Volume 667 Week 56 - Wednesday 13 October 2010 
Volume 667 Week 56 - Wednesday 13 October 2010 
[Volume:667;Page:14407] 
Wednesday 13 October 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Burma—Human Rights 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate relating to freedom of expression and assembly in Burma. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I move  
That the House call on the Burmese authorities to guarantee the three freedoms of expression association and peaceful assembly and call for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners arrested for their peaceful opposition to the regime. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
South Canterbury Finance—Recapitalisation Offer 
1. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What was the net present value at Crown cost of capital of any offer presented to the Crown in respect of the recapitalisation of South Canterbury Finance either on or following 31 August 2010? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I first congratulate the member on getting to question No. 1 so soon. I do not intend to comment on commercial details of bids or transactions that may be still under negotiation. I refer the member to my ministerial statement of 8 September 2010 which addressed this issue. I repeat that no option was available that did not involve considerable cost and risk to the Crown. Treasury was in close contact with all the parties involved at the time and no option put to us was recommended by Treasury. We accepted Treasury’s advice. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has essentially declined to answer the substantive question on I believe public policy grounds but I seek to clarify through you Mr Speaker whether he is invoking the public policy ground for not releasing any further information about the net present value of those offers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I take it that the Minister is declining to provide the specific information asked for because he believes it is not in the public interest to do so. I think he has made that fairly clear. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Using the Crown cost of capital what was the net present value of the offer presented to the receiver on 31 August 2010 of which the receiver said in a memorandum to staff on 3 September: “After careful consideration and consultation with the appropriate parties including both the trustee and the Treasury this offer was not accepted.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I could not be exactly sure which offer the member is talking about. There has been quite a bit of speculation in the public arena about offers that may or may not have been made. Some of the speculation I have seen is clearly wrong and some of it may just be from bidders who felt that Treasury or the receiver should have accepted their bid but did not. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table the memorandum to all staff from the receivers Kerryn Downey and William Black of McGrathNicol dated 3 September 2010 which notes consultation with Treasury and that the offer made in respect of South Canterbury Finance was not accepted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Simon Power 
: He should do it at the end. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member has sought leave to table it. I take it that there is no objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As the receivers’ memorandum makes it clear that the offer presented on that date 31 August was not accepted I submit to you that there can be no commercial confidentiality ground around that offer that would prevent the Minister from answering the primary question and the subsequent supplementary question. 
Hon Simon Power 
: It’s a debatable point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister should not be interjecting. The member raises an interesting issue. The dilemma for the Speaker is that the Speaker cannot judge whether divulging information is or is not in the public interest. On this occasion the Minister has made it pretty clear that in his view to say any more about these particular matters is not in the public interest. I have to take the Minister’s judgment on that. The member can question the Minister about that through further supplementary questions but I cannot tell a Minister that he or she is wrong if the Minister believes that it is not in the public interest to divulge something. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Further to the point of order Mr Speaker I totally respect your judgment on that matter but I draw your attention to the fact that the Minister used a specific rationale for declining to answer the primary question in the public interest and that was commercial confidentiality around an ongoing matter. It is clear from the document that has been tabled that it is not an ongoing matter at least in respect of the offer of 31 August because that offer has been rejected already by the receivers. I guess it stands for the Minister then either to specify a new public policy ground or to answer the primary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to stress that the public interest is a matter for the Minister to judge not for the Speaker. Given the answer the Minister has given I believe that the member can challenge the Minister with further supplementary questions on why he has that view. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What advice did he receive from Treasury in respect of the offer for recapitalisation of South Canterbury Finance dated 31 August and what response did he or his colleagues make to that advice? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I have said I do not intend to speculate on any particular offer. The member is referring to one dated 31 August. There was any amount of discussion going on around that time that some people may have thought consisted of making offers and some did not think were offers. The fact is that the Government now has the obligation to recover the value of those assets and it is certainly our intention to preserve the commercial processes around that. It simply will not work if anyone who makes some kind of offer to the Crown finds that that offer is discussed in detail in Parliament when it was made in the context of commercial confidentiality. It may be that the offer he is referring to came from people who are bidding again as we speak because the Government is open to offers all the time for the assets of South Canterbury Finance. It is not a matter of trying to be evasive; it is just a matter of trying to preserve a process that is designed to get maximum value for the taxpayer. We do not want to scare away bidders as a result of the fact that we are willing to discuss their offers at any time in the public arena. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In noting that the Minister has declined to answer the substantive question which asked what advice he had received and what his response was I note that that advice pertained to a past offer that has already been rejected. Further it is my understanding that the parties involved are not currently in negotiation for the assets of that company as the Minister may have alluded to. I cannot see—and perhaps you may clarify this with the Minister—what the public interest ground is upon which he is refusing to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On these matters the Speaker has to be guided by the Minister. The issue of public interest is a matter for the Minister. As Speaker I cannot judge that. I should not judge that and I must not try to. Where it is a matter of public interest not to divulge certain information and where the Minister is alleging that is the case those are important matters. I must not interfere in that. I think that is a very important fundamental issue especially where it has commercial implications. As the Minister has pointed out even though the member might be referring to a past offer it does not mean to say the party involved may not be still involved in negotiations. So I have to be guided by the Minister on an issue like that. 
Chris Tremain 
: What steps is the Government taking to ensure that the workings of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme are fully transparent? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I suppose the deposit guarantee scheme was the reason why the Crown had—I shall allow the question even though it is a fair stretch from the primary question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Clearly some parts of the process will occur without total transparency. For instance if bidders are making offers and they are turned down or if they want to change those bids or come back again later in the process the Crown wants to make sure that opportunity is available. However it is appropriate that given the amount of public funds spent on this scheme it is independently scrutinised. That is why yesterday I welcomed the news that the Auditor-General will complete a performance audit of the deposit guarantee scheme. In addition this week Treasury will make an initial release of over 100 documents relating to the scheme including documents relating to South Canterbury Finance’s participation in it. That will demonstrate that the Government and officials have worked towards our objectives of providing depositors with certainty and minimising the costs to taxpayers and disruption to the economy. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What was the net present value at Crown cost of capital of the revised offer presented to the receivers on 13 September 2010 by Kensington Swan on behalf of Permanent Investments Ltd and acknowledged in a letter from the receiver dated 14 September; and can the Minister confirm that the potential participants in that recapitalisation included the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and Ngai Tahu? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is not my role to confirm or otherwise any of the details of that matter. That would be up to those organisations. I stress to the member that it is vital the Government recovers as much as it can of the $1.6 billion that it is in the process of paying out. We intend to conduct a process whereby Treasury is overseeing and working alongside the receivers to ensure we get the maximum value for those assets. Regular parliamentary discussion and speculation about who made which bids is the role of the Opposition but it is not a game that the Government will get into because it will destroy value and prevent us from recouping as much of that $1.6 billion as we can. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister confirm that Ministers did provide guidance or advice to officials on those offers given that he was quoted in the  
Dominion Post 
 on 1 September saying that he would be “a close adviser” to the receivers and that the Prime Minister was quoted in the  
Dominion Post 
 on 1 September saying that the Government had assumed sole rights in respect of South Canterbury Finance because “without that we would be in the position of being the 800-pound gorilla who would have to take marching orders from a mouse.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has been running a process where it takes advice from Treasury. Prior to the receivers being in place that advice from Treasury would have been based on information coming from the company itself and after the receivers were in place on information that came from the receivers. I might say though that the business of whether there were offers around at that time has been subject to a lot of speculation. I will repeat to the member that some of that speculation from what I have seen is simply wrong. Otherwise the Government does not intend to get into discussing the details of offers and in many cases we would not have been fully aware of all the dimensions of those offers. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table a printout of a  
Dominion Post 
 article dated 1 September that verified the quotations that I have just used. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are not going to seek leave to table recent press releases. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have got ourselves into an interesting situation. I submit to you that the Minister has quoted public interest grounds for refusing to provide any substantive answers whatever to the Opposition’s questions on this matter. Mr Speaker I further submit that that is inappropriate because the evidence suggests that the Government has deliberately—as verified by those quotations—left hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. The member will resume his seat. The member is now starting to argue the substance of the matter. The reason why I am not putting leave to the House to table a clipping from a newspaper is that the member has already referred to the quotes in his question. Anyone can look them up in the newspaper; we are not going to waste the time of the House by tabling clippings from recent newspaper articles. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: If Ministers had decided to accept another outcome from the receivership than that presented in the office on 31 August or 13 September can the Minister confirm whether this alternative outcome will have a greater or lesser net present value than the $1.3 billion contained in the offer of 31 August? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is taking the steps that it believes are required to maximise the value of the sale of the assets. With South Canterbury Finance having gone into receivership the Government said at the time it was not interested in a fire sale and we do not believe that a considered and value-creating process should be knocked over by an aggrieved bidder. If the member has an aggrieved bidder who thinks that he or she missed out well that is interesting. I am sure that he will get more of them because in the end there will be people who try to buy these assets cheaply from the Government where the Government does not agree to sell the assets to them. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: If there were considerations other than protecting taxpayer value—which the Prime Minister set out as the Government’s primary objective—that informed this Minister’s decision not to accept either of the offers of 31 August and 13 September what were those considerations and why did they outweigh the Government’s goal of protecting taxpayer funds when it would appear from documents that up to half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money has been wasted by this secretive and mismanaged bail-out? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: All I would say to that member is that I am sure he will find as his experience increases that aggrieved bidders will try to use political means— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given that it is the Minister who appears to have wasted half a billion dollars on this matter— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: —how about he answers the question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When I get to my feet the member will resume his seat immediately if he wishes to stay in the House. The member asked a question in which he made an assertion towards the end of it about the amount of money he claimed the Government had wasted. The Minister faced with a question like that will have a fair bit of licence in answering it. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member becomes more experienced in these matters I think he will realise that aggrieved bidders—if that is what he has—are not necessarily the most reliable sources of information or judgment on whether they should have got the assets. I am sure that having raised the matter in this way he will attract further aggrieved bidders who do not meet our objectives. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will he rule out the sale of South Canterbury Finance’s land assets to overseas buyers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well I cannot rule that out simply because that would be a show of bad faith given that we have an Overseas Investment Act in place. The member will be familiar with the changes that the Government has announced to that Act which will be in place by 1 December and anyone who seeks to buy those land assets would have to follow that process. For the House’s information South Canterbury Finance is a one-third shareholder in the land assets and it would be possible for the holders of the other share in those assets to perhaps buy South Canterbury’s. But that is yet to be seen. 
Economy—Reports 
2. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports has he received on the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received reports showing that the economy is in better shape than it was 2 years ago. The economy has grown for five consecutive quarters following an extended recession that began in early 2008 well before the global financial crisis. The 1.7 percent economic growth in the last 9 months exceeds the 1 percent growth posted over the entire 4 years up to the beginning of 2010. I have also seen reports that households and businesses are moving away from excessive spending and borrowing which were features of our lopsided economy in the past decade. Instead they are paying down debt and being careful with their spending. This change is welcome but it is happening faster than we expected. 
John Hayes 
: What roles is the Government’s tax package playing in helping to rebalance the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The economy needs to rebalance from an excessive reliance on Government spending on borrowing and housing towards exports and investment and savings. That is what the tax package is designed to do to push in the direction that people are already going. The increase in GST will discourage excessive consumption the increase in the effective tax rate on property will in effect discourage speculative investment in property and the reduction in income tax reduces the tax on savings jobs exports and investment. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Has he received reports that the price of fruit and vegetables has gone up and although the increase of 2.6 percent in September may be down to winter the further price increases since then are all because of National’s increase in GST inflicting greater costs on hard-working Kiwis who are struggling to make ends meet? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member may care to take note of the Governor of the Reserve Bank’s comments from the annual report yesterday. He said that the inflation risk from GST is as he describes it muted so far. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: That’s only because the economy is collapsing. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well it is a very competitive market out there and retailers have to be careful about putting their prices up. However people are guaranteed to get their income tax cut. When they look at their after-tax pay over the next few weeks they will realise just how far $4 billion of income tax goes. In respect of vegetables—and there are 17 of them in the Labour caucus—in the 2 years to September 2008 they went up 21 percent under Labour. In the 2 years to September 2010 they went down 6 percent. 
John Hayes 
: What other contributions is the Government making to helping New Zealanders through this adjustment and setting the economy on a faster growth path? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the most significant contribution the Government is making is to absorb the shock of this recession on the Government’s books. This fiscal year the Government will run a cash deficit of $13 billion—that is the Government is borrowing $13 billion over the next 12 months to continue with an infrastructure investment programme to maintain transfers and to ensure that Government services remain in place at a time of stress. This is supporting New Zealanders through the adjustment process but it cannot last for ever and the Government will have to tighten up on its spending in order to bring those deficits back to a surplus. 
John Hayes 
: What economic policies would damage New Zealand’s economic prospects and leave the vast majority of Kiwis worse off? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The policies that will do that are policies that create more borrowing larger deficits more Government debt and higher cost of living increases. They are also policies that repeat the mistakes of the last Labour Government when it reduced the incentive to work and to save and to invest. I understand that Labour will be announcing details of policies going in that direction this week— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been listening to the answer the Minister is giving. He is not responsible for policies that are being developed by the Opposition no matter how frightened he might be by them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is quite right that the last part of the answer was really out of order; fortunately it was mercifully brief. But the member was absolutely right with his point of order. 
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—Access Under Customary Title 
3. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does he agree with ACT leader Rodney Hide’s statement on Radio New Zealand this morning in relation to ACT’s amendment to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to explicitly prohibit Maori with customary title from charging fees for access to coastal areas: “I have an e-mail here from the Attorney-General’s office saying that they would support such a provision in the bill—that is to say I’ve got that in writing”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I have not seen ACT’s amendment so I can neither agree nor disagree but I can say that although the bill does not enable charging for public access for the sake of absolute certainty I am prepared to promote an amendment to the bill to provide that public access is free public access. This accords with the Government’s and the Maori Party’s long-held bottom line of guaranteed public access and should satisfy the ACT Party’s concerns. Such an amendment would apply to all New Zealanders equally and would apply to all the common and marine and coastal areas which excludes those areas held in private title. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure that the Attorney-General has gone as far as he needs in order to answer the question. The authenticated quote that the member has put in to support his question refers to a provision in the bill—in other words an amendment—and it asks whether the Minister agrees with an assertion made by another Minister in respect of that amendment. The Attorney-General did start off by saying that he is not in a position to agree or disagree because he said he had not seen the amendment but the authenticated quote implies that he has seen the provision of the bill. If his answer could clarify both legs of the primary question as is allowed by the Standing Orders then I think that would be a fuller answer. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There is a difference between a general provision and the particular amendment and that is the point I am making. The statement in the question related to the particular amendment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is an interesting point that has been raised. As I understand it the question asked was a very simple question. It asked the Attorney-General whether he agreed with the statement made by Rodney Hide. It did not ask anything about an amendment. It asked whether he agreed with a statement on Radio New Zealand: “I have an e-mail here from the Attorney-General’s office saying that they would support such a provision in the bill—that is to say I’ve got that in writing”. That was what the question asked the Attorney-General—whether he agreed with that statement. I cannot insist on too specific an answer but as I listened to the answer given the Attorney-General referred to a different issue. The Attorney-General referred to the provisions of the proposed amendment but that is not what the question asked. It asked whether he agreed with the statement that begins “I have an e-mail here from the Attorney-General’s office …” and I invite the Attorney-General to answer that question. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am not questioning you but it says “in relation to” the amendment and that is what I addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: With respect this is a primary question on notice. The point of the question is asking the Attorney-General whether he agrees and there is no precise answer to whether he agrees with the Hon Rodney Hide. But the particular issue he is being asked whether he agrees with is the statement “I have an e-mail here from the Attorney-General’s office saying that they would support such a provision in the bill—that is to say I’ve got that in writing”. The question asked whether he agrees that the Hon Rodney Hide has such a thing in writing. There is no specific answer to that but that is what the question asks. Given that it is a primary question I invite the Attorney-General to address that. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: In relation to a particular amendment the answer is no. In relation to the general question of charging for public access the answer is yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the answer. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Can the Minister confirm that his current stance reflects greater affection for Rodney Hide’s view about race relations than his views about the Maori Party’s view of race relations in respect of the seabed and foreshore? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have great respect and affection for both the Maori Party and the ACT Party with whom I enjoy working on a variety of issues and having vigorous exchanges without getting into personalities. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Does the Minister agree with the prevailing Maori view coming from a number of iwi that there will now be a hierarchy of property rights where Maori property rights can be diluted but no such restrictions will apply to those of others who might enjoy subsisting interests in the seabed and foreshore? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well the Speaker was sedulous with me and perhaps a bit more generous in allowing that question. Let me say that a clear distinction needs to be made between customary title and freehold title and my answer to Mr Jones is this: one has to distinguish between the two concepts and the fact that freehold title is different from customary title does not mean it is inferior. So the answer to the question is no I reject those comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the honourable member I just point out to the Attorney-General that although he may be grumpy with the Speaker’s ruling he should not then comment on it. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: “Assiduous” rather than “sedulous” I think would have been— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Does the Minister agree with the Maori Party co-leader Dr Pita Sharples that Rodney Hide’s premature claim is mischievous and that the only reason ACT is going to do this is that it needs some wins and are we likely to see many other wins to the detriment of the Maori Party? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well no it should be “sedulous” actually. But I think the better approach is this. I am privileged to have two strong coalition partners and they will express different views honestly and genuinely on the one hand. But the bottom line is this: I think everyone agrees—certainly the Maori Party does National does and the ACT Party does—that there needs to be guaranteed public access and an understanding that that should be free. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite the Minister to table the  
Oxford 
— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has been in this House a while— 
Hon Annette King 
: So has the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —order!—and knows that he should wait until he is called if he is raising a point of order. What is more he knows that that was not a point of order at all. I think both members have transgressed probably to a similar extent so we will consider that a draw. I think the Speaker may have lost in that exchange but never mind. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Is the Attorney-General saying that he will support an amendment to the marine and coastal area bill prohibiting the charging for public access to the beach? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The answer is that I will be very keen to promote such an amendment. My name is not Stalin; unlike when Helen Clark was Prime Minister I do not have it within my power to— 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been called. 
Hon David Parker 
: That sort of reference is unnecessary and brings this House into disrepute. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to apologise to the honourable member. My hearing is somewhat impaired again at the moment and I did not actually hear what on earth the Attorney-General said. It is difficult for me to judge. I do not want the member to repeat it if it was ungenerous. I ask whether the member is prepared to withdraw the comment he made. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I withdraw. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate that. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am prepared to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member now wishing to answer further? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I want to answer the question because yes I am prepared to promote an amendment. But the key point is that the devil is in the detail and in the wording. For example section 40(2) of the 2004 Act contains a prohibition on charging for use and occupation. It does not refer to access. It is important to get the wording right and that is what I will be doing as I undertake my duties sedulously. 
Hilary Calvert 
: Does the Attorney-General agree that iwi customary marine title holders will be able to charge a fee for new mussel farms over the foreshore and seabed for which they have title via a veto that his bill gives them through the planning process? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No because all existing use rights are maintained and that point is clear. 
Hilary Calvert 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We said “a fee for new mussel farms”. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House has become a little disorderly now and these interjections are not helpful when a point of order has been called; members know that. The member has raised a point of order to try to further clarify her question. She cannot do that. The member asked a question and the Minister answered it. He disagreed with the basic assertion contained in the member’s question. There is no facility for members to further clarify their questions. The ACT Party has used its two questions today and if questions are unclear that is not the Minister’s fault. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not contesting your ruling. It was not clarification. The question asked about title holders and new mussel farms. The Minister said “No” because it does not affect existing mussel farms. The point that Hilary Calvert was making was that the question was about new mussel farms. It was not changing the question; it was exactly the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What I will do on this occasion to clarify is invite the member as she is a new member to repeat her question so that the House can hear exactly the wording of it and I will ask the Minister to answer it again. 
Hilary Calvert 
: Does the Attorney-General agree that iwi customary marine title holders will be able to charge a fee for new mussel farms over the foreshore and seabed for which they have title via a veto that his bill gives them through the planning process? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The answer is that they could well be but it is not because of the veto. 
Environmental and Resource Management Policies—Progress 
4. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What progress has the Government made on its key environment and resource management policies? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The Government completed its first phase of resource management reforms in simplifying and streamlining the Act last year. We are making good progress on the second phase of reforms with bills on aquaculture heritage and the Environmental Protection Authority currently being drafted with introduction planned for next month. Last night I launched with the new mayor-elect Len Brown a further set of proposals for reform on urban design and infrastructure. I am encouraged by the comments of the new Auckland mayor and his commitment to work with the Government on ensuring these reforms work for Auckland. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What are the important changes recommended by the two technical advisory groups on improving urban design and infrastructure provisions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: First they propose fewer plans. Current regulations require Auckland to have a regional policy statement a regional plan a regional land transport strategy a long-term community plan and a city or district plan. These planning documents currently top over 1 metre in height. We are proposing fewer and more focused plans with the new spatial plan consolidating the existing regional policy statement and the regional land transport strategy in a more integrated document. I note Mayor Len Brown’s commitment to advance this work as quickly as possible. More than 50 changes are recommended in terms of strengthening the way in which we plan as part of this Government’s commitment to building Auckland into a competitive city internationally. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What steps has the Government taken to ensure New Zealand’s clean green brand is reinforced during the hosting of the Rugby World Cup 2011? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Today I announced a $2 million recycling programme which will see more than 700 Love NZ recycling facilities installed at stadiums fan zones main streets airports railway stations bus terminals and popular tourist attractions. They will divert more than 8000 tonnes of Rugby World Cup waste and ensure that the 85000 visitors and 2500 international media have an experience that is consistent with New Zealand’s “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. 
Public Transport—Economic Benefits of Rail Projects 
5. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Can he confirm that the largest portion of economic benefit coming from rail projects such as the Auckland network electrification and the Onehunga branch line are time savings for road users? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yes that is usually the case for large urban transport projects whether road or rail. In the case of the Auckland rail network upgrade 44 percent of the economic benefits go to road users through time savings. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Which will do more to reduce congestion in Auckland: increasing rail patronage by expanding the network with the central business district rail loop or spending $2 billion on the Puhoi to Wellsford “Holiday Highway”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well I think that I will have to give the member a geography lesson because the Puhoi to Wellsford highway is not in the Auckland urban area; it is north of the Auckland urban area linking Auckland with Northland. In terms of comparisons with other big urban transport projects there are some other examples as well—for example the $430 million Victoria Park tunnel will provide about $900 million in travel time savings which shows that all projects provide some savings some more than others. 
Gareth Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not need a geography lesson; my question was specific. I said— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: For goodness’ sake I ask members to reflect on the questions they ask. The Minister’s answer was perfectly reasonable because as he pointed out the Puhoi-Wellsford highway is some distance from Auckland city proper. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very specific. It was about whether one project reduces congestion more than another project. It is fine for the Minister to have his view about the geographical relationship but it was a question about which one reduces congestion more; he can answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In my judgment the Minister answered the question. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Is it smart economics to use money from the National Land Transport Fund on projects that will reduce congestion for motorists such as Auckland’s central business district rail loop? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Of course road users through the National Land Transport Fund make very big contributions to public transport for exactly those reasons. For example over the current 3-year period roughly $633 million of the National Land Transport Fund is being spent on public transport services for entirely those reasons. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Why is the Puhoi to Wellsford “Holiday Highway” receiving 100 percent funding from the National Land Transport Fund but the central business district rail loop would receive none even though it would benefit many more motorists in Auckland? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member presumes a number of things. The reality is that the National Land Transport Fund is paid in for by road users. They get benefits from different projects and those projects are supported by the fund at different times. The main method by which the National Land Transport Fund contributes to public transport is the subsidy of services which the fund does a huge amount of including both bus services and rail services. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Why then is the Transmission Gully motorway receiving 100 percent funding from the National Land Transport Fund but Wellington’s new light rail proposal would receive none even though it would benefit more motorists in the Wellington region? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think there are some very big assumptions there. First we have no idea what a light rail project in Wellington will cost anybody at this point so those numbers are not even known nor has any sort of business case been done or anything like that. So I think we will have to wait and see how those projects develop over time to assess the contributions that they may or may not make. But again we have to make a distinction between urban highways and the roads that connect different parts of the country. Obviously the Levin to Wellington road of national significance links the whole of the lower North Island to Wellington City. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Will he listen to the message from Wellington it having elected its first Green mayor who campaigned on a light rail platform and investigate the light rail option and increasing the frequency and reliability of peak-time commuter rail in Wellington rather than fully funding and fast tracking the billion-dollar uneconomic Transmission Gully motorway? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The reality is that the Government’s job is to invest the National Land Transport Fund for the whole of the country’s benefit. Obviously the Mayor of Wellington has views and I look forward to having discussions with her about such projects. But how the member could even ask anybody in this House to compare the benefits of a particular project with the benefits of another one when she has no idea what it would cost to operate to build or anything else is frankly astounding. 
Health Services—Minister’s Statement 
6. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by his statement in relation to health funding that “the important thing is not how much extra money they’re getting—it’s what extra services you are getting as a taxpayer”? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Every district health board provides several hundred different services each year to meet the changing needs of its population. Under this Government front-line services overall are increasing as has the budget by $512 million this year. So I do stand by that statement. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does he agree that taxpayers see the services of an overnight supervisor in an IHC home as a front-line service? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes. There is no doubt that taxpayers would see the provision of front-line services in an IHC home as being important. The issues that have been raised by the current court action are quite significant for New Zealand and those matters are being dealt with presently. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Will he put the extra money in to support those front-line workers in the health and disability sector to ensure that people with intellectual disabilities will not have to return to live in the large institutions of the past or will he continue to refuse to provide the funding to pay those staff the minimum wage? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I can tell the member that when her party was in Government it was briefed on this matter and no action was taken. The case has very significant implications for the rest of the economy and the liability in fact rests with the provider. A few days ago the Labour Party promised $270 million— 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: —to remove GST from fruit— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been called. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: —and now it is promising— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: —$500 million of back-pay. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister took absolutely no notice of the Speaker on his feet. That is not acceptable. 
