Volume 674 Week 80 - Thursday 4 August 2011Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 674 Week 80 - Thursday 4 August 2011[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20327. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 4 August 2011Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of theActing Leader of the House: I am the acting Acting Leader of the House today not the Attorney-General. When the House resumes on Tuesday 9 August the Government intends to complete the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2011/2012 Estimates) Bill before proceeding to the third reading. The Government also intends to make further progress on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2).Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Through you Mr Speaker can I ask the acting Acting Leader of the House two questions. The first is whether the intention is to proceed straight to the third reading of the appropriations legislation and if so will that be done under urgency? The second question is whether in future we can rely on minutes or notifications from the office of the Leader of the House that indicate House business or are we to have repeats of what happened yesterday when they were misleading?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): As to the second question I will not dignify it with a response. As to the first point on issues of urgency the Acting Leader of the House anticipated the inquiry and is open to having a discussion with the shadow Leader of the House next week both in terms of the appropriation bill and what future weeks look like.Points of OrderPrivilege—Procedure for RaisingBreachesHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think your office has been given notice of my intention to raise a point of order as to the decision of the Table Office not to accept a notice of motion from Clare Curran relating to a breach of privilege which she attempted to lay yesterday and was rejected by the Table Office. The grounds that were used for that—and I will go back to them—were the feeling that such a notice of motion breached Speakers’ rulings 180/2 and 180/5.I draw your attention toMcGee page 665 where he makes it absolutely clear that a member can raise a matter of privilege by way of notice of motion in the House and that that can be done whether or not it has been lodged with the Speaker. This is the latest edition—the third edition—ofMcGee which postdates the Speakers’ rulings on the matter. He refers to cases inErskine May where in fact the House of Commons has found a breach of privilege without having a hearing and he draws attention to the case in 2000 inHansard Volume 585 at page 3457 where the House of Representatives censured a member for remarks that he offered—both cases not having hearings of the Privileges Committee.What is well established is that there is an ability for members by way of motion to move such a motion in the House and in the unusual event that the business gets to members’ motions—and I accept that that would be unusual—to have it referred. The Wall ruling 180/5 says: “Once a matter of privilege has been raised with the Speaker it is out of order to refer to it in debate in the House.” My submission to you Mr Speaker is that that is a matter of general or other debate and if we came to a debate on that particular issue it would be then be in order. I think all of us know that one should not casually refer to matters that are before you Mr Speaker but if one goes back toMcGeeand looks at previous cases in New Zealand and previous cases in the United Kingdom one will see that it is clear that there is an ability to do a parallel process both through reference to you and also directly through the House.My submission is notwithstanding the comments of the Office of the Clerk. Speaker’s ruling 180/2 is entirely irrelevant. There is no doubt from my perspective that if we apply this ruling and Speaker’s ruling 180/5 the matter cannot be brought on for debate. But we have a number of places where for example reports of select committees and bills are introduced that are below the line so we have items that are on the Order Paper but not available for debate. My submission is that having a motion on the Order Paper does not necessarily involve debate. In fact I think we would agree that where it is a members’ notice of motion it is most unlikely.My colleague feels there has been a breach; I think it is fair to say that she is pretty motivated about the 2-year breach—I know because I have seen a copy of the letter—that she has written to you about in the Telecom structural separation case.Mr Speaker I do not think I am asking you to rule immediately on this question but I ask you to go away and consider whether in fact when you look carefully at Speakers’ rulings 180/2 and 180/5;McGee page 665;Hansard Volume 585 at page 3457; andErskine May page 132 there is an ability for a member to take what has been regarded as a right and that is to set down a notice of motion—not to have it debated—on matters of privilege.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Just very briefly I say that Chapter VIII of the Standing Orders deals with parliamentary privilege. An allegation of breach of privilege is a very serious allegation. There is a very clear procedure set out in Chapter VIII as to the way in which issues of breach of privilege are dealt with including procedural aspects of reference to you Mr Speaker. It is entirely appropriate that once the matter has been raised with you by letter until it is determined—whether in a threshold way by you or referred on to the Privileges Committee—it is inappropriate to have those matters canvassed in the House. That is what lies behind Speaker Wall’s ruling at Speaker’s ruling 180/5.Mr SPEAKER: I thank both honourable members for the constructive way they have raised this issue. I must agree with the Hon Chris Finlayson that he has come to the heart of the issue. The Hon Trevor Mallard is quite correct that these matters can be raised by notice of motion in the House; that is very clear. But I disagree that Speaker’s ruling 180/2 is irrelevant. I believe it is totally relevant to the situation and the point made by the Hon Chris Finlayson is relevant. Once a letter of complaint has been lodged with the Speaker then until the Speaker determines the outcome of that complaint it cannot be raised in the House. Certainly if the Speaker declines to refer it to the Privileges Committee then it can be raised in the House once the Speaker has determined the matter. But as in all issues that involve judicial decisions once the matter is before the Speaker then it is inappropriate for it to be raised in the House in any way whatsoever until the Speaker has made the relevant decision on the matter. Of course the alternative mechanism remains available to members. They can raise the matter by notice of motion in the House rather than refer it to the Speaker.I think the Hon Chris Finlayson made the very pertinent point that once the matter is referred to the Speaker then it should be a matter that is not discussed in this House. It would be my preference that the matter is not discussed in the media either. If members are serious about issues of privilege it is my view that they should not try to make a case to influence the decision of the Speaker one way or the other in the public media. To some extent it is a measure of the seriousness of these issues. Where members do try to gain political coverage for them in the media it is hard to then treat them with thesame seriousness as a case that is laid before the Speaker in a serious manner without trying to make the case for it in front of the media.The situation to me is very clear. There is nothing wrong with these matters being raised by a notice of motion instead of referring them to the Speaker. There is nothing wrong with raising a matter in that way after the Speaker has decided the matter but while the Speaker is considering a matter it is not to be dealt with in that way in the House.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just one further point: I think the gap in the reasoning from both the Attorney-General and you is that raising it with you is a private matter. It is generally not in the media. There are over 120 members here. The fact that one member has raised it with you should not and in my opinion cannot stop other members raising it by way of notice because as happens on a number of occasions—and I have written you a number of letters; I have not consulted my colleagues about those—their right to raise the matter as well through whichever method they choose should not and cannot be limited by a complaint unknown to them through your channel.Mr SPEAKER: I hear what the honourable member is saying and what is notable in some cases is that it is the very member who lays the complaint who actually pursues the matter in the media. But I accept the point the member makes: that other members may well raise matters because they do not necessarily know that an issue has been referred to the Speaker. I accept the point the member makes but the fact remains that while a matter is in front of the Speaker—and the Office of the Clerk does know when it is—the Office of the Clerk will not accept a notice of motion. I have ruled on the matter today and I do not think there is a need to take any further time on it because as I read the Speakers’ rulings this maintains the status quo.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not challenging that ruling. I am raising a different issue and that was your reference to publicity surrounding privilege complaints undermining the case for the complaint to be referred to the Privileges Committee. I make two points: the first is that historically most of the contentious complaints that have gone to the Privileges Committee have had publicity outside that process and the Winston Peters case is a good example. The second point I would make is that in cases where—and this may well be a case in point—the media have had an involvement in the facts that have led to the Privileges Committee complaint then there is actually no way that a member can effectively stop the media reporting on these issues.Mr SPEAKER: I understand the point the member makes. That is a perfectly reasonable point indeed.Speaker’s RulingsCommittee of the Whole House—Motions to Report ProgressMr SPEAKER: Yesterday the Committee sought my ruling on the moving of motions to report progress a motion to do just that having been defeated by the Committee of the whole House on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill.The House has a fundamental principle that having once dealt with a matter it refrains from raising it again. Standing Order 260 establishes this principle as a rule for bills amendments or instructions proposed that are substantially the same in effect as ones that have already been agreed to or defeated. Clearly where a Committee has defeated a motion to report progress and another motion to report progress is moved immediately thereafter it simply raises again the matter the Committee has already resolved.However motions that progress be reported during the Committee stage do not always raise the same considerations. The rejection of such a motion in one circumstance does not presuppose that it may be similarly rejected in a new Committee on a different day or during the consideration of a different provision of the bill.Therefore a motion to report progress moved pursuant to Standing Order 177(1) having been defeated by the Committee a further motion to report progress may not be moved while the procedural circumstances remain unchanged—in other words while that Committee continues to consider the same substantive question proposed by the Chair.Questions to MinistersWork and Income—Assistance for People in Need1.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that “There is a common misconception that people in need can’t get help from Work and Income but these figures clearly demonstrate that this is not the case”?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes I do.Hon Annette King: If people are getting the help they need why are they now waiting up to 3 months before they can access necessary budget advice which has been caused by the 70 percent increase in referrals to budget advisers by Work and Income as required by her policy?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have been keeping in close contact with the budgeting organisations over the last 3 years but specifically over the last year. That waiting time is not the norm as far as I see it. I am sure it is happening in some cases but budgeting services are also coping with 40 percent no-shows for appointments they make with people. Budgeting services have quite a few problems with setting up appointments and seeing those people who genuinely need help.Hon Annette King: If people are getting the help they need why has the demand for food parcels around New Zealand reached an all-time high with the number of families requiring their first-ever food parcel having gone up fourfold just this last year and does she believe that these people are making poor lifestyle choices as was suggested by the Prime Minister?Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have also seen an increase in people wanting and requiring special-needs grants. Last month alone we paid out over $6 million for 42779 receipts for special-needs grants through Work and Income. There is no doubt at all that people who at the moment are doing it hard are in need but I think Work and Income is doing an outstanding job and is stepping up and helping those people how it can.Hon Annette King: If people are getting the help they need why does theHousehold incomes in New Zealand report state that in 2010 two in five poor children were from households where at least one parent was working and does that not indicate that the hardship New Zealanders are facing is spreading from beneficiaries and older New Zealanders to those on low and middle incomes?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think it has always been true that those who are on low incomes do it harder than those who are not. We also have evidence of the social outcomes education outcomes and everything else for families who are in work as opposed to those who are on benefits. What is often not pointed out to people is that those on low incomes can still get assistance from Work and Income. They might getaccommodation assistance. Their family tax credits help them. People on a low income can get other assistance from Work and Income to top it up.Jacinda Ardern: Is she satisfied with assistance provided from Work and Income for 15 to 19-year-olds who are seeking work when 27.6 percent are now unemployed which is the highest rate on record?Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I am pleased to see for 15 to 19-year-olds is that more of them are in education and we certainly have had a push to keep those young people in school and gaining their education qualifications so that they can go on to have other choices. I am extremely satisfied to see that more young people are staying in school for longer but we certainly have work to do as far as making sure that they have that pathway out.Jacinda Ardern: On what did she base her statement in relation to the household labour force survey that “those aged 15 or over who would like to have an hour a week’s work or more for example a young person at school who would like to have a paper run” when there are 35800 under-19-year-olds who are not in work not in training and not in education?Hon PAULA BENNETT: This side of the House certainly does stand by keeping young people in school longer so I certainly advocate for them to finish their education and stay through to year 13 whenever possible. We are seeing those numbers increase which is really pleasing and we are really thrilled to see that but as we say some of them are certainly falling out of the system. We have had a huge backlog that we have had to catch up on after 9 years of neglect in this area so we are catching up and doing the best that we can to make sure that those services are provided.Phil Twyford: Does she believe that sole parents should be supported by the Government to adequately care for their children while they are training to get back in the workforce; if so why did she cut the training incentive allowance for those in tertiary education?Hon PAULA BENNETT: This Government is actually—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Excuse me a moment. The member’s colleague has asked a serious question and I need to be able to hear the answer. It is very difficult when interjections are so loud.Hon PAULA BENNETT: This Government is actually spending more on support and training for sole parents than has been spent certainly in the last 12 years alone. What we needed to look at is that unfortunately a very high percentage of those who are sole parents are not even achieving school qualifications or getting to that first step on the rung of the ladder. So I am absolutely thrilled that we are putting the funding where it is really needed and making sure that we are assisting those sole parents to get the kind of training that helps them then take those next steps ahead.Phil Twyford: Is she aware that the $8.7 million over 5 years cut from the training incentive allowance will affect 4500 people every year—people who are training to get more skills so they can get off the benefit?Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have not cut the money from the training incentive allowance. What we have done instead is to change the qualification level that they can actually get it for.Carmel Sepuloni: That is a lie!Hon PAULA BENNETT: Look I understand that Labour is having a bad day today and its members are feeling a bit angry. It is all right.Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hate to interrupt the Minister but there is a member from across the Chamber shouting out the word “liar”. It is unnecessary it is totally untrue and she should not be saying that. Can you ask her to withdraw please.Mr SPEAKER: All I heard was a totally unacceptable barrage of noise. It just sounds awful. I do not know how members think it sounds to the public or how it looks on television but it does us no service in this place at all. I did not hear the particular offence but a member has taken offence to it. If a member owns up to having said that I would ask the member to stand withdraw and apologise for having made that interjection. If a member does not then I cannot do anything about it because I did not hear that particular interjection—the overall noise level was so high. [Interruption] I am dealing with the matter and if a member does not feel the need to do that then I am going to let the matter lie there.Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being dealt with and I say to the National back bench that if they want the matter dealt with they will not carry on like that.Chris Tremain: The member who shouted that across the floor was Carmel Sepuloni not once but on a number of occasions and I ask you to deal with this matter because I certainly took offence to it.Mr SPEAKER: Offence has been taken. I ask Carmel Sepuloni to stand withdraw and apologise for accusing a member of being a liar. If the member says she did not say that I will accept her word. Is the member claiming she did not say that?Carmel Sepuloni: I said it Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Well if the member said it she will in all seriousness apologise now to this House and withdraw that remark.Carmel Sepuloni: I would rather leave the House than withdraw and apologise for that statement.Mr SPEAKER: The member will do what the Speaker requires. Either the member will get to her feet withdraw her comment and apologise or I will name her.Carmel Sepuloni: Reluctantly I withdraw and apologise—Mr SPEAKER: The member is running the grave danger of being named. The member will now get to her feet with dignity as required in this House. I will not have this place treated with contempt by that member. She will get to her feet withdraw her comment and apologise with no other words or I will name her.Carmel Sepuloni: I withdraw and apologise.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member.Hon Trevor Mallard: How can the Minister possibly tell this House that she has cut for a large group of young people and some older people the training incentive allowance but that that is not a cut?Hon PAULA BENNETT: What has happened is that we have changed the criteria. We had huge concerns—[Interruption] Well wake up! It was done more than 2 years ago. We changed the criteria because we had so many concerns for those women in particular who were not achieving even to level 2 in educational attainment. I am proud to say that we are putting more money into supporting those people and those women into work and into training and I am proud of that record.Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member I tell members there is no way I can assist them if the Minister does not answer the question because I cannot possibly hear it. I just say to members that one of their colleagues is asking these questions and it is discourteous to their own colleague to make such a high level of interjection.Hon Trevor Mallard: How can she justify cutting the very benefit that allowed her to get her qualifications and how can that not be characterised as hypocritical?Mr SPEAKER: No no. There is a long practice in this place that members cannot be accused of being hypocritical and to allude to it that way I think is an unreasonable construction. I accept that it is a little different from directly accusing the member ofbeing hypocritical but I invite the member to reword that question to avoid that possible slight on the Minister. I invite the member to reword his question.Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the fact that the member used the training incentive allowance to get her qualification can she elucidate to the House whether in the same circumstances she would be eligible now or is it just another case of pulling the ladder up after she has climbed up and off the benefit?Hon Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is not responsible for the policies of an earlier administration which is a fundamental limb of the first part of that inept question.Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to that—Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard briefly.Hon Trevor Mallard: She is absolutely responsible for the policy change that changed the criteria for the allowance that she took advantage of in the past.Mr SPEAKER: If I recollect the question correctly it asked whether the Minister would have qualified given the criteria she changed. So it is not a matter of whether she would have qualified under a previous Government’s administration; it is whether she would have qualified given the changes made by the Minister herself. On that basis I believe that the question should not be ruled out on the grounds that the acting Leader of the House has raised. I believe that I should allow the question.Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are looking at a very different education system and tertiary system now than we were in 1994. Members on the opposite side may not think that things have changed—Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. Either the Labour Party takes the questions of its colleague seriously or it does not. I have just treated the question with some seriousness. The acting Leader of the House argued that it was out of order. I did not take that advice; I allowed the question. Maybe I made a mistake. If Labour thinks the question is so worthless as to keep interjecting like that maybe I did make a mistake. But I made the decision and I have asked the Minister to answer the question and I think it should be treated with some respect.Hon PAULA BENNETT: My point is that things have changed since 1994. The education system and the tertiary system have changed. Those young women and men have more access to interest-free student loans they get more childcare assistance than they ever had and they are certainly far better off if they are in tertiary study now than they were in the early 1990s when I was there. That member may not think that times have changed in the 30 years or however long it is since he was in tertiary training but actually they have. If one went back 40 years and said they would never ever make a change to a system as a Minister because of something they did or did not get then what a ridiculous position to be in. That is the situation as it stands.