Volume 625 Week 86 - Tuesday 12 April 2005 
Volume 625 Week 86 - Tuesday 12 April 2005 
[Volume:625;Page:19733] 
Tuesday 12 April 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Parliament Buildings—Media Access 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Unfortunately I am continuing a point of order that has been brought to your attention on a couple of other occasions recently. On my way to the House today trying to get through the media scrum on the bridge between the Beehive and this building while walking dead in the middle of that bridge I was physically jostled by a camera operator to quite an extent. I know that the media want to get their shots but I as a member of this Parliament want to get to the House. I ask you again to look into the situation because I believe that it has got to the stage where someone will eventually end up in quite a tangle and maybe on the floor. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The Hon Richard Prebble has raised a similar point. I am in the process of looking into that and I will report back. 
Rodney Hide 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the point of order. Is this a new point of order? 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It may help on that matter if you were to tell Labour Party Ministers and MPs that when there are pressing issues of the day they should front up to the media. The difficulty is that the media cannot get to interview them at any other time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. I remind members that those who make points of order that are not points of order come close to being disruptive in the House. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In order to be helpful to other members may I suggest through you that there are about three other ways we can use to get to this Chamber using the ground floor— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is also not a point of order. 
Questions to Ministers 
Prime Minister—“Banishment” Comment 
1. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement “Banishment under this Government is not necessarily a permanent thing.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that today John Tamihere stared her down and she blinked first? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously not. Leadership is about judgment and I have exercised mine in the interests of the Labour Party. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the Prime Minister did not really act with a severe censure motion until the publication of the second series of allegations by the editor of  
Investigate 
 magazine should we reach the conclusion that the first series of allegations was indubitably true and accurate; and that being the case why did she not show some leadership today instead of taking the easy way out as Mr Tamihere said she always does? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Labour Party caucus acted to the member’s face at the first opportunity when he appeared. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister not accept that she has been humiliated by John Tamihere and could she please tell the public of New Zealand: what exactly does one have to do to get turfed out of the Labour Party? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That question has no ministerial responsibility. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that her Government’s so-called “new standards of behaviour and performance” have been completely abandoned in light of her tacit acceptance of Mr Tamihere’s behaviour? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member clearly has not read the motion of censure from the Labour Party caucus. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it a fact that Mr Tamihere defied her direction to take leave and not to attend caucus as the media universally printed and is that not another example of extraordinarily weak leadership? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No such instruction was given by me. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is she concerned that her visit to Auschwitz later this month to pay New Zealand’s respects to those who died there will be compromised by her failure to act decisively with regard to Mr Tamihere and is she concerned that her failure to act decisively risks being seen as tacit endorsement of his comment that he is “sick and tired of hearing how many Jews got gassed.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I issued an unequivocal condemnation of those comments. 
John Carter 
: How does she reconcile her statement of censure of John Tamihere with his statement on Television One news today that he does not resile from or apologise for anything he said? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: He most certainly did. 
Judith Collins 
: Is she confident that John Tamihere can change his appalling attitude towards New Zealand women given his description of them as “front bums”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That was one of a number of statements for which he has been severely censured by the New Zealand Labour Party. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why should New Zealanders have any confidence in her as Prime Minister given that she has made it clear that she and her Government are prepared to tolerate offensive and objectionable comments from one of her high-profile MPs because it is politically expedient to do so? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Taking to people with a piece of four-by-two is not the only form of leadership available. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If as she claims Mr Tamihere has apologised and does resile from the comments he made why was he not prepared to say so on the  
One News 
 interview played at 12 o’clock today? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Mr Tamihere humbled himself in front of the Labour Party caucus today. The Labour Party takes the view that people who have been under considerable stress need to be treated humanely. 
Foreign Investment—Approvals 
2.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any further information about foreign investment in New Zealand following the Prime Minister’s answer to question for oral answer No. 5 on 30 March 2005? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. The Overseas Investment Commission advises me that the figures tabled by Mr Peters to dispute the fact that net land sales peaked in 1997 when he was Treasurer and have declined steadily under this Government were out of date and therefore wrong. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Has the Minister received any further advice in relation to information given to the House that day on declining rates under the overseas investment screening regime? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: During the period from 10 December 1996 to 14 August 1998 416 applications were approved involving 204200 hectares of freehold land. There were 12 refusals involving 565 hectares of land. Since 10 December 1999 there have been 38 refusals on land and six refusals on fisheries. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How will foreign investor confidence be affected by having as chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee a person who ran a campaign of nasty naughty crank calls against Helen Clark and her husband and why would John Tamihere say those things about his closest friend in Labour if they were not true? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member’s question as I read it is phrased in such a way that the Minister is not responsible for the answer. The Minister is not responsible for John Tamihere. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The main question was about foreign investment. My question was how foreign investor confidence will be affected by having as chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee a person who ran a campaign of nasty naughty crank calls against Helen Clark and her husband. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is a long bow. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would have thought that particular member should be careful that he does not shoot himself in the foot with that long bow. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister of Finance saying that I used false figures when the figures I tabled from  
Hansard  
are those tabled by the Prime Minister; and why is he leaving out of this equation the Kaingaroa Forest sale which was agreed to by the National Government in October 1996 before I even got to be Treasurer and which appears in the 1997 figures and why is he allowing the Overseas Investment Commission to lie to him to the Prime Minister and to the House? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the first point the member tabled an additional table to the one tabled by the Prime Minister which had a graph. Those figures were out of date as the commission has since advised me. It is equally true that one of the largest sales approved under this Government involved forest land. It is nearly always the case that the big sales are forest land. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I would not ordinarily raise this point but it is pretty relevant for this series of questions. I therefore seek leave to table the  
Hansard 
 that sets out what was tabled and in which there is the quote: “This is the chart now properly interpreted.”—an allegation I made at the very time that Helen Clark made the statement in this House. 
Document not tabled. 
Rod Donald 
: Will the Government support my petition which was tabled today and has been signed by 7984 New Zealanders calling for land sales to foreign investors to be stopped and for tighter restrictions on the sales of businesses to foreign corporations; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. It would be impossible and absolutely stupid for New Zealand to stop all land sales to foreigners. That would include for example matters involving urban subdivisions it would involve some petrol stations and goodness knows what else would be involved in such a move. The Government supports tightening up restrictions on land sales that involve sensitive land. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Where on those figures for 1996 appears the Kaingaroa Forest sale—the very figure that puts into question those calculations in the Prime Minister’s answer and the accuracy thereof; and why is the Overseas Investment Commission being allowed to lie to Parliament when if we look at the charts the figure simply does not appear in 1996? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The figures relate to approvals given between the period from December 1996 to August 1998 when the member was Treasurer. That may be why on the New Zealand First parliamentary website that period does not appear under the member’s own section. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister advise the House in relation to the reference to business investment contained in Rod Donald’s question that indeed the Government welcomes business investment in this country as being one means by which we can significantly grow our economy and lead to its success? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is clear that overseas business investment can contribute to economic growth in a number of ways—by producing new businesses by creating additional market opportunities by technology transfer and in a number of other ways. If we are not prepared to see that kind of investment then we will have to lift our savings rates in New Zealand very very substantially indeed if we are to provide sufficient capital for investment in our own economy. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it a fact that in October 1996 a full month before the election the transaction of a sale between a foreign interest and a New Zealand - owned operation in respect of 170000 hectares—which is the net figure the Prime Minister sought to use—in fact was settled up and completed duly subject to Overseas Investment Commission approval the interim approval having already been given; is that not therefore a figure to be set against the National Party’s record and not mine? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because it was subject to Overseas Investment Commission approval and the member was the Minister responsible for that approval. I repeat however that the point he made in his original claims was incorrect. He did not have a higher rate of declines in applications than has been the case under this Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why when the Minister had the benefit of New Zealand First legislation on the question of a change regime for the Overseas Investment Commission did he take all the way to January 2002 to send it down to the Governor-General for assent; why did he do that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Some consideration was given around that issue but in fact whereas under the previous Government it was not brought into operation—including the period when the member was Treasurer—it was brought into operation under this Government. 