Hon Annette King 
: I listened very carefully to my colleague’s question and then I listened carefully to the answer and the Minister immediately went into a description of Labour’s policy. The member asked a very straight question about what the Government—this Government—would do. We did not hear an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the first part of the Minister’s answer was acceptable in that he did not refer to Labour Party policy but to what the previous Government had done. Ministers can report what the previous Government has done. However when the member got to her feet on a point of order he then started to go into what the Labour Party may have said or done recently. That is not a matter of ministerial responsibility. I invite the Hon Ruth Dyson to repeat her question so that we can all hear exactly what the question is and I invite the Minister to answer it again. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Will he put in the extra money needed to support front-line workers in the health and disability sector to ensure that people with intellectual disabilities will not have to return to live in the large institutions of the past; or will he continue to refuse to provide the funding to pay those staff the minimum wage? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am advised that the member’s Government was briefed on this matter and took no action whatsoever—hence the court case. The case has very significant implications for the rest of the economy and the Government is clear that the back-pay liability rests with the provider. Once the court case has been completed the Government will review its options going forward but the liability rests with the provider even though the Labour Party has promised to pay the $500 million in back-pay. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the House to show a little respect. I have called Dr Paul Hutchison. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What reports has he received recently on increased front-line services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: In recent months the Government has announced that the number of patients receiving elective surgery in the past year increased by over 8000—more than four times the average achieved under the previous Government. Today I can inform the member that as well as this very large increase in elective surgery the number of people benefiting from urgent or acute surgery has increased by nearly 4000. This means that in the last financial year over 12000 more patients have benefited from additional surgery both acute and elective which is yet another example of improved front-line services under the National-led Government. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Has the Prime Minister expressed any concern about the Minister’s refusal to pay the IHC caregivers the minimum wage? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Prime Minister has expressed to me his view that the liability lies with the provider. It is extraordinary that within a week of promising to spend $270 million to take GST off fruit and vegetables Labour is promising another $500 million for back-pay and another $80 million ongoing. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is in support of the earlier one raised by the deputy leader of the Labour Party. As a diversionary tactic Ministers are not allowed to refer to the policies of the Opposition party; they have to be responsible for their own policies and what they are doing and speak about those with some conviction. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point of order the member is making but he knows it is a long practice in this House that Ministers make passing references. In all my 26 years in the House to me the important issue is that the Minister should answer a question before making any such reference at all. If I try to stop Ministers making any such reference I think I would be departing a fair way from previous practice—as long as it is no more than just in passing. I believe that the Minister made that reference in passing. But Ministers should be careful how much they assert that any other parties in this House have certain policies because they are not responsible for those policies at all. The member is quite right. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How long is he prepared to leave the IHC caregivers in limbo before he decides whether their employers who are now in statutory management are given the funding to fulfil the contract determined by the Employment Court last year under his watch? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As the member would know that contract was signed under the previous Government. I can tell that member that we will await the outcome of the court case but unlike the party opposite we will not be paying the $500 million back-pay which is a liability that rests with the provider. If that party opposite thinks it has $500 million to spare on that matter then it should explain where it is coming from. 
Crime Proceeds—Seizures 
7. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What progress has been made by police following the introduction of new legislation allowing them to seize the proceeds of crime? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that the new powers this Government has given to the police to allow them to investigate and seize the assets of criminals are producing great results. The latest figures as at 30 September show that $29.7 million worth of assets have been restrained since the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act was passed by this Parliament. These assets are now in the hands of the official assignee awaiting further legal proceedings and orders. Since the Act was passed an estimated $30.6 million worth of assets have been investigated as a result of methamphetamine offending. 
Jonathan Young 
: What other reports has she received from police in relation to the targeting of organised crime? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am also pleased to report that nationally coordinated investigations into organised crime have resulted in increased busts of clan-labs. So far this year 93 labs have been closed down throughout the country. In August a record 23 labs were busted including six in Auckland five in the Waikato four in the Bay of Plenty and three in Counties-Manukau. Police are to be congratulated on a 17 percent increase in the apprehension of methamphetamine offenders this year along with an astounding 140 percent increase this year in methamphetamine seizures. Our Government is backing the police to get out there and make life a misery for New Zealand’s criminal underbelly. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given that the Minister is so fond of taking responsibility for and confirming so-called good news is she also prepared to confirm that the highest murder rate in 13 years has occurred under her watch as noted by the New Zealand Police in the official crime statistics released on 1 October? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The fact is that there was a big increase—a spike—in murders in August 2009 and I am surprised the member has taken so long to catch up with that. However murders are committed by offenders not by the police. 
Overseas Investment Rules—Purchases of Farmland 
8. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: Will the changes to overseas investment rules mean he will decline more overseas purchases of New Zealand farmland? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 It is not actually possible for me to answer this question on the grounds that it would require me to be clairvoyant on two matters. First of all I would have to predict the future as to how many applications we would receive; secondly I would have to predict the future as to the quality of those applications. But I think I can make one bold prediction: land sold to foreigners under this Government which to date is about 8500 hectares for the year will be way less than that sold in the heady days under the Labour Government. For example in 2006 385000 hectares of land were sold to foreigners. 
Hon David Parker 
: How many farm sales to overseas purchasers has the Minister declined since he became the Minister? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I do not have that specific information available to me but I can confirm that up until now I have processed them under the same rules and the same criteria as the Labour Government did. However the Hon Bill English has announced that National thinks those rules are too loose and that we will put two new criteria in place—an economic interest test and a mitigating factors test—that I think will give Ministers more scope and powers to decide on the merits of an application in the future. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My primary question asked whether the Minister will decline more overseas purchases. The Minister should have prepared and to be able to judge whether it will be more he has to know how many he has already declined. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The Minister said he did not have the information. That is an answer to the question. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does he recall declining even one sale since he has become the Minister? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Not off the top of my head no. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does he pretend that a change in the rules will make any difference to the number of farms he approves for overseas sale when the current law already gives him wide discretion to decline farm sales? He just will not do it! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I think the two new tests—the economic interest test and the mitigating factors test—will be significant elements to the decision. But I tell the member—because I do get very concerned about this—that I have probably used the same processing as Labour did and have declined about the same number of applications as Labour did as a percentage so why it is of interest— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How do you know that? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Actually I cannot remember the exact number. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Does the Minister accept that overseas purchases of New Zealand dairy land occur only when overseas buyers pay more than a New Zealander can afford? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am not sure that I have any ministerial responsibility for the transaction of the sale. I am responsible for whether the overseas investor meets the criteria the Government has set in the Act. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very very clear and I am sure that the Minister can answer it. Can I repeat my question: it asked— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have not invited the member to repeat his question at all. The member’s question asked whether the Minister accepted a statement that sales to an overseas buyer occurred only if the price being offered by the overseas purchaser was higher than what New Zealanders could afford to pay. I think that was the guts of the member’s question. The Minister pointed out that he does not have responsibility for the details surrounding such transactions. Such matters I think he was pointing out are not for the Minister’s consideration because it is only where land is proposed to be sold that it comes into the Minister’s area of responsibility. I think the Minister did answer the question because he does not have responsibility for that matter. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: If he cannot answer that one perhaps he can try this one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Did his approval last week of the sale of one of New Zealand’s largest dairy farms—in fact the largest ever dairy farm sale to an overseas interest in both size and price at $34 million—make it easier or more difficult for New Zealanders to afford to purchase farmland in their own country? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I need to get the member to understand the role that I play. I am not told what all the bidders are bidding. I do not know about any other bidder. All I am given is advice from the Overseas Investment Office about the specific foreign application and whether it meets the criteria of the Act and I have to make a decision whether to approve it on those grounds. I know nothing of any other commercial offers for the properties. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very simple question. I was just asking the Minister whether he thinks about these things. 
Hon Simon Power 
: That is ridiculous. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being considered and there will not be interjection. The member was a Minister in this House for some time and he knows that there is no point in raising a point of order with the Speaker to seek a particular answer when a member asks that kind of question. Seeking an opinion of a Minister—especially with the particular question asked—means the Minister has licence to say almost anything in relation to that kind of question. The member has been in this House long enough to know that if he expects a specific answer he has to be a bit more precise than that. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister himself referred to greater ministerial discretion in this area of decision making. What I am trying to establish is what criteria in thinking about the applications the Minister does in fact consider. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a shame the member did not ask that question. Instead of asking the rather convoluted question about a matter for which the Minister had no responsibility the member should have asked exactly the kind of question he has alluded to just now. I invite members to think more carefully about their questions. I am very happy to help them hold Ministers to account. I have demonstrated that—even today I demonstrated that. But I cannot help members if their questioning is too convoluted and puts in statements about matters that Ministers are not responsible for or statements that Ministers can challenge because that just lets Ministers off the hook. 
Children State Care— 
Children in Care 
 Recommendations 
9. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she agree with the Office of the Children’s Commissioner’s recent report into  
Children in Care 
 that priority should be given to research focused on the needs of Maori tamariki and rangatahi in the care system; and if so what action is she intending to take to implement the report’s recommendations? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes; a work programme is being developed on the issue of children in care. What is clear is that outcomes for children who have to be taken into care are far from ideal whether they are Maori or non-Maori. As I am sure the member will agree the State should be the parent of last resort. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What will she do to remedy the report’s findings that approximately half of Maori children in the care population are not currently living with whanau a fact that undermines current policy and legislation which has a very strong emphasis on whanau hapu and iwi connection? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: First off the best scenario for children is that their parents and whanau do not harm them. However where children are not safe and we have to intervene the first priority is finding them a safe and secure place to live. Ideally and in many cases that is with family or whanau but it is a sobering reality that that is not possible for all of the 4200 children and young people in Child Youth and Family care especially those in short-term care. 
Rahui Katene 
: How will the Minister respond to the finding that when kin placements are not investigated some Maori and Pasifika children continue to be placed with Pakeha foster parents which the report concludes is a source of tension especially when short-term placements drift into long term? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Child Youth and Family is always seeking to do better in very difficult situations. However it is important to note that that covers a range of circumstances which can make it very difficult for Child Youth and Family. For instance some parents refuse to give details to whanau and sometimes children have to be uplifted urgently at short notice in very serious situations. We are working alongside iwi to make sure that Maori children are in families not State care wherever possible. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What is the Government doing to improve outcomes for children in State care? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: We recognise that the best outcomes for children in care result from being part of a safe secure and permanent family. That is why in August we announced the Home for Life programme to get children and young people out of care and into families. We are developing programmes specifically to help iwi find safe secure family homes for Maori children in care such as whanau finders and extended marae-based family group conferences. 
Housing Community—Deregistration of Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust 
10. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What reports or advice has he requested on the impact on New Zealand’s community housing sector of the Charities Commission’s decision to deregister the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust from September this year and what does he believe that impact will be? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I have requested advice on this matter from the Department of Building and Housing and I am advised that the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust has appealed the Charities Commission’s decision to the High Court. Injunctive relief from deregistration until the appeal has been heard next year has in fact been granted. 
Moana Mackey 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked about the impact on the New Zealand community housing sector not the impact on one housing trust. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked what the Minister believed the impact will be—“what does he believe that impact will be?”. When a member asks what Ministers believe in a question it is not much use asking the Speaker to intervene when the Minister answers. I thought the Minister did answer. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I will hear the member if he wants to speak to the point of order. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: She says as written on the sheet that she is asking what the impact will be on the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust not on the community housing sector. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I appreciate the contribution of the member. I am ruling that the last part of the question is so vague in terms of asking what the Minister believes that impact will be that I cannot intervene in respect of the answer that was given. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why has he not acted quickly to convince Cabinet to amend the Charities Act to ensure that the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust keeps its charitable status instead of its having to spend large amounts of money which should be spent on housing on legal fees to fight the change in the courts? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I am not the Minister in charge of the Charities Act and this decision actually does not affect my decisions or the decisions of the Department of Building and Housing in terms of giving grants to this particular trust. In fact we gave $1.4 million to the trust last year. It has put in a very good application this year and we will not be viewing it any differently from previously. 
Moana Mackey 
: Did he know in June this year when he announced with great fanfare that the Queenstown trust would receive $1 million in funding from the Housing Innovation Fund that it faced having to hand back more than $1.25 million to the Government in tax? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I believe that the grant it acquired last year through the housing vote was actually $1.4 million; it has put another application in this year that looks pretty good. We do not decide in the Department of Building and Housing what the Charities Commission does. That is a matter for another Minister not me. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has he seen reports that Charities Commission chief executive Trevor Garrett in publicly defending the decision made claims that the trust had been helping households with incomes of over $200000 per year a claim that has no basis in fact whatsoever; and what has he done as the Minister of Housing to ensure that this public slur against the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust is retracted and corrected? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I am not as the Minister of Housing in charge of the Charities Commission. I cannot tell off its chief executive. I do not meet with the chief executive; I am not the Minister responsible for that chief executive. 
Moana Mackey 
: What impact does he think the Charities Commission’s decision will have on his expectation that the community housing sector will take a lead role in providing his Gateway affordable housing scheme given that to do so will lose it its charitable status? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: That matter is to go before the courts. There has been an interim injunctive relief from deregistration for this particular community housing group. I do not see that the decision has any particular impact on the work that we are doing. 
Moana Mackey 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask the Minister for his opinion on the court ruling because to do that would be inappropriate. I asked him about the impact of that decision on an announcement that the Minister made this week. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: On his expectation in his portfolio. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Sorry. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is normally very well behaved. What I will do on this occasion is to invite the member to repeat her question because I have to be honest: when I listened to it I could not understand it. Now how do I judge whether a Minister has answered a question when I cannot understand it? So I apologise and I accept that to some extent it is a matter of my hearing. I invite the member to repeat her question. 
Moana Mackey 
: What impact does he think the Charities Commission’s decision will have on his expectation that the community housing sector will take a lead role in providing his Gateway affordable housing scheme given that to do so would lose the sector its charitable status? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: In the interim the Charities Commission’s decision has been reversed by the court so it is having no effect. I do not expect that it will have any effect but I guess we will have to wait and see. 
Methamphetamine—Border Seizures 
11. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What reports has he received on seizures Customs has made of methamphetamine being imported into New Zealand? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Excellent intelligent work by the Customs Service recently led to the seizure of what is believed to be the country’s single biggest drug concealment inside human bodies. Three men arriving in Auckland via Thailand were targeted as potential drug smugglers by customs staff at the border. They were detained and scans revealed they were carrying large quantities of P internally. The astute work by customs officials resulted in the seizure of 2.5 kilograms of crystal methamphetamine with a street value of approximately $2.5 million. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What reports has he received on the seizure of methamphetamine precursor at the border? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Up to the end of September this year the Customs Service seized 821 kilograms of methamphetamine precursor at the border. This amount of precursor would produce up to 232 kilograms of methamphetamine and cause about $93 million worth of harm. Once that precursor was converted to methamphetamine its street value would have been about $232 million. Last year the Customs Service had an all-time record intercept of 1.2 tonnes of precursor and we are hoping that this year based on the 821 kilograms to date we may beat even our own outstanding record. 
Tax System Changes and GST Increase—Effect on New Zealanders 
12. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: When the Government introduced legislation to increase GST to 15 percent on 1 October 2010 and tax cuts to take effect from that date was it the Government’s intention that increased costs would be matched by lower taxes and/or other forms of compensation? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 Yes and that is why the Budget 2010 tax package provided compensation for the vast majority of taxpayers for the pricing effects of the GST increase. For taxpayers that was achieved through a cut in income tax rates. For those receiving main benefits Working for Families tax credits and New Zealand superannuation compensation was provided through increased entitlements. I suggest that if any people are in doubt about their entitlements they should go to www.taxguide.govt.nz to see for themselves how they benefit from the Budget tax package. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Did the Minister or any of his ministerial colleagues advise State-owned trading enterprises that they had the ability to exercise flexibility over the rate of GST charged on goods and services provided during September and billed in early October so that GST of 12.5 percent was added to invoice statements for that period rather than GST at the rate of 15 percent? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: This answer may take a little longer than usual but it is a very important issue. The short answer is yes. In fact based on a recommendation that we received from the GST Advisory Panel the Goods and Services Tax Act was amended to allow suppliers to issue invoices up until 11 October in respect of supplies made prior to 1 October but to charge GST at the old rate. It is up to the supplier to elect to use the transitional concession. In so doing they need to be aware that they would have to account for the GST earlier than if the invoice were dated on or after 1 October. I have become aware in the last few days that some power and utilities companies are not using the transitional provision and as a consequence customers are being charged the new rate of GST for services that were supplied during the month of September. My strong advice to them is to take that up directly with those supplying companies because as I said the Act was amended specifically to give a transitional arrangement that meant that those charges need not be made at that higher rate. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Is the Government concerned to learn that the State-owned energy company Meridian has chosen to impose 15 percent GST on the power it supplied to its Christchurch customers during September one of the coldest months of the year which included a 7.1 earthquake and 1300 to 1400 aftershocks so far rather than exercise the lawful flexibility it had to impose GST at 12.5 percent? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Yes and the point I made was that because that situation was predicted to be likely to occur the Act was amended to ensure that there was a mechanism by which that additional charge could be avoided until 11 October. In the event that companies did not follow that I say it is for the people who have been adversely affected—and I have become aware of a number of them—to take that up directly with the companies concerned because I am aware of instances where those charges have been reversed. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Is the Minister aware that the overseas-owned Fairfax media company owner of the Christchurch  
Press 
 decided to add GST at only 12.5 percent on invoice statements for services given up to 30 September and is he willing to take up with his ministerial colleagues of State-owned enterprises and finance the question as to why a State-owned enterprise Meridian chose not to do the same thing and instead charged people 15 percent GST for services rendered in September? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: There is a difference between the Fairfax case and the case the member referred to simply because the Fairfax case relates to items that are supplied on particular days. I come back to the point that the law was amended to ensure that there was a transitional provision. I am concerned that that transitional provision has not been acted on and I have indicated today that we will be looking into it. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Is the Minister seriously suggesting to the House that electricity supplied in September was not supplied on particular days because I would have thought it definitely was; and the question then is: does it reflect well on the Government he supports that Christchurch citizens are being subject to this rip-off by a State-owned enterprise energy company? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The point I was making in respect of newspapers was that the supply of a newspaper occurs at a particular time. The same newspaper cannot be supplied day after day; it is a different article. Power and other utilities—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has raised a serious question and I am trying to give him the courtesy of a serious answer. I cannot make myself heard over some of the din opposite. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s point is reasonable. I ask members to be more reasonable with the level of interjection. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The point I was making is that the supply of a particular newspaper on a particular day constitutes a particular supply. Electricity and other utility services do not come into that category. That is why the law was amended to allow for that transitional provision. That is the point I am making. If companies have chosen not to exercise that provision then it is for consumers who have been adversely affected to take that matter up directly with them. 
Stuart Nash 
: Regarding recent GST and income tax legislation what does the Minister say to those in the Napier electorate when they ask why the 650 New Zealanders earning $1000000 a year or more have just received a tax cut of $1000 a week whereas the 50 percent of Napier residents on or below the median wage get around $3 or less per week? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: What I say to the member to members of the Napier electorate and to others who may have a similar view is that when we have a progressive tax system and we make changes based on the level of income tax that people pay obviously those people who pay more will get a bigger cut and those people who pay less will not get as big a cut. At the same time those people are also likely to be receiving other benefits such as Working for Families and other entitlements that boost their income. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I seek leave to table an invoice from Meridian that shows it charged 15 percent GST for electricity delivered in September. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I seek leave to table a document from Consumer New Zealand that says that the Inland Revenue Department has issued special rules that enable energy companies in particular to charge their customers 12.5 percent GST for September services. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I seek leave to table a document from Fairfax that points out exactly the way in which it is charging its customers only 12.5 percent GST for September services. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: For the House’s benefit can I inquire whether it is a newspaper clipping or an actual administrative document? 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: It is an administrative document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
General Debate 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. I am very proud that the ACT Party is the only party in this House that has had the same position on the foreshore and seabed legislation from day one while every other political party has flip-flopped from one side to the other. The ACT Party has stuck to its principles and the principles are these: to stand up for New Zealanders’ property rights to stand up for the rule of law and to stand up for one law for all. That is why we opposed the Labour Government’s move to torpedo iwi and hapu rights to have their day in court. That legislation was wrong and the ACT Party opposed it. Iwi like all New Zealanders should be able to have their day in court. What Labour did was a travesty. 
When National and the Maori Party came to see the ACT Party about what should be done the ACT Party’s view was simple; it was to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act to use Parliament to return iwi and Maori to their position pre-2004 that allowed iwi and Maori to go the High Court and to legislate for free public access. That was ACT’s position in 2004; that is ACT’s position in 2010. That is ACT’s position now and it is a principled position on the rule of law. 
We thought the foreshore and seabed legislation was a shocker; the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is far far worse. It defines an entirely new set of statute-made property rights. It sets up a process that enables the New Zealand coastline our foreshore and seabed to be carved up and privatised across iwi hands so that not only do they own the foreshore and seabed but they control its use because they become the consenting authority. No other New Zealander can do that; that is wrong. Iwi should be able to go to court and seek customary title and not have Parliament define what that customary title is. 
But it is far worse than that because the foreshore and seabed legislation enables iwi to go and see the Attorney-General and negotiate a settlement rather than go to court— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Do a deal! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Dr Hutchison is absolutely right. Iwi are able to do a deal behind closed doors to say: “Hang on how much do you think we should own of the foreshore and seabed?”. The Attorney-General is on record as saying that National thinks it should be about 10 percent which is about 2000 kilometres of coastline. So according to the Attorney-General iwi would own 2000 kilometres of coastline. How did the Attorney-General come to that figure? How did the Attorney-General hold it to 2000 kilometres? What mandate does any Government have—does this Parliament have—to establish ownership rights in the foreshore and seabed and have those rights granted politically in a Minister’s office? ACT says “None!”. That is divisive it is discriminatory and it is against the rule of law. It is against one law for all. The only principled position for this Parliament to adopt is to say that of course iwi Maori— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh oh—principled? You couldn’t spell “principled”. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: —even Clayton Cosgrove—can have their day in court. 
The Court of Appeal decision was plain. The court said that of course iwi could have their day in court but it did not think they would succeed because it is tough to prove customary title. The Government is saying not to worry about that; the Government will drop the threshold so that Maori can meet it. The Government can hand across the coastline and no one even needs to go to court. They can just pop into Chris Finlayson’s office and he can sign on the dotted line. That is wrong. 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 On the evening of Wednesday 28 July in the office of the Hon Chris Carter three leading members of the Labour Opposition gathered with Mr Carter. They were talking about when to change their leader and when to strike. Although Shane Jones and Ruth Dyson earlier in the afternoon had given speeches criticising this side of the House for a lack of leadership they were no doubt part of a group that was gathering on the evening of 28 July or one of the 17 who Mr Carter said were involved. We need to know the answer. Were those members two of the 17? Or were they one or two of the three gathered in the office of the Hon Chris Carter? The party opposite is riven with internal division. We see it every day in the House. Ruth Dyson and David Cunliffe twitter to each other about the performance of their colleagues on the bench next to them. We see where they look. They do not look up and look at Mr Goff when he asks any questions; they twitter amongst each other about whether the debate was very good or whether it went anywhere. 
Who was in that office on 28 July with Chris Carter? Who were the 17? It is to be expected. We have been there done that. It is to be expected as Labour had 9 years in office then it was kicked out and now it is unable to get any traction. Labour has stuck at around 27 or 28 percent in the polls and it is unable to get any traction anywhere. It is grabbing every little win it can possibly get. So of course they would be gathering in the evening on 28 July in the office of Chris Carter to choose the date to strike. Who were those three people? I am sure that he will tell us eventually. He will tell the public. Who were the 17? Well I reckon we know who the 17 are and speakers on this side of the House will no doubt put that across to members who are listening. 
While the Labour Party is fixated on its internal problems and those members talk about how long the Goff-King failed team can possibly survive—whether people first elected during the 1980s are the faces of the future—members on this side of the House are focused on the things that matter to New Zealanders. We are focused on the real progress needed to keep New Zealand moving forward. We are putting New Zealand forward. This month there were tax cuts across the board for all good New Zealanders. The average wage earner will be almost $15 a week better off. The family on an average household income will be $25 a week better off. That has put money into the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders who deserve the chance to get ahead. What is more those New Zealanders who have served our country so well during their working lives and who are now on superannuation will be $11 a week better off for a married couple as a result of this Government. 
Those older New Zealanders could be those getting elective surgery as the number of older New Zealanders getting elective surgery has grown by 11 percent in the last year under this Government. We are providing more operations faster emergency departments and faster cancer treatment. More kids are being immunised more people are getting home support and more people are getting the care that they need from a Government that is determined to get the best value for money. More New Zealanders are getting their homes insulated. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: How many? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Over 60000 homes have been insulated under the Government’s home insulation scheme which is more that that party opposite ever imagined. More New Zealanders are getting the benefits of the services of this Government. More important more and more young kids are getting the benefits of national standards in their schools. This Government is focused on the issues that matter not on the internal problems that started on 28 July in Mr Chris Carter’s office. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Before I begin today I would like to acknowledge Mr Jim Currie who was a messenger in this House for 5 years in the 1980s—a man whom I know that you also know Mr Speaker. I went to his funeral today. There was a large representation from the people out in Kilbirnie. He was a gentleman and a much-loved member of many sporting clubs in my electorate and I pass on the sympathies of this House to Mr Currie’s family. 
What I will talk about today is: what is leadership? That question has been dominating the debate over the airways and in the pages of our publications and on the blogosphere over the past 2 weeks. That debate has been triggered by the Prime Minister’s response to the racist and inappropriate remarks made by the so-called shock jock Paul Henry. Questions have been raised such as when should a Prime Minister show leadership? Is political leadership applied only in certain circumstances? Is political leadership available only from 9 until 5? Does political leadership not apply when one is dealing with one’s mates? Does political leadership require insight? Does it require courage a quickness of thought? Does it require real convictions? 
I believe that these are all legitimate questions when it comes to analysing John Key’s giggling deflection of Paul Henry’s comments about the Governor-General—about his ethnicity the colour of his skin his birthplace and his manner of speech. When I listened to John Key’s response that morning a quote from Albert Einstein came to mind. He said that in the case of political leaders it is often very doubtful whether they have done more good or harm. In my view there is no doubt that the Prime Minister’s limp-wristed giggling and joking response to the provocative hurtful and racist comments made by Mr Henry has been harmful. 
