to seek an extension of time which I was happy to acquiesce to at one stage there was a slight delay towards the end as was mentioned in a previous debate. However we are at the third reading and I am most grateful as I am sure the people of the Masterton district are—most certainly the mayor and councillors of the Masterton District Council are—to members of this Parliament who have supported almost unanimously I would say the passage of the bill. It shows a great faith in the Masterton district and the purposes of the bill. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I thank the member for cooperating in the chair during the Committee stage in answering I think three different questions during that short period. It is a shame frankly that other members when they are in charge of bills are not prepared to answer questions in such a forthright and open way. Members on this side of the House commented to each other during the Committee stage that it would be nice if the member were given a ministerial warrant because then we would have a member in the chair who would answer questions from time to time. That would be very helpful. 
The National Party has been happy to oblige the member in seeing this bill progress through the House at a reasonably rapid rate this evening. I thank the member for explaining to the Committee the detail of the amendment proposed and placed on the Table at the last minute. Members on this side of the Chamber did not object to that amendment to clause 8(2). As the member in charge of the bill said it was simply a drafting issue. I am pleased that members of the National Party have been able to support what essentially is an administrative technical bill in the sense that it now enables the trustees to distribute collect and operate outside the area that once was the Masterton County Council and which now incorporates a wider area as the Masterton District Council. 
I conclude by saying that it is a pity we are not able to progress sensible legislation in this way more often with members sitting in the Committee chair who are as cooperative as this particular member was in engaging in a legitimate way with members who had questions about the content of this bill during that process. The National Party will delay this matter no longer. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First along with my local colleague from the Wairarapa Edwin Perry we support the further movement of the Montford Trimble Foundation. The foundation trustees now have the constituted trust to move into the modern world. The nature of the board membership the nature of their remuneration the nature of their tax status—all these matters—can now be handled. It is unfortunate that the trustees have had to wait as has already been mentioned by the Hon Ken Shirley for some weeks because of a certain Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. In the mind of the Government that took priority over this important local issue. But putting that aside on behalf of New Zealand First I wish the trustees well in their endeavours and may the forest and afforestation in the Wairarapa confines right across to Pahiatua be able to be sustained in the future for the enjoyment of all. 
Bill read a third time. 
Status of Redundancy Payments Bill 
Second Reading 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill be now read a second time 
. I thank the select committee for the work it did on the bill. It was unusual—not the process that was adopted the process was quite normal—but as the bill went to the Commerce Committee and as no member felt there was any particular issue regarding interest involved in the matter I chaired the select committee as well. So I chaired my own bill and it was a most extraordinary situation that occurred in that respect. I thank members for their indulgence. The committee did include most parties within Parliament. For instance it included the Greens as Sue Bradford was on the committee for the hearing of evidence. 
The bill does a number of things and I thought I would run very quickly through the intention within the bill and the amendments that were made as a result of the submissions process. First of all the submissions that we did hear by and large supported the move towards doing something in this area. Indeed the Government’s work in this area was endorsed by most submitters. This bill amends the preferential claim provisions for personal and corporate insolvency legislation to introduce personal preferences for employees’ redundancy entitlements. This arose essentially as a result of the collapse of the Weddel freezing works in the Hawke’s Bay. Even today I have people coming into my electorate office who tell quite horrifying stories of what happened to them and their families at the time that the Weddel freezing works collapsed and of the loss of entitlements to their families—not just their rights to work but to agreed compensation in the event of such things happening. What this particular bill does is remove the cap of $6000 on preferential claims and raise that. Secondly it will remove the provisions of the Insolvency Amendment Act and section 104(1)(e)(ii) of the Insolvency Act 1967. As a result of that the cap will be raised to $15000 which will provide a more realistic level of expectation for those employees who find themselves in a position whereby they are out of work other than through a fault of their own as a result of the collapse of a company. Their entitlements will be protected up to that maximum but more important there will be a 3-yearly review of the figure. 