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a long answer and it was commendable for the information it gave but it did not tell us the answer to the question. The Minister said that things have changed but she did not indicate to the House whether under the circumstances—Mr SPEAKER: It was my understanding from the Minister’s answer that she was indicating that she may not qualify under the current criteria. If I am wrong on that then the Minister will certainly correct me.Hon PAULA BENNETT: My point was that we cannot compare now with what it was like in 1994. It is a completely different system both in tertiary education and in the welfare system. I will not take a hypothetical situation. My point was that if Trevor Mallard was going to study right now at university—Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet and we will not go any further with this question.Economy—Reports2.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to theMinister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): More good news. This week we have seen reports of both jobs and wages growing. The household labour force survey released today shows that 43000 jobs were created in the past year—43000 new jobs—with unemployment at 6.5 percent. Earlier in the week the quarterly employment survey showed that even after adjusting for inflation the after-tax average wage grew 2.1 percent in the past year.Tim Macindoe: How has the economy performed through recent economic shocks?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Both the economy and New Zealanders have been remarkably resilient. The figures for the last quarter include the considerable impact of the Christchurch earthquake. But the numbers show that the economy has been growing moderately and unemployment has been slowly falling from a peak of 7 percent in 2009. Since the peak in 2009 there have been 61000 new jobs and total hours worked are up about 4 percent.Tim Macindoe: How much have real after-tax wages risen in the past year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: If we use the measure that Parliament has legislated as the basis for calculating national superannuation the after-tax average wage rose by 7.4 percent in the past year due to a combination of wage growth and the 1 October tax cuts. Over the same year inflation was 5.3 percent driven in large part by the increase in GST. The real after-tax average wage increased by 2.1 percent in the year to June even after accounting for all consumer price increases including food petrol and the increase in GST.Tim Macindoe: How has the Government’s tax switch contributed to increases in real after-tax wages?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member may recall in Budget 2010 the Government reduced income taxes and increased GST and the taxation on investment property as well as closing a number of loopholes around Working for Families and other income assistance. The package helped to rebalance our economy away from excessive consumption and debt towards savings investment and exports.Capital Gains Tax—Current Exemptions3.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to theMinister of Finance: Further to his reply to Oral Question No 6 yesterday that “tax is paid on some capital gains in New Zealand” what exemptions exist to the current taxation of capital gains income?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As the member may know our tax system does not work in this respect by exemptions. Some capital gain is classified in the Income Tax Act as “income” and is therefore taxed at income rates. One very important exception exists though: KiwiSaver funds do not currently pay tax on their capital gains from trading New Zealand or Australian shares. This exemption helps boost KiwiSaver returns and provides a level playing field for local investment. However a new more widespread capital gains tax applied to the sale of all shares would mean the end of this exemption. KiwiSaver funds would have to pay capital gains tax lowering their investment returns.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Prime Minister says: “it is not true that New Zealanders are not taxed on capital gains that they might incur.” how much is raised annually from the intention test and how much capital gains income goes untaxed?Hon BILL ENGLISH: With respect to the intentions test over the last couple of Budgets the Government has given quite a bit more money to the Inland RevenueDepartment to pursue those people who are in fact trading in property but claiming that they are not trading in property. If they are not trading then they will not be paying taxes on their capital gains. The Inland Revenue Department advises that it has been quite successful in extracting considerably more tax from those property speculators.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I respectfully submit that the Minister has not addressed the question which was trying to get him to quantify how much tax was raised from a particular aspect—Mr SPEAKER: I have heard sufficient. If the member really wanted those figures—and he is perfectly entitled to seek those figures—he would need to put them down in the primary question. To expect a Minister to give him those figures given the base of the primary question today is unreasonable. If the member wants those figures then the primary question should have been different.Hon David Cunliffe: Was the Minister’s statement that a comprehensive capital gains tax is “the right thing to do” not an admission that the current system offers a tax advantage to property that distorts investment decisions and hurts the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I explained to the member yesterday many tax theorists advance a comprehensive capital gains tax as a way of raising more revenue. As I have explained to the member the Government took a series of measures with respect to property including the one referred to in the last question—that is more resources for the Inland Revenue Department to pursue those people who have been avoiding taxation on the trading of property—and also a number of measures in Budget 2010 which I understand are collecting about $800 million this year from the property investment sector. We have taken moderate measures to increase the effective tax rate on property in order to assist the rebalancing of the economy.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Minister is on record as supporting a comprehensive capital gains tax and given that the Minister could not tell the House earlier in this question what the exemptions are to the capital gains tax that he and the Prime Minister say currently exists in what respect is the capital gains tax he believes is currently in place not comprehensive?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have pointed out to the member the Income Tax Act does not work by having a capital gains tax and then making exemptions from it. What it does is classify some forms of capital income as income that should be taxed. The rest of the tax law has been determined by a series of court decisions which try to determine the difference between ordinary income and capital income. One exception as I pointed out is that KiwiSaver funds do not pay capital gains tax on Australian or New Zealand - traded shares. I think that under the member’s proposition they would.Hon David Cunliffe: In the simplest possible terms does he stand by his statement that a comprehensive capital gains tax is a good thing? If so does he believe that New Zealand currently has a comprehensive capital gains tax and in what respect; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I pointed out in the comments he is referring to a number of people have advocated a comprehensive capital gains tax. I understand that the member is not advocating a comprehensive capital gains tax; he is advocating one full of holes exemptions exceptions and multiple rates. That would be a nightmare for compliance.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have used as you can see several additional supplementary questions in effect to get—Mr SPEAKER: I invite the Hon David Cunliffe please to view the tape of the last supplementary question he asked and to reflect on the first two statements he made in the supplementary question he asked. He made all sorts of allegations about the Minister’s view of capital gains tax and other matters. Having done that the Ministerhad absolutely open licence to say almost anything he liked about the policies of the member’s party because the member in asking his question made allegations about the Minister’s policies. I just ask him to look at the question he asked because there is no way I can assist him when he asks that kind of question.Aaron Gilmore: Has he seen any reports on exemptions to the tax rules on capital gains on share trading?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen a couple of interesting reports. The first was a Government policy released by the then Minister of Finance in the last Government which this Government has maintained: “Capital gains on New Zealand and Australian shares held via a vehicle like a managed fund will no longer be taxed. … It is … important for encouraging people to save through KiwiSaver.” That was a policy position taken by Dr Michael Cullen and remains a current policy. The second report was by Labour’s finance spokesman David Cunliffe who told the New Zealand Shareholders Association that under Labour’s proposed policy KiwiSaver funds would tend to be taxed on the capital gains. So I think it is now Labour’s policy that capital gains on Australian and New Zealand - traded funds will be taxed and that will punish 1.7—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon BILL ENGLISH: —million—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon BILL ENGLISH: —KiwiSavers.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Unlike the previous question that was a question from a colleague from the member’s own party. He reported accurately the report he had received but he erred in expressing his view about KiwiSavers being punished. That was beyond the provisions of the Standing Orders.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again I invite you to review the tape of that one and see whether you called the Minister to order three or four times while he studiously avoided looking at you.Mr SPEAKER: When the member’s own behaviour is perfect I will take his advice on that matter.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to reflect on that and see whether you should address points of order raised or provide a commentary that sounds more like an Australian cricket commentary.Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s view but if the member wants me to take his points of order seriously he needs to behave—most times—seriously. It is a very simple matter: the matter the member raised is a matter for the Speaker to decide. It is for the Speaker to decide whether the Minister did not respond quickly enough to my being on my feet. I admonished the Minister for going into an area that the supplementary question did not allow for and as far as I am concerned that is the end of the matter. All I say to the member is to just reflect on his own behaviour if he is going to criticise the behaviour of other members in this House.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to consider whether it is appropriate for the Speaker to express prejudice before—Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat right away. I have to deal with the behaviour of members in this House all of the time. I have been I think quite generous to the shadow Leader of the House and some of his behaviour in this place. I noted last night that in the Committee the member was told to leave the Chamber and he argued with the Chairman. The shadow Leader of the House argued with the Chairman instead of leaving when he was told to leave. Members need to think about their own behaviour if they are to be taken seriously in this place. Had the point of order been a serious point of order I would have acted on it immediately.Hon BILL ENGLISH: If you are going to reflect as the member requested I think you should reflect on the latitude that that member seems to get in this House. As you pointed out yesterday he was asked to leave the Chamber by a—Mr SPEAKER: I do not think we should take this matter any further. I have dealt with it as Speaker and that is the end of the matter. I have made it very clear to the members of the House that I do not view bad behaviour favourably. When the Hon Trevor Mallard raised a point of order claiming that another member had behaved poorly I suggested because I did not believe that the offence was so bad that the member reflect on his own behaviour. It seems that quite a few members of the House actually share my view it would be fair to say. But that is the end of the matter.I just want to see behaviour in this House improve a little. In recent times it has become poor and we are not seen well in the public eye when we allow that to happen. If members doubt the behaviour of certain members I tell them to look at the television replays—look at the tapes. I do it all the time and at times it is not good. At times I just have to make it clear to members that they should pick up their game because the public does not like seeing its Parliament behaving badly. If I have offended the member I apologise for offending the member but the behaviour has not been very good.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will be interested to know what the point of order is about.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am about to advise you of it Mr Speaker. I would like some clarification. Without wishing to relitigate the exchange we have had I think the issue is simply this: no one is challenging your right to make a ruling—that is absolutely correct and we would support you making a ruling—but what follows or prefaces that ruling inevitably is a commentary. You may see that as your right and privilege as an evolving Speaker’s role but the difficulty is that that commentary often becomes a narrative well outside what could be seen to be judicious and impartial. It is your right to make a ruling. You are the referee but you are not in the game I put to you Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Bill English.Hon BILL ENGLISH: As someone who has recently been on the other end of decisions of the Speaker I think it is fair to say that we need to reassert a standard that has been held in this House for 20 years which is that the impartiality of the Speaker is not questioned. Questioning the Speaker’s impartiality has never been a custom of this House but the Opposition is starting to get into that. I sometimes disagree strongly with the Speaker and have had cause to do so recently but questioning the impartiality of the Speaker takes us down a road that leads to disorder and it should not be occurring. We can disagree with the Speaker but not question his impartiality.Hon Rick Barker: I do not take many points of order but that point of order was very provocative. I sat on the other side of the House where that member is now and heard member after member of National questioning the partiality of the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt and the partiality of the Hon Margaret Wilson. I was galled by it then and I am even more galled by the member saying that they did not do it. I just wanted to lay that on the record. I accept that the member is correct in that we should not question the impartiality—Mr SPEAKER: I think the House has expressed a view. All I say to all members is that if I have offended a member I apologise for that but we have to improve the behaviour. If members think that some of the behaviour that we have seen in recent times is acceptable then I am sorry but I disagree. The only way I can make it clear to members that the behaviour is becoming unacceptable is to invite members to look at the tapes to see what the public sees and to see why we lose respect. That is all I amasking. If comments offend members at times be assured that it is not without a lot of provocation because I have been very tolerant of some members’ behaviour. I just want to see the behaviour improve a little.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Without again wanting to revisit the matter I think you have missed the point with respect.Mr SPEAKER: I apologise. The member will resume his seat. We are not going to waste more time on this. I have not missed the point at all; I heard what the member said. The member thinks I make too many comments and maybe I do. I accept that. But it is a way of indicating to a member when their behaviour to me is becoming unacceptable to the House. It is not that I have missed the member’s point; I heard it. Maybe there is some merit in what the member has said but I can assure the member that the public sees my performance as being absolutely impartial. I get a lot of feedback from the public and they see it as that. In fact I could say I was criticised somewhat yesterday for not being impartial but that is enough on that matter.Constitutional Review—Establishment of Constitutional Advisory Panel4.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to theDeputy Prime Minister: Kei hea ngā mahi i te wā nei mō te whakatū ropū ārahi i te arotakenga-whānui o ngā whakaritenga ā-ture o Aotearoa?[What progress has been made on establishing a group to lead a wide-ranging review of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements?]Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): The Government confirmed such a review in December that would include the size of Parliament the length of the electoral term Māori representation the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and whether New Zealand needs a written constitution. Today the Minister of Māori Affairs Dr Pita Sharples and I confirmed the make-up of the Constitutional Advisory Panel. It will be co-chaired by Professor John Burrows and Sir Tīpene O’Regan. It will shortly begin work on a plan to inform public debate and it will report back to Ministers in September 2013.Te Ururoa Flavell: What significance has been accorded to Crown-Māori relationship matters including Māori representation and electoral participation and how does the membership of the panel reflect this?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The significance attributed to the Crown-Māori relationship is appropriate to the historical and contemporary practice of that relationship. In the context of the panel itself Dr Sharples and I are supervising the panel together there are co-chairs—Professor John Burrows and Sir Tīpene O’Regan—and I think the balance of the membership reflects a strong and broad Māori interest in constitutional matters.Te Ururoa Flavell: How will tangata whenua be involved in the discussion on New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That discussion will probably begin in earnest next year. The plan of the panel as I understand it is to have one meeting this year then to keep clear of the electoral referendum that is associated with the 2011 election. The panel’s terms of reference require it to listen to a wide range of views. I hope that many Māori who have strong constitutional views will take the opportunity to air those so that the public are more familiar with them and get to grips with the implications of those views. Often these discussions are held just between the Crown and Māori and they deserve a broader airing.Surgery Elective—North Shore Hospital Centre5.Hon TAU HENARE (National) to theMinister of Health: What projects has the Government approved to ensure greater access to elective surgery in greater Auckland?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): More good news. Today the Government has announced approval of a $37 million state-of-the-art elective surgery centre at North Shore Hospital. All of the international evidence points to separating urgent and elective surgery as the best way to lift productivity and treat more patients sooner. The new centre due for completion next year will have 40 beds four operating theatres and be staffed by a team of 80 clinicians. It will be one of the most medically advanced centres in the country and will provide better access to surgery for the people of greater Auckland.Hon Tau Henare: What other improvements have there been to health services in Waitematā?Hon TONY RYALL: The new elective centre comes hot on the heels of the Lakeview development at North Shore Hospital which is a 50-bed assessment and diagnostic unit and of a new emergency department for finalisation in October. This is in addition to the $9.2 million North Shore dialysis centre which opened last month and provides in-centre renal dialysis for people with kidney failure. The emergency department at Waitakere Hospital is now open 24/7 which is something that the previous Government promised for successive elections and even with the local MP as the Minister of Health could never deliver.Grant Robertson: Will the Minister now correct his statement to the House in June that only 2 to 3 percent of patients waiting for access to elective services are treated after 6 months when the Auditor-General’s report shows that the figure is in fact 10 percent?Hon TONY RYALL: More good news. There are fewer and fewer people waiting more than 6 months. The results of the Auditor-General’s report have been quoted by the member but I can tell the House that when the elective performance comes out in the elective target report in the next few weeks New Zealanders will be stunned at the performance of the New Zealand public health service.Grant Robertson: Does the Minister dispute figure 7 of the Auditor-General’s report which shows that the number of patients waiting longer than 6 months for access to elective surgery increased in both 2009 and 2010; if so why?Hon TONY RYALL: What is in the Auditor-General’s report is obviously what is in the Auditor-General’s report. But I can say the number of people waiting longer than 6 months is lower than it was under the previous regime and we have not culled 30000 people off waiting lists to try to deal with it.Grant Robertson: At the risk of testing your patience Mr Speaker but given the Minister’s answer to that question I seek leave to table figure 7 of the Auditor-General’s report which shows that people waiting for elective surgery—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Grant Robertson: —longer than 6 months increased in 2010.Mr SPEAKER: All members have access to the reports of the Auditor-General. They are tabled in this House.Hon Craig Foss: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just regarding the previous point of order the member over there who was speaking watched you stand and kept on talking. You said the member should finish or something along those lines. He tried to and did get his last words in whilst you were on your feet Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: All I can do is to ask all members please to respect the traditional practice in this place that when the Speaker gets to his feet members desist. A member left the Chamber yesterday for failing to do so and I do not want a repeat of that. I ask all members to please respect that.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would just like to compliment you on that ruling.Monetary Policy New Zealand—Prime Minister’s Statements6.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that New Zealand’s monetary policy is “best practice”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes not that that means necessarily the Reserve Bank has made in retrospect the ideal decision in every case but that view that New Zealand’s monetary policy framework is best practice was confirmed by I think five different reviews under the previous Government as well as our own.Hon David Parker: What changes to monetary policy and Reserve Bank powers is he proposing?