Most New Zealanders see their leaders as people who guide and who inspire. People like to have leaders who make them feel proud. Leaders are not people who just bask in the reflected glory of other people’s achievement but people who make us as Kiwis feel that we have something to contribute in securing a better world and a future for us all—like leading the fight against nuclear weapons; standing up against discrimination of women disabled people and people of different sexual orientation or ethnicity; fighting against apartheid; or refusing to join the Iraq war because it was not sanctioned by the international community even though considerable pressure was applied by our friends. Real leadership requires taking a stand having a genuine belief in one’s policies and standing up for those beliefs. Genuinely held beliefs are not tradable commodities at an election to secure votes nor are they tradable commodities during an interview on television to retain friendship to look matey or—to quote John Key—“to be cool”. 
I believe that John Key failed the test of leadership during the Paul Henry interview. His instinct was to pander to Paul Henry not to slap him down for his racist comment. His moral compass was missing. Where was his belief and conviction against racism? Eight hours after the furore had reached a crescendo the Prime Minister issued a very very weak press release. I have yet to hear the Prime Minister make a speech that sets out what his genuine beliefs are what his bottom-line convictions are and the issues that would make him take a stand come hell or high water. What I have heard from the Prime Minister are the utterances of a person used to taking a gamble on other people’s futures—short term expedient here today and gone tomorrow and increasingly to smile and walk away. 
Winston Churchill once said “There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away.” In my view John Key campaigned on false hopes. I think people are starting to see him as the emperor with no clothes and they are noticing his nakedness. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 The Hon Annette King who has just resumed her seat has bravely asked what leadership is. Well she might well ask that of herself. She then regaled us with a lecture on moral leadership. Frankly I will not take that from a key member of a Labour Government that would have to have been the most morally bankrupt Government we have ever seen certainly in my lifetime. That Government gave us the Electoral Finance Act which was all about shutting down opposition. It was a Government that bent weaved and twisted. I sat through question time after question time under the previous Labour Government with David Cunliffe twisting and weaving when questions were very decisively and succinctly asked of him regarding Taito Phillip Field. I remember those. I remember Helen Clark’s many excuses as Prime Minister. She said that people were just helping others. Yes right! 
Annette King has asked very clearly a question regarding Phil Goff’s leadership—that is what she was really asking. She is really asking the Labour Party whether it will stand by its leader Phil Goff. She asked questions about how a leader can have one view today and another view the next day. Let us ask about that. Phil Goff flip-flopped on supporting the trade of holiday leave for cash. This is what he said on 20 July this year: “I don’t have huge objections to that.” Yet a few weeks later on  
The Nation 
 on 14 August he said: “We wouldn’t make it tradable.” That is a complete and utter flip-flop so well might the Hon Annette King ask about leadership as did the 17 members of the Labour Party the detail of which the Hon Chris Carter will want to share with us no doubt. By the way where is he? Where is Chris Carter? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should not be referring to the absence of another member. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Thank you Mr Speaker; you are quite right absolutely. It is very interesting. I am looking forward to hearing more of the Hon Chris Carter and the 17. Who is leaving already? We already know that Helen Clark has left Michael Cullen has left and we know Chris Carter has shifted. We know that the Hon Winnie Laban has left and that the Hon George Hawkins will be going as are Lynne Pillay and the Hon Pete Hodgson. So who will be left? Who is part of the 17? Well Sue Moroney is definitely part of the 17 and Brendon Burns will want to be part of the 17 because those members want to know what it is like to be in Government. Well under Phil Goff there will be a long wait ahead. 
In the meantime while those members are meeting behind closed doors talking about leadership and stabbing each other in the back we are just getting on on this side of the House with governing the country. I have heard Labour members give us lectures about the price of food. Let us have a look at that issue. In the last 2 years of the previous Labour Government food prices overall went up 15 percent. That is in the last 2 years; 15 percent. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How much? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It was 15 percent. In the last 2 years of the National-led Government food prices went up by 5 percent. Is that not amazing—one-third? Yet do we ever hear that from Labour members? 
Let us look at these good honest foods. In the last 2 years under the previous Labour Government vegetable prices went up 21 percent but in the last 2 years of the National-led Government they have gone down 6 percent. There is not a peep out of Labour members about that. Let us look at another good food—fresh milk. The cost went up 23 percent in the last 2 years of the Labour Government but it has gone up only 7 percent under National. Let us look at eggs; eggs are a good food. There was a 19 percent cost increase under Labour but a 6 percent decrease under National. Cheese—I remember lectures on cheese from Labour members. The price of cheese increased 50 percent—that is 5-0 percent—under Labour and minus 3 percent under National. For goodness’ sake! 
National is definitely the party of the people unlike the Labour Party—the party of the elite. Labour Party members tiki-toured around the country on the taxpayers’ back of course talking about Labour’s “Axe the Tax” stance. Members will remember that will they not? 
Chris Auchinvole 
: I do. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Auchinvole remembers that. Mr Goff then decided that he was not going to axe the tax after all. I wish he had told the taxpayers and they could have saved the petrol. Then we had Mr Mallard talking about “a very silly bill to take GST off ‘Healthy Food’” saying: “Just imagine trying to define that. And how much of each we are allowed each hour/day/week before GST ticks in. And the army of inspectors to check the food. And the increase in GST…” blah-blah-blah. He said that on 22 April this year and now we have Labour members and Mr Goff in particular saying they are going to remove the tax on food. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I start today by congratulating Mayor elect Celia Wade-Brown. The counting of the special votes has been finalised today and Celia Wade-Brown has been elected mayor of our capital city Wellington. It is an interesting development that both Wellington and Auckland—congratulations also go to Len Brown in Auckland—are led by mayors who support sustainable transport options. We now have the bizarre spectacle where the Minister of Transport is completely at odds with the leadership of two of the largest cities in our country Auckland and Wellington— 
Sue Moroney 
: And Hamilton. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: —and Hamilton as well. Pro-train councillors have been elected in Hamilton. 
A spectre is haunting the Minister of Transport and that spectre is green transport options. For the first time we find that leaders of our major urban centres are promoting sustainable transport options while the Minister of Transport is locked in the 1950s with his idea that we can build motorways to reduce congestion. Building motorways does not reduce congestion; building motorways induces more traffic and results in more congestion. As Transit used to say famously all we ever do is move the congestion point. 
There is one really good way to reduce congestion in our major urban centres. The people who have just voted in the local body elections in Auckland Wellington Hamilton and elsewhere have chosen that particular method and that is mass public transport. It is also active transport such as cycling and walking. When we build trains and train lines when we build light rail when we have more efficient bus services and when more people can walk or cycle to work then we reduce the amount of traffic on roads. It is one of the paradoxes that the major beneficiaries of more public transport are road users because it frees up the roading network when more people move off the roads and into mass transit or active transport options. 
The other side of course is that it reduces our greenhouse emissions and makes our cities much more livable. New Zealand has very high transport greenhouse emissions. They have increased by about 70 percent since 1990 and that is connected to our obsession over the previous 10 years with building more and more motorways and inducing more and more traffic and hence consuming more and more oil. It is also tied to the fact that oil is a finite resource. Just today the Parliamentary Library released a paper that looked at some of the issues around oil. The paper concluded that oil was going to increase in price quite significantly. It looked at international projections as well as domestic projections and the impact that increase would have on our domestic transport options. Of course our domestic transport system is entirely dependent on oil because we have thrown billions and billions of dollars at white elephant motorway projects instead of into sustainable transport options that actually reduce oil use. 
If we wanted to get home faster then we would support the kinds of options that people in Wellington and Hamilton have just voted for such as better public transport. If we wanted to reduce our greenhouse emissions we would support those options. If we wanted to reduce our dependence on oil we would support those kinds of sustainable transport options. If we wanted to live in more sustainable and more livable cities where we do not have giant motorways slicing and dicing our communities then we would support those kinds of sustainable transport options. That is exactly what the people of Auckland Wellington and elsewhere have just done. 
We now have the bizarre situation of conflict with central government which is still dominated by people from the 1950s who think the solution to congestion is to build more motorways. We have the conflict between the 1950s thinking of Steven Joyce and the National Government and what the people of Auckland and Wellington are desperately calling out for. They are the ones who live in big urban centres and understand that we cannot reduce congestion by building more and more motorways. That does not solve congestion. The urgent priorities in Wellington are around light rail both to the airport and to the hospital. The urgent priorities in Auckland are around a train system that extends through the central business district loop and also out to the airport. 
This is a great day for green politics in New Zealand. It is a great day for everyone who supports sustainable transport options for Aotearoa New Zealand. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 The 2010 barbecue season appears to have started early perhaps as early as 28 July. Recent revelations about our friends on the other side remind me of the ditty from that great Gilbert and Sullivan opera  
The Mikado 
. Instead of the Lord High Executioner we have the “Lord High Executed” and instead of Ko-Ko of Titipu we have “Carter of Te Atatu” and he has a little list. After Catherine Delahunty’s maiden speech I vowed I would never sing in this House but if I did the song could go something like this: “As some day it may happen that a leader must be downed; he’s got a little list. Seventeen offenders who really must be found; he’s got a little list.” I certainly agree that none of them would be missed but I am sure Mr Goff would certainly love to get his hands on it. 
When Mr Carter finally does leave this place and I do not think it will be long he might want to consider a new career as a game show host. Remember Jason Gunn’s  
The Rich List 
? Well Mr Carter could front a new show called “The Ditch List”. Labour MPs could appear and attempt to name as many of their colleagues as they can who are ready to roll their leader. That would be one show where getting a good score might be a bit career limiting. What is most astounding about this whole affair is that Mr Carter has been very indiscreet; in fact he was so clumsy in his attempt to undermine his leader that I suspect that that was his intention all along. He is probably very upset that his 17 colleagues did not follow him into the coup d’état after he led them out of the trenches. 
The most astounding point about this is that Mr Carter’s main criticism is absolutely accurate in respect of the extraordinary flip-flop on GST. Mr Carter rightly points out how inconsistent the Labour leader Phil Goff is being when he dusts off the big red bus paints the words “Axe the Tax” on the side of it and crusades around the country telling people how badly off they will be. 
But when it comes to the crunch he cannot commit to axing the tax—quite the opposite. He now commits to keeping the rate of GST but tinkers around the edges of it with fruit and vegetables. After 25 years of Labour defending the efficiency of GST—25 years including Dr Cullen deriding any suggestion of differential rates of GST—in a desperate move he proposes to tinker with the policy. If Mr Goff really has a problem with the tax switch and if Labour genuinely believes New Zealanders would be better off by returning GST to 12.5 percent and handing back the $4 billion of tax cuts they just received then he should take that policy to the electorate at the next election. 
Labour members repeatedly state that those changes do not favour the many but favour the few so they should have the courage to go to the electorate and wind back those changes. They should tell a family on the average income who has just got $25 a week more in its pay packet despite the GST switch that Labour wants to take that back off them. Labour members should tell the married superannuitants who receive a minimum of $12 more a week and whose income under this Government has gone up by over $100 a fortnight that they want to return this country to the tax-and-spend policies that led New Zealand into the brittle economic state this Government found itself in. Those members should have the courage to go back to the electorate and turn the policy into action. I suspect that that was what upset Mr Carter and the 17 members sitting on the other side of the House the most—talking big but not following through. 
Who might be on the list of 17? Well one could probably discount the most recent arrivals to Parliament so that takes down the suspect list to about 28. If we take away the leader and the deputy leader we are left with 26. If we take away those who have retired or announced that they are not standing at the next election because they are bound to be ambivalent about the leadership that is another four or five so we are now down to about 21 possible Labour members. That is 21 Labour members who did not come in at the last election who still plan to be around after the next election and who are not the leadership pair. Seventeen of them are very possibly on Mr Carter’s list. So 17 of the 21 more experienced members who want to stick around next year could be exposed by Mr Carter as wanting to roll their leader. The aspirants to leadership know that timing is everything. They would probably be happy to let Mr Goff fall on his sword after the next election but they might be thinking about moving sooner now on the basis that if they do not someone else might. On the other hand what will it mean to be exposed by Mr Carter as a member of the list of 17? Well it probably augurs pretty well for their plans. That will be of comfort to the aspirants as the barbecue season approaches. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 If Mr Paul Henry did not know or did not have examples of what it means to be a New Zealander then there is something wrong with him given that in my view and in the view of certainly most people in this House there are 4.2 million examples in this country of what it means to be a New Zealander what it sounds like to be a New Zealander and what it looks like to be a New Zealander and they are called our community. 
I say that because as Annette King said we have not only in the last couple of weeks but in the last month seen two key and critical failures of leadership on behalf of the Prime Minister. The first was to not defend the Governor-General. That was a failure not just simply because he is the Governor-General but—and I suspect there would not be a member of this House who would not agree with me in saying this—because he represents of himself and his good lady wife Lady Susan the essence of New Zealand: a decent human being a decent Kiwi and a decent person. That was the first strike. The second strike which was some weeks before was to not hold a Minister in his Government Rodney Hide to a high standard that he himself promoted as early as November 2008 when he said: “I expect high standards from my Ministers. If they don’t meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary.” 
What were the series of excuses that the Prime Minister used to not stand up to not show leadership and to not reflect the feeling in the community which was one of anger emotion and revulsion in respect of Mr Henry? The first excuse was to quote him he was “jetlagged”. The second excuse was to say: “Well you know Paul. You never know where he’s going.” The third excuse was that the Prime Minister said: “Where there’s freedom of speech there is always those who will push the boundaries.” 
I say to the Prime Minister that he also has a thing called freedom of speech. He also has that great principle that we hold dear called freedom of speech but he chose not to use it. He zipped his lips and he used the fourth excuse which was to blame Television New Zealand 3 days later. He used his freedom of speech which he countenanced in Paul Henry 3 days later. 
I say to the Prime Minister that it was not Rick Ellis the chief executive of Television New Zealand sitting on the couch with Mr Henry being interviewed and it was not any of the executive team of Television New Zealand sitting on the couch with Paul Henry being interviewed so why does he blame them? Oh no that was an alibi as the giggle the smile and the wave occurred. It was in fact the Prime Minister sitting on the couch with his best mate and former Tory candidate Paul Henry. The Prime Minister showed no fortitude in articulating the emotion of New Zealanders in using his freedom of speech to rebuke Paul Henry to utterly reject what he was saying and to defend a symbol and a person who is a decent New Zealander. He giggled he waved and he chose not to use his freedom of speech. He used the excuse of jetlag and then he blamed Rick Ellis and Television New Zealand. Well I say again that it was not Mr Ellis sitting on the couch being interviewed who had the opportunity to rebuke Paul Henry. It was not Mr Ellis or his executive team who were elected Prime Minister of this land and have a responsibility to show leadership. 
I say to Government members that although they squawk and giggle and poke a bit of fun at Mr Carter at our expense—one can see the likeness of that coming through—there is a big issue. That issue is about freedom of speech it is about leadership it is about articulating the hurts and concerns of New Zealanders and it is about showing some guts; it is about showing some guts. 
In that respect I turn to the Hide fiasco. Mr Hide talked today about high principle. I could not believe my luck when Mr Hide talked about the Foreshore and Seabed Act and deals done behind closed doors. If there was ever a person who has been inconsistent on every principle that he has stood for whether it be perks David Garrett zero tolerance or name suppression it is that member. Mr Hide could not spell the word principle. He did the ultimate deal behind closed doors aided and abetted by Garth McVicar who knew about David Garrett. He was aided and abetted he knew about it but he did nothing. Where is the principle in that? I say that that is the other failure of Mr Key as Mr Hide hangs like a millstone around his neck. Where is the high standard he promoted in 2008 and where is Mr Key showing leadership in holding that Minister to account? He has zero points on Paul Henry and zero points on Mr Hide. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 Today there is a tale of two parties. We have a party on the other side of the Chamber that is sinking. It is actually quite sad to watch that. What we can see—and it is a pretty standard tactic when we see a ship sinking—is the tactic of diversion. That is exactly what we have seen today from Annette King and Clayton Cosgrove. They have chosen to divert the whole argument to one about our Prime Minister but here are the facts. The facts are that Labour MPs have been jumping ship from that caucus for a long period of time. We have seen Dr Cullen go Winnie Laban is nearly gone and we will see George Hawkins go. 
But the one person who is staying is Chris Carter. He is sticking around because he is going to spill the beans. That is right. What he is talking about is what I am calling the “Save Labour 17”. I can hear right now some people clicking away and creating a Facebook page called “Save Labour 17”. I can tell members that—and we have done the numbers here; we have done the numbers—when we start to look at the number of MPs who would be in that list we see the fact is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I wouldn’t go down here if I were you Nikki Kaye. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: That member has the numbers; he has the numbers. Anyway the reality is that there are not 17 members but 18 members on that list because one of them is munching a bagel in New York as we speak. There are actually 18 members on that list. 
We see a party that is in absolute disarray. I could not believe it when Annette King stood up today and asked what leadership was. I will tell that member that she asked exactly the question that is being asked in the offices of all her party’s MPs right at the moment. The irony was incredible. The irony was incredible when she chose to give a speech in which she posed the question what is leadership? If the deputy leader needs to ask that question out loud what is going on in the Labour Party? That was actually a bit sad so I will not spend any more time on that. Members can see a party in absolute disarray questioning what leadership is. 
That situation contrasts with what this Government is doing so I will tell Annette King right now what leadership is. Leadership is leading the biggest tax reforms that our country has seen in a long time. Leadership is making real changes to GST. Leadership is not the flip-flopping that we have seen Phil Goff doing. Leadership is about funding over 3000 new university places to help young people. Leadership as I said before is about changing the country from one that was absolutely laden with bureaucracy to one where we have real front-line public services. Leadership is about making changes to the Resource Management Act so that thousands of New Zealanders do not have to spend time and money on bureaucratic processes. Leadership is saying it is not fair in this country to allow one in five kids to leave school without being able to read and write. We see a Government that is making real change to New Zealand in terms of education the economy health and the environment compared with a party that sadly is completely imploding. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I noticed the Hon Chris Carter was due to speak next but he does not appear to be in the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member cannot refer to the absence of another member. That is a caution. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: “A plan” was the braying chorus we heard from those on the benches opposite as the collective caucus uni-neurone briefly glowed from time to time. A question we may well ask is whether they would recognise one. Would they recognise a plan? Why do I suggest that? It is because for an interminable period in Government they appeared to operate without one. As a result year after year after year in times of unparalleled global prosperity the performance of our tradables sector dropped ever further behind. Slumped in their armchairs of apathy and indolence dressed in pyjamas in the daytime feet encased in the woolly slippers of indecision and hesitation a rug of torpor on their knees wearing nightcaps of incomprehension and bemused incompetence what plan did they espouse when they had their arthritic twisted talons on the levers of power? What plan was there? 
Long-suffering New Zealanders were taxed regulated and subsidised. Small-business men and women as well as exporters were effectively told to stand by to hurry up and to wait. Labour had no plan; its position instead appeared to be that if something moved tax it; if it continued moving regulate it; and if it stopped moving subsidise it. Innovation creativity and entrepreneurship were stifled; a fresh idea was as rare as a Bantu at a bar mitzvah and the tradables sector wilted. Its default position of supervised neglect meant that our economy underperformed despite the best economic conditions since Noah took a day off to go fishing. 
Most New Zealanders were blithely unaware of the previous administration’s mismanagement as the calamitous state of affairs was masked by ever more overseas borrowing and ill-directed spending. As the global recession approached little changed; no one in the home for the bewildered noticed. The background muffled whiffling and cackling continued unbroken save for the odd curse or oath as one resident tried to snatch another’s bauble of office. 
That continues to this day. Coups are plotted denied discovered and the rank and file of the Labour caucus look on bemused as senior members squabble in the sand pit. Instruction in party policy and doctrine are solicited and received from union leaders on the outside. Senior members are draped in sackcloth and ashes ritually humiliated and excommunicated from the party; they leave muttering dark threats and imprecations. 
We are told of a long list of Labour caucus members unhappy with their leader. Who could be on that list? Potentially almost every second member of the Labour caucus. New Zealanders are asking the question: “If this is Labour’s level of self-government how could it ever be fit to run the country?”. The economic mess the previous Labour Government left behind proved that it was not fit to run the country and Labour members’ current antics also show they are not fit. All that is missing is the death rattle. 
John Key’s principled pragmatic National-led Government has set out a plan to deal with the worst recession in seven decades and has reshaped the economic mesh in many areas and at different levels. We are focusing relentlessly on lifting New Zealand’s long-term economic growth to create jobs boost incomes and raise the living standards of the hard-working people of Manurewa where I am privileged to be based and indeed of all New Zealanders. 
Our society is judged by how we treat our most vulnerable. We need to grow the economic cake in order to provide the world-class public services that all New Zealanders deserve. To paraphrase Lao-tzu a bad Government is despised a good Government is revered a great Government the people say they did it themselves. This National-led Government is aspirational for our country. We are working hard to provide families in our communities with the financial security the opportunities and the higher incomes they need to help unlock the potential within each of them to pursue their individual dreams and aspirations and create a brighter future for themselves. Our 1 October tax package is rewarding effort. It will help attract and retain skilled people in New Zealand and help hard-working families to get ahead. Thank you. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 The last couple of National speakers have chosen to touch on issues of leadership. If members opposite want to talk about leadership by the Prime Minister I ask where he showed leadership when our distinguished Governor-General was being slagged on a breakfast television programme and racist and offensive remarks were made right in front of him. Where was leadership shown by him in not responding to those questions on the spot? John Key is one of three people who bear responsibility for this very unfortunate saga—one of the three. Paul Henry has paid the price for the comments he made and appropriately so but John Key and the chief executive of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) bear responsibility as well. 
We have to say that the Prime Minister failed to recognise and stand up for the interests of the 100000 New Zealanders of Indian origin when Paul Henry made his racist and offensive remarks about a person of Indian descent not being an appropriate choice as the Governor-General. I wonder whether this weekend the Prime Minister will attend one of the many Diwali events around the country as our Hindu community celebrates its sacred festival. Will he stand shoulder to shoulder alongside members of the Indian community and enjoy their hospitality when he failed so miserably recently to defend their interests to defend the reputation of a man who grew up in that community who has been a distinguished New Zealander and who in front of an audience of hundreds of thousands was denigrated on our State television channel? 
I think John Key bears as much responsibility for that as Paul Henry. Not only did he fail to challenge those racist and offensive remarks but also he sat there for the next few minutes and virtually encouraged Paul Henry to continue. Paul Henry continued his offensive comments. He then started questioning who should be the next Governor-General and the Prime Minister allowed him and encouraged him to rule out two other distinguished New Zealanders: one a former member of this House Jeannette Fitzsimons and the other the Mad Butcher Sir Peter Leitch whom ironically Paul Henry was due to host on  
This Is Your Life 
 last weekend. The Prime Minister sat there like a stuffed dummy and allowed not just one distinguished New Zealander but three distinguished New Zealanders to be denigrated. I say that is an issue of leadership. When a remark like that is said in front of politicians of any stature certainly at Prime Minister level politicians need to find their moral compass and stand up and say it is unacceptable and it is offensive. It deserves to be responded to immediately; they should not sit there smile and wave. The Prime Minister failed a large section of the New Zealand community at a time when it wanted true leadership. 
It is not the first time that Paul Henry has caused offence and in fact that is where the question mark about the judgment of TVNZ and its chief executive comes into question. I note that there has been a series of events like this one that have been increasingly trenchant and have increasingly caused division and offence in the community. Until now there has not been any attempt by TVNZ to rein in that presenter. It sat by and said publicly that he was a bit naughty but by golly he rated! That should not be the only requirement of a State-owned broadcaster. We should have expectations that a State broadcaster will have some requirement other than simply to maximise ratings and revenue. That is why it is the State broadcaster. It is a shame on TVNZ. 
I acknowledge that Paul Henry has been on air through two Governments but members should note that as one media commentator put it he seemed to go really ballistic from the time of the change of Government onwards. Part of the reason for that of course is that this Government has told TVNZ to ditch any other requirement; to not think about issues of national identity balance ethics and judgment but simply to focus on the bottom line and to maximise the dividends for this Government. When that kind of requirement is put on TVNZ this sort of thing is no surprise. That said we expect people in positions of authority like the chief executive of TVNZ who is also editor-in-chief to recognise the commercial risks he is putting upon his company. 
I think the real motivation for TVNZ’s taking action against Paul Henry at the level it has done was not really the response of hundreds and hundreds of New Zealanders—the biggest ever response—but the threat of one of its major advertisers to pull its advertising. That is what rang TVNZ’s bells. That is what caused it to intervene and respond not the fact that tens of thousands of New Zealanders were personally offended by the comments made in the presence of the Prime Minister who failed to defend the integrity of our Governor-General. Shame on him. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am truly delighted to take part in this general debate. This month is October Breast Cancer Action Month. Yesterday I hosted a Rural Women New Zealand initiative called Let’s Get Plastered for Breast Cancer. Not surprisingly the title of the event captured everyone’s attention. Getting plastered was not about getting rolling drunk but rather about women and some men taking plaster casts of their chests and displaying them anonymously with the proceeds going to breast cancer. This was quite a fun event enjoyed by many but there was a very serious message behind it. Getting plastered is about promoting breast cancer awareness which is an important tool for all women of all age groups. It is important that women understand the normal breast changes and particularly changes in their breasts that persist. We are very fortunate to have a high-quality breast-screening programme—BreastScreen Aotearoa known as BSA for short—which targets women between the ages of 45 and 69 when the most benefit is seen. But we know mammograms are not perfect and there are cancers that appear between mammograms and indeed outside the screening age. That is why it is important that women get to know what their normal breast tissue is like and when changes persist act to see their doctor. 
Very importantly the Let’s Get Plastered event was about raising money for the New Zealand Breast Cancer Foundation. I acknowledge the vital work that the foundation does in breast cancer education and awareness. The fact is that this country needs a vibrant charitable and voluntary sector; without it quite frankly many of our support and social services would be next to impossible. So my congratulations go to the foundation for the work it does. 
Breast cancer is the most common cancer for New Zealand women and one of the leading causes of cancer-related death. Each year approximately 2600 women are diagnosed with this cancer with more than 650 dying of this disease each year. The Government is committed to improving the numbers of people affected by breast cancer as well as the survival rates. It is pleasing to know that the proportion of New Zealand women accessing BreastScreen Aotearoa continues to increase and it is particularly heartening to see that coverage rates for Maori and Pacific Island women where generally coverage is lower and survival statistics are poorer compared with other women are increasing. That is a positive step in the right direction. 