New Zealand Superannuation—Rates 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports if any has he received regarding the level of superannuation payments and does he agree with them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 At present New Zealand superannuation payments are $393.56 per week for a married couple who both qualify $236.14 for a single person and $255.81 for a single person living alone. I agree with those reports. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If that is the case why did the Minister put out a statement yesterday on the question of the affordability of New Zealand First’s proposal knowing full well that the equation was calculated on a 68 percent figure not 72.5 and get Treasury again to start lying to the public of this country? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Treasury had already costed for me the proposal that the member actually outlined to the Grey Power annual general meeting—of an aim of arriving at 72.5 percent. But even the more modest attempt to move to 68 percent would have costs of many hundreds of millions of dollars per year including of course the increased contributions that would be required to be made to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. I think it is absolutely disastrous that in this area the consensus around the level of payment of New Zealand superannuation is now being broken and that we are re-entering some kind of bidding war that New Zealand cannot afford in the long term. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Has the Minister seen any reports suggesting that superannuitants are currently being underpaid by as much as $30 per week; if so can he comment on the veracity of those reports? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Those reports I have seen and they are completely untrue. The method of fixing New Zealand superannuation in terms of a wage band was first introduced in 1990 and was reintroduced in a number of different forms in the 1990s although the base was lowered in the National Government’s last year in office. The percentage set has always been set as at 1 April based on the previous annual numbers. That has been the case since 1976 when it was set on an 80 percent gross-gross basis as opposed to now the 65 to 72.5 percent set on a net-net basis. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Has the Minister received any other reports from Treasury on the cost of increasing the level of New Zealand superannuation to 72.5 percent of the net average wage? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. The cost of increasing New Zealand superannuation to 72.5 percent is estimated to be $630 million in the first year rising to $1.68 million a year after 10 years taking account of financing costs. That does not include the cost of additional payments into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund which adds something over another 10 percent to the $2.1 billion at present going in. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister of Finance prepared to admit that New Zealand First proposals talk about a 68 percent regime as at April next year and then for a long-range incremental rise to 72.5 percent; and was not 72.5 percent the figure that he and his colleagues signed up to in September of 1993 under the superannuation accord which we in New Zealand First did not sign up to? Why was it good enough then but not now? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. What was signed up to in September 1993—as a number of members on both sides of the House will remember—was a wage band of 65 to 72.5 percent. Of course as long as real wages are increasing then the tendency will be to drift to the bottom of that wage band. When real wages decline over an extended period then the movement will be towards the top of the wage band which is why next year we anticipate that New Zealand superannuation will increase by the movement in wages which is higher than the movement in the consumer price index. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Notwithstanding the Minister’s answer to my earlier supplementary question will he not concede that the way in which the formula is applied at the moment means that by the end of each financial year superannuitants are approximately $10 per week worse off simply because of the way in which movements have occurred during the year and is he prepared to consider ways in which that loss of income might be alleviated? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The formula in this sense has actually remained basically unchanged since 1976 when it was first introduced—that is the wage reference is based at 1 April. Clearly changes may occur over the subsequent year. These changes are very small now compared with the situation in the late 1970s and early to mid-1980s with inflation rates in excess of 10 percent and even over a 6-month period therefore movements of more than 5 percent in real terms could occur in a downwards direction. These days of course the movement annually is more like in the range of 2 to 2.5 percent. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister of Finance whether he can confirm—yes or no—that he could survive on $255 a week as many of our senior citizens are forced to do; if so can he explain to the thousands of senior citizens living on that amount just how they should pay for the exorbitant power petrol and rate prices which have risen astronomically under this Labour Government and are rising much faster that any consumer price index adjustment this Government has increased superannuation by? How would he do it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I find it difficult to imagine living on my own without my wife but I can certainly confirm that my 90-year-old mother has been surviving on the single rate of New Zealand superannuation very adequately since my father died in September 1987. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It will occur to you that we are not aware of the circumstances of the Minister’s mother but we would like to be appraised of his circumstances—as to whether he could live on $255 per week. That was the question and that was the one I want an answer to. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am happy to confirm that I am sure my 90-year-old mother would be ashamed of me if I said I could not manage on the income that she has been managing on adequately for many many years. 
Prime Minister—“Popular and Competent” Comment 
4.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that “I sometimes wonder whether I’m a victim of my own success as a popular and competent Prime Minister.”; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No. I no longer have time to wonder. Nor is it something that the member personally will ever have to contemplate. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has she seen the reports that in allowing John Tamihere to trample all over her she has gone from being “popular and competent” to being “spineless and impotent”; and what is her response to her appearing to prove exactly what John Tamihere claimed—that she emotionally folds when there is conflict? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The only such reports I have seen come from the National Party and ACT and I am treating them with the usual derision they deserve. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the decision to give John Tamihere 2 weeks’ paid holiday and a slap over the wrist with a wet bus ticket demonstrate that today the Prime Minister is simply a victim of Mr Tamihere’s success? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I advised the member earlier there are other forms of leadership apart from taking bits of four-by-two to people. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Does she stand by her statement: “I have a lot of faith in John. I went out on a limb to get him into Parliament.”; and just how far out on this limb is she prepared to go to keep John Tamihere in Parliament this being election year? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes I stand by that statement and as I have advised the media today John is seen by me and his colleagues as being someone who has an enormous amount of potential but who is also known to stumble very badly. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has she seen any media comments or heard any public statements by John Tamihere that he retracts all that he said in the  
Investigate 
 magazine; if so are there any bits that he has not retracted? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can advise that the member told the Labour Party caucus today that there were no excuses he could offer for what he had said. He humbled himself to our caucus and on that basis we have decided to give him space to reflect. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister earlier said that John Tamihere had retracted the statements. My advice is that he has not. He certainly has not retracted them publicly. My direct question was whether in fact she had heard or seen any media reports that John Tamihere had retracted his statements. That is very much different from an apology. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister addressed the question. 
Crime—Voyeuristic Filming 
5.  
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What new criminal offences will be created to deal with the problem of voyeuristic filming? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill introduced today makes it a criminal offence to make publish or possess voyeuristic material of intimate situations such as those in changing sheds or toilets where people would reasonably expect to be private and to do so without their knowledge or consent. That is intended to protect people’s privacy in an age when technology such as cellphone cameras and the Internet make it all too easy to record and widely distribute voyeuristic images. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: How will this legislation help to protect people against the growing trend and increased ability by voyeurs to invade people’s privacy in that way? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Criminalising such behaviour enables the police to use their powers including those of search and seizure to take action against voyeurs and seek convictions against them. The penalties including imprisonment and reparations are designed to have a deterrent effect as well as to provide compensation to the victims for the harm done to them. 
Te Wananga o Aotearoa—Ministerial Briefings 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Can he confirm that between March 2002 and December 2004 Ministers received 37 briefings from the Ministry of Education regarding Te Wananga o Aotearoa; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 No. If one counts written briefings specifically and solely relating to the wananga the figure may be accurate but if one counts mentions of the wananga in other reports oral briefings and other communications then it is certainly a lot more. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell the House why he is now spending $6000 per working-day on a new team of consultants plus $2600 per day on an individual daily rate when he has already paid a Mr Graeme McNally $2100 per day as development adviser to the wananga since June 2002? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: On the question of the rate the rates were set as a result of the competitive tender process for people who are capable of doing the work. My understanding is that the rate is very much the same rate that the individual was paid by Murray McCully to work in the housing area during the time of the previous Government. We have taken a number of steps over the past few years to address concerns but it is fair to say that Ministers had not considered the impact of a group of individuals treating the wananga as though it were a personal family business run for personal gain until about August last year when these matters to do with a close friend of Mr English were referred to the Auditor-General. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does the Minister deny that the many reports he received last year included concerns over the integrity of enrolments at Te Wananga o Aotearoa and what steps is he taking to investigate this issue in view of the fact that enrolments are specifically excluded from the Auditor-General’s terms of reference? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is one of the things the Tertiary Education Commission is doing. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister spoke very quietly. I did not hear his response. Could I ask him to repeat his answer please. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is one of the things the Tertiary Education Commission is doing. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether in fact he is satisfied that the wananga meets the academic performance standards expected of tertiary education institutions? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether he has seen a report from one official of the Ministry of Education that states: “I am tired of going to large meetings which are drawn out and everyone agrees but no action comes of it at all.” in respect of the wananga and can he confirm that the real reason for 5 years of his sitting on his hands over the wananga is further official advice: “The wananga has relationships with quite a number of iwi around the country. Cutting back the enrolments could affect relations with iwi both for the wananga and the Crown.”—is that the real reason he did nothing until election year? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have seen the first report. In my view it is inaccurate. I have seen the second report and it will be proven to be inaccurate. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What advice does he give to the scores of concerned people who receive certificates from Te Wananga o Aotearoa in the mail and invitations to graduation ceremonies for courses that they never attended or in some instances never even realised they were enrolled in; and will he be seeking to recover the taxpayers’ money? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would invite people to refer those certificates and those letters to the Tertiary Education Commission. Quite a large amount of recovery is going on. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table an internal memo from a Ministry of Education official that states he is tired of going to long meetings where everyone agrees and no action is taken. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table a report from a Ministry of Education official that refers to relationships between iwi and the Crown and how cutting back on enrolments would affect those relationships. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Point of Order—Bridge Collapse: Butcher Report 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZ First—Tauranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table a document and I need to explain what I am requesting by this. I have spoken to the Clerk of the House. Disclosure of this document will be limited to MPs and MPs alone; otherwise it would offend a court ruling— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Why are you tabling it? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I thought the 119 other members of this Parliament might be interested in a grave injustice. That is why I am tabling it. I can see why it would not concern that member. I seek leave— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please sit down. There was an interjection while the member was speaking on his point of order. Members know that there are to be no interjections when there is a point of order. Would the member who interjected please leave the Chamber. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Before leaving I seek the leave of the House to table documents showing fraudulent enrolments at Te Wananga o Aotearoa. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member can now leave. 