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are not proposing significant changes because we do not believe that such are required. What has happened is that what is now called macro-prudential policy has become an important part of the mix of tools available for determining monetary conditions. The New Zealand Reserve Bank has been something of a world leader in the transparency of its macro-prudential approach.Hon David Parker: Has the Minister seen yesterday’s report by Fran O’Sullivan which said that “a bizarre alternative reality has emerged which has resulted in Mr English saying New Zealand is a ‘safe haven’ ” and “New Zealand exporters do not need to see the currency get so out of whack with the underlying reality that this is no longer a ‘safe haven’ for them to operate from.”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the bizarre alternative reality is what we saw happen in Washington over the last couple of weeks and what we see happening in Europe where both of those areas are following policies that are devaluing their currencies quite considerably. Of course a high dollar is difficult for exporters—we would much prefer the dollar to be lower—but there is no obvious monetary policy tool that could achieve that.David Bennett: What reviews of monetary policy have been conducted over the past decade what did they conclude and what changes occurred as a result?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There have been number of reviews of monetary policy. The first in 2000 was by Professor Lars Svensson who found that our monetary policy is entirely consistent with best international practice. The most recent review was undertaken by the Finance and Expenditure Committee in 2008 under Charles Chauvel. It found that New Zealand’s monetary policy approach is standard among small open developed economies and is regarded by our advisers as world best practice. In fact no changes have been made as a result of four or five reviews over the last 10 years and that is because no obvious changes can be made.Hon David Parker: Has the Minister also seen reports from exporters like Rakon recently and industry bodies like the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association calling for substantial changes to monetary policy and is his Government’s inaction in the face of those calls why Fran O’Sullivan said: “Key is playing the old Pontius Pilate line saying there is nothing the central bank can do to lower the dollar.”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Not only have I seen those reports but also I have discussed this matter with any number of exporters. When they are asked just what changes they want to the monetary policy regime I have found that the various propositions amount to small wording changes which anyone who knows about monetary policy would say do not make much difference to the practical conduct of monetary policy. We would prefer a lower exchange rate. The world is not delivering that to us so we have to get on with being a very competitive economy so that our exporters can do business profitably.Hon David Parker: Is the Minister concerned or embarrassed that in the same article Fran O’Sullivan said: “But the Prime Minister’s memory is faulty. Four years ago Key was singing a different tune when he bailed me up at an Australasian power-brokers conference in Sydney. Back then Key—at the time National leader—argued the New Zealand economy couldn’t sustain exchange rates at US74c.”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No not at all. The fact is that the exchange rate has reached levels I do not think any of us anticipated. That simply shows the size of the challenge this economy has in becoming competitive enough to create jobs and incomes. The alternative of more Government spending higher taxes and more debt is a recipe for a much worse outlook for exporters not a better one.Superannuation—Retirement Age7.Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) to theMinister of Finance: Does he agree with former Treasury Secretary John Whitehead that a retirement age of 65 is “pretty hard to justify” and that an increase is “inevitable”; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No. The Government’s policy is clear: the continuation of universal national superannuation for all New Zealanders from age 65. The cost of this policy does rise but it is fully factored into all projections made by this Government.Hon Heather Roy: Has he seen Gabriel Makhlouf’s speech made when he was the deputy chief executive of Treasury where he stated that New Zealand needs to either increase GST to 19 percent or raise average income tax by $30 per week to fund the existing retirement age and in light of his Government’s refusal to change the age which option does he favour?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot recall whether I have seen that speech but it would be entirely consistent with Treasury’s view. As Mr Makhlouf will be finding in his new job as the Secretary to the Treasury part of the professional task is to be gloomy and forecast that things are going to be pretty rough in the future. I am sure he will stick to that task.Hon Heather Roy: Does he think that John Whitehead; the Retirement Commissioner Diana Crossan; Gareth Morgan; Bernard Hickey; and others are all wrong in calling for the raising of the retirement age as Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard is doing in Australia; if so what information does he have that they do not have?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The information we have is a firm commitment made by this Government not to execute that policy. If those advisers all want to change the policy then they should run for office. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: I have called the Hon Heather Roy and I want to hear her question.Hon Heather Roy: Does he think it more caring to give retirees time to plan for their future by raising the age over a long transition period or has he too adopted the John Key approach of leaving the problem of funding superannuation for a future Government that he is not part of to deal with at short notice?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No the Government is not leaving the problem. What we are doing is bringing to the Government much-needed fiscal discipline in light of changed circumstances and the recklessness of the last Labour Government because for every dollar that we can put into effective rather than ineffective services we are improving the likelihood that retirees in the future will have a decent standard of living.Mine Safety—Underground Mines8.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) to theMinister of Labour: Can she assure underground miners that the Government is doing everything possible to keep them safe at work?Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): Firstly it is important to remember that the primary responsibility for health and safety in the workplace lies with the employer. That is a fundamental part of the Health and Safety in Employment Act.Secondly this Government does take the safety of underground miners seriously. That is why we established the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy: to find out what exactly went wrong at Pike River and where safety measures could be improved in the future. We also ordered an independent safety audit of all underground mines to ensure they were operating safely. Underground mining is hazardous and the Department of Labour is working closely with New Zealand’s three operational underground mines. It is also well advanced in recruiting for another mine inspector. The resources dedicated to this sector are also being evaluated.Hon Damien O’Connor: Has she instructed her department to employ more underground mine inspectors than the one we have at the moment and to increase mine visits from more than “occasional” given her health and safety policy manager’s admission at the royal commission inquiry that “… we are now thinking that actually we were too hands-off …”?Hon KATE WILKINSON: I can confirm that we are certainly taking a close look at the resources and expertise in the department to ensure that it can carry out its role of overseeing the mining sector.Hon Damien O’Connor: Can she give an assurance to this House that dangerous ventilation issues at Solid Energy’s Spring Creek Mine will be monitored by a mine inspector with the necessary skills despite the fact that the one mine inspector who is employed has limited experience in gaseous underground coal mines?Hon KATE WILKINSON: I remind the member that the primary responsibility for workplace health and safety at the Solid Energy mine remains with Solid Energy. I can also say that Solid Energy was independently audited post the Pike River tragedy and there was found to be no imminent signs of danger.Hon Damien O’Connor: How can she give assurance of the safety of miners when she has done nothing to improve mine safety since the Pike River tragedy nor since the spontaneous ignition—that is explosion—in the Spring Creek Mine where ventilation problems continue to be a danger on 29 June?Hon KATE WILKINSON: I totally reject that assertion. I can say that it is interesting: the standards are the same as they were under Labour and the number of mining inspectors is the same as it was under Labour. Under Labour the framework if it was not appropriate then Labour amended it twice. It did not address mining whatsoever. There was a call for check inspectors yes but Labour also ignored that. It is a bit rich for Labour members to accuse us 9 years later of doing nothing.Hon Damien O’Connor: Will the Minister take responsibility now and as requested by the families of the Pike River victims initiate changes to the inspection of underground mines such as those previously rejected by her in October 2009 when she received advice to make changes that could remove unnecessary workplace risks for underground miners?Hon KATE WILKINSON: That 2009 report had recommendations relating to small mines. Pike River is not a small mine.Electricity Renewable—Project Consents9.NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to theMinister for the Environment: What reports has he received on consents granted on renewable electricity projects since the ETS came into effect and how does this compare with the previous decade?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): More consents were granted for renewable energy projects in the last year than ever in New Zealand’s history. A total of 1340 megawatts was consented which was made up of 59 percent wind energy 26 percent geothermal energy 13 percent hydro energy and 2 percenttidal energy. This is five times the average per year over the previous decade when it was 233 megawatts per year. It is also noteworthy that no new thermal generation was consented which contrasts with the last decade when most of the new capacity was from fossil fuel.Nikki Kaye: What changes in Government policy have contributed to this surge in renewable energy projects?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first change is in the price signals. The previous Government subsidised fossil fuel generation. The new 155 megawattWhirinaki diesel station was funded from Government levies and the Government provided an underwriting guarantee for the gas contract on the massive 385 megawatt e3p new generator at Huntly. In contrast the emissions trading scheme has imposed a price penalty on fossil fuel generation since 1 July. The second change has been in the consenting policy. Whereas renewable stations used to take up to 5 years to get through the Resource Management Act our Resource Management Act reforms have freed up the process and consenting decisions are being made in record time. We have also adopted a Resource Management Act national policy statement on renewables in order to support increased capacity.Brendon Burns: When the Minister suggests that his emissions trading scheme has boosted renewable energy investment how many of the 11 new stations consented to were in fact well under way in planning and consent before the change of Government or does he pretend it is all his own work?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Of the new generating station capacity of 1340 megawatts just over 1000 megawatts—about 80 percent—was after the emissions trading scheme legislation was passed. It was after the emissions trading scheme legislation was passed—Hon David Parker: That wasn’t the question.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —which I think Mr Parker would note was in the dying days of the last Labour Government.Low-income New Zealanders—Raising Real Wages10.DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to theMinister of Labour: What steps has she taken to help raise real wages for low income New Zealanders?Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): We have undertaken a pragmatic programme of reform to help create jobs and grow wages for all New Zealanders. My approach has been to raise the minimum wage steadily so that jobs are preserved and people are not thrown out on to welfare. I have resisted pressure to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and destroy 6000 jobs; I have introduced the 90-day trial period which has helped create 13000 jobs; and we have reformed the Holidays Act to make it simpler and to improve workplace productivity.Darien Fenton: Does she stand by her assertion that the 25c minimum wage increase from 1 April this year will maintain the real value of the minimum wage when in fact half of that increase was wiped out in the first 3 months?Hon KATE WILKINSON: The increase in the minimum wage was linked to the consumer price index at the time and as always it is a matter of striking a balance between what is fair to employees—but not pricing them out of a job—and giving employers the incentives and the encouragement to actually take on more employees.Darien Fenton: Does she believe she is doing all she can to help minimum wage earners cope with the rising cost of living given that in real terms the minimum wage has decreased by $16.80 a week since June last year?Hon KATE WILKINSON: As we have heard before the after-tax average wage has actually increased by 7.4 percent which after taking inflation into account is a net increase of 2.1 percent.Darien Fenton: Is she aware that once inflation is taken into account according to Parliamentary Library calculations Sam the minimum wage worker whom the Government used as an example in last year’s tax switch receives less net income each week now than in June last year despite his supposed $6.30 tax cut and this April’s small minimum wage increase?Hon KATE WILKINSON: We are aware that there are challenging economic times at the moment but we would rather have workers in jobs than sacrifice them by increasing the minimum wage to an unsustainable and unrealistic level.Darien Fenton: Why in her unique position of being both Minister of Labour and Associate Minister of Immigration has she not been able to put two and two together and realise that the $7 gap between our minimum wage and Australia’s minimum wage is one of the factors driving record levels of migration across the Ditch?Hon KATE WILKINSON: I can put two and two together and the answer is four.Darien Fenton: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the Minister could do a little bit better than that.Mr SPEAKER: Well the member asked whether the Minister could put two and two together and I guess the Minister answered that part of the question. I accept that it certainly was not the answer the member was looking for but in respect of the way we word questions we are vulnerable to their being answered literally.Darien Fenton: I seek leave to table the calculations from the Parliamentary Library on the change in the real full-time minimum wage since June last year showing that a minimum wage worker is actually worse off than a year ago.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Parents Teenage—Government Support11.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to theMinister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to support teen parents?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I am pleased to update the House on the progress of the Government’s work on teen parents. We have put $15 million into teen parents which is the biggest investment in one lot that has ever been made. As part of the package we have opened a number of supported homes for teen parents around the country. These supported homes are providing 24/7 support and supervision for these young mothers. The last one is about to be opened very shortly in Gisborne.Jonathan Young: What other initiatives are working to support teen parents?Hon PAULA BENNETT: We also invested a lot in intensive case workers for the most vulnerable of teen parents who need much more of a wraparound service and who have very complex needs in most of the cases. We so far have 19 of those case workers in very high-need communities and we have also put additional support in for those intensive case managers so that they can do the work that is needed most.Lead-acid Batteries Used—Export and Compliance with Basel Convention12.DAVID CLENDON (Green) to theMinister for the Environment: How many tonnes of used lead acid batteries has the Government approved for export since January2008 and is this consistent with New Zealand’s obligations under the Basel Convention?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Responsibility for new export permits transferred from the Ministry of Economic Development to my portfolio on 1 July this year as part of the Government’s Environmental Protection Agency reforms. Permits were issued by the Ministry of Economic Development for 26000 tonnes in 2008 33000 tonnes in 2009 18510 tonnes in 2010 and 17000 tonnes so far this year. I am advised that those permits were issued by the Ministry of Economic Development consistent with New Zealand’s Basel convention obligations. Since becoming the responsible Minister I have initiated a formal review of our domestic policy. My preference is for these batteries to be recycled in New Zealand although I will need to be satisfied about the environmental standards given the quite chequered record of the Exide Technologies plant in Pētone. A further important consideration is the cost to consumers.David Clendon: Does the Minister then agree that exporting this volume of batteries is inconsistent with our Basel convention obligation to recycle batteries locally and that it could lead to the closure of our only domestic battery recycling facility?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The advice I have from the Ministry of Economic Development is that those export permits were issued in a consistent way. There are two countries that those batteries have gone to: the Philippines and Korea. The Basel convention differentiates between developing and developed countries. Ministry of Economic Development officials did inspect the Philippines facility. They advised me that the standards there are the same or better than those of our own plant in Pētone. I am happy to table in the House the report on that Philippines plant. The other important differentiation is that the Basel convention differentiates between waste to be recycled and that to be disposed of. So the member needs to focus on the recycling provisions of the Basel convention rather than those for disposal in respect of these batteries.David Clendon: Can the Minister explain how if we lose the capacity to recycle batteries locally we can continue to meet our obligations under the Basel convention?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The obligation is to ensure that such waste is responsibly disposed of and to ensure that where a country is exporting hazardous waste either for disposal or recycling it is being done in a proper way and that that country is aware of it. That is to say there has been a historical problem of developed countries like New Zealand sending waste off to countries that have no idea it is coming in and where it is not being properly disposed of. I restate that my preference is for these batteries to be recycled in New Zealand but I do have to be satisfied that Exide Technologies has an appropriate plant with proper conditions for the local environment. I remind the member that there have been substantive problems with those resource consents in Pētone and given the toxic nature of lead I think we would want to be strongly reassured of the plant’s environmental performance.David Clendon: Is the Minister then confident that all overseas facilities receiving batteries from New Zealand have suitable environmental and safety standards to meet obligations under the Basel convention?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The advice I have had from the Ministry of Economic Development is that it is satisfied. I think that is a core issue and one of the reasons I have initiated the review is that now this responsibility has moved over from the Ministry of Economic Development to my own portfolio I want to sort of kick the tyres and make sure that we are doing best practice. If there is the opportunity to work with the Green Party on that I would welcome the opportunity.David Clendon: Would the Minister consider that a hand-written note that says “Fine by me.” on an export application indicates that a sufficiently rigorous assessment has taken place before the export of batteries has been approved?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do not believe that that is correct. I have before me the report from the Ministry of Economic Development officials who visited the battery recycling plant in the Philippines. It is a quite a detailed report. It is interesting to note that in respect of the air-quality standards that are required to be met in the Philippines the standards are the same as the current standards required in Pētone. There are some differences on the issue of water-quality standards. In my view the way we should move this issue forward is that it is absolutely proper that if we are exporting batteries the standards we would expect of any overseas recycler of those batteries should be exactly the same standards we would expect of a New Zealand facility.David Clendon: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect to the Minister I think he may have misunderstood the question. I was not asking a question relating to the quality or otherwise of the destination but in fact I was asking about an export application document on which an official had written a note “Fine by me.” which was apparently the extent of the assessment that had been done prior to the approval being granted.Mr SPEAKER: I thought—and the Minister will correct me—the Minister indicated he did not accept that that was the extent of the assessment of the application. But if I am wrong there the Minister should correct that because the question was very specific about that indeed.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table the report by the Ministry of Economic Development on its visit to the facility in the Philippines setting out the inspection and the environmental standards of the facility that is recycling those batteries.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.But I come back to the point of order raised by David Clendon. It did not relate to matters in the Philippines; it related to exports from New Zealand I take it and an—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: OK if the Minister could clarify—what I will do to make it all clear is ask David Clendon to repeat his question. If he could repeat his supplementary question because it was a fair question.David Clendon: Would the Minister consider that a hand-written note which says “Fine by me.” on an export application indicates that a sufficiently rigorous assessment has taken place before export of batteries has been approved?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have not been the responsible Minister for the period going backwards; no permits have been issued by my own ministry. My advice from the Ministry of Economic Development is that these batteries are being exported to facilities in Korea and to a facility in the Philippines. Korea of course is a developed country so there are different provisions under the Basel convention for relying on its regulatory sense. As I have already indicated to the House I am happy to table the detailed report on the facility in the Philippines where the batteries have been sent to from New Zealand.David Clendon: I seek leave to table a hand-written note from the Ministry of Economic Development which says “Fine by me.” regarding the granting of an application to export batteries.