There has also been good progress in breast reconstruction. For many women who have a mastectomy and choose to have their breast reconstructed it is definitely not a cosmetic procedure; it is a vital part of their treatment and their healing. In 2006 Hutt Valley District Health Board decided it was unable to offer delayed breast reconstruction to women of the central and Nelson-Marlborough regions due to resource constraints. In April this year the Government announced in the Budget that $8 million over 4 years will go to the Hutt Valley District Health Board to deal with the backlog of women from the central and Nelson-Marlborough regions. This will allow 100 women to get secondary breast reconstructions this year which is tremendous news for those women. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It certainly is. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: Absolutely. The Government has sent a clear message also that reducing cancer treatment waiting-times is one of our top priorities. This is reflected by the fact that radiation oncology times are now covered by one of the Government’s six key health targets. Under the National Government not one woman has had to be sent to Australia for radiation treatment and that is just fantastic—not one woman. District health boards are now aiming for every person needing radiation treatment to receive it within 4 weeks; that will be a target by December this year. That is an astonishing improvement since the last term of Parliament when women were basically going in droves over to Sydney and other centres in Australia for their breast cancer treatment. 
Under the previous Government eligible patients with early HER2 positive breast cancer were able to access only 9 weeks of Herceptin treatment. The Government made 12 months’ funding of Herceptin treatment available for women with early-stage breast cancer from December 2008 and that was the right thing to do—there is no doubt about it. As time goes on and more trials come out and more data is produced the evidence for 12 months of Herceptin has grown stronger and stronger while the evidence for 9 weeks has become extremely weak and shaky. The Government did the right thing; I am proud to be part of this Government. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Governor-General Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: I move  
That the Governor-General Bill be now read a second time 
. As the Prime Minister indicated when the bill received its first reading it is very important and timely legislation. It was referred to the Government Administration Committee on 20 July; the committee has now completed its examination of the bill and has recommended that it be passed. 
The bill implements the Law Commission’s recommendations in the first part of its review of the Civil List Act 1979. This bill will repeal and replace Part 1 of the Civil List Act with updated financial arrangements for the support of the office of Governor-General. The new regime will be more transparent and simpler to administer and it will also modernise the antiquated drafting of the Governor-General part of the Civil List Act. 
The bill contains a comprehensive transitional regime. With one exception the new legislation will not apply to the incumbent. Clauses 25 and 27 contain savings and validation clauses to ensure the relevant provisions of the Civil List Act and any determinations of the Remuneration Authority or Orders in Council made under that Act relating to salary payments on leaving office and other benefits or privileges continue to apply to the incumbent and to previous Governors-General and their spouses. Only the annuities provisions which remove certain outdated restrictions on the availability of the annuity will apply to the incumbent and to his spouse. 
The core of the bill is directed to reforming the financial support structure of the office of Governor-General. The present regime is as the Law Commission recognised cumbersome and unclear. Funding for the Governor-General is split between two sets of appropriations one funding the official residences and part of the Governor-General’s programme of activities and the other paying for the Governor-General’s salary and allowance but also including aspects of the Governor-General’s programme. The bill addresses this issue by consolidating all funding for the Governor-General’s programme within a single permanent appropriation leaving annual appropriations to account only for the Government House operational budget. To provide further transparency the bill will also separate out funding for the Governor-General’s international travel from the appropriation providing for the Governor-General’s domestic programme. 
Unlike the domestic travel programme which the Governor-General determines himself or herself international travel is undertaken at the request of the Government. Because this travel is often difficult to predict in advance—for example requests to attend significant funerals—the Government has agreed with the Law Commission’s recommendation that a new permanent appropriation be established for this purpose. 
A key feature of the bill is that it will remove the exemption from income tax on the Governor-General’s salary. Both the salary and the allowance are presently exempt from income tax under the Income Tax Act 2007 and the salary is calculated on that basis. As noted by the Prime Minister there is no longer any justification for this salary to be exempt from income tax. Her Majesty the Queen has voluntarily paid income tax on her private income since 1993 and the Australian Governor-General and state governors have paid income tax on their salaries since 2001. 
A further tax-related change is the removal of the Minister of Finance’s power to exempt the Governor-General from paying any public or local tax duty rate levy or fee. There are no current exemptions. The Law Commission recommended that the power be removed and it has not been carried over into this bill. 
The Government Administration Committee identified one small issue with the bill that will need to be addressed in the Committee of the whole House. The Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 presently excludes from the definition of “taxable activity” any engagement occupation or employment pursuant to the Civil List Act 1979. For the avoidance of doubt section 6(3)(c)(i) will need to be amended to read “pursuant to the Civil List Act 1979 or the Governor-General Act 2010”. 
Section 3(4) of the Civil List Act provides that on leaving office the Governor-General shall be paid a sum equal to 3 months’ tax-exempt salary and 3 months’ tax-exempt allowance. The purpose of this payment is to cover the outgoing administration and immediate commitments of the outgoing Governor-General. The Law Commission recommended that this payment should be retained albeit in a new form. Following the first reading of the bill there was a degree of misunderstanding concerning this payment including the suggestion that it would double in size under the new bill and that it would apply to the incumbent. That is not correct. Because the legislation will subject the Governor-General’s salary to income tax and significantly reduce the quantum of the allowance the quantum of the payment made on leaving office would be reduced if the formula from the Civil List Act were carried over to the new bill. So the Law Commission has recommended that the formula be reframed to allow for a payment of 6 months’ taxable salary only. Once the Remuneration Authority has taken into account the effect of income tax on the salary it is expected to be a rough equivalent to the current payment. The payment will be subject to income tax administered through the PAYE system but the change will not apply to the incumbent. 
Section 4 of the Civil List Act provides for the payment of annuities to former Governors-General and their spouses or partners. The annuities are treated as taxable income. It recognises the contribution the Governor-General and his or her spouse have made to the country and the ongoing commitments that can arise from a Governor-General’s duties even after leaving office. These commitments often include obligations such as patronage of causes that they come to be associated with during their term considerable correspondence delivering speeches and attending various events. The public nature of the role often places limits on their subsequent activities and their employment choices. 
The Law Commission recommended that the Governor-General Bill should provide for the payment of an annuity to former Governors-General in similar terms to the present section 4 of the Civil List Act as applied by the Remuneration Authority. This annuity will be payable from the date that is 6 months after the date on which the person ceased to hold office rather than 3 months as provided for under the Civil List Act. 
Consistent with the Civil List Act when a former Governor-General dies the surviving spouse or partner of that person will be entitled to annuity at half the yearly rate at which the annuity would have been payable to the former Governor-General had he or she not died. These entitlements will also apply to the surviving spouse or partner of a Governor-General who dies in office. In the case of a surviving spouse or partner the annuity is based on recognition of the significant role played by the spouse in supporting the office holder. That being the case the Law Commission recommended that the annuity should not end if the spouse remarries or enters into a new relationship. The other exemptions are also anachronistic and they will be removed by the bill. 
This is an important bill that clarifies the position of the office of Governor-General. The office is a very important component of our constitutional framework. It is certainly one deserving of respect by everyone at all times. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow the Attorney-General who is acting on behalf of the Prime Minister on this bill. I understand why the Prime Minister is not prepared to come to the House and debate this bill today. I think it would be a very brave Minister in the  
Yes Minister 
 sense who would lead the debate on this bill given the events of the last couple of weeks. I am happy to follow the Attorney-General here; I would not be happy to follow him in a backroom tour of Te Papa when his officials have indicated that pregnant or menstruating women would not be welcome to go on that tour. I say to the Attorney-General— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that the member is rather disturbed but that comment is completely irrelevant to the debate. He should focus on the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Let me make this point first: the Minister should not refer to any attitudes he has about a member when he raises a point of order. That was out of order. However in regard to the nature of the content of a second reading debate the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings are precise. I ask the member to look at page 106 of the  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. His comments must pertain to the matters contained in the bill. In that regard the member is outside what is permitted in a second reading debate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes Mr Assistant Speaker. Without referring to your ruling at all I say that it is good to see the Government being so sensitive to the requirements of the Standing Orders. 
I was saying that it is a pleasure to follow the Attorney-General on this legislation; I would not follow him very far in other areas. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Like Te Papa. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Including Te Papa on a backroom tour. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Because he’s weird. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are a number of reasons why I would not follow him in that particular circumstance. But I am pleased to follow the Attorney-General because there is a sense of nostalgia for me in dealing with the Civil List Act and now with the Governor-General Bill in that while I was a member of the Statutes Revision Committee—which at the time was chaired by Trevor de Cleene and on which the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice Geoffrey Palmer sat—the very first piece of legislation that I dealt with was in this area. 
I think the focus of this debate today is likely to be slightly different from what it would have been had it been debated a couple of weeks ago because the type of person who is likely to be the beneficiary of these changes has become an issue for the public. The Prime Minister’s views on that as expressed on Television New Zealand when the issue was raised of future Governors-General who are to be the beneficiaries of this legislation have been widely condemned. In fact one of the themes I am going to develop is whether the affordability of this legislation has been affected by the Prime Minister’s comments on television and on Radio Waatea—where he indicated that Television New Zealand as well as Mr Henry were to blame for the comments—given that the size of the payout to Mr Henry would have increased as a result of the Prime Minister’s comments. 
It is interesting to see the approach that has been taken to this legislation by the Government. In one sense the Government is being very liberal. When we look at clause 16 we can see the preparation the Government is making for possibly having Mormon or Muslim Governors-General. Those are people who as a result of relationships they have entered into outside the New Zealand jurisdiction have the ability to have more than one spouse at a time and that ability to split the spousal arrangements is part of the legislation that we are dealing with today. 
On the one hand we have to congratulate the Government for what it is doing in terms of preparing for a wider range of Kiwis to become Governors-General but at the same time we have to condemn it for the attitude of the Prime Minister when he appeared to go in the opposite direction while being interviewed by Paul Henry. I think most New Zealanders have now seen a replay if not the original showing of the Prime Minister giggling and smiling at the suggestion that someone who was of a different colour could not be a New Zealander and could not look like a New Zealander. We know that as we go forward we will have a range of New Zealanders of a variety of colours as our Governors-General and they are the people for whom we are currently preparing and for whom we are considering legislation. Certainly in clauses 6 8 9 and 11 there are references to benefits for Governors-General former Governors-General and spouses of Governors-General. 
This legislation would have gone through the House very very easily and possibly without debate if the Government had chosen a more auspicious time to debate it rather than a time that followed so soon after the Prime Minister’s decision to smile and giggle at Paul Henry’s suggestion about people who were “of colour” as the old expression used to be. “Black” is probably the expression that many people would now use although knowing the Prime Minister it could be “brown” as well. The suggestion was that people who were not white-skinned— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will caution the member. He is getting away from the bill. I quite expressly referred the member to—and I am guided by—Speakers’ rulings. The member is now stepping outside what the bill actually prescribes. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This bill prescribes for future Governors-General and I am saying that as we pass this bill we should be passing it for Governors-General of all colours and that no Prime Minister should giggle or smirk at the suggestion that someone who is not white is not suitable to be a Governor-General of New Zealand. I say that that is the key to this bill. The bill is a preparation for all Governors-General not just for white Governors-General as was the theme of the Paul Henry comments to which the Prime Minister responded with a giggle. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member is now challenging my ruling. I have ruled. The member can refer to the bill and make examples but I believe that the member is debating in a way that is outside my ruling. I have ruled. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mr Assistant Speaker I acknowledge that you have ruled in that way and I would like to refer you to start with to clause 16 of the bill and suggest that you read it very carefully. That clause allows for people with multiple spouses. It allows for annuities to the former spouses of Governors-General. That provision allows for people who are Mormon and Muslim where there is a conflict about the arrangements for the allowances those people can get. Clearly those people cannot marry in a New Zealand system but there is nothing stopping a New Zealander from entering into a multiple-spouse marriage offshore and returning to be Governor-General. 
If we had a truly liberal Prime Minister that is something that we would be contemplating now but we do not have a Prime Minister who is prepared to lead the debate on this bill and that is where I want to finish. I ask why he left it to the Attorney-General to lead the debate. Why did the Prime Minister not lead it? The bill is in the name of the Prime Minister; it is his responsibility. The Prime Minister is the person who has been making the recent giggling and smiling comments about non-white Governors-General and I just say that a Prime Minister who had backbone and who believed in a multicultural society would be here to lead the debate. Instead he has left it to his fellow giggler Chris Finlayson. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 What a shame it is that I have to follow such a poor contribution from a clearly disturbed member of Parliament. The Governor-General Bill is important legislation and indeed it is timely. The Governor-General plays a very important role in our constitution and in the life of New Zealanders and it is of regret to me that Trevor Mallard who has just resumed his seat sinks once again into the gutter to take a poor shameful opportunity to score some mean little political points. 
As the Sovereign’s representative in New Zealand the Governor-General helps to maintain the legitimacy and continuity of Government. The Governor-General Bill which has been examined by the Government Administration Committee provides updated and simpler financial arrangements for the support of the Governor-General and his or her programme. The purpose is to encourage transparency and to ensure that it is simpler to administer than under the present regime. 
I wanted to make just a short contribution and I finish by saying that it is also regretful that the chair of the Government Administration Committee David Parker yielded to Mr Mallard. I would have thought that as the chair of the Government Administration Committee Mr Parker might take the opportunity to make a decent contribution to this debate; he may well do so but I do not hold out any hope. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I am quite happy to respond to the comments of Jacqui Dean who has just resumed her seat. I was out of the Chamber when Mr Mallard started his speech on the Governor-General Bill. I was doing a radio interview about foreshore and seabed issues I say for the record. I can explain why I was out of the Chamber in respect of the first call on this bill but where is the Prime Minister? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Oh Mr Assistant Speaker! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure what the attitude of the member was when he so vibrantly said: “Mr Assistant Speaker!” but we will stick to the rules. Members cannot refer to the absence of a member and the member knows that. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I did not refer to the absence of the Prime Minister and I will not do so. I said that the first address on this bill was not given by the Prime Minister; I am entitled to do that in accordance with the Standing Orders. I repeat that because it is true and because it is relevant. 
At the first reading of this bill which is in the name of the Prime Minister he deigned it important enough to come here and tell this House that the bill was important because the office of Governor-General is important. He told this House that. He was at question time today but he did not take the first call in respect of this second reading of the bill; rather he left it to the Attorney-General. It is quite within my power as a speaker in this House of Representatives to ask why he did not take that call particularly when that same accusation has just been made of me by a Government member. To hear Government members now heckling me for having the temerity to question why the Prime Minister was not here to defend the Governor-General—and indeed to defend his recent record in respect of the Governor-General—is just too galling for me to accept. 
Why did the Prime Minister not take that first call? I know why: because he was exposed recently for his inconsistency in respect of the office of Governor-General. We all across both sides of the House know where that exposure was. It was on TV. What have the newspapers said in respect of that inconsistency? I think the newspapers will again be adopting it after today’s performance given the fact that he did not give the first address on the second reading of this bill. Why did the Prime Minister not react to what Paul Henry said? According to the  
Sunday Star-Times  
at the time Key’s buddy Paul left him looking flat-footed and silly. The newspaper said that it was not because he was a closet racist or that he was playing dog-whistle politics. I agree with that; I actually do not think that John Key is a racist and I do not think that our party has accused him of being so. But I agree with the next reason which is that Key is just not very quick. That is what the editorial in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
said on 10 October and that is the same reason John Key did not take the first call in the second reading of this bill today—because he is not very quick. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Get out of the gutter. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Jacqui Dean is very quick to shout out and make accusations about my not taking the first call. As I have said it was because when Trevor Mallard took the call I was doing a radio interview in the lobby. But why is the Prime Minister not here taking the first call? We have not heard him. Is it because as the  
Sunday Star-Times  
has said Key is just not very quick? He could not properly defend himself against the allegations that had been made against him. 
The Governor-General is as Jacqui Dean has said the Queen of New Zealand’s legal representative in New Zealand. It is a very important office in our constitutional affairs so when anyone makes an attack upon the Governor-General—particularly an attack that is as distasteful as the one that Paul Henry made—the Prime Minister should slap it down. But of course we have a Prime Minister whom the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 says is just not very quick. We had a Prime Minister who was quick to defend Rodney Hide’s handling of David Garrett recently. He said that he thought Hide’s handling had been very good. The Prime Minister was quick enough to do that but not quick enough to defend our Governor-General when he was attacked by Paul Henry. 
I agree with the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 that John Key was left looking flat-footed and silly because he is just not very quick. I am sad to say that he is not as quick as our Governor-General. If the Governor-General had been in an interview and the same attack had been made against the Prime Minister I am sure that the Governor-General would have leapt to the defence of the Prime Minister. Although I did not vote for him he is my Prime Minister; the office of Prime Minister is an office that I want to look up to and respect—indeed I do respect the office. It saddens me that my Prime Minister let me down in not upholding the standards that I want upheld for my country when someone makes an inappropriate comment like that. Rather than giggling and being left flat-footed I want my Prime Minister to stand up for what is correct—not just in respect of the Governor-General but also in respect of other antics that bring this House into disrepute such as those we saw from the ACT Party David Garrett and— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I have been more than tolerant. I will read the member Speaker’s ruling 106/2: “On the second reading of a bill discussion must be confined to the bill before the House as printed.” I have shown a degree of tolerance and references can be included but the member has spoken for nearly two-thirds of his time and he has not got to the bill. If he is not prepared to get to the bill then I will terminate his speech. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: This bill is the primary legislation that governs payment for the services the Governor-General provides as the Queen’s representative in New Zealand. Given the importance of that office and given the importance that the Prime Minister attached to it at the bill’s first reading—indeed it is quite unusual for the Prime Minister to turn up and speak to a bill in this House so it was with pleasure that we heard him speak at the first reading of this bill—I am contrasting that with the fact that he did not take the first call in today’s debate. I hope that he will take a subsequent call in this second reading debate. It is all the more important in the context of what has happened over the last 2 weeks with Paul Henry that the Prime Minister takes a call in this debate today—as he did in the first reading—to make it clear what he thinks of the importance of the office of Governor-General and to show the office of Governor-General the respect that it deserves. 
In terms of the mechanics of the bill only one small amendment was recommended by the Government Administration Committee and that is referred to in the report back. We recommend a small amendment in respect of the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 which we suggest should be achieved by way of a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee of the whole House stage. It is not so substantial an amendment as to require a redrafting of the bill in the meantime but perhaps we could hear from the Prime Minister about whether that amendment will in fact be brought forward in the Committee stage. 
The office of Governor-General is an important office. I know there are people who think we should move towards republicanism and have a Governor-General who is not appointed by the Queen but rather by some other method. That idea of course fell outside the scope of this bill and as a consequence it could not be considered by the select committee. I do not propose to comment upon it much here. Suffice it to say although I personally do not have a very strong view either for or against republicanism if there was a move towards it in New Zealand I would be attracted to the idea that we make the move through replicating our current status of having a head of State in the form of a Governor-General. He or she would have the same powers prerogatives and traditions that the existing Governor-General has in a way that would keep the Governor-General appointed. One of the strengths of our model at the moment is that our Governor-General is apolitical; I would not want to move to a presidential-style system in the place of a Governor-General if we ever moved towards becoming a republic. 
I will not take any further time on this speech because I want to leave time for the Prime Minister to take a call in the second reading as he did in the first. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill as a way of modernising the functioning of the Governor-General’s office. We agree with the Government Administration Committee that the legislation will make the financial arrangements for the support of the Governor-General more transparent and simpler to administer than they now are. It will also remove the Governor-General’s tax-exempt status which is an appropriate move in a modern democratic society. 
It is unfortunate that the select committee did not respond positively to two submissions for amendments to the bill to change the way we choose the Governor-General or at least to change the way we decide which person’s name is forwarded to the Queen—or it might be the King—for approval. As the select committee stated in its report back these two submitters who advocated a change wanted a new process that would require “[Governors-General] to be elected by Parliament to ensure that consultation occurs and a neutral candidate is chosen who is acceptable to the greatest number of Members of Parliament and the public.” 
The select committee wrongly decided that this issue lay outside the scope of the bill. The Green Party does not agree. There is nothing in the title of the bill—the Governor-General Bill as it is called—or any purpose clause that prevents a section on the appointment and the dismissal of a Governor-General from being added. This was the proposal in the submission of the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand and the submission of Derek Round went in the same direction. At the moment the selection of a nominee for Governor-General is not democratic. I as a member of Parliament in a non-Government party have no input whatsoever; it is done entirely by the Government of the day. We have a history of some clearly political appointments. Sir Keith Holyoake a former National Prime Minister who was appointed by a National Government is a case in point. 
The Government is unlikely to appoint someone who might have a record of being critical of the policies of the particular party currently in Government. It is hard in this modern age not to agree that we need a more democratic process. The proposal of the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand was for a clause specifying that “The Governor-General is appointed by the Sovereign on the recommendation of the House of Representatives.” It proposed that the recommendation for a nomination have the agreement of at least half of the parliamentary leaders of all political parties represented in Parliament and that the parties they lead contain at least 75 percent of the MPs in the House. 
The Greens agree with this general direction and in the Committee stage I will move an amendment similar to the one proposed by the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand only a bit simpler. My amendment will simply say that the nomination has to have the support of 75 percent of the members of this House. This is not an entirely new idea. The submission of the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand pointed out that the parliaments of Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands already elect their Governor-General nominee to be forwarded to the Queen. The submission of the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand also allows for a dismissal process with a similar proportion of the House of Representatives having to agree. My amendment in the Committee stage will specify that dismissal will require the agreement of 75 percent of members. 
Democratising this dismissal process is important because at the moment if the Government of the day is called to order by the Governor-General the Government can fire off a note to the Queen advising her to dismiss the said Governor-General immediately and the Queen is required to act on the advice of the Government of New Zealand. This power of the Government of the day over the Governor-General inhibits the true independence of the person who holds that office and is acting as head of State in New Zealand on behalf of the Queen. 
The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand also picked up another good point in that in statute there is no defined length of term for the Governor-General other than what is put in the terms of appointment when he or she takes up the job. It is a non-statutory provision. The movement suggests putting a clear provision in the bill for the Governor-General’s term to not exceed 5 years and that seems fair enough to me. 
Although all of these democratic proposals were advanced by the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand they are not republican in and of themselves; they are simply democratic proposals. However another submitter Derek Round not only proposed similar democratic steps for the selection of the Governor-General but also associated this move with a move away from the monarchy. In addition to the Governor-General being appointed by Parliament Derek Round proposed that “On the death abdication or appointment of a regency of Queen Elizabeth II her heir and successor will cease to be the Head of State and King or Queen of New Zealand. The Governor-General will continue to exercise all the powers and prerogatives of that office and assume and exercise all the powers and prerogatives previously exercised by Queen Elizabeth II.” 
There is a body of opinion in New Zealand that holds that Queen Elizabeth II should be our last monarch the last King or Queen of New Zealand and that we should now move to work out a transition from the end of her reign to New Zealand becoming a republic. Not long after Derek Round made that submission to the select committee and completely separate from the select committee process our previous Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen came up with a similar proposal at the Reconstituting the Constitution conference held in Wellington. He said that there should be legislation “to provide that the choice of Governor-General (strictly speaking constitutionally the nomination) should henceforth be made by a supermajority of Parliament say 75 per cent. The same legislation could then provide that on the death of the Queen the Governor-General would become head of state.” There we are; great minds think alike. I should say at this point that the Green Party does not have an official position on whether New Zealand should become a republic or when and how although I personally am very much a republican. I had a member’s bill before Parliament on the issue but it did not quite succeed although all of my Green colleagues supported it at its first reading. 
This bill also deals with the costs of the Governor-General and they are quite substantial. The latest Budget lists $7.6 million in ongoing operational expenses and $11.6 million to upgrade Government House. The elected President of Ireland will cost less this financial year—namely $6 million. Republics are not expensive contrary to what some people argue. One of the reasons for the difference in costs between New Zealand and Ireland might be the certain excesses in the way we throw money at the Governor-General which are indicated in this bill. For example why does legislation have to provide as this bill does for “the use of chauffeured cars when he or she”—that is the Governor-General—“no longer holds the office of Governor-General.”? Also the 6-month redundancy pay is not a bad lark. It amounts to $96000 not to mention an annuity for the rest of the former Governor-General’s life which is currently $62000 a year. 
Mind you our present Governor-General Anand Satyanand has not done too badly. He is a friendly competent person with an inclusive style. As previous speakers have said he has had to suffer some racist comments lately from TV host Paul Henry who questioned whether he was a real New Zealander. According to Mr Henry Mr Satyanand does not look or sound like a real New Zealander presumably because of his Indian ethnicity. It is ironic that Paul Henry’s first defence when challenged was to say that he was a monarchist so he could not really be against the Governor-General. I say it is ironic because the British royal line is so monocultural! They all look and sound the same because they are all of the same line of European ethnicity and all speak with the same traditional upper-class English accent. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on the Governor-General Bill. I want to pick up a few points from Keith Locke. I come to this debate both as a republican myself as I believe that in due course New Zealand will become a republic and as a democrat in the sense that I believe it is up to the people of New Zealand to determine when we become a republic. Those in the United States may be a bit confused by somebody claiming to be both a republican and a democrat at the same time but that is indeed what I am doing here this afternoon. 
We had a very interesting discussion at the Government Administration Committee about the issue of New Zealand becoming a republic because there was a submission from republicans arguing that this bill needs to go a lot further than it does and look at the way in which the Governor-General is appointed. It was interesting that as we debated that with them there was a general view that there is no pressing desire for a constitutional change of that significance in New Zealand at the moment but that at some point in the future there may well be an event that brings the issue much more to the fore and people may start to think about the Governor-General a bit more than they have previously. 
Of course that was exactly what happened last week when Paul Henry made the comments that he did. The Governor-General who has I think served New Zealand with great dignity but in a fairly unassuming low-key low profile manner was suddenly brought into the headlines much more than he had been for the rest of his tenure in his role as Governor-General. So there has been much greater focus on the role of the Governor-General in the last few weeks and maybe in time that will lead to further debate about whether New Zealand should become a republic. 
I will pick up on that a little. I begin by complimenting the current Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand for the fantastic job that he does as our head of State our effective head of State who represents the Queen. I believe that he serves New Zealand with great dignity. I believe that he embodies New Zealand in the way that he does his job and I am very proud to have him as our effective head of State here in New Zealand. I think it is really important for all of us in the House regardless of which side we sit on and regardless of our own views on what the appropriate constitutional arrangements are for New Zealand to show some respect to the effective head of State the Governor-General of New Zealand who is here on behalf of the Queen. 