Hon Ken Shirley withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Before I was so rudely interrupted I was pointing out that I had spoken to the Clerk who had advised me that this document would have limited distribution to members of Parliament only. I therefore seek to table the Te Rata station suspension bridge report of G W Butcher. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document under those conditions. Any objection? Yes there is objection. The document will not be tabled. 
Early Childhood Education—Information Communications Technology 
7.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 on behalf of  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to improve the use of information communications technology in early childhood education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 This morning I launched  
Foundations for Discovery 
 a new framework to promote the use of information and communications technology in early childhood education. The Government is investing $16 million over 4 years in that resource which will help the sector to improve its use of information and communications technology through initiatives such as regional professional development research projects and the creation of information and communications technology - based resources. Those resources include computers phones and digital cameras. 
Helen Duncan 
: What are the benefits of promoting the increased use of information and communications technology in early childhood education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Research shows that children’s learning can be enhanced by the effective use of information and communications technology. Children can use it to observe explain record and review their world in different ways. It can be used to assist with the development of early literacy and maths and in the development of communications skills. Information and communications technology can also be a better way to involve parents and communities in children’s education. 
Labour Party Candidate—Justice of the Peace 
8.  
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Does he intend to carry out an investigation into whether it is appropriate for Mr Steven Ching to continue serving as a justice of the peace; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am aware of the public comments made about Mr Ching and I have since received a letter from that member on the issue. All matters will be considered and any decision to investigate will be in the first instance notified to Mr Ching. That is the only appropriate course of action. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Is the Minister aware of the reported statement of Allan Spence of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices Associations that: “Mr Ching’s application should not have got through the vetting process.” and can he explain what is being done to fix that mistake in light of the new information about Mr Ching’s advertising? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am aware of the comment. I am not at this stage convinced that it is a mistake as claimed by the member because there has been no investigation. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does the Minister believe that Steven Ching’s behaviour—pleading guilty to obstructing a fisheries officer in an illegal squid-catch operation—is of a standard that the Minister would expect for someone to remain a justice of the peace; if so how much lower would standards have to go before he thought it was not acceptable behaviour? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: As the matter is under consideration I am not prepared to make any comments. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Why was Steven Ching allowed to become a justice of the peace after admitting a charge of obstructing justice and allowed to remain one after illegally advertising his services and failing to account for a $7000 taxpayer grant and is the reason the Government is stalling on tightening up the Justices of the Peace Act that the Labour Party’s great “Asian hope” candidate would be the first in line to be disciplined? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Many of those assertions made by that member are not proven to be true necessarily. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please allow the member to complete his answer in silence. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Allegations have been made and I think it is entirely appropriate for any citizen of this country to be entitled to due process. I assure the House that as we go through this matter Mr Ching will be treated without fear or favour just as we should treat any other citizen. I am not prepared to see a person subjected to trial by this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it true that Mr Steven Ching is on the Labour Party list—a list that he is obviously eminently qualified to be on but not the JP list—and is it a fact as my Chinese informants tell me that he has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Labour Party and that that is why the Minister is not prepared to answer today? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I have no responsibility for the Labour Party list but I have already assured the House that the matter will be investigated thoroughly. Mr Steven Ching like every other citizen in this country deserves to be treated without fear or favour and to be subject to due process. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister a very simple question: was this Mr Steven Ching the same Steven Ching who is on the Labour Party list? Surely he can answer that or does that incriminate him as well? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There were many points raised in the question but the Minister did address it. That was probably because there were so many aspects to the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is true and I do not wish to dispute your ruling other than to ask whether or not he is on the list. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on that point of order. The Minister did address the question. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I seek leave of the House to table two advertisements from the  
Mandarin Times 
 promoting and advertising Mr Ching as a JP and the English translations of them. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Environment—Decision Making 
9.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the 
 Minister for the Environment 
: What recent progress has been made to improve environmental decision-making? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 A series of training workshops have attracted over 500 people involved in resource management decision-making from almost every council in New Zealand. The workshops provide the skills practitioners need to run fair and effective resource consent and planning hearings. 
David Parker 
: What has the response been to these workshops? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: There has been overwhelmingly positive feedback. One attendee said: “This is possibly the best training work course I have attended in 40 years in business.” These workshops form the basis for the Government’s proposals to require mandatory certification and training of Resource Management Act decision makers. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister stand by her Government’s statements about the most significant change proposed in the Resource Management Act reform bill being the removal of  
de novo 
 hearings at the appeal stage and its claims that it will reduce costs and delays when legal experts environmental organisations business groups the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and even the Principal Environment Court Judge all say that the Government is wrong and that this change will significantly increase costs and delays; and will she now drop these foolish changes to that Act? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member made a reference to something that was said in a private session by a judge to the select committee. I see that the chair is nodding. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member be seated so I can clarify. A point of order was raised that a matter had been raised that was before the select committee and the bill has yet to be reported to the House. As the member knows that is not acceptable. Does he wish to talk to that point of order? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: My statement in the question was that the Principal Environment Court Judge had said that the Government’s claims that its bill would reduce costs and delays was wrong. There was no reference at all to a meeting of the select committee. I am surprised that the Minister who is not a member of the select committee is aware of the statement made by the Principal Environment Court Judge at that time. The reason for that is very simple. The Minister and the Associate Minister both had a briefing from the judge which was not held in privilege in any way and at that meeting they were advised that their amendments are a nonsense and will not work. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I want to clarify with the Hon Dr Nick Smith whether he was referring to proceedings in the select committee. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member was not referring to those proceedings in the select committee. Would the Minister therefore answer the question. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The answer to the question is that those are issues that I understand have been raised in submission. I am sure the committee will have some comments on them. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: As the training of councillors on hearings panels has been so successful—and was supported may I say by all the submitters whose submissions are on the public record—will the Minister now consider delaying the massive changes to council procedures envisaged in the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill so that people will have a chance to put their training to good use? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No there will be no consideration to delay. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have quite a serious situation here. The Minister for the Environment as is clear by her disclosure in the House in first raising this point knows what occurred during a private briefing of the Local Government and Environment Committee. Now that can have occurred only as a consequence of a Labour colleague informing her of something that occurred in private and the very crime she accuses me of she has committed herself by being aware of that fact. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I want to make two points on what the member has just said. Firstly of course he has just contradicted what he had assured the House—that there was no private briefing on the matter he referred to in his question. 