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.David Clendon: Is the Minister aware that an export application may be approved—and indeed has been approved—despite an assessment from officials that “We are not fulfilling our obligations under the Basel convention.”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I will restate that I have been responsible only since 1 July when the functions were transferred over. No I am not aware of that. But I re-stress that since taking responsibility for these Basel convention responsibilities I have initiated a review of the policy. I restate the Government’s objective—that is that if batteries are to be exported from New Zealand our expectation is that they will be recycled or be dealt with as waste to a standard that would be no different from what we can reasonably expect from a facility dealing with that waste or recycling in New Zealand.David Clendon: I seek leave to table an export approval document obtained from the Ministry of Economic Development which states “We are not fulfilling our obligations under the Basel convention.”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.David Clendon: Will the Minister ensure that the review is completed in a timely fashion ensuring that all future applications to export batteries are dealt with in a way that complies with the Basel convention?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Ministry of Economic Development currently has three export permits before it. The bill that has now become an Act which was put through this Parliament makes plain that applications that were received prior to 1 July remain as the responsibility of the Ministry of Economic Development. My responsibilities will be for any future applications that are lodged after 1 July.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister could address the question of the timeliness of the review. When will the review be completed?Mr SPEAKER: Just before I call the Minister I think it is a reasonable point of order because the question actually asked about the review not about the application. But if there is doubt about the question I ask David Clendon to repeat his question please if he can remember it.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There are two parts to the question and I did answer the part about the further permits. I am more than happy to answer the question about the review. I have asked my officials to prepare the terms of reference. I will want to consult Exide Technologies about the terms of reference to get that policy under way. I do understand the point the Greens make and that is that it does need to be done in a timely way. I also note that the Greater Wellington Regional Council is dealing with the resource consent issues for Exide Technologies simultaneously.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister accept that it might be preferable to export the batteries rather than have them processed at a plant where there has been a history of workers getting lead poisoning lead emissions going to the neighbours the dumping of sludge in the Wainuiōmata area which polluted the stream—Paul Quinn: You did nothing about it when you were a Minister Trevor.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Trevor Mallard: Paul Quinn might not care about—Mr SPEAKER: Members should not interject like that. I do ask the member to ask his question please.Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister accept that it might be preferable to export the batteries rather than have them processed at a plant that has a history of explosions causing damage to workers both by lead and by the explosions leakage at the boundary going into neighbours a history of sickness of workers from lead poisoning a history of dumping sludge in the Wainuiōmata tip then going into the Wainuiōmata Stream and that is now trying to save its bacon by employing a high-priced law firm to work with the Greens to ask these questions?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The track record of the Exide Technologies plant in Pētone is not acceptable. If we are to recycle the batteries in New Zealand rather than export them the Government needs to be satisfied that that facility is run by world best practice. The underlying issue for this Government is whether the batteries are recycled and processed in New Zealand or overseas and that those standards are proper and protect public health and the environment.Mr SPEAKER: That brings to a close questions for oral answer today. I call on Government order of the day No. 1. [Interruption] Before I call the Hon Peter Dunne can I say to Paul Quinn at the back of the House that he was most discourteous. I had called Government order of the day No. 1 but I could not even hear the Clerk because the member’s interjections provoked other noise. There is nothing wrong with interjections but just be a little more sensible and reasonable about when the interjections are made.Misuse of Drugs Amendment BillThird ReadingHon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health): I moveThat the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The third reading of this bill gives me a great deal of pleasure. What began as a bill with the primary purpose of reclassifying pseudoephedrine and ephedrine as class B2 controlled drugs has become out of necessity a bill that will also enable the Government to more easily deal with the potential harms associated with new and emerging psychoactive substances like Kronic.The amendment that I introduced by way of Supplementary Order Paper on Tuesday provides a mechanism to temporarily ban substances where there is reason for concern about their use and that will be achieved by issuing temporary drug class notices for these particular substances. In the event that such a notice is issued for a substance or a product retailers will then have 7 days to remove the product from their shelves and it must not be sold after that time. The substance in question will then be referred to an expert committee to consider it and to make recommendations for the appropriate ongoing level of control of that substance.In the case of the products currently causing widespread concern—that is the synthetic cannabinoids and products like Kronic—I will be issuing a temporary drug class notice as soon as possible after this bill receives the Royal assent next week. That will mean these products must be off the shelves no more than 1 week later. In these circumstances my advice to current retailers is simple: return their stocks to their supplier right now. Do not wait for the notice to be issued because it is ultimately the distributors’ responsibility and it is they who should bear the cost not the retailer.At this point I would like to thank both Ministry of Health officials and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their hard work developing this Supplementary Order Paper. I acknowledge the effort they put into getting the drafting absolutely right but I must also reiterate the point I made during the Committee of the whole House that the provisions contained in the Supplementary Order Paper are not the long-term solution.The Law Commission’s 45 recommendations in this area remain the goal as there can be no doubt of the logic that a manufacturer of such products should be required to demonstrate their safety before they enter the market.But the Law Commission’s recommendations are very high-level and it is important we work through the detailed policy required to implement such a regime to ensure we get the new regulatory framework right. I say to those who have been calling for the immediate implementation of the Law Commission’s 144 recommendations for updating the Misuse of Drugs Act that they have either failed genuinely to understand the complexities of the issues involved or been deliberately ignorant in advocating sensationalist solutions to complex issues they were incapable of understanding. Either way we are past that now. The temporary drug class notification process will enable us to better manage the influx of new substances than the current legislation allows. The Government is determined to get this right. It is not going to be rushed into superficial responses that will have to be rectified later.Let me now discuss the major part of this bill as it was introduced. The Prime Minister released the Methamphetamine Action Plan in October 2009 with an aim to significantly reduce the use of methamphetamine and consequently reduce the harms it causes in our communities. Methamphetamine is the only illegal stimulant drug commonly manufactured in our country and we have very high rates of use by international standards. Methamphetamine increases the risk of cardiovascular problems convulsions and mental health disturbances including paranoia and violent behaviour. The Methamphetamine Action Plan includes a comprehensive package of measures to control methamphetamine precursors to break drug supply-chains to improve access and routes into drug treatment to improve support for the community to combat this drug and to provide stronger leadership by the Government. The harms posed by the diversion of pseudoephedrine to the manufacture of methamphetamine outweigh the need for the ongoing over-the-counter availability of preparations containing this substance.Although most pseudoephedrine and ephedrine used in the manufacture of P has been sourced internationally their reclassification as class B2 controlled drugs is still an important part of the equation. Police continue to find domestically sourced pseudoephedrine at clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. The Health Committee in its report notes that the methamphetamine market is worth about $1 billion annually and that at least 10 percent of this is manufactured from domestic pseudoephedrine. Therefore we cannot ignore over $100 million worth of the methamphetamine market. We need to compliment the valuable work of the Customs Service and the police and strengthen our response to domestic diversion. Reclassification of these substances as class B2 controlled drugs will also give the police and customs increased powers to control supply such as being able to obtain a warrant to intercept communications.As members are aware the other amendments contained within this bill are technical and are necessary to clarify tighten or correct current provisions within the Act. The part that generated the most attention at the Health Committee—and indeed it has met with the most opposition in the House—was the part that amends the drug paraphernalia provisions to close two loopholes in the Act to enable the police and customs to enforce the current law effectively. I have to confess that it strikes me as strange that there is such strong opposition from some members given that in 2003 a notice was issued under section 22 of the Act that prohibited the import and supply of cannabis and methamphetamine utensils. All the current amendments do is to enable this piece of legislation to be enforced—in other words to actually give effect to the 2003 order.This bill also removes thalidomide from class A of the Misuse of Drugs Act so that it can be more appropriately controlled under the Medicines Act. Thalidomide is notpsychoactive nor is it used recreationally. Its place under the Misuse of Drugs Act is an anomaly that will be rectified with this amendment. The bill also corrects a problematic overlap between the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005 and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 by removing the exclusion that a hazardous substance cannot also be a restricted substance. I touched on this briefly on Tuesday and I will make the point again: we are correcting a mistake to enable a framework in place since 2005 but unable to be used due to the wording in the legislation to be available as a regulating mechanism.The restricted substances regime places robust controls on low-risk psychoactive drugs such as so-called party pills and legal highs that would otherwise be uncontrolled. The amendment that is proposed in this bill will remove the barrier to the use of the restricted substances regime. In addition as introduced in the Supplementary Order Paper on Tuesday the bill will enable restricted substances to also be considered as herbal smoking products for the purposes of the Smoke-free Environments Act.Finally this bill will strengthen our legislation by broadening our analogue provisions to make sure we are prepared for emerging designer drugs. The controlled drug analogue provisions prevent a large number of substances treated and traded as legal highs in other countries such as the substance mephedrone from being able to be sold legally in New Zealand. However it is necessary that the proposed amendment to our current provisions is enacted to protect against developments that are ongoing and many in the chemistry of designer drugs. I am sure that all members acknowledge that this is an area where we face constant challenge and change.This bill is an important step forward. It is with considerable pleasure that I commend it to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The question is—is the member calling?Iain Lees-Galloway: Yes I am calling.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Iain Lees-Galloway. Members must call.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Yes thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Let me say at the outset that Labour supports the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill as we have supported it throughout every stage of its passage through Parliament.We support any measure that reduces the harm caused by the abuse and misuse of mind-altering substances. However although this bill will probably not make matters any worse it will do very little to reduce the harm caused by the particular set of mind-altering substances captured by the Misuse of Drugs Act. It is in effect merely tinkering with the current Act. If this Parliament is serious about tackling the issue of substance abuse and the effects of substance abuse on both individuals and communities then we will move with all practicable haste towards a total replacement of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Continued tinkering with the current Act simply will not do the job. It is time for a 21st century response to a 21st century issue.The original Act came into force in the mid-1970s. Since then substances have changed. Attitudes have changed. Our ability to treat those who suffer because of addiction to any drug—whether it be alcohol cannabis P or any other substance—has changed as well. And I do mean treat. It is time we put the health system not the justice system at the centre of drug legislation. But that is a debate for another day.I wish to talk about the provisions in this bill but I would also like to talk about just how much of a priority this bill has been for the Government. The bill was introduced in April last year. Its first reading did not happen for another 4 months. It was referred to the Health Committee and reported back to the House in November last year. Sincethen the bill has languished on the Order Paper clearly not a priority for the current Government. When I hear the Government’s rhetoric about its war on P I question just how much of a priority this has been. We are now in August and this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper since last November. It has not been a priority for the current Government. I have no doubt that National members will stand up and praise Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne and he should be praised for some of his work that is in the bill particularly his amendments brought in earlier this week by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. When I hear the Government’s rhetoric that drug abuse and the war on P are its priorities I think it is laughable considering how long it has taken for this bill to pass through the House.What does this bill actually do? As the Minister said the original intention was to reclassify ephedrine and pseudoephedrine which are the precursor substances for pure methamphetamine—P. We know that as enormous a problem as P is in this country at best these changes will help to address maybe 30 percent of the supply of methamphetamine in this country. It is probably more like 10 percent if we are really realistic. That is significant and that is why Labour is supporting this bill because as I said any measure that takes a positive step is worth supporting. But again if we are honest and if we are realistic about just how much of a measure this is in tackling the P problem in this country then we would realise that this is minor. This is small stuff. The real problem is these precursor elements coming across our border in the flood of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine—mainly from China and from other parts of the world.I know that people across New Zealand now have to forfeit their ability to get without prescription what is probably the best cold and flu medicine available. I think people will see that forfeiture as reasonable given the rhetoric around what the Government has said about its war on P but in truth this is small stuff. I have to say having walked around Parliament Buildings over the last few days and heard the coughs sniffles and all the noises that have been associated with some of the illnesses going around this place at the moment that pseudoephedrine will be missed particularly around this place but also around the country. We accept why this is being done but let us have a little bit of honesty about just how important a measure this is.The other important aspect of this bill which only occurred earlier this week is the changes that will allow the Minister to take the synthetic cannabis products off the shelf and to respond quicker to new substances as they come on to the market. We still have the problem that new substances can get on to the market before they are properly tested. That to me is one of the fundamental problems with the current Act and is one of the most important reasons why we need to totally review and replace the current Act.I congratulate the Minister on finding a stopgap measure whilst Parliament takes its time to consider the Law Commission’s review and to consider what options are available for a serious replacement for this Act. It will allow us to get these products off the shelf while a testing regime is developed to ensure that these substances are safe before they are on the shelf again and able to be marketed to our young people. I think that one of the best things about this bill is not so much the fact that the substances are being banned for a 12-month period—as I have said before and I will say again prohibition has its limitations—but that these substances will not be visible they will not be marketed and they will not be in dairies liquor stores and other places where people go to find normal products to take home like bread milk lollies and all those sorts of things. That is important. Just as I do not believe that tobacco should be on display alongside those sorts of products nor do I believe that things like Kronic Spice and Dream should be on the shelf alongside those other products. That is the aspect of these changes that I am most pleased with.There are some other matters in this bill that Labour is not pleased with. The Minister touched on them and he expressed his confusion over the opposition to the increased enforcement on drug utensils.Hon Peter Dunne: Concern not confusion.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Concern right. We know what these provisions do and the bill allows the current provisions to be enforced more rigorously. The fact of the matter is that these provisions that ban the importation and the display of drug utensils do nothing to reduce harm. That as I have said time and time again is what should be at the centre of drug law in this country. It should be about minimising and reducing harm. Anything that does away with utensils or makes it harder for users to acquire utensils actually increases the harm associated with drug use; it does not minimise it. That is why we expressed our opposition to those provisions. To be fair if we were going to be absolutely consistent then we would get rid of the original provisions in the Act. But what we want to see as I said is not more tinkering with this Act; we want to see a complete replacement of the Act.It is not all bad news. The removal of thalidomide makes absolute sense. It is not a mind-altering substance and its place in the Misuse of Drugs Act is a complete anomaly that is absolutely ridiculous. The changes that allow substances that come under the purview of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to also come under the purview of the Misuse of Drugs Act are also eminently sensible and we support those changes.But I cannot express strongly enough that the useful time for the Misuse of Drugs Act is coming to an end. It is time for a replacement. It is time for Parliament to take seriously issues relating to drug use and drug misuse in this country and to come up with new and innovative solutions that put the health system at the centre of our response to drug abuse. That time cannot come quickly enough. Thank you.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): In supporting this third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill everyone in Parliament is aware of just how difficult the challenges of psychoactive drugs are to New Zealand society. Over the last decade or so there has been an explosion of the use of highly addictive mind-altering substances and pure methamphetamine is one substance at the centre of them. Today New Zealanders are probably some of the highest users of P anywhere in the world. There has also been an explosion in the use of synthetic cannabinoids which are now available at corner dairies around our country and there is a real danger of normalising this situation for our young people. These drugs must not be normalised. Smoking them has significant long-term adverse health effects and there is no doubt that their psychoactive effects when mixed with alcohol can be hugely detrimental.We are all aware that the Law Commission stressed the value of rehabilitation services of education of harm minimisation and of a public health approach and its report will be visited very seriously I am sure by all of us. But the Law Commission also stressed that there were no silver bullets to this situation. It is highly complex; there are no simple solutions. Abuse of drugs and the callous commercial trade associated with them has gone on for centuries around the world and it has become more and more intense in New Zealand over recent times.This legislation is a part of the National Government’s response to and battle against pure methamphetamine. Reclassifying pseudoephedrine and ephedrine as class B drugs carries with it a very severe penalty and sends very clear messages that methamphetamine and its precursors in this country are utterly unacceptable. The Hon Peter Dunne must indeed be congratulated on bringing in his two Supplementary Order Papers to stop the sale of synthetic cannabinoids. The manufacturers cannot be trusted; they are conniving and ruthless and will stop at nothing to entice young New Zealandersinto drug dependency. This is an interim measure until such time as one can bring in legislation that will require the manufacturers to prove the safety of these drugs. The sooner that happens the better but in the meantime I support the third reading of this bill into legislation. Thank you.