I think it is important also that we as parliamentarians uphold the dignity of that office which means that if we encounter people who say something blatantly racist about the Governor-General we should respond very promptly and say we do not think that is good enough. I do not think it upholds the dignity of Parliament of the Governor-General or of the office of Prime Minister that when the Prime Minister is faced with racist comments about the Governor-General he should laugh. I simply do not think that is acceptable. I think the Governor-General Parliament and the people of New Zealand are entitled to expect more leadership than that from the Prime Minister. I think all New Zealanders should be disappointed with that kind of response because the Governor-General has served New Zealand very well and he does embody I believe the values of New Zealanders. He has served this country with great distinction. 
To turn to the specific provisions of this bill I say the Labour Party is supporting this bill because we do not believe that it is appropriate any longer for the Governor-General to be exempt from income tax. We think it is pretty basic and quite consistent with the republicans’ argument that the Governor-General should not be exempt from income tax. I am a fairly non-hierarchical type of person an egalitarian so part of my desire for New Zealand to move towards a republic is a desire to move away from the sort of inherited privilege that the current monarchy represents and to move to something that is more democratic. So the idea that the effective head of State—and I think the Governor-General is the effective head of State—should be tax-exempt is not right. 
The previous Labour Government asked the Law Commission to conduct the review that led to this bill coming before Parliament and we are pleased that the findings of the Law Commission are being implemented in full by this legislation. We think that the debate on New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements is important. Although the Governor-General as our effective head of State may have a relatively low-key low-profile role we should not underestimate the importance of that role. That came into stark relief not just in the last few days regarding the comments Paul Henry made but also with some other comments that the Prime Minister made on the role of the Governor-General to do with the Canterbury earthquake Orders in Council. The Prime Minister said that if the Governor-General was not happy with the Orders in Council then he could refuse to sign them. 
I think that shows an incredible lack of understanding of New Zealand’s constitutional framework by our current Prime Minister because it would be unprecedented in New Zealand’s short history for the Governor-General to refuse to sign something that the Prime Minister had advised him to sign. The constitutional convention is that Governors-General sign whatever is presented to them by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is their chief adviser. 
Nikki Kaye 
: But he still could refuse to sign. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: He could but it would be a rewriting of the constitution without any reference to Parliament or to the people of New Zealand. It has never happened before. It was incredibly naive for the Prime Minister to bat away criticism of the Canterbury earthquake legislation simply by saying the Governor-General could just veto it. So are we now giving the Governor-General the power to simply go ahead and veto the stuff that he decides he does not like without any reference to Parliament? That is absolutely ridiculous. It was a crazy argument for the Prime Minister to put forward and I think it suggests a lack of understanding on his part of a pretty fundamental provision in our unwritten constitutional framework that Governors-General follow the will of Parliament and the will of the executive acting under delegated authority from Parliament and sign the legislation or the orders put before them. The Prime Minister’s argument that they can just veto them is a whole new ground. I think he probably needs to take a bit of a break and think that through a little more carefully before he makes those claims again in the future. 
Labour has always been very keen and I am certainly very keen to hear people’s views on what our future arrangements should be and on what kind of head of State we should have in the future. I was disappointed to see that Keith Locke’s Head of State Referenda Bill did not quite make it through the House. I would have liked to see that debate happen and I would have liked to see New Zealanders have the opportunity to have a say on it. I think the country is probably quite evenly divided quite evenly balanced on whether we want to be a republic now or whether we want to wait until later. But I think if we ask the second question which is whether we want New Zealand to become a republic eventually then most New Zealanders would like to be a republic eventually. A lot of people say that when the current Queen’s reign ends that would be the time for us to become a republic. Well we cannot wait. If that is what we want to do then we cannot wait until that event happens. We need to take steps in the intervening period to put in place whatever alternative arrangements we would want to have. 
I say as somebody who spent some time living in the United Kingdom that my desire for New Zealand— 
John Hayes 
: What’s this got to do with the bill? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It is about the Governor-General. My desire for New Zealand to become a republic and to have a more democratic local head of State as opposed to somebody on the other side of the world— 
John Hayes 
: Your visits to India have nothing to do with the bill. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: This is directly relevant to the bill. My desire for that is not driven by any criticism of the royal family; I think they do a fantastic job. When I was living the UK I would almost go as far as to say I was a monarchist because I thought they were very appropriate in their conduct in so far as it related to the United Kingdom. But I think here in New Zealand on the other side of the world it would be very appropriate for us to have our own head of State in New Zealand someone in whom we can see ourselves reflected. The Governor-General effectively fills that role at the moment. 
John Hayes 
: Which clause of the bill have you got in mind when you’re discussing this? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Mr Hayes can go through the bill and pick any clause that he wants to pick. The Governor-General is our effective head of State at the moment and I would like to see something a little more democratic than that. 
I also refer to the suggestions put forward to the Government Administration Committee which Mr Hayes was on by the republicans who argued that there should be additional clauses in this bill to deal with the appointment process for the Governor-General. Although this bill makes significant changes to the way that the Governor-General’s office operates at the moment it does not deal with the way that Governors-General are appointed which is something that this House should deal with in due course. 
My concluding remarks are simply to once again extend some compliments to the current holder of the office and also to the previous holders of the office. I think we have been very fortunate in New Zealand to have had some very good-quality distinguished Governors-General. I hope that trend will continue until such time as New Zealanders feel it is an appropriate time— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member; his time has expired. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. He wa poto maku ki te tautoko i tenei pire. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker. This a short call from me in support of this bill 
.] 
The Governor-General Bill in repealing and replacing Part 1 of the Civil List Act could be interpreted as simply being about remuneration income tax duties rates levies and fees. Indeed the intention of the bill is to facilitate improved financial arrangements for the support of the Governor-General and his or her programme. To ensure that a future Governor-General receives a payment on leaving office that compares broadly with that available under current law the bill proposes a payment of 6 months’ non - tax-exempt salary. This is an amendment that has arisen out of the recommendation of the Law Commission which the Government Administration Committee supports. The amended bill therefore updates the financial arrangements concerning the salary allowances and the travelling expenses of the Governor-General. The amendments will enable the arrangements to become more transparent and simpler to administer and a key change is that the bill removes the tax exemption status of the Governor-General’s salary. From this point on the Governor-General will pay income tax equally with every other New Zealander ending the Governor-General’s tax-free status. 
The critical feature of all these changes is that they will not affect the constitutional position of the Governor-General and I will speak to that point which is so relevant in the light of recent events in the public media. The relationship between the position of the Governor-General and the constitutional framework of Aotearoa dates back as far as 1840 to the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi which provides the fundamental context of our nationhood. On 6 February 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was signed by Queen Victoria’s representative Governor William Hobson and ultimately by some 500 rangatira Maori. Ever since that time the Governor-General has been an important representative of our founding document. He or she represents to every New Zealander the formative invitation of the Treaty for tangata Tiriti—those who are here by virtue of the Treaty—to enter into a relationship with Maori. We are pleased to support the Governor-General Bill as it is also an important means of being able to consolidate the relationship between tangata whenua and the Crown and in doing so to promote the concept of an enduring nationhood. 
The Governor-General has had a significant presence at some of the most distinctive moments in the history of this nation. It was Governor-General Sir Cyril Newall who took part in the ceremony at Ruatoria on 6 October 1943 to honour the Maori Battalion’s Victoria Cross winner Second Lieutenant Te Moananui-a-Kiwa Ngarimu an event attended by more than 7000 Maori from all over New Zealand. It is the Governor-General who appoints members to the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate claims of breaches of the Treaty from 1975 onwards. It is the Governor-General who represents the monarch at the historical Waitangi Day events. 
I share with the House the words of Dame Silvia Cartwright in 2005: “I encourage all New Zealanders to support and engage in our uniquely indigenous culture and language. It is an important part of our identity. It is what helps make us who we are and marks us out internationally.” 
The role of the Governor-General can indeed be greatly influential in shaping our views as a country about our very concept of nationhood. In this light I was interested to hear the call of Maanu Paul that it is time for Aotearoa to have a Maori Governor-General again given that it is some 20 years since Sir Paul Reeves left that role. Maanu’s recommendation is that Sir Eddie Taihakurei Durie a retired High Court judge has sufficient mana has more than sufficient ability and has the personality to be a Governor-General for Aotearoa. I would like to add that retired Judge Michael J A Brown would also fit that role. 
We come then to the Governor-General Bill accepting the changes to ensure the Governor-General pays tax as is the case with any other New Zealander but also conscious of the special interest that the concept of the Governor-General will have as we embark upon the constitutional review that was a key hallmark of the negotiations that the Maori Party entered into with National to form this Government. We support this bill at its second reading. It repeals outdated and irrelevant provisions of the Civil List Act. It removes the tax-free status that is currently attached to the role and it continues to provide an opportunity for discussion about our constitutional arrangements—the relationship between the Crown and tangata whenua. Thank you. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Governor-General Bill. I have to say that I am a bit disappointed in my colleagues from across the floor of the House for the way they have demeaned the discussion in this debate this afternoon. I draw their attention to the comments of the High Commissioner of India in New Zealand retired Admiral Sureesh Mehta as reported by the  
New Zealand Herald 
. He said the Government had handled the issue “quite well”. He went on to say he believed a visit to India by Prime Minister John Key would be a good thing but that the affair was too small a matter to be brought up between Mr Key and Dr Manmohan Singh the Prime Minister of India. That is the point. The Opposition has gone out of its way this afternoon to demean both the process in this House and the position of a very excellent Governor-General in this country and a similarly excellent Prime Minister. 
When members consider this bill I would like them to reflect on the fact that Mr Goff 2 hours after the Henry event said that Paul Henry was being Paul Henry. So I do not think Mr Goff and the Opposition can take too much credit for the way that they have behaved. 
I refer now to clause 16 about which Mr Mallard seemed to provoke fear and loathing in the community by saying that it will be possible for a Seventh-Day Adventist or a Muslim to become Governor-General and to bring all his wives with him. I mean what arrant nonsense! The first thing to note is that polygamy is banned in this country and even if it were not there is Commonwealth precedent. When I was New Zealand’s High Commissioner to Papua New Guinea a Governor-General was appointed—Sir Wiwa Korowi—who had six or as I remember maybe seven wives. It did not stop the Papua New Guinean system accommodating that arrangement which is perfectly normal in Papua New Guinea although all hell broke out when he took only one of those wives to London to be gonged. Simply put clause 16 states that if more than one person is entitled to an annuity as a result of the Governor-General serving the term the annuity can be split but no more of it can be paid out than the value of an annuity for one person. 
This bill is important and timely legislation. I stress that it came through our Government Administration Committee with not one voice of dissent. Our report back to Parliament was unanimous. We all accept that the Governor-General plays a really important role in our constitution as the Sovereign’s representative in New Zealand and the Governor-General helps maintain the legitimacy and the continuity of government. I was reflecting on that at an event earlier this week where the Governor-General who is in India was replaced by the Administrator. I suddenly noticed that the Governor-General was not there as he always begins in his inclusive way by speaking in the languages of the realm of New Zealand: Tokelauan Niuean Cook Island Maori New Zealand Maori English and New Zealand Sign Language. I really noticed his absence the other night and I was reflecting on the very inclusive way that our Governor-General works. 
The office of Governor-General is a very symbolic link between the community and the State and he also represents the New Zealand public in a non-partisan way on important public occasions. Much of this bill revolves around streamlining the financial arrangements for the support of the office of the Governor-General. It promotes transparency and assures that the arrangements are rather more simple to administer than the present regime. I think the bill also goes some way to modernise the old-fashioned language found in the Governor-General parts of the Civil List Act. 
A key feature of the bill is that it creates a new funding structure for the office of the Governor-General. The Governor-General’s personal allowance at present pays for a range of official functions that are much more appropriately funded by a separate programme of appropriation and this bill provides for that separate appropriation. Similarly funds for the international travel that the Governor-General undertakes at the Government’s request are provided for in a new international travel appropriation for the Governor-General. Domestic travel will form part of the programme appropriation. The present exemption for tax as other members have pointed out has been removed because there is no longer any justification for this exemption and successive Governors-General have already requested that it be discontinued. With those few words I thoroughly support this bill and commend it to the House. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I start my contribution by agreeing with what John Hayes said. The present Governor-General is one of the most popular and friendly Governors-General that we have had. I also say that the present Prime Minister is the most secular Prime Minister that New Zealand has ever had. Why do I say this? It is because of his vision that we have the first ethnic Cabinet Minister in the Hon Pansy Wong. It is because of his vision that I am here along with my colleague Melissa Lee. 
I support the second reading of the Governor-General Bill. In 2007 the previous Government asked the Law Commission to review the Act. To this end the Law Commission found that the functions of the Governor-General in the Civil List Act were outdated and complicated. The Governor-General Bill is important and timely legislation. The Governor-General plays an important role in our constitution as the Queen’s representative in New Zealand. The Governor-General maintains the legitimacy and stability of the Government. 
This bill creates a new funding structure for the office of Governor-General. The main purpose is to streamline the financial arrangements for the support of the office of Governor-General and to ensure that this office is easier to administrate. The new funding structure for the office of Governor-General includes funds for international and domestic travel. The present exemption from the payment of income tax on the Governor-General’s salary will be removed. There is no longer a reason for the exemption and successive Governors-General have requested that it be discontinued. The Queen has chosen to pay income tax on her private income since 1993 and the Australian Governor-General and state governors have paid income tax on their salaries since 2001. It is now appropriate that the highest office holder in this land is subject to income tax and all the other taxes and charges that every New Zealander pays and contributes to the running of this country. 
This bill also removes certain outdated restrictions on the availability of an annuity paid to former Governors-General and their surviving spouses and partners. The bill will further improve transparency by requiring the Government to present to the House on an annual basis the detail of the expenses incurred to provide such benefits. Apart from one or two exemptions the new legislation will not apply to the current Governor-General; it will apply when the next Governor-General is appointed. Overall this bill represents a big step forward in the way the Government supports the office of Governor-General. I support this bill. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to avail myself of the honour to speak on the Governor-General Bill and also to talk a little about the present Governor-General. I agree with all the previous speakers who have already underscored the importance of this role and its symbolism in our nation State its constitutional position and indeed the wonderful work that our present Governor-General does. The bill gives form to the work of the Law Commission on the role of the Governor-General and the new mechanisms. The bill makes the arrangements for the Governor-General far more transparent and perhaps simpler to administer as well and modernises the language that is currently contained in the part of the Civil List Act that pertains to the Governor-General. The bill is timely and it does all of those things for us. 
Perhaps the one part of the bill that gives me great joy is the acknowledgment of the spouse of the Governor-General. It is the work that in this case Lady Susan Satyanand does day in and day out alongside the Rt Hon Sir Anand Satyanand. I want to register strong support for the part of the legislation that acknowledges the family of the Governor-General and the spouse. It is also appropriate and we support this strongly for the Governor-General—and this Governor-General like I am sure the others would want it to be no different—not to have any special privileges so the paying of taxation and matters like that which this bill brings into being are also very strong and important aspects of this particular bill. 
It is very hard to talk about a bill of this nature that brings all of the positive things about the office of the Governor-General the funding into one place without talking about the person who currently occupies the position. Who is this Rt Hon Sir Anand Satyanand? I go back 4½ years to when the announcement of Governor-General was made. At that time Anand Satyanand was nominated for the position of Governor-General and without exception there was great rejoicing in the country particularly in my community but certainly in other communities as well that knew him and his background very well. I do not remember one voice criticising at all why that person at that time should be appointed to that position. It was a great day for minority ethnic groups. I received a phone call today from a radio station talkback host. A talkback had occurred a couple of days ago and Vapi Kupenga who is well known to a number of us in the House said that participants had talked about the work of this Governor-General amongst the Maori community as well over the years. 
There has been an endearing relationship between New Zealand and this particular Governor-General. He has been a model of race relations throughout the country. He has been a model of a person who is totally inclusive of every aspect of New Zealand society and a tireless worker who works way beyond the call of duty if you like to be in touch with people to communicate with them to pass information across to connect people together and then to be there he and his family day in and day out. He does the same type of work for us when overseas. He has received tremendous accolades for the work he does overseas on behalf of New Zealand and of us as New Zealanders. Most recently we have seen him presenting medals at the Commonwealth Games in a country that he loves and that is the country of his ancestors as well. When we reflect on the quality of the present Governor-General and relate who he is and his beliefs to the provisions of this bill there is nothing in this bill that he would even mildly object to. He would support and welcome the way in which the bill regularises his office even though he will not be the beneficiary of it but his successors will. 
It is therefore difficult to understand in the context of this person and this role what the last 2 weeks’ debate has been about. Paul Henry decided to have one of those moments and say something that can be defined only as racism. When we collect together a number of characteristics and criticise a group of people on the basis of those characteristics and try to withhold positions from them that is racism—as technically defined—and that is what he was doing. The bit that is difficult to understand is why the opportunity was not taken then and there to do the most powerful thing possible to stop that rot. When people in leadership particularly on public television are confronted with issues like this they have only one shot at trying to kill the argument and propose the way in which people should behave. I am saddened that the Prime Minister did not take the opportunity at that point to really defend this Governor-General and the provisions this bill is trying to make for that position and to say to Paul Henry “Stop! This is not what you ought to be doing. You are talking about somebody quite different.” I have been in positions like that many times. It would have been a great opportunity to talk about this Governor-General in the sense that I and others have of him. It is not surprising that the reaction against what was said and for our present Governor-General over the last 2 weeks has been overwhelming. 
It is a matter of satisfaction that New Zealanders welcome the role of the Governor-General the role of this particular Governor-General and the provisions being made here and also that they are prepared to stand up and say that what was being propounded in the media was unfair. Being a New Zealander is something that one achieves either by birth or by immigration as I did—in this case this Governor-General is a New Zealander by birth. I support strongly and I appreciate those people in positions of leadership who have stood up to say that one ought not to speak with disrespect about this position. This position represents all of us. 
This Parliament is now making firm provisions for the future and to bring all of that together. We must relate to the position in a way that is different. So I am a little surprised that members opposite cannot see that there is a continuity here and that we ought to honour and respect the position of the Governor-General and understand who that person is because there will be others. It could be a woman next time it could be a Maori next time it could be a person from a different profession next time or it could be a Chinese person next time. They all will be New Zealanders they all will avail themselves of the provisions of this bill and they will be our Governor-General; they will be our constitutional head. I hope we will always stand up and support that position in this way. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time. 
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) 
First Reading 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Leader of the House 
: I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 At the conclusion of the first reading debate I will move that the bill be referred to the Regulations Review Committee that the committee report finally to the House by 15 November 2010 and notwithstanding the Standing Orders that the committee can meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House during a sitting of the House or during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House. 
This is a routine technical bill. It comes before the House every year but it is a very important bill all the same. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why are you extending them? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: If members sit and listen they will be told why the bill needs to be put through by that time. The bill confirms or validates items of subordinate legislation that must be confirmed or validated by Parliament. This is a requirement of the empowering Acts under which the various orders or regulations have been made. The role played by the House in confirming or validating the various items—and in particular the scrutiny provided by the Regulations Review Committee—provides an additional layer of protection in the regulation-making process. Should the House decide to withhold its approval for a particular regulation or order contained in the bill that regulation or order will lapse. That said this bill traditionally receives cross-party support. 
All of the orders and regulations in this bill are certainly of a technical character. There are 15 orders or regulations listed in the bill that are to be confirmed or validated. They have been made under 10 different Acts. I shall provide a brief summary for the benefit of the House of each instrument confirmed or validated by the bill. 
One set of regulations is made under the Animal Products Act 1999. These regulations make a variety of minor changes to animal product - related matters including confirmation of the new fee charged for a reissue of official assurance of the annual registration fee for transport operators and of the applications to list as a certified supplier of pet food and an increase in the basic hourly charge on certain export and game sectors. 
An order made under the Biosecurity Act 1993 allows for the imposition of levies on particular goods imported into New Zealand. The order sets out the basis upon which the levy is calculated and sets a maximum levy rate of $18 per leviable importation. The order also makes some technical changes around the arbitration process for determining who is required to pay a levy and the amount that is payable. 
The bill includes an order under the Civil Aviation Act 1990. The order sets a domestic passenger levy that is payable by the particular airline operators. Two commodity levies are confirmed. The first is a levy on meat—defined as beef and sheep meat—produced by livestock farmers. The second is a levy on New Zealand - grown grapes that are used to make wine grape juice or grape juice concentrate. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Outrageous! 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I knew the member would be interested in that. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Outrageous! 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Well it is quite important actually. Rates of excise and excise-equivalent duties imposed on tobacco products and alcoholic beverages are adjusted annually to reflect the movement in the Consumers Price Index. This bill confirms the duties that were imposed on 1 January 2010 and 1 July 2010 respectively. The bill confirms the levy rates that are payable by gaming-machine operators the Lotteries Commission and the New Zealand Racing Board. Together these levies constitute the Government’s problem gambling levy—a very important levy. 
Two orders made pursuant to the Social Security Act 1964 and the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 are confirmed. The orders increase various benefits and allowances to reflect a 1.96 percent increase in the Consumers Price Index from December 2008 to December 2009. One of the orders also makes a further supplementary increase to New Zealand superannuation payments. I am sure that members on the other side are interested in that order and would not want to hold it up. 
The bill confirms two orders setting out various rates of road-user charges. The orders increase the rates of particular road-user charges while leaving other rates unchanged. 
Two orders relate to matters of trade. One reduces and removes tariffs on most goods that are imported from the countries subject to the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. The other order amends tariff rates to give effect to the Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement—again something that I know members on the other side are interested in. 
Finally the bill confirms an order increasing certain rates of war pensions lump-sum payments and allowances in line with an increase in the Consumers Price Index. In addition the order makes a further supplementary increase to the rates of war pensions. Again I am sure that members on that side support that order. As a consequence I am pleased to commend this bill to the House. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a brief call on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). I thank the Minister of Civil Defence for his very thorough description of the contents of the bill and all of the different orders and so forth that it confirms and validates. 
I want to raise an issue with the Deputy Leader of the House to do with the referral motion to the Regulations Review Committee. I considered whether we wanted to move an amendment to that referral motion. I think given that it is going to the Regulations Review Committee which is chaired by a Labour member—whom I am sure will act very responsibly—I saw no need to do that. But I am concerned about the tendency for the Government whenever it moves a referral motion now to give committees the power to meet when the House is sitting under urgency or even under normal sitting hours. I am very concerned about that because it prevents members from effectively participating in both the House and select committees. It is something that the Government is doing too often at the moment. In this particular case there may well be reasonable justification for that; because of the confirmation and validation nature of this legislation undue delay could be problematic. In most of the cases that the Government is moving referral motions it is totally unnecessary. That is just a general observation. I think the Government is doing it too often. In this case moving an amendment is not necessarily a valid thing to do but it would be good to see the Government respect the House a little more. I am aware that the Deputy Leader of the House respects the institution of Parliament to a high degree and I think it is really important that members get the opportunity to participate both here in the Chamber and in select committees without having to juggle those two things unless it is absolutely necessary. Overall the Labour Opposition sees no need to delay this legislation unnecessarily and we intend to vote in favour of it. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Members the question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye— 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I beg your pardon. I am sorry. The member from the Green Party did not call but I think he is seeking a call. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is happening far too regularly. Members are not seeking the call when the time comes. Once I put the motion that we move to the vote I do not have to come back to allow a speaker to speak. It is very very clear. It happened last night and it has happened again now. If members wish to call they must be on their feet instantaneously. Otherwise I will be putting the question. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 My apologies but I understood that others were planning to speak ahead of my slot so I gave it a moment. I leaped up as fast as I could but clearly not fast enough—my apologies. 
This is just a very brief call to offer the Green Party’s views on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). I say simply that we have been through each of the clauses pertaining to extending or affirming the Animal Products Act the Biosecurity Act the Civil Aviation Act the Commodity Levies Act and others. There are 10 all up and we have given each one significant consideration. We have to say that we do not support all of them. We find that we can support six of them: those relating to the Animal Products Act the Biosecurity Act the Commodity Levies Act the Customs and Excise Act and the Social Security Act as well as the War Pensions Act and we have no particular opposition to the Civil Aviation Act and the Road User Charges Act. 
We have traditionally opposed all agreements or legislation pertaining to free trade so we have opposition to the validation and confirmation under the Tariff Act 1988. We also have problems with the Gambling Act 2003 on the understanding that we do not support this Act because it puts levies on two of the most accessible and harmful gambling practices: pokies and racing. This means that it will probably result in less tax take from these and more profit to the providers and perhaps more incentive to open a pokie parlour so we have opposition to that particular Act. 
We oppose two of these Acts but we do not wish to be unduly negative. In light of our opposition to those two Acts we plan to abstain on the vote. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.  
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Leader of the House 
: 
 I move  
That the Regulations Review Committee consider the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 15 November 2010. 
Motion agreed to. 
New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Kevin Hague to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “and HQSC”; and 
to add the following subclause: 
(3)Section 66 is amended by inserting the following subsection after subsection (1): 
“(1A)Subsection (1) does not apply to HQSC in respect of costs which are to be met by the Ministry of Health in a financially responsible manner that allows HQSC to carry out its functions to a high standard.” 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Clause 3 agreed to.  
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Report corrected having originally been reported as without amendment.  
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 12 October. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to continue speaking on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. As I was saying this bill came about after media inquiries to the Minister of Justice. There was concern that clinics acting in good faith could be storing embryos and gametes—that is sperm and eggs—illegally. The whole point about this bill is to make the rules around storage absolutely clear; that indeed has successfully been achieved by this legislation. The bill now clarifies the rules around storage. This is very very important because of the hugely emotional area that this bill encompasses particularly for patients and of course because of the very important legal issues for clinics. That part of it has been very satisfactory. 
In terms of the various parts of the bill one of the aspects that people raised their eyebrows about a little was the issue of gametes and embryos that are stored in other countries. Indeed it was vital to ensure that we dealt with this area accurately because storage outside New Zealand clearly must be counted as part of the 10-year period. International tourism is literally going on with regard to in vitro fertilisation around the world; in the order of 10000 couples a year travel from one country to another. So it is particularly important to ensure that the storage rules are very clearly defined. 