One of the problems that have occurred as a result of the operation of the insolvency laws and the preferential credit status that applied to employees was that the amounts they could have expected to pick up by way of loss of wages and redundancy compensation essentially devalued over time and were never revisited. The idea of the 3-year review provision is to allow an opportunity for those particular amounts to be raised by consumer price index increases for example. 
An issue that the select committee considered at some length was whether we should also include payment in lieu of notice. In the end the committee came down opposed to that provision. It did so because it was felt that it would be quite easy to rort that provision. Rather than providing for genuine redundancy compensation provisions it could well be used in the situation of almost an insider-trading situation frankly whereby an employee could sign up for “in lieu of notice” provisions knowing that the company was in some difficulty. By and large that would not act to protect employees but to if one likes enrich those who were probably top of the feeding chain in that respect. It was felt that it was a little difficult and a little dangerous to move in that respect. 
I know that Sue Bradford was keen to see that provision in the bill. We were unable to accommodate what I thought were some very well-founded concerns that she had about payments in lieu of notice being considered part of wages and conditions but the possible rorting of that provision made it an impossibility in this particular situation. 
Further work is being done by the Government in the whole insolvency area and in terms of the rights of employees in such situations. This legislation will act to give employees a holding pattern at this time while that work is completed. 
As far as the work of the select committee was concerned I was pleased that the amendments that were carried were carried unanimously. The select committee did see sense in making this change at this time. Nobody on the committee likes the situation that employees find themselves in when there are job losses as a result of companies falling over. It is the history of this particular Government that very few companies are falling over at all any more. But we cannot know what the future holds. One of the things that my economics has taught me this year is that what goes up has to come down. We also know as well that industries will come and industries will go over time and there will be change. That is the dynamism of economic growth. 
In those circumstances as resources are being moved between one industry and another there will inevitably be some displacement and loss along the way and in those situations the workers should not unduly miss out. This bill is an attempt to address those particular matters. 
It is a pity that this bill which started off in the name of Rick Barker was unable to be progressed any earlier than this but those are the vagaries of the members bill system whereby one takes one’s number and takes one’s chance. I was pleased to pick up the cudgels on behalf of Mr Barker because indeed in my own electorate several of my constituents have faced similar situations when the freezing works industry was going through periods of fairly great restructuring. 
This is a good bill. I thank the select committee for the work it has put into it. I thank all of those who came to the select committee with submissions. The amendments that have been made make it a stronger piece of legislation and I commend it to the House. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I am glad that the member who has just resumed his seat acknowledged the fact that the bill was introduced by Mr Barker. I am sure that if Mr Barker had not been promoted into Cabinet the bill would still be in his name. But that is how it works: some go in and some do not and some are left behind to pick up members’ bills. 
This is not a good bill. It is a bill that National strongly opposes. It is a ticking bomb for small business in New Zealand. Shortly after I came to this Parliament in the early 1990s a large manufacturing firm in Porirua went into receivership. The staff of that firm found that their wages were unable to be paid to them because the unsecured creditor with first call on the money held by the receiver after he or she had paid his or her own liquidation fee was the Inland Revenue Department. The Inland Revenue Department in those days got its share of the money before workers got their share of the money. That situation was changed in the early 1990s I think quite fairly so that people working for a firm that went broke got their wages and salaries before the taxman got his cut. Liquidator fees became the top priority and wages salaries and holiday pay due to workers became the next priority. They were followed by—and this is important—payment to people who were suppliers to the business and were owed money; the suppliers of goods and services ranked No. 3 and tax ranked No. 4 in the list of priorities that a liquidator dealt with. 
This bill takes redundancy payments—something negotiated into an agreement—and puts them up to No. 2 along with wages salaries and holiday pay in order of priority for a liquidator to pay when a business goes under. What is the effect of that? The effect is twofold. Firstly the incentives now are very strong on trade unions to negotiate very generous redundancy provisions because if a business goes belly up staff get them as part of the whole liquidator payout and they get them at the same time and at the same ratio as and with equality to wages salary and holiday pay. So employers will now face a much stronger demand for good redundancy agreements. They know that this issue is not just about workers being made redundant if a business is in difficulty; they know that for every business that goes belly up every business that ends up in liquidation redundancy now becomes a call on the liquidator and it is a call over and above that of the suppliers of goods and services. 