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It would be fair to say that I stand in the third reading debate as a reluctant supporter of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill—not because I in any way want to be seen to be endorsing the production of methamphetamine in New Zealand or in any sense countenancing or accepting the great harm caused by P in our community. I totally accept the need for us as a Parliament to work together on the scourge that is P and to make sure that we minimise harm as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has said across the spectrum of drug abuse. Those things we take on board.But as we look through the provisions in this bill I am concerned. As somebody who was not for the most part on the Health Committee when the bill was being dealt with I ask myself whether this is the best use of Parliament’s time when it comes to dealing with questions about the Misuse of Drugs Act. I think we need to make sure that when we are making changes like this the changes are long-lasting durable and actually modernise law when we should modernise law. The Minister has taken the decision to use a stopgap-style approach. At one level we can support that and Labour is supporting the bill because we recognise there is a need to do something here. But at another level the fact that the Government has dragged its heels is intensely frustrating as is the fact that we have a Law Commission report available to us that provides the basis for a full rewrite of the Misuse of Drugs Act yet we are not making progress on that.I will speak about three sections of the bill. The first of those is the reclassification of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Again we know that the precursors to methamphetamine are ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. We on this side of the House realise the importance of being able to deal with the supply of those precursors. But as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has said 90 percent probably—maybe 80 percent or with a big stretch 70 percent—of that precursor product is imported into this country. It is not being bought across the counters of pharmacies. That is the truth. As somebody I might say who is unable to use the product phenylephrine I find myself struggling to find a cold remedy available to me when suffering from a cold as I am today and have been for the last week. Pseudoephedrine products are important to people and I acknowledge that they will still be available via prescription. But the question we have to ask ourselves when we make law like this is whether this position is the best we can come to.I know that in the select committee the Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand stated in fact that the alternatives to pseudoephedrine were not as effective and that they leave many people needing to visit a general practitioner for a prescription for symptomatic relief. That exposes them and others to further infection and poses an unwelcome increase in workload for general practices. So the truth is that the expert evidence—indeed including evidence from some experts within this House—is that pseudoephedrine products tend to be those that have the most effective results. There are alternatives to moving to a prescription-based approach for pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products including having models trialled in some parts of the country where there are pharmacy systems to detect and report inappropriate purchase. Those models could be tried. So it is reluctantly that I say yes we must do something about this. We do not want to stand in the way of that; there are elements of this bill that are good. But I look at this and ask whether this is the end result. I have a feeling that when we returnto these matters as part of an overall review of the Misuse of Drugs Act we might find that things change.I will speak briefly about the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has brought in about the creation of these temporary class drug notices. That is obviously the stopgap measure that the Minister has brought in to try to do something about products such as Kronic and others that we have had a lot of publicity about in recent times. I spoke in the Committee stage of the debate about the fact that I am concerned there will be loopholes in this legislation that mean that despite the best efforts of the Minister products with slightly different chemical make-ups will appear on the market. The Minister will clamp down upon them via hisGazettenotice—7 days and then it is off the shelf—but then lo and behold another product will appear with a slightly different chemical make-up and the whole process will have to be repeated over and over again. I do not foresee that this legislation will remove those products from the market but as Iain Lees-Galloway has said it will limit them and it will prevent them from being available in so many places and from being as visible as they are now. Therefore some good will be done but I believe that the loopholes will be such that there may not actually be the amount of restriction of supply that the Minister would like to see.Overall though what this highlights is the desperate need to change the onus of proof about a product a synthetic cannabinoid product so that before it enters the market in New Zealand it is properly tested and assessed. It is in my view ridiculous that we have a situation where products such as these psychoactive substances such as these can enter the New Zealand market without any kind of testing. The onus of proof must be turned on to the producers of these products so that we do not continue to repeat this situation. When it comes to temporary class drug notices I join with my colleagues in supporting the fact that a stopgap measure is available but I am concerned that there are loopholes and that the possibility of stockpiling continues to exist. As my colleague—again Iain Lees-Galloway—has said let us be honest about this provision. Let us be honest about the fact that it is not going to rid the country of synthetic cannabinoids. What it is going to do is limit the way in which they are sold and perhaps the amount of them that is available. We support the provision because that is a good thing but it is most certainly not the end of the story.The other matter I will particularly address is the question of the long-term future of drug law in New Zealand. I believe that it is the responsibility of this House to consider today and as soon as possible how we can come up with a whole new piece of legislation on the question of the Misuse of Drugs Act. As other speakers have said during other stages of this debate the Misuse of Drugs Act is from another time. It is from a time when different drugs were available. The availability of drugs in total was completely different. The Law Commission recognised that in its report tabled in this House on 3 May. That report has 144 recommendations in it. It actually includes making the possession of drug utensils legal which is an interesting point given what we are going to be doing in this bill today. Should we come to the situation where we decide to implement the Law Commission’s report we may well be undoing elements of what we are doing today.But the report also calls for a more lenient approach to social dealers and those caught with small amounts of illegal drugs for personal use. The Law Commission President Justice Grant Hammond said that although the law must continue to impose heavy penalties on those who profit from the manufacture and sale of illicit drugs there are compelling arguments for adopting a more holistic focus to individual drug offending. To simplify that I say that the criminal element around drugs is in the supply. We need to have a harm-minimisation approach when it comes to use andpersonal use and we need to ensure that we address the real crime of drugs rather than create crimes in an unnecessary focus on some of that individual personal use. This is not just me; this is the Law Commission. I think it is vitally important today as we pass what everyone in this House is acknowledging as a stopgap measure that we acknowledge there is a need for a fundamental reform of drug law in New Zealand. The Law Commission has given us the blueprint for that; I am disappointed that the Government is not moving forward more quickly on it.On this side of the House we know that we need to take a responsible approach and send a signal to the community that the purveyors of synthetic cannabinoids need to know that their products represent a risk and that they will not enter this market without being watched closely monitored and removed where possible. But I call upon the House to ensure that we can with all speed possible return to this House with a bill that properly addresses the misuse of drugs and that creates a modern law rather than this kind of stopgap measure.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): Tēnā koe e hoa. I begin by saying that the Green Party in many senses agrees with our Labour colleagues—and I paraphrase somewhat here—in saying that the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill contains provisions that are a daft counter-productive waste of time and effort. But unlike our Labour colleagues because of that we will be voting against the bill rather than for it. If the bill had instead been a bill that enacted provisions of the Law Commission’s report on the misuse of drugs or even the recommendations from the Law Commission in respect of the matters that this bill covers we would certainly be voting for it. We would much rather that this House debated a bill of that sort rather than the nonsense that is before us today.There is no question that many drugs cause harm and some kind of response by Government is required because of that. None the less it is also true that many New Zealanders make use of drugs especially alcohol which is probably far and away the most-used drug in New Zealand. It is important that the Government’s response to drugs and drug-related harm reflects an appropriate balance between the benefits that clearly the individuals who use those drugs perceive that they derive from them and the actual evidence-based harms that result from those drugs.The Green Party’s policy in fact is that a drug-free lifestyle is the best lifestyle to have. But we recognise that for many people that is not the kind of lifestyle they will lead. So we say that a Government’s response to drugs must be one that is consistent—it deals with drugs in a consistent way based on their harms—and derives its assessment of those harms from good-quality scientific evidence. It is also important that the response should be as both Iain Lees-Galloway and Grant Robertson have said in this debate tonight a response that is focused on reducing the health-related harm rather than a punitive response to offending. The Law Commission’s reportControlling and Regulating Drugs: A Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 provides us with an excellent springboard an excellent starting point for precisely that kind of response for the first time in New Zealand.In many ways the bill before us represents the antithesis of that kind of response. It represents the very worst aspects of the way that Governments of all stripes have responded to drug-related issues. It is ham-fisted; it is slow to respond to problems that have existed for some time. Take the issue of synthetic cannabinoids. The Minister is rushing his Supplementary Order Paper into the bill so fast that the public has had no say at all on the new provisions yet these products have been on retail shelves for 5 years. So there is no need for that urgency. It is ham-fisted but that is easily avoided.The three provisions to which the Green Party has expressed objection relate to utensils pseudoephedrine and synthetic cannabinoids. In fact people who would be committing offences under these particular provisions of the bill will simply make smalladjustments to their behaviour and be able to carry on with no real change. So an awful lot of time energy and effort will have gone into achieving nothing.This response creates harms to others and Grant Robertson has just expressed some of those. He is a person whom Minister Dunne encourages when he gets a cold to visit his general practitioner sit in the waiting room and give his cold to other people thereby increasing the amount of illness in New Zealand society. Is that the kind of response that we want? I do not think so. It reflects the disproportionate response to the actual harms related to these particular provisions.Lastly and I drew attention to this in the Committee stage it does violence to parliamentary process—and I have mentioned that in relation to synthetic cannabinoids—and also to the principles of lawmaking. I spoke in the second reading of how the provisions relating to utensils represent extremely poor drafting of New Zealand law. I will not repeat those same arguments that I made in earlier stages of the debate in relation to utensils and pseudoephedrine and the Minister’s sweeping powers relating to more or less any substance at all. The Minister talks about provisions to control the supply of synthetic cannabinoids but in fact the provisions in this bill go much much further than that. They go to any substance at all that might cause harm.In the debate in this House we have talked about psychoactive substances and again the bill is not restricted to psychoactive substances at all. When this bill is passed Minister Dunne will be able to ban for 12 months more or less any substance at all. I drew attention to the fact that he would be able to ban salt. Is that truly the kind of outcome that this House wants? Yet it is exactly the kind of outcome that results from the ad hoc and ham-fisted way that Governments have gone about drug policy-making.Lastly I want to draw the attention of the House to a comment made by the Hon Peter Dunne in the Committee stage. The Hon Heather Roy and I both spoke in the Committee stage against the provisions that he was attempting to introduce into the bill in relation to these substances. The Minister speaking from the chair made the comment that Heather Roy and I had never encountered a drug that we did not like. I draw this to the attention of the House because I found that comment to be not only extremely offensive but also reflective of exactly the kind of empty rhetoric that has characterised Governments’ failed responses to the harms related to drugs. It is the kind of empty rhetoric that has characterised the war on drugs which has clearly been waged for a very long time as Paul Hutchison reminded the House and has failed. It is not only failing; it has failed.What we need is not the kind of rhetoric that Peter Dunne espouses in the House. What we need is goodwill good faith a preparedness to listen to each other and a preparedness to set aside preconceived ideas of how we go about solving this problem. We need instead to make a commitment to work with each other and to think about constructive and novel approaches that will actually reflect the reality of drugs in New Zealand. That is exactly what the Law Commission’s report provided us with the opportunity to do. I cannot believe in the time that was available to draft this bill that we could not instead have translated the Law Commission’s recommendations in relation to utensils pseudoephedrine and synthetic cannabinoids into law. Then we would have had a bill that we would all be voting for and that would have achieved some good. Thank you.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe i tēnei ahiahi. Ko taku kōrero he kōrero i te reo Māori ki te whakamārama i te āhuatanga o te hiahia o te Pāti Māori ki tēnei pire. Tuatahi me pēnei rawa te kōrero kua rongo au i te kōrero a taku hoa a Kevin Hague i a ia e kōrero ana mō tōna āwangawanga mō te mataku i te mea kua taka katoa te mana kōrero mō tēnei pire ki roto i te tangata kotahi. Inā kē te pānui o tōna mana ki tewhakatau i ngā huarahi hei whāinga mā te ture mō ngā rongoā pea ki ētahi mō ngā taru kino pea ki ētahi. Kei te āhua rongo ake i tērā engari kō tāku ko tā te Pāti Māori he mataku nō mātau he āwangawanga nō mātau mō ngā kino kua tae mai ā-tarutaru nei ki runga i ngā hapori Māori. Nō reira koia pea tētahi tīmatanga kōrero hai whakatau i te āhuatanga o tēnei pire i te ahiahi nei arā te Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill.I ngā rima tau kua hipa i puta te kōrero rangahau o te New Zealand Alcohol and Drug Use Surveymō tēnei mea mō te kai tarutaru. Me pēnei rawa te whakamarāma ake. Kotahi nei o ia tokowhā ā-Māori nei i te tau kua hipa kua kai i te taru kino. Kotahi o ia tokowhā ā-Māori nei kua kai i te taru kino. Mō te motu whānui tonu o Aotearoa ko te kotahi o ia tokowhitu. Ko te kotahi o ia tokowhitu. I te pērā te kino o te kaute mō te hunga i raro i te 14 te pakeke mō te hunga i kai tuatahi i te tarutaru. Nō reira nā runga i ēnei tatauranga kai mua i a tātau ka taea te kite i te noho ā-raruraru nei o te Ao Māori nā ēnei tarutaru kino. Ēhara i te mea ko ngā papātanga o nāia tonu nei te raru ēngari ko ngā whāinga mai āmuri ake arā ko te kore haere ki te kura ko te kore eke ā-mātauranga nei ko ngā raruraru ā-wairua o te tangata. Nā ko te pai o tēnei pire he tō mai i ngā tarutaru pēnei i te Kronicme tōna momo i ngā toa o te motu mō ngā 12 marama mō te kotahi tau. Me kī kua rāhuitia-mō-te-wā kia taea ai te āta titiro ki ngā pānga o te tarutaru nei ki te tangata. Tērā pea ka whakakorengia mō ake nei ko wai ka hua ko wai ka totohu.Kua tautoko te Pāti Māori i tēnei pire mai i tōna taenga mai ki roto i te Whare nei. Kei te kite tātau katoa i te kino kua puta ki ngā whānau nā te kino o ngā kai tarutaru. Kai te mōhio tonu tātau ko te kino ki a ngāi Māori nā te kai tarutaru kai tupeka inu waipiro. Nā pēnei i te āhua o te tupeka ki te hikareti rānei pēnei te tū o te Pāti Māori mō te waipiro. Koirā te kōrero me whakaiti i ngā kino nā te kai o ēnei momo kai.Ahakoa kei te tautoko te Pāti Māori i tēnei pire me te poto o te rāhui nei ka kaha tonu mātou ki te āki i ngā take rongoā ngā kaupapa ārai ki tā te Ao Māori titiro ki tō te Ao Māori whakaaro. Ko tā mātau kāore ngā whāinga e hāngai tonu ana ki te katoa i te eke ki te wāhi e tika ana mō te Ao Māori. Ki a mātou mō ngā raruraru e puta mai ana i roto i ngā hapori Māori he pai ake mēnā ka riro mā te Ao Māori tōna whare e hanga e whakatika e whakahaere mō te Ao Māori. Kai te pērā te titiro ki ngā huarahi katoa me kī mai i te tokonga o ngā take hauora ki te āhuatanga o te whakatika ā-tinana tae atu ki ngā mahi maimoatanga whakaora rānei. Nā kai te kōrero au mō ngā tari whakaora ngā akoranga rongoā ngā rata ngā tākuta rānei ngā kaupapa whakaora me ngā huarahi katoa e wātea ana ki te Ao Māori. E pēnei ana taku kī inā tata nei ko ngā kaupapa Māori ā-hauora nei e whakatinanahia ana e te Ao Māori mai i ngā whakaaro me te tirohanga o te ao mō tōna hauora mō tōna oranga. Me kaha tautoko te Kāwanatanga i ngā Māori e mahi nei i roto i ēnei mahi i waenganui i te whānau anō hoki.Hei kupu whakamutunga kia kite mai ai ko te pānga o te Kronic inā tata nei i pātai mātou i ētahi o tētahi hapori i Te Ika-a-Māui nei i Te Puku o te Whenua mō tō rātou mōhio mō te new and unregulated psychoactive substances.I te tino ohorere mātou ki te rongo i a rātou e mea ana he nui noa ake te hokohoko o te Kronic ki tērā o te parāoa me te miraka me te hikareti katoa. Mēnā ka kohikohia ngā hikareti ngā miraka ngā parāoa ki roto i te pēke kotahi nui noa atu te hokohoko o te Kronicki tērā o ēnei mea katoa. Koinei te uauatanga o te take nei. Koinā te kino o te take nei. Kāore e kore ka pākinotia ētahi toa hoi anō mēnā ka ora ētahi ka ora te hauora o te whānau me tautoko ka tīka. Koinei mātou e tautoko nei i tēnei pire i tēnei pānuitanga whakamutunga. Kia ora tātau e te Whare.[Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. I commend you highly this afternoon. In my address in Māori I would like to explain what the Māori Party expects of thisMisuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. But first I hear what my colleague Kevin Hague is saying as he talks about his concern and fear because the authority in this bill fallscompletely upon one individual who has wide authority and powers to determine methods for the legislation to pursue in the case of drugs for some and cannabis for others. I can sense that somewhat but for me we of the Māori Party are concerned and fear the harmful effects that the arrival of cannabis has had upon Māori communities. And that perhaps is a way to start an address this afternoon on this bill.Five years ago the New Zealand Alcohol and Drug Use Survey released some information about the use of cannabis. Let me describe it this way. One in four of each Māori in the past year had used cannabis—one in four Māori. For New Zealand in general it was one in seven—one in seven. That is how bad the figures were for Māori aged 14 years or younger trying cannabis for the first time. So with these figures in front of us we are able to see how high the risk is for Māori affected by these substances. Of course it is not just the immediate impact that poses a problem but the after-effects that arise such as truancy poor academic performance and personal behavioural problems. This bill has an advantage in that it will remove substances like Kronic and other cannabis products like it from shops nationwide for 12 months—for a year. Let us say that it is a time-limited ban that will give sufficient space to investigate offending substances harmful to a person. Perhaps there will come a time when they are banned for ever. Who will benefit and who will go under?The Māori Party has supported this bill right throughout its progress in this House. We can all see the ill effects to families caused by the use of drugs. We know for a fact that Māori suffer disproportionate harm through the use of drugs tobacco and consuming alcohol. Now just like our stance on tobacco or cigarettes the Māori Party sees alcohol in the same way. We will do anything possible to reduce harmful effects as a consequence of taking or consuming these kinds of products. End of story.Although the Party Māori supports this bill and its short ban we will continue to advocate drug treatment and prevention programmes based on Māori perspectives and outlook. We believe that strategies designed for the general population have not reached levels that are right for Māori. We think that drug problems in Maori communities are addressed more effectively if Māori are left to construct rectify and conduct their own institutions for Māori. That approach is for all procedures as for instance in the promotion of health matters early intervention and treatment or recovery. I am talking about detoxification services drug education programmes doctors or clinicians rehabilitation regimes of every kind being accessible by Māori. As I said a moment ago it includes Māori-based health services established and implemented by Māori from within a framework of Māori concepts and perspectives about health and well-being. The Government must support Māori people as well who work in these services among families.To close this address I say that to find out about the impact of Kronic we recently asked a community in the North Island in the central North Island what they knew about the new and unregulated psychoactive substances. We were shocked to hear them say that much more Kronic was sold then bread milk and cigarettes put together. If the cigarettes milk and bread were gathered up and placed in a single bag a far greater amount of Kronic was sold then all those things put together. That is the problem with this matter. It is where the real problem is. No doubt some shops will be affected but nevertheless if some lives are saved then family health is better off. The bill has to be supported. We are pleased to support this final reading. Greetings to us the House.]Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I am pleased to speak in the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. One of its prime aims is to control amphetamine precursors used in the manufacture of P or methamphetamine. Specifically I am talking about ephedrine and pseudoephedrine which will now with this bill be classed as classB2. They will no longer be available across the counter and will be available only on prescription.This complements a suite of Government actions that have been implemented to reduce the harms of P in the community and its impact on our society. I think the move has been very welcome as has been Supplementary Order Paper 258 which the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne brought to the House during the Committee stage. It puts untested psychoactive drugs under a temporary drug order meaning that they will be banned from the shelves for 12 months while they are tested. This is an interim measure and the Associate Minister indicated that more permanent enduring law will be brought to the House next year. I think it is important that we get this law right and I know that the Associate Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper has been welcomed widely. I commend this bill to the House.