There were calls during the debate to provide a review mechanism for the Act but the view was that generally this legislation has worked very well so far that there have been no complaints and that because it is relatively new legislation and because it requires flexibility it is not appropriate at this stage to consider a review. But it is important that we keep that matter in mind in the future. 
One aspect of the debate that stood out was the concerns expressed by the Maori Party. Te Ururoa Flavell said in the first reading of the bill: “The Maori Party has a considerable sense of sadness that we even have bills like this in front of the House … I cannot say that anyone in the Maori Party is at ease with the discussions around assisted reproductive technology”. Further to that Hone Harawira cemented in those views and made known some fairly strong concerns about the technology and said that Maori were being left out. He cited a variety of papers in his speech which I took the bother of looking up and I was quite surprised by them. The first one was by Marewa Glover and Benedicta Rousseau ‘Your child is your whakapapa’. I found this paper to be very convoluted wordy full of sociological verbiage and lacking in any precise conclusion. To give members an example one of the pages in this report is entitled “Strategic Naturalizing and the Fluidity of Relatedness”. I found this very hard to understand. It says: “It is important to stress here the preliminary nature of the data on which this article is based. The majority of the participants involved in hui did not have direct experience of AHR or necessarily infertility. They were a predominantly self-selected group of interested people who through the research process became ‘informed lay people’.” 
What I am concerned about is that the members actually admitted to me that they were merely parroting references that they had been given to speak about in their written speeches. One of the others cited was  
Te Tauranga Waka 
 an action plan for addressing Maori concerns about the system and process for the ethical review of issues relating to human participation in research and innovative technologies. That was slightly more practical in its key actions and recommendations. But the message that I would give to the Maori Party is that there is a tremendous amount of thinking behind the human-assisted reproductive technology legislation. Philosophers ethicists lawyers clinicians and scientists have for years worked to get this legislation in New Zealand as good as it could be. I urge the Maori Party to look at the writings from the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology and from the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology as well. The concerns to ensure that thought is given to Maori aspects are right at the forefront. In fact the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act requires that everyone exercising powers or performing functions under the Act must be guided by its principles including the principle that the needs values and beliefs of Maori should be considered and treated with respect. I believe there is a reciprocal responsibility for members of the Maori Party to take the time to read the very well-considered literature in this area. 
I will end by making mention of the fact that on 4 October the Nobel Prize committee awarded to Dr Edwards the Nobel Prize for medicine or physiology. It was of course in 1978 that the first test-tube baby was born and since then something like 4 million babies—the population of New Zealand—have been born through the use of these technologies. I think it is important to remind the House just how remarkable these technologies can be for people who are affected by infertility. In fact Professor Edwards said that in his view the most important thing in life is having a child. Nothing is more special than a child. From my point of view there is no doubt that for those who have trouble conceiving—and it is almost one in five couples—birth technologies are amazing and positive provided they are used with humanity and are used ethically and wisely. I believe this amendment bill which we have been discussing over the last few months is part of New Zealand’s contribution towards ensuring that we clarify the rules as much as possible that we have a strong ethics background to back them up and that our clinics around New Zealand give wise counsel to the many patients who come to them. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I suspect my speech will get cut off fairly shortly as we head to the dinner break but in the few seconds that I have available I will start by saying that Labour will continue to support the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill as we have throughout its progress through the House thus far. Of course it makes amendments to the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act which was originally introduced by the previous Labour Government in response to the facts and concerns that Dr Hutchison touched on: that the technology around in vitro fertilisation was moving very quickly. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Back in 1978 a couple who had been struggling for close to 9 years to conceive were blessed with the arrival of a wee baby. That baby was me. After 9 years some people called it a miracle that my parents were able to conceive and that I arrived; I prefer to think of it as an interesting series of events. Coincidentally only a few months earlier than that in 1978 another couple Lesley and John Brown who had been struggling to conceive gave birth to a wee baby girl Louise Brown. Louise Brown was the first what was called at the time test-tube baby. She was the first baby born through in vitro fertilisation treatment. That was just a little more than 30 years ago. Since then the technology has developed and the number of people using in vitro fertilisation has grown considerably. In response to that in 2004 the Labour Government at the time introduced the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. 
The bill we are finalising tonight is a slight amendment to that legislation that makes some minor adjustments in response to a legal opinion that was concerned with the storage limits that apply to gametes and embryos. The current legal reading of the Act as it stands suggests that those gametes and embryos that were stored before the legislation was introduced would also have a 10-year period applied to them and that they would need to be destroyed within 10 years of their original storage which was not the intention of Parliament at the time and was not the intention of the bill. 
We are dealing with sensitive situations with couples who are trying to conceive and even when they engage with the use of in vitro fertilisation technology the process can still be very difficult. So it is very very important that we here in Parliament are absolutely clear about the intention and the practical applications of this bill in that situation. That is why this bill has received near unanimous support through the House and certainly the Opposition parties on this side of the House will continue to support it. The amendment now ensures that the 10-year storage limit starts from 2004 when the original legislation was introduced. That is to ensure fairness equity and a clear understanding for those people who stored sperm eggs or embryos before the legislation originally came into force. 
These days about 2 percent of babies in New Zealand are conceived through some form of reproductive assistance. The number of babies born as a result of assisted reproductive technology grew by 45 percent between 2004 and 2008. That is why in an environment of rapidly changing technology and rapid uptake of this technology we need to make sure that we get the legislation right. I understand that to date something in the order of 4 million babies have been born through in vitro fertilisation technology since Louise Brown was first born back in 1978. 
This amendment bill also makes a couple of other changes. Some of those were raised in the submissions made to the Health Committee. One of those is around the requirement for fertility clinics in terms of how they dispose of gametes or embryos. One of the submissions raised the question of whether fertility clinics would be required to destroy every single gamete or embryo exactly on the tenth anniversary of their original storage. It raised some of the issues around that and the difficulty fertility clinics would have in doing it. Quite sensibly the House has adopted a provision to give a 6-month grace period whereby fertility clinics will have 6 months following the anniversary of the original storage within which to dispose of the gametes and embryos. That makes sense. It means that maybe two or three times a year they can go through that process which makes life a little simpler for them. 
This same submission raised a few issues around the possibility of extending the period beyond 10 years. This issue will arise for a number of people especially for those who store their gametes at a very very early stage of life. An example would be young men who undertake cancer treatment and may want to store their sperm before they undertake that treatment to insure against any damage that may occur during chemotherapy. They may do that at a very early period of their life and after 10 years they may still not be in a position to start or be comfortable with starting a family but may wish to do so further down the track. The Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology will have the means available to it to extend that in those circumstances but the bill also makes it very clear that the nature of those circumstances must be looked at very carefully and that the reasons for extending beyond the 10-year period have to be justified. An example such as the one I just gave is a valid justification for that. Another example that was suggested to the Health Committee was that if someone decided to engage in a series of risky behaviours particularly drug taking or other behaviours that may lower their own fertility then having insured against that type of behaviour would not be a good reason for extending beyond the 10-year period. The bill gives clear guidelines on that issue for the Ethics Committee in terms of what it needs to do. 
This is all about clarity and it is an important part of the bill. It is important to recognise that for such a difficult and sensitive area that deals with rapidly changing technologies the original legislation was very strong legislation and the fact that we are amending it in such a minor way speaks volumes about its original drafting. Its original proponent Di Yates did a superb job back in 2003 and 2004 in progressing good legislation. This bill will tidy up those things. It will give certainty to the families who will be operating within the bounds of this bill as well as to the clinicians who also operate within its bounds. The Opposition is very happy to support the bill’s progress. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the third reading debate on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. I think that most of the issues have been canvassed but I too want to put on record that in 2004 the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act was leading-edge legislation. I worked with Dr Paul Hutchison at the time and Sue Kedgley was on the Health Committee. We were very aware that technology was moving faster than those in the clinical field and that there was a real need at that time to look at the environment which needed policies regulation and the law. I acknowledge Di Yates for the legislation. It resulted from a member’s bill and it was remarkable to have such leading-edge legislation come forward as a member’s bill so I want to acknowledge her and put that on the record. 
In New Zealand the first baby born as a result of in vitro fertilisation treatment was born 26 years ago. That occurred in New Zealand not long after the first baby in the world was born as a result of that treatment. I think about 4 years later we developed the same technology in New Zealand. We started to move very fast because New Zealand clinicians are very nimble in the field to pick up global trends. It is amazing to think that from 2004 to 2010—6 years later—really there are only minor amendments to the legislation. We always said we would come back to have another look at the legislation. The call for this amendment did not come from the field from clinicians; it came I understand from a legal opinion that went to the Minister seeking clarification. I understand the Health Committee worked really well together again on this bill. 
There is another issue that I would like to raise. It relates to a provision that I am pleased to see is maintained in this bill and has not been knocked out and that is the empowerment of the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology to issue and promulgate guidelines. When we first discussed the legislation that was an issue for us because guidelines were not developed at that stage and we thought they needed to be developed in order to keep up with the really rapid trends in in vitro fertilisation. It is great to see that the guidelines remain part of the advisory committee’s function because it was very important for the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology to be advised on that matter. It is difficult to put guidelines into primary legislation but the right to review guidelines and keep them current is still here. 
I think that in vitro fertilisation is an issue for people. The research is moving rapidly. I read in research just a couple of weeks ago that fresher gametes may lead to a greater growth in height. We had never heard of that when we considered the legislation in 2004 so we can see how the technology really ramps along and how we learn about best practice safety in practice and quality of practice in this field. 
This is a good amendment. I think that at the time we always felt the limit on storage was 10 years and never retrospective from the date in 2004. There were issues then and there are some interesting issues now when we talk to a younger generation of women like Nikki Kaye and others like my daughters who say they may not have found the perfect partner yet to have a child with so they will put their eggs on ice. I think heavens that is something we would not have considered. I can see Georgina looking bemused but that is how young people use the market health research and health practice to make decisions now. They do so because they might be 38 or 40 and a bit over the edge by the time they look at having a child so they will put an egg on ice now and it will be pretty fresh when it is thawed. Those are things that we do not even think of as legislators. The mind boggles really about where the technology could go in the future. At the time I can remember Di Yates being very concerned about the cloning of the human embryo and we kept that at the top of our minds too as something that would be banned in New Zealand. 
On this bill I say “cheers” to those who worked on the 2004 legislation and got it pretty much right. It is great that we get legal opinions to say we need to keep up with advice or give clarification. We are very happy to support this bill. I was on the select committee and I was called in one day when the committee was talking about the grace period of 6 months for storage before the disposal of the gamete. I think that is sensible. If in 6 months’ time we have not found the donor of either the sperm or the egg I think disposal is probably acceptable and we thought that 6 months was a sensible time. I wonder whether in 6 years’ time we will be back here and saying we need to make some more amendments to this legislation. I am sure that we will because the technology in the clinical field races ahead of legislators. I congratulate all those who work in this field. At the time I can remember that the environment was one of being rather scared of this legislation; even in 2004 people were timid and cautious about the future and how fast we were going into the future. But again New Zealanders are seen being as quite leading edge in our approach to human-assisted reproductive technology. I congratulate the practitioners and all those in the field and say we support this bill. Thank you. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 On the occasion of the second reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill one of the other bills that we were debating in the Chamber was the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. I raise the issue for a particular reason. The context of our debate on the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill was that the original Motor Vehicle Sales Act had been written with a review clause in it so the bill that we were debating on the night of the second reading of this bill was one that had arisen out of a review of the Act that had been mandated by the Act itself. The field of motor vehicle sales is obviously a complex and fast-moving one with a whole series of cutting-edge scientific and no doubt commercial and ethical issues so of course it was an area that required a section that provided for a review to be undertaken. It was no surprise that when that review of that Act occurred it threw up some issues with regard to the operation of the Act that required amendment. 
In the case of human-assisted reproduction it is at least arguable I think that this field is at least as fast-moving and complex as motor vehicle sales. It could even be that it has some scientific and ethical issues that are trickier to handle than the area of motor vehicle sales yet the existing Act was written without a review clause. In the second reading debate on this bill I devoted some time to the issue of a review and I said I would come back to it in the third reading debate. 
Members of the House will have noted that the very first version of this bill which we considered in our first reading was quite a simple bill. It was just a few clauses long with quite straightforward language. Then when it came back to the House from the Health Committee the bill was no longer a simple straightforward one. The “track changes” version of the bill had lots and lots of additions deletions and new framing and the reason for that was that what had appeared to be a simple issue turned out to be quite a lot more complex than that. The Green Party argues that the same principle applies to other aspects of the in vitro fertilisation area of human endeavour so we were disappointed to learn during the select committee process that the original Act had not provided for review as an automatic process as part of its implementation as the Motor Vehicle Sales Act had done. Then we were disappointed that the Minister in introducing this amendment bill had not taken the opportunity to incorporate a review process because that could easily have been done. Now we are in the process assuming that this bill passes tonight of urging the Minister to conduct a review of the operation of the Act and its fitness for purpose. 
As an example of some of the issues that have arisen since this Act was passed in 2004 I draw the House’s attention to a report of the Law Commission that was published in March 2006 and called  
New Issues in Legal Parenthood 
. The Law Commission made 29 recommendations. At least 12 of them relate directly to the issues that are canvassed in this Act. They could have been dealt with in a review and could have been dealt with in this bill but they were not. For example the Law Commission made recommendations about agreements between donors and parents. It made recommendations about counselling and education. It made recommendations about information regarding parentage and parenthood—for example what should appear on birth certificates what should appear in information registers and the kind of access to information that people should have. The Law Commission made a large number of recommendations—some 29 of them. 
I have been contacted since this bill was introduced to the House by a man who is a sperm donor. He has donated sperm for some years and is the biological father of I think four children in multiple families. His concern was that there is no requirement to record on birth certificates the involvement of a third biological parent. He was asking about some of the issues that might arise from that because the information that he had—and I have no reason to doubt this—is that only a minority of parents actually tell their offspring about the involvement of a third biological parent about the involvement of a sperm donor. So he is saying he has biological children out there who do not necessarily know that he is their biological father and who have half-siblings whom they also do not know about. He is asking what the situation would be if those individuals formed a relationship and whether they should have the right to know about their background. 
These were the kinds of issues that the Law Commission raised in its 2006 report which occurred since Parliament passed the Act in 2004. These are the kinds of issues that could be addressed in the process of a review. The Law Commission has raised some pretty serious issues and some pretty serious issues have also been raised from other quarters. My view is that this House has a responsibility to ensure that there is an appropriate forum for the consideration of those kinds of issues. So far one has not been created. We urge that the Minister now takes the opportunity to institute a review of the operation of the Act to consider the recommendations of the Law Commission to consider all of the other issues that have arisen subsequently and to ensure that this Act is fit for purpose. 
We are confident now that this bill does in fact correct one of the aspects of the original Act that required clarification. Doing that turned out to be more complicated than we had thought it would be. My suggestion to this House is that that may well prove to be the case for other aspects of the Act also. We urge that there be a review. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill amends the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004 to make it clear that human in vitro gametes or in vitro embryos must be disposed of before the expiry period of 10 years or at any later date approved by the ethics committee. 
If I say it fast it is almost possible to avoid the fact that we are talking here about the origins of all human life. The Maori Party has addressed three particular priorities in our contribution to the debate throughout the readings of this bill. The first is the concern that there has not been opportunity for Maori to debate the tikanga of this field. The second is about the precious and unique status of whakapapa and the third is the critical issue of participation in decision making. For tangata whenua as a partner of the Crown Te Tiriti o Waitangi stands to remind ethics committees of a constitutional obligation to ensure Maori participation protection and partnership when considering approval for research applications. 
I will discuss each of these in turn. When we think about the tikanga of this field it is important to note that a separate Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology has been established to review and approve research involving new technologies or treatments for human reproduction and infertility. One of the ethics committee’s seven guiding principles is that “the needs values and beliefs of Maori should be considered and treated with respect”. That is a very positive start but it has to translate into tikanga—tikanga that must be applied at all stages from the decision to enter into the process of fertility treatment to the completion and return of ahua kahukahu the unripened seed of a human child in whatever form that might take. 
As a case in point the tikanga for destroying an embryo might take into account several tikanga at play: the movement from living to not living; the preparation for burial cremation etc.; the actual burial; and the entry into the portals of the world of being and light. Similarly the tikanga for when whanau hand over their embryos and gametes would be the tikanga of gifting. This would include the sharing of whakapapa and the whakatau settling process into the storage facility. This is the handing over or passing over of a life-force. Such a tikanga provides a level of accountability and responsibility on the part of the agency to accept the Maori level of commitment. It also provides for the right of Maori to collect the embryo and gamete should the original agreement not be upheld. The point I am making is that it is one thing to talk about these matters; it is quite another to sit down and give expression to the tikanga that makes the words real. 
The second critical aspect of our decision making is around whakapapa. We believe that the law should facilitate the rangatiratanga of whanau over their whakapapa material. Discussions of assisted reproductive technology amongst Maori are rarely confined to the intricacies and mechanics of particular technological interventions; they are about what constitutes human life and relationships the need for Maori to continue to exist and the uniqueness of Maori identity. Maori have a different view of reproduction from its being just a matter of eggs and fertility; it is about whakapapa. This means in practice that it should be up to the people from whom the in vitro gametes and embryos have come to decide how long they should be stored for what they should be used for what happens in the event of their death etc. It should not be up to a few people on a committee to decide. The decision about whether to continue to store for longer than 10 years should be made by the whanau and not by some committee. The reason is very simple: the eggs embryos and foetuses belong to the whanau not to scientists and always should do. That means that if donors decide to let their eggs or sperm be used by someone else any left afterwards should be returned to the whanau. 
I come now to the issue of ethics. Some of the main issues that this amendment presents are to do with what happens to unused eggs after the 10-year period who owns the eggs and how decisions are made. How do we gather and report data that is relevant and meaningful for Maori? Maori need to be engaged in a very real way; having a few Maori on a committee or engaged in writing submissions is not enough to constitute proper engagement. We also need robust information and relevant statistics such as declining Maori fertility rates. Agencies should invest in process—for example hui or korerorero—to raise awareness; to clarify and gather consensus on the meaning of consultation and consent for Maori whanau hapu iwi and community; and to develop resources for dissemination amongst whanau hapu and iwi. 
Finally we seek the opportunity to raise our own questions to consider whether human embryos used in research should help sustain us or contribute to our demise. It is about Maori partnership in decisions and actions to ensure cultural integrity in whakapapa and the institution of whanau. There must be freedom from abuse from harm and from change without knowledge and informed consent. 
Despite this being the third reading I needed to articulate these heartfelt concerns shared by our caucus about this legislation right through this bill to indicate the profound respect we place on any matters related to whakapapa. The material should always be seen as ultimately belonging to the donor and able to be returned if available. The ownership of whanau should always be maintained and laws should facilitate that understanding. We want to ensure that whanau are better involved in decision making concerning their whakapapa material. We cannot support this bill. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I rise to support the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill at its third reading. In essence this is a simple bill. The aim is just to make clear that gametes and embryos stored before the Act came into effect in 2004 must be disposed of before the expiry of 10 years of that date or such later date as approved by the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. It also clarifies the powers and duties of the ethics committee when it considers extensions of storage times and confirms that the ethics committee must be guided by the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology when considering longer periods of storage.  
I have already said that this is a simple bill but simple things are often difficult to legislate for. The Health Committee took some time to make sure that this bill would be effective in an area of technology that is changing very rapidly. Although the bill limits the storage of human eggs or sperm gametes and embryos to 10 years only the select committee recommended provision of a grace period of 6 months after the expiry date of the 10-year storage limit. The amendment was simply for practicality as organisations that stored reproductive material were concerned that an absolute deadline without any leeway could be difficult to manage. But the select committee also made it very clear that material could not be used for any other purposes during those 6 months.  
We also considered the situation of stored gametes used to create embryos that then themselves are stored. The select committee recommended that the permitted 10-year storage period for embryos created by stored gametes ran from the earliest storage date of the gametes which gave consistency to the storage period regardless of the form of reproductive material when it was first stored. We also considered the situation of gametes and embryos stored in other countries and again for consistency we recommended that storage time outside New Zealand be taken into account when calculating the 10-year storage period. The Act allows for the ethics committee to approve an extension of storage time and the select committee recommended amendments in the bill to clarify the functions of that committee when making those decisions. Finally the bill makes it very clear that the ethics committee must act on guidelines and advice offered by the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology when making decisions on extended storage periods.  
Assisted reproductive technology is responsible for the birth of about 900 babies in New Zealand every year and its use is increasing. About 15 in every 100 couples in New Zealand have difficulty conceiving a child and about five in every 100 have in vitro fertilisation—IVF—treatment. With older parents and lower sperm counts in New Zealand men the demand for in vitro fertilisation in New Zealand is growing so it is important that our legislation on the storage of gametes and embryos is clear. The select committee has considered the issues very carefully and has made some practical and well-thought-out amendments. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to be speaking to the third reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. It is not a contentious bill as we have heard tonight. It has arisen because of concern that there is a lack of clarity regarding when gametes and embryos stored before the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act came into effect in 2004 must be disposed of. Specifically we have heard that the problem is that the principal Act prohibits storage of a human gamete or embryo for longer than a set period which is defined as 10 years or longer if approved by the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. The prohibition in the principal Act applies to gametes and embryos that have been in storage since before November 2004. This means that there are fertility clinics holding gametes and embryos illegally and this is certainly an unintended consequence of the Act. The Health Committee addressed this lack of clarity and this bill now clarifies that sperm eggs and embryos stored before 2004 can be stored until 2014. If fertility clinics have clients who wish to extend storage beyond 2014 they will require approval from the ethics committee before the 10-year storage limit is up. In vitro fertilisation is a rapidly changing area and it is vital that we have clarity in the legislation. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I am speaking in this debate on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill as a new member of the Health Committee. Like every New Zealander—and I guess Australian too—I am deeply interested in the area of assisted reproductive technology. 
I did not know whether it was a joke when I was asked to speak because I have had jokes made by my colleagues about me as the proud and lucky father of five daughters. They always have me on about trying to restrict reproduction in my family. I have to say that I am lucky I did not have the challenges faced by the many many people whom we are trying to assist. Since 1994 100000 people in New Zealand and Australia exist because of this new technology. That is something to truly rejoice in and celebrate. 
This bill is a relatively minor amendment bill. It tidies up some misunderstandings that have occurred as a result of the passage of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act in 2004. In reading through the notes—not the entire bill itself—I could not help but come up with a few points and questions. Firstly I have to acknowledge Di Yates. I can remember her in caucus going on and on about this— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Ha ha! 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: The member may laugh and I guess we underestimated the importance— 
Hon Simon Power 
: I had to live with it. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: No no. As I said jibes were made at me at that time as well. It is important and technology is moving forward so quickly that we have to try to stay ahead of some of the ethical issues. 
Kevin Hague a fellow West Coaster raised a number of these issues. They are things the Law Commission has identified. I can see that other areas have arisen in the time since the passage of the original Act that he did not mention—for example DNA technology. This bill is ensuring that some eggs and sperm can be carried or stored beyond 10 years. That is great but there is still uncertainty over what that might mean long term. As my colleague the Hon Steve Chadwick said the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology or the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology may come back in a few years time and say that we should wind it back a little bit from 10 years. This will be 14 years for some. We hope that with the best of intentions we are doing the right thing here.  
I come back to the question of DNA technology. I think we will need to bring that question back into the House. As the Greens have said we certainly support a review of the legislation so that as technology allows the identification of genetics traits in ova and sperm the selection process that could potentially occur in any storage system is assessed by the ethics committee. Should it or should it not occur? I know we have already got into some very tricky situations in this area. Technology will allow us to identify potential disabilities not in unborn children but in fact in the sperm and the ovum. How should we handle that dilemma? Having discovered what we can do and then evolving it how do we address the issues? These are issues of parental responsibility genetic identification with parents and any traits that children should know about. Who should make the call as to whether we identify through DNA technology genetic deformities that might occur in children born from this technology? I put that question on the table. 
I am a member of the Health Committee. I almost do not want to be part of the committee that deals with this difficult issue but someone will have to. 
Paul Quinn 
: Too much hard work for you Damien? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Oh Paul Quinn might. He is offering to resolve it. I can see the wisdom coming from him; he will be able to resolve it. I confess that the issues around the decision making are difficult very technical and of course highly ethical. 
I will not speak much longer on this bill other than to say that Labour supports it. It makes the necessary changes but let us not think for a moment that this is the last word in this area. As technology moves forward we will have to answer harder and harder questions and I expect that the incoming Labour Government next year will have to address these issues. Mr Power is looking very relieved that he will not have to address them as Minister of Justice. I can just see the weight going off his shoulders there; he is thanking God for that. In fact in the end God is probably the only one with the wisdom to make these calls. But ethics committees advisory committees Ministers and members of Parliament through the select committee will have to make the call so we are prepared to take that on as one of the challenges that we will have after next year’s election. Thank you. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 As the newest member of the Health Committee I often get to the point where I am the last speaker in a debate and when it comes to the last spot in the third reading of any bill there is often very little to be said that has not already been said. As I am not one to unduly prolong debates for the sake of it unlike some of my 2008 colleagues on the other side of the House I will keep my comments relatively brief. 
I acknowledge the Health Committee whose members I think have worked very cooperatively on this most important albeit technical amendment to the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill and I acknowledge also the very good support we received from the officials at the Ministry of Justice who provided excellent advice to us. This was one bill that had on the face of it a pretty straightforward purpose: to clarify the 10-year start date as the date the Act came into effect but as is often the case the issues traversed by the committee went well beyond that scope although in the end we did constrain ourselves to its original purpose. We had some quite robust discussions about some of the ethical issues and some of the technical issues and also as Mr Hague mentioned some of the Law Commission’s issues were raised. 
Mr Hague also mentioned again in his call the Green Party’s request for a review of the bill to be built into the legislation. Those two things I think intertwine. Firstly the purpose of this bill was not to address the Law Commission’s recommendations and I am absolutely certain the very hard-working Minister of Justice will come to that point in the not too distant future in his very long tenure as Minister of Justice—I predict there are years and years still to go. 
It is for that reason that I think a review is quite unnecessary and could be cumbersome because as many speakers on this bill have said the science is very dynamic. It is changing all the time and a review period in the Act could actually be arbitrarily restrictive and not timely enough if indeed issues like this are raised again in the future. We think we have it right this time but fresh eyes and new legal opinions may require us to tweak it again. So I do not support the call for a review for that reason. 