Here is where the rubber hits the road with this bill. Who are the losers? The parties that are voting for this bill in the House are voting for small-business people to lose. The independent contractor the person supplying goods and services—an electrician for example—the people who go into the business to do work are the ones who will lose. They did not mind waiting behind salaries and wages. I have never had one business person come to me and say: “I was working for a business. I was supplying goods and services. It went broke I’ve lost money and it’s outrageous that the staff were paid.” I have never had that. But now they will be saying that not only were the staff paid but all the staff got their redundancy as well and that has threatened their businesses. Their small businesses will go under because as suppliers they have been caught and all the staff will get a maximum of $15000 redundancy paid to them before the suppliers get one dollar for the goods and services that they fronted up with. A supplier of materials to a business who will have bought the materials and on-sold them but not have been paid for them will lose. That person cannot go back to his or her supplier and say: “I’m sorry. I was supplying this material to a shirt manufacturer. It has gone belly up. Don’t worry—all their staff got a good redundancy. But I can’t pay you.” The supplier of the materials still has to pay his or her supplier down the chain. 
This bill is appalling legislation in that the real loser will be small business. I look forward to the second week of February I think it is when the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Small Business are launching in Parliament a small-business offensive. Fifteen Ministers will be involved. They are going to travel around the country to talk to small businesses and tell them how much they love them and how well they are working with them. I look forward to their saying to those small businesses: “By the way if you’ve supplied goods and services to someone who’s gone into liquidation as a creditor you now rate lower than redundancy payments for the staff.” 
I have to say I have never heard a request from anyone that redundancy payments be included above payment of suppliers of goods and services. I cannot understand how the Minister of Finance thinks it makes sense to put at risk a whole range of small businesses—which will go to the wall once a large business goes into liquidation—because of this provision. I cannot understand that at all and I hope the Minister will take a call and explain why someone’s redundancy payment—not someone’s wages or salary; we understand that having first call—is so important that it has to rank ahead of payments to people who have supplied goods and services who will rank behind them. 
National will be opposing this legislation. We will be seeking to amend it during the Committee stage and I ask other political parties to have a really close look at it. The bill actually had very few submissions. It was not taken seriously by the community. It was a members’ bill in the name of Rick Barker; we cannot blame people for not taking it seriously. I do not think even the person who introduced it thought for one moment that it would go through. 
 My appeal to members of the Government and the Greens who are going to ram this bill through is to ask them to wait for the insolvency law review to come to Parliament and to do this measure as part of that package when people can take it seriously. I cannot see what the Greens will gain from being able to go to small businesses around the country and say: “Sorry mate; if you’re a supplier you’re out of luck.” Many suppliers will change business practice and I accept that; many will now require cash on delivery. If one thinks a business is a bit dodgy that is what one will do; the business will not get the goods unless it pays cash—and a Green member nods enthusiastically. That is fine; it will force some businesses out of business earlier. The businessman who just needs a week or two of credit will be gone under this bill. 
So who wins out of it? It is just about impossible to see who can win out of it. It does nothing for economic growth. It does nothing to encourage the entrepreneurs and the risk takers in society. But it does everything to tell the trade union movement to get out there and negotiate good strong redundancy packages. That is really what this bill is aimed at; it is another payback to the trade union movement—more of which we will see tomorrow with the amendments to the Employment Relations Act; more business-unfriendly legislation is about to come down the tubes tomorrow from Margaret Wilson. National totally opposes this bill. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I would like to say how delighted I am that Mark Peck’s Status of Redundancy Payments Bill is finally back in the House for its second reading and on its way to becoming law in the not too distant future. I sat in on the Commerce Committee for the purposes of its consideration of this particular legislation and during that process I listened with interest to submitters from both sides of the equation—employers and workers. I think the bill as amended and back before the House tonight adopts a very fair approach and has taken everyone’s interests into account despite what the previous speaker was saying. 