Hon Bill English 
: That is not what he said. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It is exactly what he said. Secondly the rules of this House have for a long time been quite clear that members of Parliament are allowed to brief other members about what goes on in a select committee. Otherwise no member of this House would ever report back to his or her caucus before a select committee had deliberated. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: The select committee did issue a brief press statement saying that it had heard from the Principal Environment Court Judge in private and that his evidence would be referred to publicly at the time of the committee’s report back to the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a different point of order? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No it is an important point with respect to the very issue that has been raised by the Leader of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It would appear that a public statement was made about the attendance. As we know any member of this House can attend a select committee hearing. I am not therefore sure that any breach of any order has occurred in the interchange that has taken place. I have ruled on this matter. I do not wish to have it relitigated. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The Leader of the House has raised a point that I think needs clarification. I have always understood that information about a private briefing of a select committee cannot be distributed to other members of the House who are not on that committee. I think it would be helpful if the Speaker were to give a considered ruling because I know that on other occasions when such private briefings have been held the practice has not been what Dr Cullen has pointed out. I simply seek a considered ruling from you on that point so that members can be clear when there is a private briefing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is not a breach of privilege for one MP to communicate proceedings of a select committee with another member. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister for the Environment believe that the draconian ministerial powers in the proposed amendments to the Resource Management Act whereby she could declare any controversial activity to be a permitted use in all districts and therefore require no Resource Management Act consent at all will improve environmental decision-making; if so why? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Again I understand that these are issues that have been raised in submissions. I am sure that the committee will have some comments on them and I look forward to its report. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have ruled on the matter that was being discussed but I suggest that the ruling while correct is partial. You referred to the fact that it is within the Standing Orders for one member to brief another member about the proceedings of a private hearing. You also referred to the fact that the co-leader of the Greens and chairperson of the committee said that a public statement had been made that a hearing had occurred. But of course neither of those matters deal with the substance of the issue which is that the material that was the substance of the briefing was brought into the public arena by the Minister for the Environment. That is a breach of order. She is not allowed to get up in this House and refer directly to material that was the substance of a private meeting. We are allowed to know that a select committee held a private hearing. We are allowed to be told by other MPs that there was a private hearing and about what was discussed but we are not allowed to raise the matter in the House ahead of the select committee report back. That is a breach of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member believes that a breach of privilege has been committed then I suggest he follow the correct procedure which is to write to the Speaker. 
Hon Bill English 
: On the point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on that. If the member believes as was the substance of his point that there has been a breach by the Minister then I ask him to follow the correct procedure. He should write to the Speaker and then the matter can be dealt with in the appropriate way. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a new point of order. We now have confusion about how these matters will be handled because in the previous point of order you made a ruling on the matter without referring to people taking a privilege claim. You came to your own decision that whatever had happened was not out of order. As soon as I raised another point which is just another aspect of the same debate—but one you had not dealt with—you then decided that you would not rule and that the issue had to be taken to the Privileges Committee. I am now asking you why you have treated the serious matter of order in the first point of order differently from the way you have treated it in the second. Either this matter should go to the Privileges Committee from the start or you are capable of ruling on both points of order that have been raised—not just on one of them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members feel there has been a breach of privilege then I suggest they follow the procedure and write to the Speaker. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek that you give clarification to a ruling you made today because Speakers’ rulings of course can become precedents for the House. It was established in previous exchanges that evidence heard in private at select committees could be communicated to any members of Parliament but that ruling does not appear to be consistent with the Standing Orders. Now by searching through  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and finding that there has in fact been a Speaker’s ruling that deviates from the Standing Order you may be able to advise Parliament but if I quote you Standing Order 218(3) you will see that it is quite clear that: “Evidence heard or received in private is confidential to the committee”—not to members of Parliament—“until it reports to the House.” I would hate for a Speaker’s ruling perhaps given reasonably in haste to be contradictory to the Standing Orders unless previous Speakers’ rulings have already done so. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to Standing Order 239(2) for the ruling I made. This is not a breach; it is just disclosure to another. I repeat that if members are concerned there has been a breach I ask them please to follow the correct procedure. I will take no further comment on this ruling. 
Police—Resources Counties-Manukau 
10.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: How many staff will or are being brought in to help clear the backlog of cases at Counties-Manukau Police District and for how long? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Police 
: I am advised that eight investigators have been allocated to the Counties-Manukau Police District to assist with the backlog of cases. Four began work yesterday and another four start next Monday 18 April. It is expected that those staff members will initially work in the district for up to 6 weeks and will significantly reduce the backlog. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How on earth will eight officers clear a backlog of 1100 cases in around about 6 weeks and why does the Minister not reveal in the House today how many extra staff the Counties-Manukau police actually said they needed to do the job? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am sure the member will be delighted to know that the backlog he has mentioned had already been reduced by 200 cases before the additional staff were assigned. It is the decision of the commissioner as to how many staff may be needed and for how long. He has made his judgment. Unlike members on the other side who attack our top civil servants I am prepared to take his judgment. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Further to the Minister’s previous answer is it unusual for police resources to be moved around in order to meet changing operational needs? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No. The commissioner has the ability to allocate his resources to meet operational demands and he regularly does that either across districts or across tasks. Within the Greater Auckland region there is also a board of management comprising the district commanders that regularly cooperates in sharing resources in order to meet the operational requirements of the region as a whole. That is just straight common sense. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister not aware that the Counties-Manukau Police District has consistently been reported as having the highest turnover of staff that the average length of service of its uniformed staff gives it less experience than other districts and that when measured against the national average for officer to citizen ratio as at 17 July 2004 it was short of the national average by 183 officers; and how can the Minister believe that by the Counties-Manukau Police District being given 12 officers over a 2-week period it will seriously get on top of crime there? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I will answer some of those questions. I cannot give a breakdown district by district but I can tell the member that the turnover of police staffing is much less than it was when that member was part of a National-led Government. Secondly staffing in the Auckland region is very good at the moment and the Commissioner of Police believes that by the end of the financial year the region will be staffed at levels above the numbers set out for the region. Thirdly let me say this: instead of bashing the Counties-Manukau police force the member should understand that the Counties-Manukau police force saw crime rates there come down by an astounding 11.3 percent over the last year and consistently improved its resolution of crime rate from 33 percent to 37 percent over the last 2 years—a better track record than when that member was associated with the National Government. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: With regard to the issue of police resourcing why is it that under the Minister’s watch the Northern Communications Centre is so short-staffed that last week one inspector in charge of life-threatening situations in the North Island was forced to breach safe workplace practice by having only a 6-hour break between shifts? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am afraid that I cannot confirm what the member has said. Too often in this House we have the experience of members—and Mr Mark is one of them—standing up and making such claims and our finding consistently that there is no reality associated with the claims made. However if the member wants me to check it out she should please provide me with the information and I will do so. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What is the Minister of Police’s explanation for the provision of only eight extra investigators instead of three times that number as recommended by the Counties-Manukau police? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The decision about how many people should be allocated to help clear the backlog was made by the commissioner in consultation with the district commanders involved. The judgment was made that those eight additional investigators will significantly reduce the backlog. The facts are that already that backlog is down by more than 200 on the figures the member just quoted. That was a good record even before the additional staff were assigned. 
Martin Gallagher 
: For the historical record what additional resources have been invested in the police since the year 1999? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The annual police budget since 1999 has risen by $160 million. I compare that figure with the $50 million that the Martin report was going to reduce police numbers by at the time that Tony Ryall was Minister of Justice. Police numbers have increased by over 1000 to 9815. We have the highest ever budget and the highest ever number of police officers serving in this country. The Minister of Police can be proud of that record compared with Tony Ryall’s deplorable record when he was Minister of Justice—[ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr Mark interjected across the floor of the House that that was a lie. That is outside the Standing Orders and his statement is not correct. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could the member withdraw and apologise. 
Ron Mark 
: Perhaps the Minister could tell us by exactly how many the number of police have been increased. He said over 1000. The House requires some justification of that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Did the member shout across the House: “It’s a lie.”? 
Ron Mark 
: Yes I did Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Then will the member please withdraw and apologise. 