The one thing we did do of course was to put some discretion around what was previously a quite hard 10-year time limit. In my examination of that issue I came across a really good document from the Australian Infertility Treatment Authority which I commend to any of the officials who are required to put guidelines around how that extension period might go. There is a very good section covering people who have gametes or embryos in storage and who cannot be located and I would be happy to refer it to them if they were interested in that. It sets out a very good pathway for dealing with the very issue that the select committee attempted to address with the amendment that was put in during the Committee stage. 
Finally I commend the very many thousands of couples around the country who go through the stress and trauma of infertility and the uncertainty that fertility treatment brings. There is a great movie by British writer and producer Ben Elton called  
Maybe Baby 
. I do not know whether any members have seen it but it gives a terrific insight into what that journey is like. It is very funny but it is also very emotional. It gives some insight into the emotional roller coaster that couples go through. This bill takes away one of those potential problems that could have arisen if this bill did not clarify the time limit. For that reason it is a good bill and I commend it to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time. 
Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. This bill amends the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. The amendments reform the regulation of the legal profession in New Zealand. The bill replaces the existing regulatory framework for lawyers with a co-regulatory regime that also covers the new profession of conveyancers created by the Act. The Act enables both professions to respond more effectively to the changing needs of consumers in the legal services market. The Act came into force on 1 August 2008 and it has been working well since its implementation. However this bill makes an important change to the Act by restoring the title of Queen’s Counsel to the office currently known as Senior Counsel and some auxiliary changes to eligibility for that office. The bill also makes some minor amendments to enhance the functioning of the Act. 
I will talk first of all about Part 1 of the bill as it restores the title of Queen’s Counsel to the office currently known as Senior Counsel. The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act replaced the title of Queen’s Counsel with that of Senior Counsel. The Act also made a number of changes to expand eligibility for the rank which now extends to lawyers in all forms of practice including law firms. The bill will repeal that arrangement by reinstating the title of Queen’s Counsel and restricting eligibility in most cases to barristers sole rather than lawyers in partnerships or firms. 
The title of Queen’s Counsel reflects the public purpose and status of this position. It underscores the historical link between Queen’s Counsel and the Crown which has been established on the reputation of the rank in New Zealand and abroad. The rank identifies leading advocates in New Zealand and provides official recognition of excellence. In particular it provides leadership to the legal profession and assists people to resolve disputes by identifying legal counsel. 
Eligibility for appointment of Queen’s Counsel will be limited to barristers sole in most cases. This returns the rank to its original form and recognises and protects the independence of Queen’s Counsel enhancing their ability to accept instructions and to provide frank independent and objective legal advice. To maintain that independence Queen’s Counsel who are providing regulated legal services as defined by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act will continue to practise as barristers sole or they will be deemed to have surrendered the title. 
It is intended that the amendments will preserve the existing arrangements for those Queen’s Counsel and Senior Counsel who have entered with other lawyers in partnership or incorporated law firms since the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act came into force. Clause 6 of the bill containing new sections 118A and 118B may require minor amendments to ensure that those purposes are accurately reflected. 
However the amendments also preserve the Governor-General’s power to appoint from time to time other lawyers including litigators in law firms as Queen’s Counsel in recognition of their extraordinary contributions to the field of law. This is consistent with the established practice of occasionally appointing exceptional lawyers in government and parliamentary counsel as Queen’s Counsel although they are not members of the independent Bar. 
Part 2 of the bill makes minor technical amendments to the Act. First the bill amends the definition of “relative” to include a reference to a grandchild of a lawyer or conveyancing practitioner. This will enable grandchildren to be shareholders of an incorporated law firm or incorporated conveyancing firm or if a minor to be a beneficiary of a qualifying trust. 
Secondly the bill permits a qualifying trust to be a non-voting shareholder in an incorporated law firm or an incorporated conveyancing firm. A “qualifying trust” means a trust in which each beneficiary is a relative of one or more of the trustees and each trustee for an incorporated conveyancing firm is a conveyancing practitioner or for an incorporated law firm is a lawyer who is actively involved in the practice. The Act is quite specific as to who may be a shareholder of an incorporated law firm or conveyancing firm. This ensures lawyer or conveyancer control of an incorporated firm which is important to maintain professional standards. The use of a qualifying trust as a vehicle for shareholding avoids the need for proliferation of relatives holding shares in their own right. It will also enable children and grandchildren who are minors to benefit from income through distributions from the trust. 
Thirdly the bill extends the power of attorney that those in sole practice must give to authorise another to have the power to conduct the practice through any periods where the sole practitioner is an undischarged bankrupt. The Act requires a sole practitioner to issue a power of attorney that enables the power to conduct the practice in a range of circumstances. These do not include the bankruptcy of a sole practitioner. Instead where the practitioner is an undischarged bankrupt a process needs to be instigated by either the New Zealand Law Society or the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers with the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal to have the practitioner struck off or suspended before the power of attorney provisions can apply and the practice can be continued. The amendment will remove the need for that cumbersome process and will provide a more simplified and streamlined process in those difficult circumstances. That will also serve clients better as it will be an immediate response to the situation and will enable client matters to be managed more effectively. 
Finally the bill makes a technical amendment to the complaints procedure. One of the reforms introduced by the Act is a new three-tiered complaints and disciplinary process. Complaints are usually heard in the first instance by locally run standards committees. The decisions or actions of that committee can then be reviewed by the Legal Complaints Review Officer. The bill amends the notice period for lodging a review with the Legal Complaints Review Officer of a standards committee decision. It provides that an application for review must be lodged within a 30-day period which begins to run when the applicant is notified of the committee’s decision. The date of notification is presumed to have occurred 5 days after the committee’s decision. This amendment will ensure there is sufficient time for applicants to lodge a review application if they wish to do so. I commend this bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill which has just been described by the Associate Minister of Justice contains some quite sensible provisions but because of the appalling provisions in Part 1 there is no way that Labour can support this legislation. With this bill the National - ACT - Maori Party - Peter Dunne Government leads us boldly back into the 19th century. We go cringing back to our colonial origins. 
Hon David Parker 
: Bring back fingerless gloves. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Yes fingerless gloves would be in order. The Attorney-General was the original sponsor of this bill although I see that it has been mysteriously taken over by the hapless Associate Minister of Justice Nathan Guy who just read the notes on the bill that were provided for him by the Ministry of Justice. It was a very good recitation of the departmental speech notes. 
It is interesting first of all to pose the question of why Chris Finlayson is no longer the sponsor of this legislation. I ask whether he wants to avoid the suggestion of a conflict of interest having returned the nation to this cringing colonialism and Queen’s Counsel so that when eventually he procures his own appointment to the rank he cannot be accused of such a conflict of interest. 
The Government has also restored knighthoods and the title of Right Honourable to the three senior officers of the State which is a total constitutional nonsense given that they are not members of the English Privy Council. They are just holders of this title which is redundant in this country without any meaning whatsoever. Maybe it will be good for the odd upgrade on a plane when they are retired from this place but that is about all it means. [ 
Interruption 
] I see that Ms Collins responds well to the idea of an upgrade. But the House needs to ask the question of how New Zealand can be taken seriously in the world as a multicultural Pacific nation while this Government is so addicted to colonial cringe. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Nikki Kaye that this will not go down well in Auckland Central because people in Auckland Central are really proud to be multicultural and part of an independent country in the Pacific and here we have this Government going back to this colonial cringing. 
This Government must have our historical links to the Crown recognised. We must return to using English titles. We are not good enough on our own; we have to have Queen’s Counsel we have to have knighthoods and we have to be Privy Counsellors. It is just appalling. We cannot have the external trappings of an independent State. Under this Government we have to go back to the old colonial titles. We must be the only place on the planet that has abolished colonial titles like knighthoods privy counsellorships and Queen’s Counsel only to restore them by legislation in this case. 
It is bad enough that we are going back on this cultural cringe trip and that Nathan Guy has been put up to this job by the Attorney-General so that the Attorney-General can have the coveted title of Queen’s Counsel at last which has been so long denied him but worse is that the justifications advanced in the Associate Minister’s speech which he read so diligently for us do not stack up. 
Let us put the colonial cringe arguments aside. The bill is said to be all about preserving the independence of the legal profession and correcting what is said to be an overly rigid approach to the appointments process for Senior Counsel. There is nothing in the independence point—absolutely nothing whatsoever. The proof of that is in the fact that the Minister conceded when he read the notes from the department that the Governor-General retains the discretion to appoint members of the legal profession from law firms from time to time to the rank of Queen’s Counsel. There will still be the ability to do that. Given this legislation I ask how independence will be preserved if that extraordinary power continues to exist. It just proves the lie in the argument. 
The appointments process and the rigidity that is said to exist in it is also a complete nonsense. I will read into the record of the House something that was said in 2003 by one of New Zealand’s leading litigators. Jack Hodder was a barrister and a law commissioner and is now a partner in one of our major leading law firms. Incidentally he happened to be one of the inaugural appointees to the rank of Senior Counsel although at the time he could not have known that that would have been in the offing. This is what Mr Hodder said about the Queen’s Counsel appointments process which we are going back to: “This form of State patronage perpetuates a misleading and damaging two-tier perception of the legal profession. It empowers the State apparatus (currently the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice) to discriminate between lawyers advantaging some and (by implication) damaging others. All this is done under a secret and non-accountable process. That process cannot be sensibly reformed. The current and future holders of the offices of Attorney-General and Chief Justice should not be distracted nor placed at risk of charges of favouritism by involvement in such a process in which they must rely on secondary sources. The critical independence of the legal profession can only be impaired by any such selection process.” The truth of those words is manifest. Rather than enhancing the independence of the legal profession this legislation will take us back to a system where the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice from time to time under a secret process relying on secondary sources can elevate some members of the profession to exalted status enabling them to charge much more than they could have previously by way of fees and all this is said to be somehow enhancing of the independence of the legal system when in fact it will produce the opposite result. 
The other interesting observations made by Mr Hodder in his  
Independent 
 article are as follows. I agree with them and I want to make sure that the House takes note of them. Firstly he said: “The rank is of no assistance in maintaining or enhancing professional standards in the practising legal profession. The rank is not well understood by the public. Indeed it implies - quite incorrectly - that the beneficiaries of the rank are able or entitled to advise or speak on any legal matters with greater authority than others. The rank creates an unnecessary and unhelpful division between those few favoured with the rank and the rest of the profession who are implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) relegated to junior rank. For nearly 90 years only a fraction of the New Zealand Bar has been able to apply for the rank—the vast majority … practising in the fused profession as barristers and solicitors. … The rank has not been available to leading lawyers who practise in areas other than advocacy. The rank represents characteristics of the legal profession of England and of the past which are damaging to the New Zealand profession of the 21st century: adherence to archaisms; retention of elitist divisions; secret procedures; and a mistrust of market forces.” They are all hallmarks of the rank. Finally “the rank is not necessarily reliable as an indicator of skill as an advocate. While the current leading Queen Counsel are among the leading advocates in the country there are advocates in law firms who are their equals and there are Queen’s Counsel who are at best marginal candidates for any ‘leading advocates’ list.” 
This is bad law. It represents a colonial cringe that many of us thought we had grown out of in this country but clearly the actions of this Government show that we have not. It nullifies attempts to harmonise with the Australians in the legal market. The Australians have done away with this rank in all but one jurisdiction and they will laugh at any jurisdiction that actually goes as far as restoring it. This is bad law it is bad for New Zealand it is elitist and at the earliest opportunity a future Labour Government will repeal it. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. I agree with the previous speaker Charles Chauvel to the extent that the second part of this bill is excellent legislation. I disagree with him in respect of the first part of the legislation and his comments relating to the reinstatement of Queen’s Counsel. 
I will spend my contribution to the debate sharing with the House my experiences from a practical point of view. I know that dear old Charles has his own views. I had better call him Charles Chauvel before someone raises a point of order but I am sure he will not mind me calling him Charles. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: He might like Sir Charles. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Sir Charles yes. I know that he has his point of view but I guess that is partly driven by the fact that he will never reach the dizzy heights of becoming a Queen’s Counsel. I do not think he has the capability. I guess there is a bit of sour grapes in his reflections. He quoted Jack Hodder ad nauseam. For a start Jack Hodder to my knowledge has never practised on his own account. He has been working for Chapman Tripp for about the last 30 years. I am sure David Parker will confirm that when he stands up to speak. But the simple fact of the matter is that the Law Society and most lawyers support the reintroduction of the title Queen’s Counsel. That is non-debatable. 
Let us reflect on that. This title was taken away in the same way that the previous Government got rid of knighthoods and all those sorts of things in a fit of pique. Then we were told that those titles did not represent a multicultural society. I would like to remind the Opposition that I think I contribute to that multicultural society and I am a valid member of that multicultural society. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Absolutely! 
PAUL QUINN 
: Yes. In fact I fully support the reinstatement of Queen’s Counsel. The reason is that I have been on the receiving end of employing these people. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Oh! 
PAUL QUINN 
: Absolutely and against the Crown I might say. We have won every time. One of the reasons we won every time is that we employed a damn good Queen’s Counsel. The reason I knew that he was damn good was that he had the stamp of the brand of Queen’s Counsel. That means a lot. This is what people rely on. It is a badge of integrity; it sets a certain standard. I am afraid that unlike the Opposition I think the fit of pique that it had in getting rid of these things including redress to the Privy Council was a damnation—a damnation. It had nothing to do with talking to the motherland. The fact of the matter is that our justice system in my personal view is worse off because of the inability to go to the Privy Council. All we are doing with this legislation is restoring the integrity of experienced senior lawyers. 
If we go through any fraternity of any sort or any occupation of any sort we see that people get honoured for reaching certain standards. I am sure that even the Labour Party has juniors and seniors. People get recognised for graduating through the ranks and one day—one day—if Chris Hipkins is here for long enough he might get to the middle benches. But that will be through just sheer time. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: There are 17 of them. 
PAUL QUINN 
: There are 17 of them. But the fact of the matter is that members of fraternities step up as they gain experience and competence and levels of excellence. That is all these titles reflect; the title of Queen’s Counsel reflects that. 
Simplistically what we have done after consulting—as we do on most things—with the organisations is reinstate this title to basically its former position and because of this reinstatement the general populace will be assisted when they are in need by these excellent guardians of freedom whom they rely on. So I have great pleasure in concluding my contribution by saying that I fully support this outstanding bill. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I take much pleasure in following the Dennis Denuto of the National Party Paul Quinn. For anyone who has ever had the pleasure of seeing  
The Castle 
 a wonderful Australian comedy that was not a compliment. 
Sometimes this Parliament really is a Bleak House—it really is a bleak house. It is most often a bleak house when we turn back our clocks 200 years as we are doing now and go back to Dickensian traditions—Dickensian traditions that are born of a judicial system in the United Kingdom that does not allow solicitors to appear as barristers in the higher courts. That is what this tradition arose from and that is why it was right that it was tossed into the bin of irrelevancy a couple of years ago. 
Provincial areas have very few Queen’s Counsel but they have a lot of good lawyers. I am a lawyer; I used to practise in Dunedin. I know that the leading lawyers down there many of the best advocates were both barristers and solicitors. These were leading counsel—leading counsel—and I will name just a few of them. They happen all to be men because of the virtue of their age. The people in the legal profession ahead of me in the senior positions were men as a consequence of its being a very male-dominated profession in those times. They were people like Neville Marquet Bruce Robertson and Kelvin Marks who was a leading counsel. He was the counsel in the case involving civil aviation and MacKenzie which was the case that distinguished between absolute liability and strict liability. He was a barrister and solicitor in Dunedin. He should have been made a Queen’s Counsel but could never be so because he acted as a barrister and solicitor. In provincial towns there is not the wealth available to be spent by Government departments and major corporates that there is in Auckland and Wellington which can support a separate bar. The best advocates in the provinces are often found—not always but often found—in the firms of barristers and solicitors. Alf Jeavons was another one. Jim Guthrie is another man who comes to mind. 
But if that is not a good enough example let us think of our current Supreme Court. Amongst our leading jurists Justice Tipping would never have been a Queen’s Counsel. He is one of our leading judges in New Zealand and no one would dispute that. He was a partner in Wynn Williams. He could never have been a Queen’s Counsel but he should have been able to be made a Senior Counsel. Is that an exception? No it is not. How about Bruce Robertson on the Court of Appeal? He is another leading jurist in New Zealand. He was always a barrister and solicitor in a firm rather than a barrister sole. He could never be made a Queen’s Counsel but he should have been made a Senior Counsel. Members might think that that is only a couple of examples but I ask about Justice McGrath. Justice McGrath is another of our Supreme Court justices. He could never have been made a Queen’s Counsel while a Crown solicitor but he is on the Supreme Court. Before that he was the Solicitor-General. Earlier he was a Crown solicitor in the Crown solicitor firm in Wellington; he could never have been made a Queen’s Counsel in those days. What about our leading prosecutors in Auckland in Meredith Connell? They can never be made Queen’s Counsel. Members might think that those are only a few examples so I thought about Justice Blanchard. He is another of our leading jurists in New Zealand. He could never have been made a Queen’s Counsel because he too practised as a barrister and solicitor not as a barrister sole. That is what makes this such an absurd law. 
I feel as if I should be here with my fingerless gloves and in a black suit. No doubt everyone will be required to put on their wigs again when they go to court. I saw an article about that in the paper. Here we go; we are heading back— 
Lynne Pillay 
: Hair shirts. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No they do not like hair shirts; they like silk—they like silk. But this is a nonsense. 
An exception is being made for people who were appointed during the recent period when we did have the ability to appoint Senior Counsel to continue in that role. So they have an exception for Jack Hodder—I do not know how many other people like Jack Hodder were made Senior Counsel—and so they should make exceptions because he is one of the most capable senior court advocates in the country as well. This is absurd law. 
What have other countries done? That might be illustrative. Are we following the trend or are we lurching to the past on our own? Well Australia as my colleague Charles Chauvel has already said except for one state has moved to Senior Counsel rather than Queen’s Counsel. Canada has done away with Queen’s Counsel completely—it sees that as an irrelevance an old-fashioned concept that has done its time—and so have most of the other countries of the Commonwealth. 
This is an absurd change. It is not based on principle. As I said I do not mind the status that attaches to senior people in a profession whether it concerns scientists being appointed to the Royal Society of New Zealand or senior lawyers being made Senior Counsel. I think recognition of excellence is a good thing; I believe in that. I just do not think that we should make artificial distinctions that are not made on the basis of quality but on the basis of some strange historical tradition inherited from the UK which has no relevance to New Zealand.  
I agree that we should celebrate our Senior Counsel. I agree that we should do that; I just do not think we should artificially exclude on some spurious basis those people whom I have listed who come from firms of barristers and solicitors. It is as if those people are inferior because they are in a firm of barristers and solicitors and as if they somehow have lower standards of ethics. What a nonsense! If they had lower standards of ethics they would be up before a disciplinary tribunal for breaching their duties to their clients. In fact the fact that these people have not been so proves that they are not doing anything wrong so this change is just an absolute nonsense; I cannot bring myself to vote for this bill even thought the second part of it is reasonably sensible as others have already said. 
I do not think there is much more to add really. I think the arguments in respect of this legislation are pretty simple. I think that Nathan Guy has been handed a bit of a hospital pass because the Attorney-General does not want to have to come to the Chamber and argue the case for the bill. He obviously likes the name Queen’s Counsel instead of Senior Counsel. I do not have anything particularly against the title other than the fact that it is an anachronism. The more important point of principle for me is this ridiculous return to the general position that those who are currently called Senior Counsel and are soon to be called again Queen’s Counsel can be appointed only if they are barristers sole rather than barristers in legal firms where they practise in a partnership of barristers and solicitors. 
Paul Quinn 
: Move a Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We will do that and I invite the member to vote for it. Maybe reason will prevail on the other side of the House with members having heard the superior contributions from this side. With that piece of arrogance I would probably be entitled to be appointed a Queen’s Counsel but not a Senior Counsel so I should decline on that basis of course. I will not say anything more; the arguments have been well traversed by Charles Chauvel. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 Allow me to offer a particularly humble contribution to this debate on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill and let me state from the outset that the Green Party has not decided its final policy towards this bill and will not do so at this first reading. We are prepared to vote it through to the Justice and Electoral Committee and listen to the argumentation. That position was not taken lightly but after some deliberation the fact is that we are sceptical of some of the provisions in the bill and have our reservations on others. We wish to approach the issue with an open mind and we are prepared to explore it with the Government and other parties in the select committee. 
The bill aims to achieve three things: first to restore the rank of Queen’s Counsel and alter various provisions surrounding the position; second to alter provisions pertaining to the holding of non-voting shares in an incorporated law firm; and third to require a power of attorney to be given to another person to conduct the work of a barrister sole during periods of bankruptcy. It is the first of these aims pertaining to Queen’s Counsel that requires exploration. There are three issues at stake. The first is the title of the provision; the second is the potential eligibility for applying; and the third is the method of choosing an applicant. The proposed amendments would reverse three changes made by the Labour Government in 2006. In short this present bill would restore the title of Queen’s Counsel which was dropped by the Labour Government in 2006; it would limit eligibility to barristers sole rather than the general legal profession which Labour allowed; and it would remove the selection panel and allow the Attorney-General to appoint in consultation with the Law Society and the Bar Association. 
Let us consider each one. Why would the Government seek to restore the title of Queen’s Counsel and why would it seek to limit eligibility? The stated reason to revert back to Queen’s Counsel is to restore what the Government claims is the reciprocal relationship between Queen’s Counsel and the Crown. There is an expectation that a Queen’s Counsel will sometimes take instructions to act on behalf of the Crown. The qualities that have marked the rank of Queen’s Counsel will be preserved—that is the Government will continue to have confidence in the rank to appoint Queen’s Counsel and to assist with work such as ministerial inquiries where a degree of independence from the executive is thought desirable. 
The point was advanced by Mr Power when in Opposition back in July 2003 that the role of a Queen’s Counsel as an independent member of the Bar is to hold an office that allows one to challenge authority. It allows a Queen’s Counsel to challenge Governments and those who conform to the rules of our society. This is done in a way that gives one a certain degree of independence from such conformity. The fact that the title Queen’s Counsel reflects a colonial heritage is Mr Power believed to be of secondary importance. What was more important he claimed was that the role of Senior Counsel would be too readily available to members of the legal profession who practise in large law firms that undertake substantial commercial work for the Government whether it is a department a State-owned enterprise or a Crown entity. They act on behalf of the Government in those roles. 
The idea of a Queen’s Counsel Mr Power believed was to lift the individual barrister above the mire so that one is able to take on an unpopular case that others might turn down. A Queen’s Counsel is able to hold without fear the views of a client whom all others in a society may view as having committed wrongs whether civil or criminal and they would do this well before a judge or jury makes such decisions. Mr Power urged against removing the last vestige of a barrister’s independence at that level and replacing it with a label that could be assigned to any senior lawyer in any firm. There are some 12000 or so lawyers in the profession in this country I think but only a few hundred barristers sole. This may be a reasonable argument. The aspects of independence and credibility that enable any counsel to take on criminal cases on behalf of a defendant who may be vilified before a trial begins is of critical importance to the integrity of the judicial process. The Green Party has always supported this principle. Yet we remain unconvinced that the very title Queen’s Counsel itself is an imperative. We could perhaps accept the argument that the role should be preserved to barristers sole for the reasons outlined; it does not necessarily follow that the title Queen’s Counsel itself has to remain. What is the problem with retaining the title Senior Counsel while restricting it to barristers sole? 
The third issue has to do with the appointments process. Before 2006 the Attorney-General consulted with the Law Society and the Bar Association over potential candidates. The 2006 Act has the Attorney-General being advised by a panel comprising the Solicitor-General and four individuals drawn from the Law Society and the Bar Association. This 2010 bill would restore the status quo ante on the grounds that the panel system is unnecessarily rigid and it would be preferable for the Attorney-General to have greater flexibility. The difference may not be great between the two arrangements although a panel’s advice might be more appropriate rather than Attorney-General flexibility in itself. 
It would be useful to consider this argumentation in more detail. Where for example is the evidence offered by the Government that the panel system is rigid? And what do we mean by flexibility? Reasonable flexibility to some may be perhaps excessive licence to others. As I understand it there has been only one round of appointments to the position of Senior Counsel since the 2006 Act came into force. In 2008 seven individuals were appointed one of whom was Sir Geoffrey Palmer and we have heard a lot tonight about Mr Jack Hodder. That is scarcely displaying unacceptable rigidity. 
On balance our preliminary thoughts are as follows. Firstly we would be disposed to retain the title Senior Counsel rather than revert to Queen’s Counsel. Secondly we are prepared to listen to a more detailed argument from the Government to restrict the role to barristers sole rather than to the legal profession generally but we acknowledge the arguments advanced by Labour’s David Parker tonight for keeping the potential pool broader than purely Queen’s Counsel. Finally we tend to favour retention of a panel to accord advice to the Attorney-General in the appointments process. These are our preliminary thoughts. Based on this preliminary approach we will consider supporting certain aspects of this bill but not all of them. We are however prepared to see the bill go through to select committee with a view to engaging the Government in a constructive dialogue on the merits of each of the three issues at stake. We shall therefore vote for the bill through to select committee while preserving our option to support or oppose the bill in due course. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The Maori Party supports any legal changes that will ensure that barristers who generally are appointed to conduct court work on behalf of the Crown have the title of Queen’s Counsel restored. In many ways it is simply stating what is already the case: if one is working on behalf of the Crown then that work should be recognised appropriately with a title that indicates the responsibilities. 
The selection process appears to be reasonable with the New Zealand Law Society having substantial input in consultation with the Attorney-General. I recommend however that Te Hunga Roia Maori o Aotearoa should be approached with a view to hearing its perspectives from the point of view of tangata whenua. Te Hunga Roia Maori o Aotearoa maintains a database of Maori lawyers makes submissions on a range of policies and proposed legislation ensures representation of its members on selected committees and organises regular national hui. As such it is an ideal body to seek specialist advice on these changes. 