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I begin my contribution to the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill by echoing the sentiments of both Iain Lees-Galloway and Grant Robertson who spoke on the bill before me and to outline the wider context of where this bill is aimed.I am sure this whole House will speak with one single voice on its opposition to P methamphetamine and to the pain and anguish that it causes Kiwi families of those people who have been using it. It is a drug that knows no class or whether a user is rich or poor. It is a drug that knows no culture or whether a user is Māori Pacific Islander Palagi or any other culture in New Zealand. And it knows no age barrier either. The biggest tragedy I guess is for young Kiwis who find themselves running into methamphetamine. P is a drug that is spreading its tentacles all the way through New Zealand society.As Grant Robertson said before me it is with reluctance that we do not give unequivocal support to this bill. We think it fails to take effective action in the Government’s supposed war on P. The chair of the Health Committee Dr Paul Hutchison outlined that this was an interim measure against methamphetamine. This Parliament had the opportunity to take enduring measures against methamphetamine. The fact that the main thrust of this bill is to reclassify ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as a class B2 controlled drug is just another example of where we do not think this bill is taking effective action in the war against P. We do submit that this bill will make some difference to the problem of P in our society but we do not think it will bring about the substantial change that is required if we were to take in good faith the Government’s promise of a war on P and that it is taking effective action.The tighter controls on ephedrine and pseudoephedrine will seriously affect the availability of over-the-counter medicines for those Kiwis who have a simple cold or flu which Grant Robertson was talking about before. We on this side of the House have a number of issues with that. The first is again in the context of the war on P and the effectiveness of that measure against what is a growing problem. It will be a problem in terms of the ability of consumers to access mainstream over-the-counter medicines. It will also be a cost to Kiwis who may be forced to go to their general practitioner if they want to get the most effective drug that has been available over the counter in previous years.In terms of the wider context of the war on P the Prime Minister’s own Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman said—and I think Paul Hutchison has said in this Chamber—that slightly upwards of 10 percent of the domestic pharmaceutical market in ephedrine and pseudoephedrine is responsible for the ingredients of methamphetamine. If we are waging a war on P why would we make 10 percent of the problem a priority when somewhere close to 90 percent of the problem is coming in through our border? Mr Hutchison in a contribution in the Committee stage of this bill asked members onthis side of the House to not ignore or discount the effect that the domestic market has on methamphetamine production. I say to Mr Hutchison that we do not discount it but we think that if we are going to take effective measures against the production of methamphetamine here in New Zealand then we have to take real effective measures against the 90-odd percent of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine that is coming through our borders illegally. Yes we are seeing sporadic cases of hauls discovered at the border but we are by no means seeing massive action in relation to the illegal trade of pseudoephedrine that is coming in through the borders. I guess that is another case where we are talking in the debate about the effectiveness of the bill.I will turn back to the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor and his advice to the Health Committee. He looked at two options. The first one he looked at was option three which was electronic point-of-sale tracking of the purchase of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. But the option that he preferred at the time was what is within this bill. He also thought there was some debate on its effectiveness so he called for a 3-year trial of the change that is mooted here for tighter controls on ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. He was concerned about the public inconvenience of such a move and about how effective such a move would be in reducing the level of production of methamphetamine in New Zealand.That takes me to another point which is just how much harder it will be to get drugs containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine that have been available over the counter for a long time. It has been just a simple case whereby a person with a relatively serious flu or cold can go to the pharmacy and get some of those drugs over the counter. After this bill passes New Zealanders who want the most effective drug will be forced to go to a doctor to get a prescription. There are some issues on that but I do not think enough research has been done by the Ministry of Health on what the cost of that will be for Kiwis whether it will be a barrier for their getting effective medical treatment for just a simple cold or flu and also what effect that will have on the workload of our general practitioners. Our general practitioners may have an influx of people with very simple humdrum colds and flus who have to book an appointment with a doctor for something that they have traditionally just gone to see their local pharmacist about.I will now turn to clause 4 which deals with the ban of the sale and importation of drug utensils. We looked to have this clause omitted from the bill under Supplementary Order Paper 260 introduced by Iain Lees-Galloway. This was unsuccessful. We think that the Government again has taken another step that will be ineffective in terms of its war on drugs. There were quite a number of submissions on clause 4 during the select committee process and it is our understanding that quite a lot of that evidence gave truth to the argument that removing the sale and importation of utensils would actually cause more harm to those who use the drug. We do not agree that they should be used but the fact is that the filters within those utensils put a barrier between those who are smoking drugs and the drug. That has some positive health effects for those who choose to use utensils. It is a shame that clause 4 stayed within the purview of the bill. We believe that it should have been removed from the bill.I will move to the measure that was introduced this week and that was the temporary banning of synthetic cannabis. The way this measure was introduced shows a lack of a real plan from the Government in terms of its war or drugs and its war on P. The way that this was introduced was that although the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne for some months was pretty opposed to the banning of synthetic cannabis his public statements varied. On 30 March he said in respect of the banning of the limited sale and advertising of synthetic cannabis “I have instructed the Ministry of Health to begin the process of putting the necessary controls in place. I expect these changes to come into effect next year.” On 3 June in respect of why he had not banned synthetic cannabisproducts there was another line from the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne. He said that the evidence was not strong enough to go as far as that and that he did not want to go down that path. Then about 3 weeks ago speaking about why the Law Commission recommendations to make suppliers prove that the safety of synthetic cannabis could not be introduced until after the election he said: “We’re under certain statutory requirements and we have the complications of a general election occurring …”. So he was pretty reluctant up until 17 June to take any real effective action against synthetic cannabis.But all of a sudden this week we see a bit of sniffing of the public sentiment the public urgency on wanting to take action—mostly from parents who are worried about their children getting free access to synthetic cannabis. On 1 August after these very timid public statements about synthetic cannabis the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne said that frankly he felt he could not wait and that he wanted to make sure there was a mechanism that simply removed these items from the shelves—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.NICKY WAGNER (National): I am very pleased to support the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill at its third reading. It covers some serious issues that we need to address in order to increase the effectiveness of the control of drugs in New Zealand—in particular to manage the ingredients for the manufacture of methamphetamine P and to ban unregulated psychoactive substances such as Kronic.In order to starve local P labs of the ingredients for manufacturing P this bill reclassifies ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class B controlled drugs so that cold and flu medicines that contain these substances will no longer be available over the counter. However if those medicines are needed by patients they can be acquired by prescription.I was interested to hear Kris Faafoi talking about the inconvenience of this. We went by Sir Peter Gluckman’s recommendation that there are plenty of alternative medicines that can fill this gap and we feel that the public are prepared to take that little bit of inconvenience for the good of the whole.I would also like to commend the Associate Minister of Heath Peter Dunne for his Supplementary Order Paper 258. It is an effective stopgap measure to control psychoactive substances such as Kronic which is a synthetic cannabis product. The Government is not prepared to allow these potentially lethal products to be freely available to young people so it has moved swiftly to ban these substances. This could happen as early as the end of next week. More permanent legislation will follow next year.I believe that this bill will have a significant impact on drug use in New Zealand and I commend it to the House.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): It is great to speak on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. My colleague the Hon Rick Barker just asked how good I was on drugs as if that was a qualification to speak on this. Well I can confess that I am addicted to caffeine I have used nicotine and I am an irregular user of alcohol—but none of the other substances that we are trying to reduce the harm from today. But it is I think pertinent to remind ourselves that we are all in some way dependent upon drugs. Most of us hopefully use them sensibly but we are trying through the passage of this bill—and Labour supports the bill—to reduce harm from drug abuse.We have heard lots of wonderful words and rhetoric in the House about what we are trying to achieve here and I spoke earlier on in this debate in the Committee stage to try to bring things into balance. There is the immediate assumption that in trying to reduce harm from drugs we are trying to protect young people from themselves. That isa very noble gesture for this House but the reality is that young people are smarter know more and probably see the future in a different light from most of us here. So our attempts—and there have been many over the years—to regulate drugs have been futile for the most part. That is not to say that Parliament should not make a judgment set a line in the sand and attempt to reduce harm. But it should do that in a way that is effective not in a way that just satisfies our conscience or appeases the relatively uninformed public who make quick judgments on things like P. P is a horrific drug that has terrible side effects and direct effects on both the users and their families and on communities.But when it comes to synthetic cannabinoids we are not quite sure what the manufacturers might come up with next so the bill is an attempt to stay ahead of the innovation the evolution and the creativity of drug manufacturers. Many of them try to connect with youth because they see an obvious market there. For the most part manufacturers are just commercial entrepreneurs who see an opportunity and get out and sell their wares often with little or no regard for the effects of that. We have seen it before through what we call party pills. We saw harm and we changed legislation; we had to change the law of the land to try to stay ahead of that problem. Again we are trying now to regulate I guess the precursors to other drugs. More recently of course a synthetic cannabinoid—I will not use the brand name—has come on to the market and we hear that it is causing an adverse effect on many young people who use it.The point I have to make again is that there is before the Government a Law Commission report on alcohol which has been sitting around for too long. The Government does not want to tackle it because it is an election year so it has parked it. The harms that we know occur every day every week and every year in terms of road deaths road injuries child abuse domestic violence and cirrhosis—you name it—have many many clearly researched identified and well-known downsides in relation to the abuse of alcohol. This is not about the sensible use but the abuse of alcohol and there are people who of course become dependent. But in my view we have been totally unprepared under-resourced and uncommitted to addressing the problems of treatment for those people who need it.Coming back to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill I have to say that dependency whether habitual or physiological—Chris Auchinvole: Addictive.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —or addictive—means that in all ways people’s lives are affected and we have to put in place treatment programmes. In my view the industries themselves particularly in relation to alcohol and tobacco should be levied and should be paying for the treatment programmes we need up and down this country. We have not gone so far as to do that and the commission I think has been a little vague in that area. The commission has made a lot of recommendations but this Government has sat on its hands and refused to do anything about them.So in supporting the passage of this legislation let us not get over-excited. Let us not praise the Government for its wonderful stance in reducing harm from drugs when it is dealing in relative terms with a small issue. It is quite an acute issue for many people but it is a small one compared with the underlying issues of alcohol and tobacco. I acknowledge—I do not like doing this—the Government’s efforts in relation to tobacco. In fact it hiked the price. It is looking it says at displays at point of sale and I applaud that. We need to make progress on that because again we know the harms from tobacco. We know the harms from alcohol but the Government is doing nothing. We know the harms from P from other class B2 controlled drugs and from class A drugs and we are attempting with the passage of this legislation to stay ahead of those.I think the provisions the Minister has come up with are a good way forward. They do not ban outright but lead to control. Then of course there is prosecution for manufacture or supply of something we know to be harmful. It is no good passing bills in this House that do not have widespread support and cannot have sensible implementation. We simply run into the problem of the implementation creating a whole lot of illegal activity and giving another huge challenge for the police. We ultimately need better education. We need to say to consumers and potential consumers that if they might be considering consuming—be it smoking drinking sniffing or whatever—they need to know exactly what they would be taking on board their bodies and what the potential harms might be from that. So better education and better identification of all the ingredients are really important and I think this bill goes down that path. The Minister will have discretion to intervene; that is always a dangerous thing when we have a National Government in place. I am not quite sure what drives its decision making at times but although giving discretion to a Minister gives flexibility it also depends on the wisdom of the Minister and the advice given to him or her.Again the passage of the legislation is our best attempt at this point to move forward on this issue but let us not get too excited and think we have reduced harm from drugs in this country when the big elephant in the room has yet to be addressed. I say that there are hundreds and thousands of people around the country who are disappointed that alcohol has not been moved on before now. So it is with some enthusiasm that I support this bill but again make the note in this House that I do not feel this is a significant step forward. It is a step sideways. It is a new attempt to address a problem. But I know that we will be back in the House in a short time I am sure trying to address some other smart thing that has been created out in the market place. If we have a Government that is committed ideologically to the market providing the signals and the answers then we will be in trouble. I support the passage of this legislation and note that we need to see a bit more in the House.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman): I follow on from the member opposite Damien O’Connor and can make a claim to the same limited personal experience of the abuse of drugs other than cigarettes and alcohol. Sure we have been discussing and debating those at length as well.The National-led Government is creating a temporary class of drug orders to take these particular drugs and other synthetic cannabis products off the market by the middle of August. The temporary class drug orders are an interim measure. During a 12-month ban a committee will assess the risk of harm of a substance and recommend whether it should be classified as a controlled drug scheduled as a restricted substance or remain unregulated.From the date on which a temporary class drug order comes into force the import export manufacture supply and sale of the substance will be illegal. This will be of huge inconvenience to a group of people whom I have just heard described as commercial entrepreneurs. I think that is gracing them with a title they do not deserve. The people who are involved in selling this stuff are predators and they are predating on our children.I sense almost a reluctance on the other side of the House which I am sorry to hear that this bill would prove to be a nuisance to the manufacturers and result in their being more inventive rather than honest. Honesty is not a given with people who deal in this sort of business. Before I have an ounce of sympathy for this particular group of mercenary traders I feel one should realise the misery they create amongst individual lives families and whole communities in their selfish pursuit of profit because that is their only interest.These traders are in my mind a parasitic group of people. Their business is to engage people not through a satisfactory service but through addiction. This is a quality of tobacco manufacturers and it has been so criticised by this House recently and we should apply equal contempt towards the people who are pushing these other substances.Let me close with a slightly cynical memory of a Tom Lehrer song “The Old Dope Peddler”. There is a beautiful chorus which goes:He gives the kids free samplesBecause he knows full wellToday’s young innocent facesWill be tomorrow’s clientele.These predators are preying on our children. Every move we can make to disrupt their commercial activities should be taken and they deserve no consideration in the debate whatsoever. Thank you.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I rise to speak in the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill and to say as my colleague Damien O’Connor did that Labour supports this bill but has a number of concerns about it. The bill itself will amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to reclassify ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class B2 controlled drugs remove thalidomide as a class A controlled drug allow hazardous substances to be scheduled as restricted substances—and I will come back to that—and extend control over drug paraphernalia. Although Labour supports the bill we remain concerned that the bill as written would not achieve the aim of reducing the availability of methamphetamine P or reducing drug-related harm. Certainly the Government has taken a long time to get to the point of implementing this legislation given that John Key announced in October 2009 I believe an Action Plan on Methamphetamine with five prongs. I understand this bill to be prong No. 1. Here we are nearly at the election and we are on prong No. 1.The other issue of course is dealing with the ban on synthetic cannabis. This again is another instance where the Government has dithered on an issue. Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne has talked tough about cleaning up the synthetic cannabis industry and it has largely been hot air. He dithered on this ban despite recommendations from the Law Commission and calls for action from the public and from sector groups. Labour raised the issue with Mr Dunne 6 months ago and at the time even provided him with examples of this legal high this synthetic cannabis.Mr Dunne has made a number of comments since that time. On 30 March he said: “I have instructed the Ministry of Health to begin the process of putting the necessary controls in place. I expect these changes to come into effect next year.” On 3 June on why he had not banned synthetic cannabis he said: “The evidence wasn’t strong enough to go that far and I didn’t want to go down that path and then be challenged in court and overturned. Because you end up looking a bit silly at that point.” Well here we are probably looking a bit silly in August. On 17 June on why the Law Commission recommendation to make suppliers prove the safety of synthetic cannabis could not be introduced until after the election he said: “We’re under certain statutory requirements and we have the complications of a general election occurring.” On 1 August more recently he said: “I felt we couldn’t wait … I wanted to make sure we had a mechanism that simply removes these items from the shelves completely.” In the course of those few months we have seen all sorts of variations on the theme from the Minister.Of course we now have in Part 1 new clauses 3A and 3B providing for the temporary class drug notice. This amendment will place a 12-month ban on the sale of all synthetic cannabis products and other new drugs to allow enough time for theMinister to obtain the necessary advice on the appropriate classification for these drugs. Labour supports that. This amendment provides that the Minister will publish a notice in theGazette specifying as a temporary class drug a substance preparation mixture or article that is not a class A class B or class C - controlled drug a restricted substance or a precursor substance but that the Minister is satisfied poses or may pose a risk of harm to individuals or to society. That will mean that the temporary class drug will be treated for most of the purposes of the Act as a class C1 controlled drug except as specified. The temporary class drug will not be added to any of the schedules of the Act while the notice is in force. While that temporary class drug notice is in force the Minister must seek advice as to its appropriate classification. A 12-month period will provide an opportunity for that.As I said Labour welcomes the decision to place that 12-month ban on synthetic cannabis products and other new drugs—as Mr O’Connor said there will undoubtedly be other drugs that come through—until there is more sustainable regulation of new substances. But we are concerned that the Government has taken too long to do this. Despite all the public protestations by Peter Dunne that the Government takes this issue particularly seriously it has dithered on it since last year. For example this bill has been buried on the Order Paper since November last year. In addition the Government has done little in response to the Law Commission’s report which was tabled in May of this year. So the Government’s so-called stronger additional amendments to current drug legislation will simply continue the decades-old ad hoc approach to drug abuse and control in New Zealand. We have been pushing for the Government to implement these stopgap measures so that no more harm is caused to individuals until the Ministry of Health has had time to research the effect of the drugs.I will talk about the response to harm because it worries me. Mr O’Connor alluded to the issue of alcohol harm. I am on the Justice and Electoral Committee which is dealing with the Alcohol Reform Bill. We have the research base on this issue; there is no doubt about that. Fantastic work has been done by the Law Commission on alcohol and the issue of harm. I want to compare it with the response to the synthetic cannabis issue and also the P issue. Really if we are looking at priorities we have to say that the alcohol issue is the priority in terms of drug harm. Certainly in comparison with all other forms of drugs including P synthetic cannabis and whatever else one likes alcohol is really significant because of the scale of the problem.Also unlike every other drug—we saw research in the select committee that compared all of the other drugs with alcohol—the interesting difference with alcohol is this: for most drugs the harm is to the individual. For the individual using P—certainly I will come back to P—or the individual using synthetic cannabis the harm is predominantly to the individual. In the case of alcohol more harm is actually done to other people. When we look at the harm caused by alcohol we see that yes there is harm caused to the individual—there is no question about that. Mr O’Connor went through some of the issues of addiction: cirrhosis other health issues—cancers mental health issues; you name it. But the harm to others is what is really significant with regard to the issue of alcohol: the harm to people subjected to violence by those who are drunk; the harm to people who are driving cars.Alcohol has some similarities I admit with P which is subject to the provisions of this bill. But I am very concerned that we have taken too long in dithering around on this bill and we are taking far too long in dithering around on the alcohol issue. As it stands sadly it looks likely that there will not be new legislation in place before the election. We will have a watered-down bill in response to the Law Commission’s report on alcohol and a first reading on that. I wanted to make that comparison.I come back to this bill specifically which the Deputy Speaker suggests that I do. I will talk about the issue of the importation and supply of drug utensils which is in clause 4 of this bill. Clause 4 broadens the scope of section 22 of the Act by prohibiting the sale importation and supply of drug utensils including pipes other utensils and identifiable components of a pipe or other utensil. The broadening of the scope of section 22 will mean the police will more effectively be able to deter the sale of drug utensils by removing the limitation that an offence occurs once a sale has been made—in other words if someone buys a pipe and then does something with it that is an offence. The police also understand that this amendment will remove the difficulties that the Customs Service has with restricting the importation of incomplete drug utensils and identifiable parts. Making it an offence to sell supply and import utensils would assist so that is the purpose of this clause.We are aware that the Health Committee received no evidence—I repeat no evidence—whatsoever that the changes in this clause would bring about a reduction in drug use which one would think is the important factor here. Fifty-nine of the 65 submitters opposed the proposed amendment to the utensils provisions. Many submitters stated that the utensils provisions may prove to be a minor inconvenience to those who import and sell utensils but that they are likely to respond with small changes of behaviour in order to evade the law. I will leave it there as that seems to be a relatively less useful part of this bill.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes104New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Māori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1.Noes14Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4; Independent: Carter C.Bill read a third time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 104 Noes 15.Member VacancyNorthland Electoral District—Hon John CarterHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of theActing Leader of the House: I moveThat pursuant to section 131(a) of the Electoral Act 1993 a vacancy in the Northland Electoral District having arisen in the period of six months prior to the date of the expiration of this Parliament no writ be issued for the election of a member of Parliament for that Electoral District to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of John McGregor Carter.The Hon John Carter resigned his parliamentary seat on 17 July 2011 creating a vacancy in his Northland electorate seat. Section 131 of the Electoral Act 1993 provides that no writ shall be issued for a by-election if a general election is to be held within 6 months of the occurrence of the vacancy and a resolution is passed by a majority of 75 percent of all the members of the House of Representatives to the effect that a writ is not to be issued to supply the vacancy.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): The Labour Party is supporting this motion. In fact if we were not the motion would not have been moved and certainly would not be effective if it passed vis-à-vis section 131 of the Electoral Act. I think it is appropriate. It is an unusual situation to be in to follow a member’svaledictory but I think “Hone” Carter had one of those valedictories of the type where many members of the House would have preferred him to go on a bit longer. It was entertaining. It was probably like the member—always entertaining always caring and someone who was one of the characters of the House. I tend to say and it might be a sign of my own ageing that they seem to be fewer and farther between the people who were elected as a result of their good organisation in an electorate tying up the seat to get the National Party nomination and then continuing to keep it tied up in a way that meant that over a period of time—notwithstanding a number of perceived and actual sins—Mr Carter was able to be totally unchallenged as to his right to represent an area that he built as a National Party stronghold and one that was not always the safest of National seats. If we look at the demographics of the seat it should not necessarily be so but as a result of his character and his work it became a safe National seat.I was lucky enough to travel with Mr Carter I think at the beginning of 1994 to the United States. At that stage the then two-thirds owners of Telecom—two US companies—hosted us. I think these days one could not think of many less likely members of Parliament to be the ones seen to be leading the Parliament in technology matters but the objective was for some members of Parliament to gain a working understanding of technology. I think it is fair to say that I understood from that time about convergence and it is interesting to see that what was predicted to John Carter and me is beginning to happen now which is probably close to 15 years after the expectation of when it would occur.We had some interesting conversations. Probably my most interesting conversation with John Carter related to when I had heard him late one day talking to John Banks on the radio.Hon Members: Ha ha!Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I make it clear it was not the time when he was found to be offending; it was an earlier occasion. Subsequent to that we had a discussion I think at the diplomats and parliamentarians cricket match when we were both fit and able enough to play. I indicated to him that I had heard him I had recognised his voice and I thought that it was unwise for him to have done such a thing. Well he is a bit like me: slightly stubborn and does not always learn from the first mistake unless he is told off. There was a repeat performance the fall-out from which was his fall from grace and resignation as a whip. Probably more important I think it led to the interruption for a period of 15 years of the career of John Banks who was not reappointed as a Minister after that and suffered the even worse fate of not being allowed to travel to South Africa to the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup in 1995. The Rt Hon Jim Bolger—now of course Sir James Bolger—forbade him from going thinking that what were clearly racist comments would not go down well in the new South Africa. I think it is fair to say that it could have caused—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Carter?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No Banks’ comments; Banks’ comments were actually worse than Carter’s comments because there was a suggestion that the thing had been jacked up and Banks at the time was a Minister and therefore the offence was more serious. As I say Carter had been warned and he obviously was caught out later on.But having said that one of the important points about John Carter and the thing that I valued the most was that he always kept his word. We had a number of arrangements that were made behind the Chair over a period of time and John made it clear when he had made an agreement when he had indicated that he would have “best endeavours” to deliver he certainly tried very hard and he was always very thorough in that when there was a problem with what he was endeavouring to do he would come back he wouldindicate and there was clarity in the situation. I think that was a good sign of his integrity.I think John Carter has a good job in going to Rarotonga. I think there is a bit of a practice—though not normally for electorate MPs and I will refer to that soon—of members of Parliament taking up diplomatic postings. Of course he follows in the footsteps of the late Brian Donnelly in being the member of Parliament appointed to go to Avarua. I think it is fair to say that a number of us on occasion have indicated that such an approach would not be the worst possible thing. I had five words that I think I said to Helen Clark two or three times while she was Prime Minister when I was in her bad books and they were “Port Vila Hanoi New York.” For some reason she did not value my diplomatic skills in quite the way that would lead her to think it might be better for me to be appointed a diplomat rather than continuing my endeavours in the House.Louise Upston: I wonder why Trevor. I wonder why.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well I have always respected her judgment. Under MMP I signal—not now and probably not even as part of the next review but at some stage—that it would be worth looking at having a system whereby we do not have to go to a by-election when we have this sort of arrangement even if it is prior to the 6-month period before an election. A number of mature democracies are able when they have this sort of system to have people who are effectively deputy electorate members—people who when a member of Parliament becomes a Minister step in and effectively become an electorate member or effectively become a list member. There is a reversal of roles which means that the Minister is freed up from doing the work in the electorate. It is taken over by someone else but with the proviso—I think in all cases—that that reversal can be worked backwards again.I wonder whether at some stage we need to look at the possibility of another member stepping into the electorate seat role. I think because we do not generally affect the proportionality of Parliament—we are much more party-based—that it is something worth looking at. But I think we are having a little bit of trouble at the moment getting universal acceptance of the role of the list MP and the way that things work and we might not be quite at the point where we could convince the public that that sort of system should be developed. I think that would raise the possibility of another list MP coming to Parliament replacing the person who transfers over keeping the proportionality in Parliament and thereby saving millions of dollars in some cases in by-elections. I actually quite enjoy by-elections but all of us know they will not make any difference to the eventual decisions that go through this House.Labour supports this motion and we wish John Carter well but I hope that at some future stage we do not have to pass similar motions.Hon RICK BARKER (Labour): This is an unusual event. Normally it is impossible to say things about a member of Parliament who has resigned their position. Normally the valedictory is said and that is it but I have been given the rare opportunity to talk about—I have just learnt his full name—John McGregor Carter.I have known John for quite some time and would like to make a few comments about him but before I do so I make the observation that this circumstance we are in here is very unusual. I have been here since 1993 and I can recall this situation happening only once before and that was with the resignation of Michael Laws in the Hawke’s Bay seat. Michael Laws got himself into a spot of bother about a signature on a so-called referendum or survey done in his area and he thought the only honourable thing for him to do was to resign. At that point there was no election date set. Within a matter of hours the then Prime Minister the Rt Hon Jim Bolger announced the election day. As a consequence of that the House could consider a motion to say that there was no need to have a by-election because it was within 6 months of an election.It was a remarkable circumstance to have an election date set so early and it changed what happened in this House. I was going to undertake some work with the then Minister of Justice Mr Graham but when I approached him after the adjournment of the House he said he could not do that work then because we were in an election campaign. The whole thing changed.We are in a remarkable situation now because we have an election date set so far out but still the House carries on its work. It has not quite got to the election phase yet.I have worked with John over a long period of time. I put on the record that I found John to be a very good member of Parliament and an honourable member of Parliament. I dealt with John on many occasions as a whip. Those people who have held the position of a whip in this House will realise that there is quite a distinct and different relationship between the whips. One of the roles of the Opposition whip which was a position I held was to make the life of the senior Government whip as difficult as possible and I did the best I could. I plagued him with all sorts of tricks—moving people around moving motions and so on—but all through this John kept his sense of humour. John was always very level-headed and simply accepted that this was the way the role was played.John was always very good to deal with. In my opinion he was a man of integrity. Whenever I had an agreement with John there was never any doubt about the agreement being held to. His word was his bond and I think this is a fine quality in him for New Zealand when he takes up his position representing New Zealand overseas. I think the people he represents will find him as I did to be very trustworthy and very reliable. I have a great deal of respect for the man.That brings me to the point that we now find that the far north has no representative. That is effectively what has happened. It is unrepresented. Some people could exercise some concern about this but I am not sure that all would be of that opinion. This is no disrespect to John personally.I recount one occasion when that fine institution of this Parliament the Parliamentary Rugby Team was invited by John Carter to tour the far north and play some games. We were playing in Kaitāia and the local team was a team of locals who were very large strong-looking farm-type men. Two of them had seen some service in the All Blacks and they looked a pretty formidable crew I can tell members that. At one part of the game the ball was kicked up high into the air and the line of defence for the Parliamentary Rugby Team was John McGregor Carter. A line of forwards was fanned out—a large line of forwards—and they were hunting as a pack. They had one target and it was the local member of Parliament. The captain of the Parliamentary Rugby Team shouted so all could hear “Don’t kick! Don’t kick! For God’s sake don’t kick!” but John was torn between two lines: self-preservation and orders. John chose self-preservation. He put his boot into the ball it slid off the side of his boot and spiralled away and this line of four lumpy forwards scooped up the ball powered over the line and scored a try. The captain was standing there shaking his head and then someone from the sideline said “Don’t worry. He doesn’t listen to us either.” There was good humour. I want to say that even though it is politics people can see the humour in it and I am sure they said that with affection.One thing I will miss from John is his jokes. I do not think I can recount any of them here tonight—partly because it is a family show and partly because I cannot remember them all. Whenever there was a down moment in the House John would give me a nudge and say something. I would meet him out the back and he would recount his latest list of yarns.He was also a person with incredible knowledge of how this place operates. I am sure that in recent times National will have found that John’s advice on tactics and howto operate things in the House has been invaluable. I can think of no other position than when we were discussing the Auckland bill. Once John moved back into the centre stage we thought we have a tough opponent here and so it proved to be.I am sure National will miss John just as Labour will. We do not always have to agree with people in this House; I do not think that is important. What we have to see though is that they make a contribution and without a doubt John made a contribution. It was not always in the debates but he certainly made a contribution in how the House was structured how the House was organised and how it ran. He was very conscious of the principles of this House its protocol and its traditions. He was always very supportive of those and made sure that people understood that these were the rules of how the place ran. Yes there are formal rules and the Standing Orders. Yes there are Speakers’ rulings. But there are other ways in which people go about their business with integrity and by viewing with due respect each member here as an honourable member and John was certainly one who upheld that. From that point of view I will miss him because that collective knowledge is important to how this place runs.I thought John made a great contribution. Yes he might have cluttered up the car-park down below with his collection of ancient and semi-ancient vehicles—Chris Tremain: There are plenty of parks down there.Hon RICK BARKER: There are plenty of parks now; the parking space has increased. The humour will be gone just as I miss Mike Moore’s humour around the place. When I talk about Mike Moore and John Carter I think how Mike Moore always used to say when someone was saying good things about him: “Oops I must be dead; they’re praising me.” I want to say to John that we are not saying this because we think that about him. We have always thought this.Finally I want to turn to the last point which is the issue raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard—that we now have a vacancy in John Carter’s seat and we still have in this House 121 members of Parliament. I do think there is a gap here and I think we should put our collective minds to how this could be better managed in the future. It could be that the public find it acceptable to have a vacancy for 6 months. I am sure the public in the far north are thankful that we are going to pass this resolution because the last thing they will want I am sure is two elections in 6 months—two occasions when their letterboxes are festooned with newsletters and direct leafleting there are ads in the paper hoardings up all around the place and adverts for votes driving the public mad. I think their tolerance is for an election once every 3 years; any sooner than that becomes a little less tolerable. So I think the far north public will see this motion as a good thing.On the downside there is no clearly recognised person to whom they can go as their local representative. Yes there are list MPs in the area and yes we could look at formalising those things in the future. The Hon Trevor Mallard has made a very good suggestion. I also accept the point he has made that given that we are looking at our electoral system this is most probably not the best time to look at such a detail. But it is something we should keep in the back of our minds and think of.In closing I would just like to say a final thankyou to John for all the contributions he has made here over the years. I want to say thank you to John for all the goodwill he has shown to me and I want to say thank you to John for the way in which he has conducted his work in this House. I personally found him to be a man of integrity someone I could do deals with and someone whose word was his bond. I think that is a very important thing. I never had to ask John for an email or a letter to confirm something. I knew that if John stood there looked me in the eye and said what would happen I could go to the bank and say it would happen. There are not many people one can say that about. I would like to say it about more people but I can certainly say itabout John Carter. I do not think there are many finer tributes one could say to a person than that he always kept his word. Thank you.Sue Kedgley: Mr Deputy Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry for the member. The Business Committee allocated only three spots to this debate so I am sorry the member does not get a call. I say on behalf of all the comments that have been made today that I am sure the former member will be very impressed and encouraged by those comments. It may be fortunate that he does not get a right of reply.Motion agreed to.VotingCorrection—Misuse of Drugs Amendment BillHon HEATHER ROY (ACT): I seek leave of the House to correct a vote on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You need to seek leave and what is the leave you are asking for?Hon HEATHER ROY: I would like to seek leave to alter the ACT vote. I should have voted 4 instead of 5 in opposition to the bill.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to change the vote for ACT from 4 to 5.Hon HEATHER ROY: I am sorry the other way round.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: From 5 to 4. Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Now the result of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill third reading is Ayes 104 Noes 14. The record will be corrected.Estimates DebateIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 2 August on the Appropriation (2011/12 Estimates) Bill.Vote Health (continued)Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): I must say that it was a pleasure listening to the members of the Labour Opposition being so gracious about my colleague the Hon John Carter. It was great to hear the enthusiasm of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove when he heard that I was about to speak on the good news in terms of Vote Health because indeed it is very good news. This year $528 million has been made available; $1.5 billion has been made available since National came into power in 2008.But I want to talk about health promotion and disease prevention which is something that Labour goes on and on and on about. We have an absolutely incredible record. First of all I will mention immunisation. Back in 2007 in the order of 76 percent of 2-year-olds were covered. Now that figure has rocketed up to 90 percent. That is an absolutely excellent achievement in the last few years.Let us look at the second thing: home insulation. Under the Labour Government something like 2000 or 3000 homes were insulated. Under the National Government 100000 homes have been insulated which is another great public health achievement. There is no doubt that a whole spectrum of respiratory illnesses is being prevented by this initiative which has been executed so ably by the National Government.Let us go on to rheumatic fever. This Budget puts $12 million into clinics for children. I think the plan is that something like 22000 children will be covered in this particular initiative which was something that the Labour Government talked about as one of its many many priorities and strategies year after year. But what did National do? We put it into action.Then we go on to smoking. What happened under Labour? There was something like a 10 percent increase in excise tax in 9 years. National has executed a 30 percent increase in excise tax and we know that this is one of the most effective methods in reducing smoking and all the ill health that is associated with it.Let us look at the roll-out of before-school checks. There were something like 1000 or so under the Labour Government. All Labour could do was about 1000 checks. Under National 100000 children have had before-school checks and something in the order of 8500 children have gone on to have their eyesight corrected or have various other interventions that have helped their eyesight.There is also the area of maternity. I must say that if ever there was an area of health promotion and disease prevention it must be the area of maternity.CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): It is great to be able to take a call in the estimates debate on Vote Health. I want to focus on some of the achievements the Minister of Health Tony Ryall and his team have made in this area. Health is one of the few Budget portfolio areas across all the portfolios where we have actually been able to increase funding. Constituents will be pleased to know that health alone has received $1.5 billion worth of additional funding over a 3-year period which is absolutely fantastic.The recessionary environment in which National became the Government was an extremely difficult environment to come into. Many people would have said that the Government needed to cut its cloth to fit the revenue that was coming in the door. Well we took a very practical approach to this and there were some key areas within the Government spend—health being one of those and education being another of those key areas—where we continue to spend at and beyond the level we were previously spending. We are investing in the health of our community and in our education. There is nothing surer. It has paid huge dividends particularly with the six key areas of focus that Tony Ryall has brought in with the new national standards in health. They are absolutely fantastic. In terms of cancer treatment the Minister has focused each of the district health boards on lifting the bar in terms of cancer treatment. Focusing on that has made a huge difference.Take immunisation. I know that in my own province of Hawke’s Bay the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and its immunisation team have lifted the level of child immunisation to levels that we would not have anticipated 2 or 3 years ago. As a team through the district health nurses they have done a fantastic job. It is interesting that the Labour Opposition would take time to criticise district health nurses and the work that they do in our communities to immunise young babies and to improve the health and welfare of groups in poverty. I think that work is fantastic but Labour is concerned about it and that is a worry.There have been other standards we have focused on such as elective surgery. We have lifted the level of elective surgery despite the difficult times. That has been absolutely fantastic. We have seen accident and emergency waiting times improve throughout district health boards around the country. Cardiovascular services have also improved. A wonderful initiative from the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board has been a nurse-led initiative to allow prescribing of diabetes medicines which is a wonderful enabler that the Minister of Health Tony Ryall has implemented in this term of Government. It is absolutely fantastic. Smoking cessation is another focus we have in this Government which is absolutely marvellous.One of the things I want to focus on in the estimates debate is the more than $500 million being invested in hospital capital projects. I was particularly fortunate to be at the Napier Health Centre on Wellesley Road on Monday where as part of that $500million capital investment we were able to open a new digital X-ray facility. Absolutely sensational.Sue Moroney: It was Labour who put that money in.CHRIS TREMAIN: The project started just 3 months ago. I am not sure how that could have been started under the Labour Government if it was started 3 months ago and is being implemented now.Let us talk about the Napier Health Centre which was going to close under Labour. That is what was going to happen under Labour. It was getting to the end of its 10-year lease and the previous Government was going to close that centre.Sue Moroney: What rubbish!CHRIS TREMAIN: Well if that is rubbish then what was the protest that I was a part of in the last term of Government? It was to make sure that that facility stayed open for the citizens of Napier and it has. What is more important is that we have signed a 10-year lease now—in this term of Government; not under a Labour Government—that will ensure the longevity of that service for Napier residents. With this new digital radiology facility I acknowledge Wietske Cloo Andrew Lesperance and Warrick Frater who have brought about all these new services and Mandy Robinson who will head up the new digital service in Hawke’s Bay. This is fantastic.In particular I acknowledge the board of the district health board led by Kevin Atkinson. He has done an amazing job of ensuring that that district health board will be one of the more profitable ones going forward or that at least it will break even and reach profitability which will be the first time we have seen that in many many years. That is absolutely fantastic. Kevin has done an outstanding job.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Vote Health be agreed to.Ayes65New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Māori Party 3; United Future 1.Noes53New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C.Vote Health agreed to.Vote State Servicesagreed to.Vote ACCHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): It is a great pleasure to be standing before the Committee of the whole House for the estimates debate on Vote ACC in far stronger circumstances. In other years in which I have been before the Committee I have had to acknowledge huge multibillion-dollar losses. I have had to acknowledge that there has been—Hon Steve Chadwick: Created.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member interjects “Created.” Righty-o she needs to explain this point for me. ACC had a loss of $2.4 billion in 2007-08.Sue Moroney: Oh that’s rubbish.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member says it is rubbish. Whose signature is on the annual report showing a $2.4 billion loss? It is that of the Labour Minister of the time Maryan Street. So for Sue Moroney and Steve Chadwick to say that what I said is not true is to say that Maryan Street signed false accounts. That is what they are asserting and I think that is a very serious charge for which they should perhaps go to the Serious Fraud Office. To say that someone signed a set of accounts that was false is a very serious accusation which they are making against Maryan Street and I ask them to reflect on that.The fact is that ACC claims costs between 2005 and 2008 went up by 50 percent. Claims costs were up by 50 percent. It was out of control. It was financially reckless. The previous Government breached the Public Finance Act. It did not disclose the size of the problems in the pre-election update and this Government has had a hard job to sort out that mess.The great news for New Zealand households this year is that we are able to have substantive levy reductions for households and for businesses at a time when they are under real financial pressure. Let me tell members how much it means. It means that workers on the average wage next year will receive a 17 percent reduction in their earners levies which will put 10 bucks a week into the hands of the average Kiwi household. Ten bucks a week for the average Kiwi household—I think that is a great thing and I commend the work of the board and the staff of ACC.Even better we are able to reduce business costs. There is a 22 percent reduction in the levies for businesses. The people who have achieved that have to be encouraged and congratulated.Sue Moroney: I thought you said it was broke.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Exactly; it was when we had reckless financial management. Let me tell members how bad it was. When Labour was in charge ACC lost $4.8 billion in just 1 year.Sue Moroney: An investment.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member interjects “investments”. I am happy to bet her the best bottle of Nelson wine that of that $4.8 billion loss—do members know how much was lost in investments?Dr Cam Calder: Zero?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Zero. Not one penny. That is absolutely the truth and I challenge the member who is interjecting to show me in those financial accounts from when she was in the Government what part of that $4.8 billion loss was in investments because it was not a dollar. It was not a dollar. That is in the accounts audited by the Auditor-General.Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is all very interesting from the Minister but I thought we were in the estimates debate which is about this year not the term of the previous Government.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member is correct but the Minister in the chair the Minister for ACC is responding to interjections. It is rather hard to curtail him when he has been somewhat induced to respond to a series of interjections. If members want him to stay on track I suggest they curtail the interjections somewhat.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. With respect I think if you review the tape you will find that before any interjections occurred the Minister opened his speech by recasting history rather than dealing with the estimates then interjections followed after that. The Minister broke the Standing Orders immediately he spoke and I ask you to bring him back to the estimates.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think that is also a fair comment so I would ask the Minister to address the estimates.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: These estimates provide for the ongoing huge improvements in rehabilitation within ACC. If we are to make progress the real key is to make sure that we get people back to work as quickly as possible. Stunning results are shown by programmes like Better at Work which are supported in these estimates. Although Labour feels far more comfortable with people sitting on welfare and people sitting on accident compensation we in the Government want to work on people being able to focus on what they can do. Programmes like Better at Work which aresupported in these estimates are the way in which we can rightly deliver accident compensation in New Zealand.There is a further very important change and it is welcomed. This year we are introducing experience rating and a no-claims bonus for small businesses. There are 290000 small businesses right now receiving no-claims bonuses for their improved workplace safety. I think it is a good thing to reward workplaces that have better safety practices and are able to avoid claims. The experience rating is an equally important reform.Vote agreed to.Vote Climate ChangeNICKY WAGNER (National): I am delighted to take this opportunity to speak in the estimates debate on Vote Climate Change. It is well understood that climate change is one of the most difficult issues for Governments today so it is to the enormous credit of the Minister for Climate Change Issues the Hon Dr Nick Smith that New Zealand’s modified emissions trading scheme has been introduced so smoothly and that in a relatively short time it has so effectively changed investment patterns in our economy. New Zealand introduced its emissions trading scheme because it is the lowest-cost way to reduce our emissions on greenhouse gases. As an environmentally aware country with a“clean green” brand we need to be serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Putting a price on carbon is the most credible and least costly way to reduce emissions. That is because theemissions trading scheme passes on the costs of reducing emissions to emitters as they are best placed to find the most cost-effective way of doing this.How well has our emissions trading scheme done? Well forestry entered into the scheme in 2008 and since then there has been a sharp switch from deforestation to afforestation. Deforestation hit a record of 4000 hectares between 2005 and 2008 but since forestry entered the scheme new forest plantings have grown each year with 8000 hectares expected in 2011. This change reflects both the significant cost of permanently removing forests and the valuable income stream from new forests in the emissions trading scheme.The increase in afforestation has had a dramatic impact on New Zealand’s net emissions and it is essential to meeting our Kyoto obligations over the period 2008-12. On 1 July 2010 energy transport and industry entered the scheme. Emissions from electricity have grown 130 percent since 1990 which is the largest increase in any sector but the emissions trading scheme has changed that. In 2010 the industry achieved a 12-year high in renewable generation of 79 percent.Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been listening very carefully to the speech but I have not heard estimates mentioned yet. We have had a wonderful history about the emissions trading scheme which Labour introduced but we have not heard yet about estimates. This is a Budget debate on Vote Climate Change.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think the member has been talking about current things that are in the estimates. She should perhaps make the comparative illustration but she has not been too far from the mark. This is a caution to all members: this is the estimates debate.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Again with respect as you would quite rightly concur the estimates are forward-looking documents as to how the Government proposes to spend public funds. Although I am sure the emissions trading scheme forms part of that the member has given us a history lesson in respect of the emissions trading scheme and talked about industry and how manyforests have been felled and what have you. The estimates are about how the Government proposes to spend money. The member has not been around long enough—New Zealand Bill of Rights Act aside—to work that through.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have cautioned the member. Current policy is relevant but the whole speech should not dwell on that. It is really the estimates that we are referring to.NICKY WAGNER: I think it is particularly relevant that the costs of afforestation will make sure we meet the Kyoto Protocol. If we do not meet that protocol it will be very expensive for our Government when we look at the 2008-12 period.I will focus on renewable generation. I think it is important that we understand that increased renewables will help us in the future in managing our carbon footprint. The growth of renewables has increased. I think we have already mentioned in the Chamber that 1340 megawatts of renewable generating capacity has been consented in the past year with no fossil fuel plants. That is a fivefold increase in renewables compared with the last decade and that will help us manage the cost of carbon.During the last 12 months the emissions trading scheme has performed well and we expect it to continue to do so. Actual emissions have proven to be significantly less than those estimated and it was expected that over the first reporting period the combined industrial electricity and transport sectors would have emitted approximately 18.8 million tonnes but emissions were only 16.3 million tonnes. That means that our liability is absolutely decreased.We can clearly see that a price on carbon has now been factored into New Zealand’s economy and that this price is helping us to achieve the Government’s goal of reducing emissions and managing the costs of New Zealand’s international climate change obligations.I would like to reflect on the fact that New Zealanders do enjoy our beautiful country they do appreciate its great outdoors and they are very keen to do their bit towards managing climate change even if it is costing them. I think the emissions trading scheme is helpful in this.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I am delighted to talk in this estimates debate on climate change. Does it not speak volumes about the level of confidence there is in the Government’s policy around climate change that neither the Green Party nor the Labour Party want to take a single call? I think that says the policy is actually in really robust shape that there is a high level of confidence about the Government’s policies and ultimately that they are working. Let me go through a number of ways in which they are working including in terms of how that will flow through to 2011.One of the key objectives for the Government is to reverse the awful deforestation that occurred during the term of the previous Government. In this year we are dealing with officials estimate there will be 5700 additional hectares of forest. Let us compare how that works. In the previous decade there was a huge increase in deforestation; the worst period of deforestation since records began in the 1930s was under the previous Government. So when we introduced our policies around climate change we wanted to reverse that and we have achieved just that with an increase in afforestation for every single year we have been the Government and that is continuing on into this year.A second key objective for the Government and our climate change policies is that we think we should be producing more of our energy from renewables. New Zealand is actually more privileged than most countries in that regard. What actually happened was that during the term of the previous Government we saw a constant decline in the proportion of electricity that was renewable. Most of the power stations that were builtunder Labour were thermal fossil-fuelled power stations. In the last year we have seen a huge improvement in that regard. It is as impressive as this: a fivefold increase—Hon Member: How many?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —a fivefold increase—that is a 500 percent increase—in the amount of consenting for renewables.Brendon Burns: Isn’t that unbelievable?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is very unbelievable. Mr Burns says it is unbelievable. It is unbelievably good and that is what we get under a National Government. The interesting thing is this: in terms of this future year we are expecting to see and the Government is budgeting for an ongoing improvement in the proportion of renewables and that is to be celebrated.The third element is of course—and this is absolutely pivotal to estimates—what the cost to taxpayers will be of meeting our Kyoto obligations. Again let me show members how it works. Under the Labour Government emissions increased by 23 percent. This was the Government that campaigned on being carbon neutral that said when it came to Government it would reduce emissions by 20 percent—Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I again repeat that this debate is about the estimates in the Budget. I have not heard one word about Budget investments since this year of 2011.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will overrule that. I think the member is making comparisons and projecting—looking forward. I think he is in the zone.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They are so sensitive because their record is just so ugly. Let me tell members the advice I received when I became Minister for the Environment. It was that if that emissions track continued the cost to the New Zealand taxpayer of meeting our Kyoto obligations—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I simply ask for your clarification. In responding to my colleagues and giving your ruling to my colleague’s question about relevance to estimates you made a comment in respect of that that I assume means the Minister was adhering to the Standing Orders by talking about forward-looking estimates. But you used what we could probably call new parliamentary language and said he was “in the zone”. I just want you to interpret that—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Please sit down. That is rather trivial. The member has surmised correctly.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The key issue in the estimates is how much the New Zealand taxpayer will have to pay for New Zealand to meet its Kyoto obligations. And the answer is absolutely not a penny. Do members know why? Under the first 2 years of the emissions trading scheme our emissions have stopped going up; they have gone down. And they have gone down so well that New Zealand will comfortably meet its Kyoto targets and that is absolutely good news for the taxpayer. Rather than having to write out a cheque for $485 million to countries around the world—Dr Cam Calder: How much?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The cost to New Zealand without the emissions trading scheme would have been $485 million. But as a consequence of having the scheme in place emissions are down we are meeting our targets and that is extra good news—extra good news! While the Māori Party is in the House I will acknowledge that the only way this Government has been able to get that scheme up and running get emissions down get the investment in forestry and get the investment in renewable energy is that the Māori Party had the wisdom to back a sensible pragmatic emissions trading scheme that is working for New Zealand that is working for Māori and that is ensuring we meet our environmental obligations. I simply say how proud this Government is of the sensible progress it has made and over the course of dealing withthe emissions trading scheme review and working forward our objective will be to maintain that balance of minimising costs and maximising progress on this important issue.Vote agreed to.Vote EnvironmentLOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): It is my privilege to stand and speak this afternoon on Vote Environment. I am proud to be one of John Key’s team and proud of the fact that he has navigated the balance so nicely around growing the economy and protecting the environment. I thought I would touch on three areas in particular and I want to give a very local example of how exactly that balance can be achieved.I will talk about the creation of the Environmental Protection Authority under the leadership of Minister Nick Smith; renewable energy which again has been touched on by the Minister under his climate change responsibilities; and also the environmental issue that affects the Taupō electorate more than anything and that of course is water quality and our Fresh Start for Fresh Water Clean-up Fund.Let me start with the Environmental Protection Authority because the establishment of that authority is yet another election promise delivered. It was something that was talked about in the blue-green vision document and it is great to see it being enforced from 1 July. Clearly in terms of the estimates funding has been put aside for this stand-alone authority that provides central direction at a national level and makes environmental protection so much easier. It brings together the range of regulatory functions but more important it provides the direction that has been so lacking under the previous Labour Government. Regional and district councils actually have some guidance now in terms of providing some direction.One of the other things that the Environmental Protection Authority has been able to do is the national consenting processes. This is particularly valuable with renewable energy projects of which there are quite a few in the Taupō electorate. One of the questions that came up today in the Chamber which Minister Smith was talking about was the stunning results that we are seeing in terms of renewable energy in this country. We are seriously on track to achieve our target of 90 percent renewable energy by 2025 and we have had consented in 2010 the highest level ever in terms of generation with renewable sources. [Interruption] Forty-two percent was geothermal. The Taupō electorate is the heart of geothermal energy.Progress reported.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.