Ron Mark 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. About three times in the sequence of answers that Mr Goff gave he criticised members of the Opposition for actions dating back even as far as the administration of 6 years ago. Frankly he was highly provocative. Then he said something that was demonstrably not true. That is my colleague’s point. With respect the Minister should get up now and tell us what the truth is or apologise himself for misleading this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I note that the Minister whom my question is directed at is not present in the House. This is the third occasion on which I have asked questions about the Aotea Marine Reserve with the Minister absent. In the interests of the public not getting the impression that the Minister is avoiding answering my question I seek leave for this question to be held over to when the Minister is present. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Marine Reserves—Public Consultation 
11.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Is he satisfied that the Department of Conservation engages in adequate public consultation when considering new marine reserve proposals; if so why? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Conservation 
: Yes because independent audits of the last two formal marine reserve applications received by the Minister have confirmed that thorough consultation was undertaken. The significant number of submissions received on marine reserve applications also suggest that the department is doing a good job in ensuring that the community is aware of the proposals and their implications. 
Larry Baldock 
: What is the current status of the promised independent review which is being carried out by Mr Simon Berry of the Department of Conservation’s consultation processes with regard to the Aotea Marine Reserve and when will the Minister publish findings of that inquiry? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The review is almost complete. I do not have a precise date with me but I would certainly like to forward that to the member after I take some advice on it. 
Dave Hereora 
: What improvements have been sought by marine interest groups to the way that marine reserve proposals have been identified and advanced? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: All the sectors say that they want a strategic approach to the establishment of marine reserves and other marine protected areas. Recreational fishers commercial fishers conservation groups and iwi all want a structured regional approach and to be involved in the early stages of planning. The Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation have just finished consultation on a marine protected area policy and an implementation plan that will do exactly that. 
Larry Baldock 
: How does the Minister reconcile the statement by Mr Warwick Murray the Department of Conservation’s communications relationship manager in a letter to Scott McIndoe concerning Mr Berry’s findings: “Mr Berry’s report states that the Director-General of Conservation has substantially complied with the procedural requirements of the Act and fairly and appropriately carried out his responsibilities.” with the statements made by Mr Merv McGee chairperson of the Ngati Rehua trust board who told me today that the whole process of consultation was a farce and that the Department of Conservation had no regard for tangata whenua rights; and who did Mr Berry consult when he was carrying out that independent review? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I cannot confirm the comments made to that member today but I can confirm that the Department of Conservation takes tangata whenua rights seriously and does seriously consult tangata whenua. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister confirm after his visit to Great Barrier Island last Friday that residents and Ngati Rehua hapu of Ngati Wai remain opposed to the Aotea Marine Reserve and that they still consider they will suffer undue adverse effects and that just one of those objections according to the Minister’s reply to my questions in the House several weeks ago is sufficient for the marine reserve proposal to stop in its tracks; and therefore when will the Minister call a halt to that proposal and abandon it? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That marine reserve application is going through a process and yes it is correct that if it can be demonstrated that there is undue effect on any one of a number of categories then the proposal will not proceed. This process is still under way and we should await the outcome. 
Larry Baldock 
: What consultation has the Minister’s department engaged in with the Catlins community regarding the proposed marine reserve at Nugget Point and will he consider the local community’s proposal for a marine management model similar to theFiordland Marine Guardians model as an alternative to a full marine reserve; if not why not or will they experience the same appalling treatment from his department as the residents of Great Barrier Island have experienced? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The department and the Minister will take seriously all submissions from the Nugget Point people. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How is it possible for the Minister to stand up to answer a question as the Minister and to say that he cannot speak for the Minister of Conservation? That is his job; that is why he is here answering the questions. What sort of answer was that? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I say to Mr Hide that I have ruled on that. I listened carefully to the question and to the answer. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to give some thought and advice to this House about what the breadth of a Minister’s responsibility is when he or she is standing in for another Minister because we see Ministers sort of ducking away. Can they just say that they do not know anything about that and that they cannot speak on behalf of a Minister because if that is the case question time will become an even bigger farce. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I considered the Minister’s answer as I considered the question. The Minister addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You may have considered the Minister to have addressed the question but he surely cannot begin his answer with “I cannot speak for another Minister …”. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I never said that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Oh yes the Minister did. With respect the Minister is required to do just that—that is why he is standing in. All we are asking him to do is to tell a tosser to go home and leave our reserves alone. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that if Labour and the Greens are working together after the election the new Marine Reserves Bill will be passed with appropriate amendments based on the submissions we have heard ending 3 years of stalling on this issue and enabling marine reserves to proceed with better provisions for consultation than exist under the present outdated Act? 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider how that question could possibly be in order. I know that if a National or an ACT member had asked it it certainly would not have been. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: The question asks the Minister whether it is the Government’s policy intention to proceed with the bill after the election if it has sufficient support. It seems to me that that is within the Minister’s power to answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members are perfectly entitled to ask hypothetical questions and have done on previous occasions. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: It is the Government’s intention to pursue passing that bill through Parliament and of course as always we welcome the support of the Greens for our legislation. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister consider that the previous question asked by Jeanette Fitzsimons is one of the best reasons New Zealanders should vote for United Future so that there will not be that outcome she predicted? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister has no responsibility for that. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I like your direction about ruling out I think it was Mr Baldock’s question because you ruled in that hypothetical questions could be asked. The idea of people voting for United Future—I mean how hypothetical does that get for that poodle party? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I just want if I can to table a document that has come into my possession this afternoon. It is dated with today’s date. It has a time on it of 12.45. It is a statement from the Prime Minister in which she describes John Tamihere as wonderful colleague who puts in 150 percent. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask the member whether he has sought leave to table that document. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes I have. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 10 to Minister 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document showing that on 25 February 2005 there were 9847 police staff compared with 8767 when Labour came into Government—thus verifying the statement I made to the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before I can consider giving leave— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am on a point of order; would you please be seated until I have completed this point of order. The point of order is that leave be sought to table that document. [ 
Interruption 
] Is a point of clarification sought on the document? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Yes. My colleague seeks to know whether the figures the Minister is using are for sworn officers—yes or no. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 The verification is of my answer. The figures are of total police staff. I could give the member other figures showing that sworn staff are up by 500. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: With that clarification leave is sought to table the document. Is there any objection? 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I want to complete this point of order. The clarification has been given. Is there any objection to tabling that document? Yes there is. The document will not be tabled. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I stood to get a point of clarification which would enable me to make a decision as to whether I would object to the leave that was being sought. You promptly sat me down. Then within split seconds my leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters took a point of order on precisely the same point and you heard him. What is it? Do we have a discriminatory policy running in the House? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. When the Rt Hon Winston Peters rose you sat down. He said he was talking to the same point of order. You received the point of clarification; therefore you had an opportunity to decide whether to object. 
Ron Mark 
: No I did not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You did. 
Zimbabwe—Cricket Tour 
12.  
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When she said yesterday “personally I wouldn’t be seen dead there” was she hoping that individual New Zealand cricket players would follow her lead and withdraw from the proposed Black Caps tour of Zimbabwe; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The Prime Minister was expressing her personal view. The decision as to whether the New Zealand cricket team tours Zimbabwe is one for the players and New Zealand Cricket to make. 
Rod Donald 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that a tour by an official New Zealand cricket team to Zimbabwe could be seen as giving tacit approval to Robert Mugabe’s pariah State and therefore could undermine the Government’s condemnation of the rigged election recently held in Zimbabwe; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade have made clear on many occasions New Zealand’s abhorrence of the Mugabe regime. 
Rod Donald 
: Will the Government consider advising New Zealand Cricket that if it withdraws from the Zimbabwe tour on moral or political grounds the Government would underwrite any fine imposed by the International Cricket Council; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. That would create an unfortunate precedent for the future in many similar kinds of cases I would have thought. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Prime Minister consider that there is value in New Zealand pursuing sporting boycotts against Zimbabwe given their effectiveness in helping to overturn South Africa’s apartheid regime in the 1980s; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. Certainly sporting boycotts have worked in the past but no New Zealand Government has ever attempted to prevent a New Zealand team going overseas as opposed to preventing a team coming to New Zealand. 
Rod Donald 
: Will the Prime Minister encourage the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Phil Goff to follow the example of the British Government and meet with New Zealand’s representative on the International Cricket Council with a view to requesting an international sporting boycott of Zimbabwe; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is a matter for Mr Goff. I think it is fair to say that the current policy of the International Cricket Council makes these decisions very difficult for sporting teams and the policy could well be revisited but that again is a matter for cricketers and cricketing organisations throughout the world. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table two documents. One is a press statement that sets out that Sir Robert Muldoon was right and the Labour Party was diametrically wrong on the question of Robert Mugabe. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek clarification. Before I grant leave can the honourable Winston Peters assure us that he will in fact table the document? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Would the member please sit down 
Document not tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The second document is a statement from the Labour Party bitterly criticising the then National Government for not stopping the Cavalier’s tour of South Africa. 