This legislation recognises that there is justice in removing the arbitrary $6000 limit on wages and other payments owed to workers in an insolvency situation and that redundancy compensation as negotiated between staff and employers is particularly important at a time when workers are actually being made redundant. There is no use people going through the difficult process of negotiating fair and reasonable redundancy clauses into employment contracts if when the chips are down such contracts are rendered completely meaningless. There is no question that everyone suffers when a company or other employing body goes bust but given that it is likely that employees’ entire income derives from that organisation they are the most vulnerable group involved and it is imperative that they be enabled to retrieve as much of what is rightfully theirs as is reasonably possible. 
As the law stands at the moment employee redundancy entitlements do not receive preferential status when a company becomes insolvent. This means that laid-off staff have to queue up with all other unsecured creditors for whatever percentage of moneys owing is paid out after the Inland Revenue Department is satisfied. We welcome this amending legislation which when passed will mean that employees’ redundancy pay will be given priority status over other unsecured claims and over some preferential claims in an insolvency situation. 
This bill also does a good job in getting rid of the current limit of $6000 on preferential claims in the case of insolvency and raising it to $15000. The $6000 cap had not been increased since 1988 and I congratulate the Government on not only supporting this rise but also being willing to amend the bill so that there will now be a review of the level of the cap every 3 years in accordance with increases in average weekly earnings. 
One issue I was concerned about during the select committee process was the situation of pay in lieu of notice. Union submitters sought amendments so that workers’ rights to pay in lieu of notice should be recognised as a liquidator’s expense in order that payments could be made immediately. After all such payments are usually treated in law as being the same as wages or salary during the notice period. However I was fairly convinced by arguments made during the committee process that in fact it would not be particularly fair on other creditors to extend priority conditions to pay in lieu of notice where that pay was in relation to a time period past the point of the commencement of liquidation or bankruptcy. Pay is a priority debt if accrued in the 4 months prior to the beginning of the insolvency process but not if it has accrued after that point. 
As I said earlier I think members of the committee have taken a very fair approach to this legislation and what we have is a compromise that should both clarify and practically assist all those involved in insolvencies and liquidations. No one wants to think about these things until they happen but unfortunately they do happen. It behoves us as responsible lawmakers to pay attention to the needs of those most affected at such times. I congratulate Mark Peck on navigating his member’s bill with such success through the tides of political fortune in this place and I look forward to it becoming law in the near future. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to oppose this bill. When this sort of legislation comes through it absolutely amazes me. It shows us that very few politicians have actually been small-business people. I see that Mark Peck the supporter of this bill has spent all of his life on a salary. Many people talk about the worker but they seem to forget that the small-business people in this nation are workers and they probably work longer and harder and for less than many others do. 
 We have had a good look at the select committee report on the bill and see little to dissuade us from the view that giving redundancy payments preferential status could mean that the hardship of insolvency is simply transferred from one group of workers to another group of workers as other creditors’ livelihood may also be at stake. The argument contained in the select committee report that the financial dependence of employees on their employers is greater than that of other creditors simply ignores this fact. Is it any coincidence that that is a carbon copy of the Council of Trade Unions’ own press statement on this bill? It states: “The effect of the bill will be to transfer a greater proportion of the risk of company collapses onto employees in downstream industries.” 
I find it interesting that the committee rejected the idea of extending the priority for wages and salaries beyond the point of commencement of liquidation or bankruptcy for the reason that this would have a negative effect on other unsecured creditors and would discourage financing and investment yet the committee was happy to increase the cap of employee priority from $6000 to $15000 without any mention whatsoever of what implications that might have on the ability of other creditors to get their money back or the willingness of those people to provide credit to business in the first place. I note again that this increase to $15000 was also at the suggestion of the Council of Trade Unions. 