In many ways there is an inevitable connection to the constitutional review that the Maori Party has negotiated as part of our coalition arrangements with National. Although New Zealand has its own Supreme Court we are still a Commonwealth country and on admission we swear an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen. As such the constitutional relationship between the Treaty partners must be actively considered at every level of the administration of law and policy. At this first reading we are happy to support the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. We believe it could help maintain public confidence in the provision of legal services and conveyancing and by virtue of highlighting the reputation of the barristers involved will lead we hope to the protection of consumers of those services. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 It is my privilege to speak in support of the first reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. The bill will make amendments to the provisions in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 along with implementing the Government’s policy on Queen’s Counsel currently known as Senior Counsel. 
The Act changed the rank of Queen’s Counsel by renaming it Senior Counsel. It also relaxed the eligibility for the appointment of Senior Counsel to all lawyers specialising in advocacy regardless of the form of their practice. This bill is an important step in reinstating status and independence for the top rank of lawyers in New Zealand. The eligibility to be appointed as Queen’s Counsel will be restricted in most cases to barristers sole rather than lawyers in partnerships or firms. Amendment to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act will simplify the selection process and appointment of Queen’s Counsel while providing for consultation with the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Bar Association on proposed appointments. The amendment preserves the Governor-General’s power under the royal prerogative to appoint other lawyers as Queen’s Counsel from time to time in recognition of their contribution to the law. Queen’s Counsel should be able to advise and represent fearlessly and independently both law firms and clients who engage them without the potential conflict and pressure of working in a partnership or incorporated firm. 
We have listened carefully to the legal profession and this is a response to their concern that the title of Senior Counsel created in 2008 under the previous Government does not adequately reflect the nature and status of the rank. The title of Queen’s Counsel is instantly recognised as providing a certain standard of legal advice both among the New Zealand public and internationally. We are taking steps to protect the essential independence of the inner bar. The looser rules for eligibility as Senior Counsel introduced by the previous Government threatened to dilute the independence of our most senior advocates. I commend this bill to the House. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It will come as no surprise that we in Labour oppose the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. Talk about a major step backwards! 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Back to the days of the raj. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly. 
I want to talk about some of the previous speakers. I acknowledge that I do not come from the law fraternity. However I hold very dear the principles of fairness and justice which underpin our justice system. I think both Charles Chauvel and David Parker spoke extremely eloquently and indeed very sensibly about—if I can quote Charles Chauvel—the “cultural cringe” of this bill and what it seeks to do. I put on record that I agree with absolutely everything my colleagues said. I acknowledge Kennedy Graham; I think he gave a very measured speech. He highlighted very clearly the challenges and what was inappropriate about this bill. 
I feel disappointed that good time will be used by this bill going to a select committee. For us in Labour it is as clear as the noses on our faces that this bill is inappropriate. The Greens are not quite so clear on that; they want to go through the arduous process of going to a select committee. I see time being spent on something that does not add value rather than the contrary though one may say that nothing this Government puts forward adds value. Is it not a bad thing to use up a lot of time on something quite irrelevant? The Green Party is perhaps being a little bit cynically clever by supporting this bill going to a select committee. 
I heard Paul Quinn talk earlier. Someone said to not quote Paul Quinn but I think if anyone in this House asked who is the most down-to-earth egalitarian grassroots salt of the earth guy we would have to say— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Paul Quinn. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Paul Quinn—exactly. 
I heard that wonderful well-respected learned man talk about bestowing status honour and recognition. I know that every time we go to the Justice and Electoral Committee there is a silence. We all sit and wonder what Paul Quinn is going to say. I am not denigrating Chester Borrows; he is a good chair. But we know that no matter what from out of nowhere will come the wisdom of Paul Quinn. Paul Quinn—the natural down-to-earth egalitarian sort of guy—comes to this House— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: A gentleman. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Who said that? 
Aaron Gilmore 
: It was me. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Oh right. One of his colleagues said that he is a gentleman. Paul Quinn talked about the honours. He talked about bestowing status honour and recognition. I say that we in Labour believe in that. We believe it is very important to have recognition. It is very important to be honoured. It is very important to have status. But status should be recognised by people’s peers. 
We should look at New Zealand’s achievements and all the things that we have gone forward and achieved whether it is in nursing education literacy art medicine science or music. Nursing is my former occupation— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: We could be matrons! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly. As my friend and colleague Steve Chadwick said why not bring back matrons and sisters in nursing? Why should we not be Sister Lynne Pillay and Matron Chadwick? That is what this bill is all about. It is all about a ridiculous status. We saw New Zealand—certainly not under this Government because this Government is going backwards but in the previous 9 years—going forward in social change and leading the way. What do we see under this Government? Whoops! We are going back to the future. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Aspirational to go backwards. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Of course it is all very aspirational! If we look we see that the previous Government modernised the position of Queen’s Counsel in 2006 by changing it. Were we going out on a limb? Yes; we were leaders but we saw Canada Australia and even the United Kingdom going down exactly that path. So we were leaders but we were certainly in tune with progress with egalitarianism and with the rest of the world. And that is something we as Kiwis hold dear. But what happened? That lot gets into power and we look like a bunch of dorks. We look like a bunch of dorks overseas. 
After we have had a little chat in the Chamber and we go out and sit in those lobbies we see spittoons. What are we going to do—start spitting in the spittoons because it is all about tradition? I am all for history. History is a good thing. We feel pride in our history but there are times when think: “That is important in our history but it is time to progress.” It is not all about looking back; it is about human development and moving forward. 
“Moving forward” is a term that we hear— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: And stepping up! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: “Stepping up” and “moving forward” are terms that we hear. In the instance of the title of Queen’s Counsel we did. We stepped up we moved forward and then—kapow—under the National Government we are going backwards. It is absolutely embarrassing. It is cringeworthy to feel proud of oneself to be in international circles saying “Oh yes you know we did do quite well. Oh yes we did do this that and the other.” and then this happens. It is really embarrassing. 
I cannot let the Maori Party off. I saw one of its members reading from their notes and absolutely endorsing colonialism in this country. I find that offensive. I hope that the Maori Party will listen to Hone. He will say: “Look you have done it again. You have got us into a position where we in the Maori Party are lying down and getting our tummies scratched by the National Government.” Is that worth it? There has to be a time when they question whether it is worth it. 
It will be no surprise to the House that along with my Labour colleagues I do not support this bill. I support a New Zealand that is proud that is a Pacific nation and that celebrates all of its achievements whether they are in nursing or elsewhere. We have two excellent registered nurses here one of whom is a midwife—Lynne Pillay and Steve Chadwick—who do not get a kick or a buzz out of being called matron and sister. Do members opposite know why? It is because we are proud Kiwis and we are proud of what our achievements are. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: What’s their title? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: All of those progressive people in Levin will be appalled at what Nathan Guy has been saying in this House. They will be thinking that for a young man he is so old-fashioned and so uncool. 
I hope that the Maori Party will use all of the concessions it has made to the National Government and that it will say: “Look guys this is ridiculous. We look like a bunch of dorks. Let’s just let this one go. Let’s go back to common sense. Let’s feel pride in our nation. Let’s feel pride about the achievements in our nation. Let’s stand on our feet and forget this cultural cringe.” Along with my colleagues I do not support this bill. It is a nonsense and it should not progress. Thank you. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise in support of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. I also applaud the speech made by Paul Quinn who was rightly acknowledged as an egalitarian down-to-earth solid good guy—a gentleman—by the Opposition. He recognises the need for excellence and that everything should not be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. This issue is not about fairness and justice it is not about colonialism it is not inappropriate and it is not cultural cringe as previous speakers would have us believe. 
This is about recognising excellence and giving people the opportunity to make the choice between an ordinary lawyer and a Queen’s Counsel—and there is a difference. One has a greater capability than the other. It may not necessarily always be the case that a lawyer cannot achieve what a Queen’s Counsel will achieve but we can be certain that in just about every case a Queen’s Counsel will give us the outcome that we seek. This has been demonstrated time and time again. This bill is not about cultural cringe. It is highly ignorant of the role of a Queen’s Counsel and of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill to suggest that. Once again the Opposition has not done its homework. At least the Green Party did its homework and had a contribution of some substance to make but it was not so with the Labour Opposition. 
I am delighted to see that we recognise the excellence and the different standards of lawyers we are able to engage to represent us. I for one always say that if one wants to win one’s case then one should employ a Queen’s Counsel. If people want their case over and done with in as short a time frame as possible they should employ a Queen’s Counsel. 
I had some friends who were going to challenge Environment Waikato on a policy and a regional statement. I suggested to them that they employ a Queen’s Counsel. They were of the same mind so they did. The Queen’s Counsel came from Dunedin. There were a number of submissions in favour of this particular policy and only one against which happened to be mine—no surprises there. I never spoke to the Queen’s Counsel until after the event but to my surprise he said that the first thing he did was read the one submission opposing the statement rather than all those for it. He felt that the substance was in that submission and he won the case. Once again it highlighted the capability of a Queen’s Counsel; we might take a risk if we employ an ordinary lawyer. 
I have no hesitation in supporting the bringing back of the position of Queen’s Counsel and acknowledging their excellence and different degree of capability. That is what this bill is about. We would not expect every single contestant at the Olympic Games to get a certificate would we? 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Labour would. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Yes the Opposition would. Labour members do not like to see anybody achieve above the parapet. They just like to chop the heads off tall poppies. From the Opposition’s perspective it is about dumbing it down to the lowest common denominator. [ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite do not like it do they? This legislation is part of their legacy. It is the way in which they governed. I am delighted to support this bill. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I welcome the chance to follow the member Sandra Goudie because she issued a challenge during her speech and said that the Opposition needed to do its homework on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. I ask the member what her homework demonstrated to her. The sense I got was that Sandra Goudie is under the impression that the Labour Government got rid of the idea of recognising excellence within the legal fraternity and that is absolutely untrue. She said that the bill was about recognising excellence and not dumbing down. She chose not to demonstrate why the title of Senior Counsel which Labour introduced did not recognise excellence or why the title of Senior Counsel was dumbing down. If anything I think the Government is dumbing down our system because it claims that people do not understand or recognise what Senior Counsel is. It claims we need to revert back to the old style of Queen’s Counsel because that is what people understand. If that is not dumbing down I do not know what is. If the member is unable to demonstrate to me that our system as it currently works does not recognise excellence then I am sorry but I do not believe that she has done her homework. 
Labour changed the appointment process and Labour changed the eligibility for appointees; we did not change the fact that certain members of the profession were duly recognised. That was something that of course we retained. Therefore we can only distil from this the fact that this bill is simply about reverting back to an antiquated system that I do not recognise as being part of my country. I do not recognise the idea that excellence can be attributed formally only if we attach some reference to the monarchy. I think that is an absolutely antiquated idea that quite frankly makes me feel embarrassed. 
Let us go through the history of some of this perhaps to demonstrate that some homework has been done. This bill reverses the changes Labour made to the Queen’s Counsel regime in 2006. That was after a lengthy process of consultation and deliberation. It was not done on a whim. We chose to modernise what was otherwise the quite ancient position of Queen’s Counsel by changing the name eligibility criteria and appointment process not the notion itself. 
I want to refer to one interjection that was made by the Hon Judith Collins during the contribution of one of our members. Her main argument seemed to be that we should revert back to the Queen’s Counsel title because Parliament’s history lay elsewhere and that we should recognise Parliament’s history. Well it is one thing to acknowledge one’s history and another to simply live in it. We have to recognise that as a country we are dynamic and we are moving forward in the same way that we acknowledge that the Treaty of Waitangi is a living document and a dynamic document and we continue to incorporate it as we move forward. We should not sit entrenched in history without acknowledging the changes that our country is undergoing. 
Personally as I have said I find it embarrassing that having gone through the process of introducing Senior Counsel which was quite a lengthy one we are now simply sliding backwards without a rational justification from the Government as to what it is about the current system that is not working. I have not heard one argument from the Government as to why the current system is not working except for the notion of an antiquated title attached to the monarch. 
If the Government will not canvass some of the ideas on why we are having this change I will canvass them and argue against them myself in a one-on-one debate given that the Government seems unwilling to engage. Internationally I do not think there is any precedent that we could possibly be following because Canada has already abolished the title and so have most of the Commonwealth nations. They probably find it quite laughable that New Zealand not only has only recently abolished it but is now jumping backwards soon after doing so. In fact all the Australian states bar one have moved to the title of Senior Counsel. 
I find it interesting that to be fair both sides of this House have continued to look for areas of commonality and harmonisation in our legal system with Australia. In fact the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill and several other bills that I have been involved with have all looked at trans-Tasman harmonisation. This makes sense given the close nature of our countries but then we go and do this. I question whether it is the one desperate attempt from the Government to demonstrate that we are catching up to Australia by leap-frogging through history over the top of them. Perhaps Government members might like to demonstrate that I am wrong in that regard. 
In desperation I looked at the regulatory impact statement to see whether it demonstrated any solid reasoning behind this legislation which was again left wanting. According to the regulatory impact statement the title of Senior Counsel “overlooks the historical link between Queen’s Counsel and the Crown.” So apparently we are doing this simply because we need a history lesson in law which I do not believe is an adequate justification for what the Government is doing. Historically the link between Queen’s Counsel and the Crown refers to the title’s ancient English origins. It indicated barristers who were selected to assist the Attorney-General in carrying out the Crown’s legal business. Therefore the modern Queen’s Counsel does not have the same kind of notion that it had when first created given that modern Queen’s Counsel when we had them acted for a wide variety of clients including private individuals and businesses. So we could even argue that the historical link the Government is looking to entrench no longer exists anyway in a practical sense. Again the bill is left wanting. In fact Paul Quinn made a contradiction when he said we needed to have this title to demonstrate the role of Queen’s Counsel but then demonstrated that Queen’s Counsel do much more than advise the Crown. So I am not left any the wiser as to why we are regressing having looked at some of the explanations from the Government. 
I will go over some of the other changes we have seen particularly to eligibility and the appointment process. David Parker canvassed well some of the issues to do with the Government’s decision to change the eligibility criteria and on the face of it does look like it is a form of elitism but I think it is even more bizarre than that. The Government believes that the “extension of eligibility to litigators in law firms failed to provide due recognition to the importance attributed to the independence of the office.” 
It was well said by Jack Hodder in his submission on the nature of Queen’s Counsel that the Government’s proposal assumes by default that we cannot have any trust or faith in those operating in our legal fraternity. It creates a two-tier perception of independence for some but not for others in the way that they operate. That is something he strongly rejected. He rejected the idea of any form of elitism within the legal fraternity as far as I can tell whether it is Queen’s Counsel or Senior Counsel but I think a lot of his arguments still hold when it comes to Queen’s Counsel in particular. It is Labour’s view that restricting the title to barristers sole grants a commercial advantage to a limited number of competitors in the legal services market. The fact that for nearly 90 years only a fraction of New Zealand’s advocates have been eligible to apply for the rank is a ridiculous situation for a country as small as New Zealand. But again I have to acknowledge that the Government has not taken into account New Zealand’s uniqueness in any sense whatsoever in this bill. 
In relation to the appointment process the Government has claimed that the current requirement for the appointment of a selection panel is unnecessarily rigid. So on the one hand Labour introduced too much openness and on the other hand we included an appointment process that was too rigid. I think that perhaps in the end Labour had the balance right and it is the Government that has demonstrated some confusion. It is unfortunate given that even Great Britain has a very open and transparent appointment process that the Government has said ours is too rigid yet has not given much prescription over the way the appointment process will work and in fact has left it to an Order in Council. I think that is inadequate given the calls from the legal fraternity to make the process much more open. 
As my colleagues have said this a backward step. I think it demonstrates the lack of faith that the Government has in our independence as a nation. It is an antiquated step and one I am very disappointed in. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Justice and Electoral Committee consider the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill 
In Committee 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee stage to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not. Leave is granted. 
Clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 to 3 and schedules 1 to 5 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Now that we are in the Committee stage of the bill I really want to draw the attention of the Committee to a point I raised in the second reading that was not addressed by the Maori Affairs Committee in relation to the upper Waipa catchment. As was stated by the select committee it received a submission from Maniapoto asking it to determine the boundary of Raukawa’s interest in the upper Waipa catchment. Rightly the committee said no to that and that it was more a matter for Raukawa and Maniapoto to determine. The issue that I foresaw and raise with the Committee is that although there are very strong whakapapa links between Raukawa and Maniapoto as they apply to the upper Waipa catchment the current-day manifestation of those whakapapa links does not show itself in a practical sense in terms of the residence along the Waipa River. So it is my strong contention that we will probably revisit this particular matter with a view to possibly amending the bill. 
I draw the attention of the Committee to clause 43(2)(a)(ii) which is specifically the part of the bill that I foreshadow that at some time in the future I intend to bring an amendment to the House on in order to actually clarify the nature of Raukawa’s interest in the upper Waipa catchment. I say this with a level of confidence because in effect this settlement takes precedence over a settlement that is yet to be determined with Maniapoto. Substantially the issues raised in the Maniapoto settlement will be about the Waipa River. So we have a situation where Waikato was ahead of the game: iwi negotiated the Waikato River settlement and understood that the Waipa River was an important tributary and affected the end game of what was being achieved in the Waikato. Maniapoto were behind the eight ball and are yet to have their settlement determined. But Maniapoto are absolutely focused on ensuring that the whole of the Waipa catchment will be addressed in a similar manner to the Waikato and that will determine the full extent of all the interests along the Waipa River. So we have a situation where Raukawa rightly said they had some interest in the Waikato River and they believe it also extends to some area of the Waipa. I believe that that matter will come up in the future but I wanted in good faith to raise it with the Committee because we should put our mind to it when we start to review the practical effect of how this legislation will be implemented. 
Notwithstanding that the joint management agreements I believe will be a really positive opportunity for iwi to participate in the practical implementation of achieving the aspiration of a clean Waikato River because the agreements will enable iwi to participate in the policy and planning processes and in the regulatory processes through the monitoring of water quality and the monitoring of resource consents—but also through determining the extent of customary interests. How that will manifest itself for each of the iwi Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa may be very different but I think it is an important progression in terms of how iwi see themselves as being positive contributors to resource management and certainly to the better management of their waterways. 
I say on the point of joint management agreements that I was very heartened to see that Tuwharetoa has led the way on those without a Treaty settlement but with the support of the Taupo District Council. I attended a couple of years ago a ceremony at Waihi where the Taupo District Council had a full and extensive consultation or negotiation with Tuwharetoa and they basically went down this route. I believe that if we can try to ensure that councils work in that kind of manner with iwi then we are continuing to push iwi at the front end of the resource management processes rather than at the back end where they have to object. We are encouraging iwi to be a critical part of deciding the way that resource consents are administered in their areas and of monitoring those consents and that can only be a good thing. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the Committee stage of the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill because now we can get down to the nuts and bolts of it. I am looking at Parts 2 and 3 and the co-governance or co-management arrangements that exist in each of those parts. Part 2 addresses the co-governance of the Waikato River and Part 3 addresses the Upper Waikato River co-management arrangement plans. 
I wonder whether I could prevail upon the Minister in the chair the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 169 which to all intents and purposes looks technical. There are a couple of things I am not sure about and I ask the Minister whether she is able to explain the rationale for some of the Supplementary Order Paper. I am clearly not wishing at all to be obstructive but it would be helpful to know. For example at the beginning of Part 2 straight under the title “Co-governance of Waikato River” a new clause 8A is to be inserted that talks about the relationship with the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act. I am wondering why this new clause is being inserted at this point or why there is not some reference earlier in the legislation. The Supplementary Order Paper talks about inserting a clause about the relationship with the raupatu claims which I have mentioned. It then says that the matters provided for in sections 9 to 34 are also provided for in sections 9 to 34 of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010. I ask the Minister whether this is simply a cross-referencing. Can she clarify that for me? 
Obviously we spent some time yesterday when we were last talking about this bill in its second reading on the relationship between this legislation governing the management and operation of the Waikato River upstream and downstream if you like across Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa interests in the river. We said that this was distinct from the raupatu claims. If the Minister could clarify the placement of that clause I would be grateful. 
The next amendment in the Supplementary Order Paper is the omission of clause 38(1) which is part of the bit that I was especially excited about yesterday when I was talking about the review that had been built into the management and the plan of the membership of the authority. That was a very useful thing to do because it allows for some flexibility in the future should it be required. Clause 38 deals with the review and amendment of the plan. It is taking out the part that refers to Ngati Tuwharetoa and says that for them “the Trust must give the other Trusts written or electronic notice within 30 business days …”. Again if this is simply an administrative matter I would be pleased to hear about it from the Minister. 
Similarly in respect of clause 38(2)(a) there is a reference in the Supplementary Order Paper to inserting the words “… and the Trust for Ngati Tuwharetoa if it did not participate in the preparation of the plan and decides under clause 4(4A) of Schedule 5 to participate in the review …”. I suppose this is where I need a little background from the Minister as to why this insertion happens here. Again there may be a simple explanation that is eluding me at this hour of night. 
The Supplementary Order Paper makes three other changes. I do not think there is anything particularly significant although when one takes away the word “and” in legislation and my reference here for the Minister is clause 46(2)(a)(i) does it mean that each of those provisions—that is why the trust should meet no less than twice a year—become separate or are they to be aggregated? Do we assume that the purpose of meeting no less than twice each year is to do each of those things set out in subparagraphs (i) (ii) and (iii) by the omission of the word “and”? 
I think the other changes in the Supplementary Order Paper are simply technical. They are the ones relating to clause 57(3) and schedule 4. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify any of those questions that I have raised. I am sorry; there are also changes to schedule 5. Thank you. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to talk about the overarching purpose of the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill because I believe that this is the most exciting part of the bill. The overarching purpose is to restore and protect the health and well-being of the Waikato River for present and future generations. I think that that is the most admirable part of the bill. The purpose goes on to say that the legislation “recognises the significance of the Waikato River to the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi:”. Again I think it is wonderful that finally the people and the tribes along the Waikato River will have an opportunity to have a say in the co-management and the co-governance the kawanatanga of the Waikato River so that it can be restored to the condition it was in over 100 years ago when people could gather food swim and play in the river without fear of contracting illnesses or anything due to the pollution and the degradation that has gone on. They could swim there without worrying about getting injured on any deep debris that has been dumped there for whatever reason. 
Yesterday I heard from the Hon Rodney Hide that this bill was a sad day for democracy because in his opinion it would exclude people from participating in the democratic process. I believe that the Hon Rodney Hide was wrong. I believe that this is a great day for democracy because it shows that New Zealand is finally coming of age when we can have Maori sitting at the decision-making table on the Waikato River Authority. There will be five members from the river iwi and five members selected by the Minister along with recommendations from regional councils. It is great that there will be equal numbers of Maori and non-Maori making decisions about the co-governance of this river. 
This is a great day for democracy. This is an inclusive bill and it is great to see that New Zealand is coming of age. It also is in line with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 18 states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedure”. This allows Maori to choose their representatives. 
Article 26 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands territories and resources which they have traditionally owned”. They have the right “to own use develop and control the lands and territories and resources that they possess” and “States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous persons concerned.” This bill does all that. It allows the tribes along the Waikato River—Ngati Tuwharetoa Ngati Raukawa Te Arawa tribes and Waikato-Tainui people—to be able to participate in the governance. This is good legislation. 
Article 29 states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources.” Again this bill supports that. So this is not a sad day for democracy; this is not bad legislation. It is inclusive legislation and it is giving Maori their opportunity finally to be able to have their say on how the Waikato River will be managed and governed. 
The Waikato River Authority is a good body that will work together inclusively; it will not exclude any groups of people. It is a body that will listen and fulfil the needs and dreams of the Waikato people. 
This bill also establishes the Waikato River Clean-up Trust. That trust is a group that will be tasked with the job of doing the clean-up which is also a good part of this bill. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I will just briefly reiterate the great points that have been made by the two previous speakers Maryan Street and Kelvin Davis. The Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill is about modernising and making sure that the highway forward is recognised by the nation. Certainly the co-governance framework is about that. Last night we heard some huffing and puffing about why this bill was dangerous and excessive for this country. I forgot to commend the chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee Tau Henare last night. I wish to do that tonight and congratulate him on the way he guided the committee under the co-governance that generally happens in select committees to ensure we got to a better place with this bill. 
I suppose the purpose of the Waikato River Authority is to set the primary direction for the vision and strategy to achieve the restoration and protection of the river. We have heard about all the relevant issues. Those people whom I heard in the media today scaremongering about this type of management are up the tree to be quite frank. If we cannot move as we modernise ourselves—we have seen a super-city formed in this country in which some people have been appointed without going through any election process—then it should be not too right for people to suggest that this legislation is the wrong thing to do. Its purpose in the purest sense is as a great mechanism to condition us for the way forward. 
These people are aligned with and live with this river. The river is the people and the people are the river. It needs to be recognised that Tainui-Waikato has paved the way in the first instance and that their whanaunga up the river have decided to collectively come together. That is something that is very very important for this nation. I really commend and support this bill. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I will not take a long call. However I want to raise an issue with the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs. If she could respond to it maybe in the third reading that would be very helpful. It is to do with the appointment of members to the Waikato River Authority. The legislation is very explicit in terms of the method by which the Minister for the Environment and local government select their members. Just as a point of clarification it would be helpful to know this with regard to where iwi appoint members as those appointments do not necessarily coincide with the election cycles of particular trust boards. 
My question is that if a member is elected to a trust board and is nominated to sit on the river authority and then an election takes place and that person is no longer a member of the trust board does he or she continue to finish that term? It is not a big issue but it could become a point of contention for tribal members who may not have confidence in that member who is nevertheless representing their interests on the trust board. I just raise that question as something that might potentially be considered for response in the third reading. It would be helpful to have the Minister’s view—even though it is not clearly expressed in the legislation—reflected in order to interpret the intent of the discussions that have taken place. I think it is a very important issue because we know that the cycles of membership of trust boards are as tumultuous as our cycle here in Parliament and politics often gets in the way of good representation. 
Notwithstanding that issue it is my sincere ambition that any members appointed to the river authority will do the best job that they can on behalf of their iwi. Should they no longer be elected to represent their iwi by sitting on their trust board that should not affect their term in office. But as I say politics often gets in the way. It would be helpful to have the Minister’s thoughts on that particular issue. Kia ora. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 169 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 4 
ACT New Zealand 4. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 to 3 and schedules 1 to 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 4 
ACT New Zealand 4. 
Clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 to 3 and schedules 1 to 5 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Sittings of the House 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to now rise for the evening having sustained excellent progress. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears not to be. Leave is granted. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.