Document not tabled. 
Points of Order 
Replies to Written Questions—Timeliness 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your assistance in relation to Standing Order 366(4). Ninety overdue answers to written questions are due in from the Associate Minister of Social Development and Employment the Hon Rick Barker. Fifty-odd of those questions relate to fraud within the department and benefit fraud and we have had no reply to 90 of them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please write to me about that matter so I can deal with it. 
Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 7 April. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party continues to oppose this bill the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill because of what it does both in theory and practice to single parents on the domestic purposes benefit. The practical side of it is that the Government supported not surprisingly by the National Party and by some other parties is going to increase by $6 a week the penalty against those sole parents who fail or refuse to identify in law the other parent of their child. Although indeed as a number of members have pointed out repeatedly in the debate this is a token amount it is also $6 a week being taken from some of the poorest families in New Zealand. I find it incomprehensible that the Hon Steve Maharey finds it so important to increase penalties like this when his own ministry has done research showing the real extent of child poverty in this country and that single-parent families are clearly those most affected; and also that his own ministry in a background paper given to the Social Services Committee actually said at one point that “harsher policy measures would not be effective for the majority of this group”. The Minister does appear to be ignoring the advice and the research carried out by his own staff on this matter. As a result on the practical side of it we see a further $6 a week being removed from some family budgets. On the theoretical side we have a Government that is so keen to undercut Dr Don Brash and Dr Muriel Newman on welfare policies that it feels somehow obliged to make some show at least of increasing penalties against people on the domestic purposes benefit. 
I really do not understand why Labour has to feel it is in a race with the right to capture the exact same pool of voters who demonise beneficiaries. Labour has done a lot of good things in the area of social welfare although nowhere near enough mind you. For example increasing the personal support offered to domestic purposes benefit recipients ending forced work for the dole for unemployed and other beneficiaries and moving to improve the culture of Work and Income have all been positive steps forward. Why Mr Maharey has to take two steps forward and one step back is most puzzling. Surely his party and its union and community sector supporters should have the confidence to keep working proactively for positive changes in the welfare area instead of every so often coming up with a little doozy like this or the no-go zones of Jobs Jolt the abolition of the special benefit as part of the Working for Families package and so on. 
It has been more than two decades now since the era of Rogernomics began with the onset of mass structural unemployment deliberately created by a former Labour Government then later entrenched by things like National’s benefit cuts market rents for State houses and the Employment Contracts Act. Labour has seen clearly enough that the Employment Contracts Act had to be thrown out and income-related rents reintroduced for State housing. However for some reason when it comes to the benefit system and beneficiaries it cannot quite bring itself to go that extra step towards a clean break with the beneficiary-bashing of the past. 
Beneficiary numbers are coming down. Good work is being done on improving the availability of childcare and out-of-school care to make it easier for parents to go out to work. It was great to see Labour supporting my colleague Sue Kedgley’s Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill in the House last week as it should if it is serious about helping mothers and fathers cope with the real-life demands of balancing work and bringing up babies and young children at the same time. Why then in terms of the benefit system does Labour have to go ahead with clause 7 of this bill in its current form? Nearly all the submitters to the select committee asked for the penalty clause to be taken out. The Green Party certainly wants it taken out. It is a mere $6 a week but it is $6 that families on the domestic purposes benefit can ill do without on top of the $22 or more that they are already losing as a penalty. The mere fact that it is such a token amount almost adds insult to injury making it even clearer that what this is really about is moral judgements not economics. 
It seems to me that what the Government is actually saying in this bill is that a mother is committing a moral crime if she cannot or will not name the father of her child. From the department’s own research as offered to the select committee it appears that the three most common reasons for this happening are: first actions taken by the other parent—for example in denying paternity or disappearing when advised of the pregnancy; second the mother not knowing who the father was—for example because of casual relationships multiple relationships and/or the effects of drugs and alcohol; and third a parent who might be trying to avoid the other parent having contact with or rights over that child. 
In all those circumstances it is clear that the citizens of regular society can find many opportunities to make moral judgments about these mothers. But is that what a Government—any Government—should be doing? Penalising women who are going to live with the results of for example a drunken one-night stand for the rest of their lives and their children’s lives comes out of the same psychology as those who would still like to see young sole parents pressured into giving up their babies for adoption or the domestic purposes benefit done away with altogether because so to speak it only encourages them. 
In reality our country needs children and it needs parents who are willing to bring up their children with love and care no matter what the circumstances of their conception. I have argued this before and people do not like it but it does seem to me that the logical extension of the arguments behind this bill that some people make about penalising sole parents in these kinds of circumstances are basically that in the end they are saying it would be better for women to have abortions than to give birth to children conceived as a result of these kinds of circumstances because of their supposed immoral provenance. 
I reject all this. Every child born in this country should be a wanted child and every child conceived should have the best possible chance in life. Mothers in difficult circumstances who make the big decision to go ahead with a pregnancy rather than have a termination should be supported and nurtured not condemned. A truly compassionate Government would remove all penalties for not naming the father and do everything it could to support the parent and the child or children involved not the opposite. Children conceived and born in these kinds of situations need more help and support from all of those around them and from the State not less. 
The Green Party believes that these are big social problems and we are not trying to run away from them. What we are saying is that the solutions are different. They would be better dealt with through things like reforming the Child Support Act more in-depth education at an earlier age for schoolchildren about the realities of becoming a parent better support to the groups that work with mothers and fathers in these kinds of situations and things like the reintroduction of a universal child benefit once the old family benefit that would assist all families but particularly those living in comparative poverty rather than selectively penalising some of them as this bill does. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to this bill. It ensures fairness and security and it makes quite significant amendments to the social security system. One of the advantages that will come to people from this bill is the extended eligibility for the accommodation supplement. We will be ensuring that benefit applicants who work for part of the year are not financially disadvantaged as seasonal workers often are—that is another advantage for communities—and we are changing the regime to encourage sole parents to establish paternity for their children or apply for child support. 
This Government has historically supported and will always support one-parent families when they cannot support themselves financially but we do expect the other parent to contribute to the costs of the child. I might be old-fashioned but I always thought that that was what being a parent was all about. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 National supports this bill because even though it falls short of comprehensively addressing serious issues in regard to social welfare there are at least some positives which is a bit of a surprise. The tremendous amount of work and cooperation undertaken by the Social Services Committee has been acknowledged. It is good that there is some provision for eligibility for the accommodation supplement for residents of retirement villages who have a licence to occupy and that the bill ensures that they are treated consistently in terms of access to financial assistance. One can only assume that the estimated number of retirement village residents expected to quality as identified by the Minister as being 200 to 300 persons is reasonably accurate. 
It is good that benefit stand-down rules are now vastly improved to improve incentives for people on benefits to undertake seasonal and other short-term employment. I am sure that that is one element of the bill that will be wholeheartedly welcomed not just by persons on a benefit wanting to undertake part-time work wanting to continue to have some form of independence without being penalised and wanting to work part-time without costing them more and discouraging real effort to find work. I am sure that employers will welcome an opportunity to employ local people who may be on a benefit and who are discouraged from seeking employment. 
This bill goes some way to address the fact that it actually costs more to work part-time and that therefore it is not worthwhile to seek work. Hopefully that issue will be addressed effectively through the bill and National welcomes that move. As many will no doubt be aware part-time workers are hard to come by and it is to be hoped that there will be a marked improvement in this situation for the many orchards and pack-houses particularly in my Coromandel electorate but also throughout the rest of New Zealand. Staff are becoming increasingly more and more difficult to get particularly on a part-time basis. 
I come now to the next provision in the bill as stated by the Hon Steve Maharey. He said that the bill also puts into effect changes to the regime that encourages sole parents to establish paternity for their children and apply for child support. Quite clearly Mr Maharey listened to and read the excellent work done by the National Party. But why is it that from 1 April 2006 any parent who does not name the other parent be it a mother or father will lose $6 a week from their benefit—the Greens are actually horrified about that—but that the family support package which also kicks in on that day gives that parent $25 extra a week for the first child and $15 extra a week for the second child? We see for that first child a net gain of $19. 