If this bill makes banks and other providers of business credit more reluctant to lend money it will drive up the cost of available credit. Banks will demand more information on potential redundancy payments which adds to compliance costs. The hardest-hit creditors will be small firms with few assets such as retailers and those that have a small number of significant debtors such as firms reliant on freezing works for their business. 
The bill may give companies an incentive to reduce their exposure to redundancy payments in the first place through greater investment in capital rather than labour. Having said that I am happy to see that the committee decided to exclude company directors from the employee priority in light of the possibility that such people who are in the best position to know beforehand whether the company is going down the gurgler could use this law to award themselves large redundancy payments. As I noted in my first reading speech the public are sickened when they see executives who oversaw a company’s poor performance being rewarded with large golden handshakes while workers are laid off. Thankfully the amendment made to the bill by the committee should ensure that directors cannot elevate their claim from last place to second place in a carve-up of assets which would allow them to clean out their company to the detriment of creditors. 
But the fundamental problem with this bill remains. By further shutting out the possibility that unsecured creditors will get their money the bill could create a domino effect as those businesses then fail to recoup their losses themselves and collapse into insolvency where a lot of their business is tied up with one or two debtors. The bill would adversely affect unsecured creditors much more than banks as there are already lots of preferences in front of them eroding their claims. 
The additional preferential claim that the bill creates may also be the difference between a receiver being able to trade a company out of trouble thereby protecting the job of workers and the business being wound up as happened with the South Island retailers Smiths City which collapsed in the early 1990s. That is an example of a company that would not have survived under the proposed law. If workers would receive large redundancy payments there would be little incentive for them to stay with the firm while it attempted to trade its way out of receivership. It is just shocking for the workers if we have a law that can create such a burden of redundancy payments that they make getting a firm back on track almost impossible whereas otherwise somebody might well be able to go into that firm see its potential put different expertise into it and resurrect it. 
 In the case of  
Aoraki Corporation 
 v  
McGavin 
 when redundancy payments were referred to they were described as compensation for the loss of the benefit of continued employment. Redundancy is not payment for work done; it is compensation to remove some immediate financial worry associated with job loss. In some cases workers receive a windfall if they quickly find other jobs after being made redundant. What will happen to the poor old creditor who has already done his or her work and has already had to pay his or her workers? The employees will get their big redundancy payouts and may go straight into a job the next day but this legislation does not worry about the poor fellow who has done all his work—he gets nothing at all. 
Given the nature of a company collapse it is inevitable that some creditors will miss out. Sometimes the whole issue can be academic if there are not enough funds to pay creditors beyond the debenture holder as in the case of the collapse of Hartner Construction. Qantas New Zealand had enough to pay for workers’ wages and holiday pay but there was nothing left for its consortium of investors. So the pay to which workers are normally entitled is at least given priority under the current law. 
We have to ask ourselves whether compensation that is designed to remove some immediate financial worry associated with the loss of a job should take precedence over payment for work already done by contractors and suppliers who as we know all too well also have staff and families of their own to look after. United Future says that no it should not. Therefore we will not be supporting this bill. We strongly believe that work already done and due for payment must be ranked ahead of redundancy payments. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear an interjection from a member of the Green Party commenting on our family ability. I say to that member that most small-business people are family people. They put their heart and soul into their businesses. They do not need this sort of legislation to challenge them on payment for work they have already done just because some parties believe that if enough money is thrown at anything all the problems go away. We believe that work done deserves to be paid for before anything else such as this sort of legislation promotes. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I thank the House for the opportunity to take a call on the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill. At the outset I have to say that I was not on the Commerce Committee which considered this legislation but if I had been I would have strongly opposed it. This legislation is absolute garbage. I really do not know who thinks up this stuff. It is the worst type of socialist claptrap I have encountered since I have been in this House. Who thought of it? Who created it? Is it that member’s bill? 
Rod Donald 
: No. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I would not own it either. Who owns this bill? It is the most anti-business legislation that I have seen for ages. All that it will do is to add to the cost of compliance which is already killing this country’s businesses. 