One has to wonder why the Greens are opposing that provision when it puts more in the pocket of the person who is on the benefit. Where is there any incentive to name the other parent when instead of being $6 worse off one is in fact $19 better off for the first child and a full $15 better off for every subsequent child? In actual fact one could say that there was an incentive for increasing that dependency instead of a deterrent for single-parent dependency. 
This Government has once again failed in its responsibility to provide sound policy and to exhibit some sense of fiscal capability. But then we are continually made aware of the lack of fiscal understanding and capability of this Government. The provisions in this bill in relation to the naming of a parent have the real possibility of seeing the number of unnamed parents actually increase. Perhaps Dr Michael Cullen might like to pay a bit more attention to the legislation being promulgated by his party. One has only to look at the exemptions to see the distinct possibility. First if a parent claims that the other parent is violent naming does not have to take place. There is actually an incentive for the parent to be a little violent and therefore not be required to be named. The second exemption is more significant— 
Jill Pettis 
: Explain that again. We missed something. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Well I suggest that member reads the bill as well. If a parent claims that there is no hope of the other parent ever paying for his or her children then once again he or she can be exempt from liability. Cry poor and one is off the hook. Third claim the other parent is dead and they are off the hook. It is patently ridiculous. How could there possibly be any exemption for having to name a dead person? After all one should be required to name to clarify that the person is in fact dead. How bizarre can one get? That is a fine example of the lack of the practical understanding in the application of the law. [ 
Interruption 
] I would strongly recommend that those members go back and look at the bill and refer to the  
Hansard 
. 
I wholeheartedly support my most excellent colleague Judith Collins when she says that it is a child’s right to know who his or her parents are and that when we take away that right we take it not from the father but from the child. My most excellent colleague Judith Collins has now also clarified that of the 40000 women who refuse to name the fathers of their children—and we must remember that there are a number of men who have refused to name the mothers of their children—there are now more than 11000 liable parents said to be living in Australia. What is the Government doing to recoup some of that loss of support for those children? It is worth reminding the New Zealand public that under the current Government the number of unnamed parents has increased by some 20-odd thousand with some three women a day refusing to name the fathers of their children. 
I do not see that there is any way in which this bill actually curbs or controls that in any way. There will be valid reason for not naming in some cases but for others who have multiple partners and do not know who the fathers are some mandatory DNA tests would be a proactive and cost-effective measure to identify parents who are liable for child support. Innocent men accused of being fathers when they know they are not should also be accorded access to free DNA testing to ensure that they are not unjustly named. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill. I wonder whether we have just heard another policy announcement from Sandra Goudie future front-bencher for the National Party that it will now remove the exemptions for domestic violence for mothers on the domestic purposes benefit who do not want to name the father of their child. I do not think there is a member in this House outside the National Party who would think that there are women who will deliberately continue to have children then claim violence and have the father want to claim violence so that his name is not on the birth certificate. 
The other thing that was raised in the Committee stage was the issue of whether if a mother had said that the father had died the Ministry of Social Development could check that that was the case. We were told in no uncertain terms that it was not an issue. 
One of the most important things this Government has done under the Hon Steve Maharey in this portfolio is to move to individual case management for the domestic purposes benefit. That has been a crucial change because a blanket rule cannot address every single situation. One of the things the Ministry of Social Development has done is to let mothers know that they are being penalised for not naming the father of their child. That is very important because a lot of mothers did not realise that in the first place. I support the bill and I commend it to the House. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this bill. That is not to say that we do not have some reservations. We have some strong reservations concerning clause 7 headed “Rates of benefits for sole parents may be reduced”. We do not accept as the honourable member who has just resumed her seat does that claiming violence should be the total excuse to allow fathers to be exempt. Let me make this quite clear: young children need their fathers. The taxpayer is entitled to know who the fathers are or who the father is in a particular instance. We do not swallow hook line and sinker the line the member has just espoused. Some women cannot name the father because frankly they have had too many liaisons. They simply do not know who hit the jackpot. Other women do not name the father because they get a pay-off from the father. They lose $6 in one hand and as Sandra Goudie illustrated quite well they get another $20-something so there is a net gain of $19. But equally so and I am aware of this occurring some fathers will say: “Don’t name me and I will give you something extra.” and that occurs in this country. 
Darren Hughes 
: Three percent. 
PETER BROWN 
: Members are saying 3 percent and the Minister says I’m dreaming. 
Hon Annette King 
: You’re dreaming that anyone would have a baby for $20 a week. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am not dreaming that a woman would have a baby for 20 bucks a week. I am saying that the Minister should listen a little bit to what other people are saying in this House. There are people who will have a cash advantage because the father will say: “Look don’t name me and I will give you some extra.” 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Name them. 
PETER BROWN 
: I could name one lady who came to me. I can see that the Government particularly the Minister of Finance thinks that this is a frivolous idea. By the look on his face he thinks that fathers should be exempt. He thinks it is a bit of a joke that the good old taxpayer will pick up the responsibility. 
Darren Hughes 
: Name one. 
PETER BROWN 
: Let me say to members and to the member interjecting who is probably too young to be a father yet that if we took some DNA swabs we could find out who the father is was has been or whatever. We should be using modern technology to save the taxpayer some financial burden. 
As I said at the beginning New Zealand First is strongly in favour of all children knowing who their father is—good bad or indifferent. Sooner or later when youngsters grow up they want to know where they have come from. We believe that there is an opportunity here to deliver that message home—that a particular child’s father is so and so. If he is an awful sod so be it but the child is entitled to know. Equally so the taxpayer is entitled to know and to hold the father to account for some of the responsibilities of the upbringing of that youngster. 
We take it seriously. The Government may take it as a joke but we take it seriously. People in this country are ripping off the taxpayer left right and centre and this bill provides another loophole. Having said that New Zealand First will support this bill. It is a move in the right direction but it is not the complete answer. It is disappointing to us that the Government cannot see the complete answer. It is staring it in the face. The answer is to use modern technology to determine who the fathers are. New Zealand First will support the bill. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise in support of the third reading of this bill. In addition to the changes around child support there are two other important areas in which the bill makes changes. Firstly it extends eligibility for the accommodation supplement to residents of retirement villages where increasing numbers of our people are living. Secondly the bill makes important changes for seasonal workers allowing them to nominate either a 52 week or a 26-week earning period. I think that that will assist a lot of people as well. For those two reasons alone I support the third reading of the bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 18 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the first readings of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill the Rail Network Bill and the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) and the passing through their remaining stages of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill the Gambling Amendment Bill the Fiordland Marine Management Bill the Railways Bill the Architects Bill the Charities Bill the Public Records Bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and any bills into which those bills may be divided.  
This motion is moved to allow for additional sitting hours this week to consider legislation the Government would like to see passed before the adjournment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Health Committee for consideration that the committee present its final report on or before 28 May 2005 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
 Xenotransplantation is the implantation of living biological material from animals into humans. The Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill extends the period of the current controls on xenotransplantation until 31 December 2006 with the ability for this state to be extended by Order in Council if necessary. The current controls were introduced in response to concerns about the potential of threats of xenotransplants transmitting new infections to recipients and to the wider community; the adequacy of regulatory review processes; and the cultural social and ethical issues associated with xenotransplantation. The current controls allow xenotransplantation trials to be considered and approved by the Minister of Health but require strict criteria to be met before an approval is given. No applications have been made to the Minister of Health under the current provisions. 
Without this bill the existing additional controls on xenotransplantation will end on 30 June 2005 with the expiry of Part 7A of the Medicines Act. After this state the scientific and ethical oversight will return to the controls utilised for clinical trials of medicines contained in section 30 of the Medicines Act. Section 30 controls were previously identified as being inadequate and despite further information on xenotransplantation being published I am advised there is still a need for additional oversight of this controversial emerging technology. 
Existing controls cannot be extended further under existing legislation hence the need for this bill. Ongoing controls are needed on xenotransplantation because it is still only an experimental technique. It is unclear whether this technique would be successful within humans. There is also a risk of transmitting viruses from animals to humans. There are only a small number of animal or human studies of possible efficacy and it is far from clear whether a transplanted animal organ would function properly in a human. 