I will give an example of why I am saying that. I had the opportunity to speak to some executives from a company called Weyerhaeuser the other day. For the edification of the members on the Government side of the House that company turns over US$22 billion a year. Its executives came to New Zealand to look at a small investment the company has in Nelson. In conversation with its executives they said to me they had brought a chequebook and were going to do something about extending the company’s investment here. They found that the compliance regime in this country was the biggest turn-off to business anywhere in the world. They said that we grew great trees and had a great country but our compliance regime and the Resource Management Act in particular was something that Weyerhaeuser just could not afford. The tragedy is that the executives of that company left this country without opening its chequebook. 
All the risk in this legislation is piled on the employer. Already employers work harder than most people. They risk everything in most cases. They mortgage their homes. This is the worst kind of double whammy imaginable. How hard does the Government want to make it and how much is enough? With its appetite for tax and for knocking hardworking Kiwis how much will be enough? 
 That is the question those members should be asking themselves. I bet the members across on the Government side of the House cannot answer that. I believe there is a misconception in this country that all business is large—that all business can afford this measure. The reality is that businesses employing 10 employees or fewer make up 90 percent of the incorporated businesses in this country. 
Marc Alexander 
: They can’t afford it. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: No they cannot afford it. Business people risk everything in order to get into business and then suddenly they get hit with this legislation. 
Whatever happened to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work? Who says the relationship has to continue past that point? That is not fair and is not reasonable. Who risked the capital in the first instance? Who risked their life savings? Surely businesses have paid enough before going belly up without the Government coming along then and saying there is a double whammy and it wants a bit more from them. The employee-employer relationship is essentially about work not about non-work. [ 
Interruption 
] A couple of members on the Government side of the House are calling out. They have never been in business I am sure; otherwise they would not make such stupid comments. How much blood does the Government want? How much is enough? Unless we address this issue we will just drive more and more businesses and business people out of business and out of this country. They will become so risk-averse that they will not have the appetite to get involved in business because it will not be worth it. 
Let me give members another example. When I worked in this country in the early 1990s I got involved with a company called Serco. In fact there were four brave guys who saw an opportunity. They looked at a company that I think was called Works and Development Services Corporation said they thought they could organise a management buy-out there and asked whether I could assist them. I said yes we should have a look at it. They paid about $5 million for the assets but there was a contingent liability on the books for redundancy of $35 million. Members should think that through. If legislation such as this had been invoked then that buy-out would not have happened. Those four guys—they were bright guys and also brave—took a risk. They saw an opportunity and were prepared to mortgage their homes which they did. They were able to talk a bank into backing them on the basis that it saw the same opportunity that they saw. If they had seen under legislation a contingent liability of $35 million to be paid out regardless of the circumstances they would not have taken that risk. That company is a success; it is now an international business. It employed something like 1100 people in this country in my day and now it is one of the success stories not only of New Zealand but also of Australasia. But with the short-sighted nonsense that this Government is driving that would never never have happened. That is the type of success story that the National Party is prepared to help to drive and will drive once we get the opportunity. 
This legislation is the worst kind of nonsense. It shows the worst kind of business ignorance I have encountered for a long time—all care and no responsibility. Is it not easy to spend someone else’s money? That is a concept that the Government members will understand because that is all they have done all their lives. They have been ticket clippers and nothing else. No one has answered this question yet: who thought this bill up? Who in the House is prepared to put up a hand and say this bill is his or her piece of legislation? Can anyone name that person? I am listening but the House has gone awfully quiet. Whose legislation is this? Has that person ever been in business? 
Marc Alexander 
: It belongs to the socialists. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It is a combined effort is it? I did not appreciate that. I did not realise it was a combined effort. Have those people over there on the Government benches ever risked anything let alone risked everything? Mr Perry knows the answer to that. I ask him whether those members have risked anything? 
Edwin Perry 
: No. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: They do not know what it is like to be in business. It is very easy to spend someone else’s money. This bill represents the worst type of tall-poppy syndrome I have ever seen. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.