Evidence indicates that xenotransplantation may be associated with an increased risk of transmission of a wide range of viral bacterial and other infections known to occur in the sourced animals. There is a theoretical risk that xenotransplantation could increase the risk of new infections jumping the species barrier from animals to humans. In view of concerns about the safety and efficacy of xenotransplantation similar jurisdictions—including Australia Canada and the UK—have stringent controls on xenotransplantation. To my knowledge there are currently no clinical trials under way in those countries. In December 2004 the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council announced a 5-year moratorium on clinical trials of xenotransplantation. New Zealand would be going out on a limb if we allowed these controls to lapse. I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this very important bill the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. 
Opposition Members 
: This is the next Minister of Health! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Those members are absolutely right. This bill is a serious indictment on this Labour Government’s integrity and its attitude towards science. In essence this bill is the continuation of a blunt instrument that the Labour Government put on science in order to stop xenotransplantation in New Zealand back in 2001—now the Government wants to continue it until 2006. 
This bill is a serious indictment on Labour. The Prime Minister her health Minister and her science Minister all say they are committed to science and are committed to economic growth. We have a classic situation in which they have said: “Let’s focus on biotechnology as one of the main strands of economic growth in New Zealand.” yet they have created in this country some of the most difficult hurdles to the carrying out of biotechnology in the Western World. 
We know that the Government’s own biotechnology task force has said exactly that—that the regulatory regime in New Zealand is very difficult and that it is forcing top New Zealand scientists to do their work overseas or to leave. I shall give two examples. The first is the Huntington’s chorea trial that was basically founded at the Auckland School of Medicine. The reason it did not continue in New Zealand was that it cost too much and would take too long. Consequently it has gone to Adelaide. That is a tragedy for New Zealand science a tragedy for New Zealand biotechnology. 
It is hugely important to have a complement of scientists in New Zealand who are capable in the new genetics. If we do not we will not even recognise the problems until they have got here and an example of that scenario was the varroa bee mite. We had only one bee scientist at the time and the disease was endemic in New Zealand before it was recognised. It is vital that we have a complement of scientists who are competent and capable in the various biotechnology techniques involved with genetics in order to be able to pick up on things at the time and also to be able to use the huge power of the new genetics and genomics to the betterment of New Zealand. 
There is no doubt that in areas such as agriculture and horticulture it is vital but also it is vital in the area of medicine. Yet we have seen this Government putting on a blanket stop using the crudest and only method it knows—that is a moratorium. In the order of six cases of xenotransplantation have been carried out in New Zealand until the abrupt stop was put to it by Labour and the Greens. I note that there was an application going through the process—a fairly stiff regulatory process that we had in New Zealand at the time—but it was turned down by an amendment of this Labour Government. As it turned out Mai Chen a very well-known lawyer and a submitter to the select committee at the time believed that the Supplementary Order Paper brought in by this Government was literally a constitutional outrage. The firm Diatranz did not even have the opportunity to have its application heard. 
It is extraordinary that only last week it was revealed in the newspapers that one of the individuals who had a transplant of pig islet cells intra-abdominally by way of laparoscope had of his own volition a further laparoscopy in February this year. It was fascinating to hear that the islet cells were still producing insulin. He was thrilled by it. The scientific community was thrilled by it but it has been deeply disturbed by the fact that right around the world other such cases have been replicated and are showing huge promise. The major problem this Government was worried about was the pig endogenous retrovirus which is inherent in the line of cells that was being used. We heard last week in Parliament through the Royal Society lectures on science that there is now a pig islet cell strain that is free of the retrovirus giving huge hope for this area. We also heard from Dr Bruce Scoggins the chief executive officer of the Health Research Council of New Zealand. He now says that there is undoubtedly a place for xenotransplantation in New Zealand. There is no reason why we should not at least have the opportunity for people to apply for xenotransplantation experiments in New Zealand where we do have a very rigorous regulatory regime so that at least we can get in place the decision as to whether the risk management is appropriate. But this Government has said that it is not interested in science; it will just put down a blank blunt instrument. I can see members of the Government over there shaking their heads. 
This is the Government that says it is interested in economic growth in biotechnology and in moving New Zealand along—and what does it do? It puts in place massive hurdles that have prohibited progress in one of the most potentially important areas for New Zealand and the recent Huntington’s chorea trail is not the only example of that. There was—I think it was in 2001—the AgResearch application for transgenic cows. That in itself cost AgResearch something like $600000 and took 2 years before it was finally able to get on with it. Again the Government has unnecessarily placed a huge inherent hurdle on New Zealand science almost certainly because it has listened to the Greens taken notice and taken an absolutely Luddite approach to an area that is so important for New Zealand. 
There is no doubt that the technology here is innovative clever and can be used for a whole variety of reasons. There is no doubt that New Zealand should be at the forefront of this sort of innovative clever biotechnology. The very wrong thing to do is to put in a moratorium. One would hope that any Government that professes to be interested in the knowledge economy would at least put in place a regime whereby any applicant can go through a rigorous risk management process and then have the experts decide—not politicians such as this Labour Government has produced—whether this very important technology can occur in New Zealand. 
What happened to Diatranz? It had to go offshore—it literally went to Australia. I accept the fact that the Australians have also had a somewhat Luddite approach to their regulatory regime in this particular instance. But in a vast variety of other areas their regime around biotechnology and genomic research is much more enlightened than what we have seen under this Labour Government. That is why many of our scientists are going over there. That is why the Huntington’s chorea trial has gone to Adelaide and that is why I am saying that this particular moratorium is totally unnecessary and an indictment on the Labour Government. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on this bill. I am appalled actually at the rather arrogant attitude of the Opposition spokesman on health. The moratorium in this bill is very clear. If the member had listened to the Minister he would know that the provisions that allow for the extension of the moratorium for 1 year are for two reasons—and the member needs to listen to this. The provisions here for xenotransplantation will be covered under the Human Tissue Bill which is yet to be referred to the Health Committee. Also we want to conclude the consultation from the Bioethics Council. It is for those two reasons alone that we seek an extension to the current moratorium. 
I support this bill and I know that the member for the Opposition realises that it was incredibly important that we set up the Bioethics Council. It would be disgusting to pre-empt any decision just because they are scientists and just because this technology is sorely needed and not go through the consultation under the Bioethics Council. We are a Government that is prepared to wait. The scientific research is going on overseas and for that reason I support this bill. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. We have had a very interesting debate from all parties. As far New Zealand First is concerned we will support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill going to the Health Committee. Quite obviously a high-powered debate is being undertaken at technological levels. We recognise that biotechnology is one of the most important economic aspects for New Zealand’s future and we must be involved in the biotechnology economy. 
This is a relatively short bill and the matter can be considered by the select committee relatively quickly. We look forward to all those interested parties making submissions to the select committee and New Zealand First will take note of what they have to say. So in the meantime we support the bill going to the select committee. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 The National Party as my colleague said will not support the bill because we do not see the need for a moratorium. We believe that we already know a lot about the science and that this is a very blunt attempt to hold back the sea. The Government can pretend all it likes to be King Canute but science will continue to progress and to provide solutions for many New Zealand families that are waiting for xenotransplantation technologies to be developed and to be available here. 
We have seen Willie Terpstra and her family go offshore to get the treatment she could not get here. Many New Zealanders watched that story and saw how much that technology made a difference to that New Zealander’s life. Who are we to stand in the way of that? Four members of my family have been on renal dialysis. Three of them have had transplants and one is currently waiting for a transplant. I can tell members on the Government side of the House that if the technology existed to transplant a pig kidney a baboon kidney or any kind of kidney that would keep my family member alive and off renal dialysis then that would be fine by me. 
We need to remember the human face of this argument. Labour can pontificate about the cultural issues and sensitivities yet people are waiting for life-changing treatments. We need to trust the scientists who are very careful sensible and ethical in the work that they have done and are doing. We know that the moratorium will not stop the work being done. It will just send our scientists offshore so that the work can be done there. Is it any wonder that we are seeing a brain drain of scientists right now? There are simply too many hurdles and barriers in their way when it comes to New Zealand science to do leading-edge work. There is no logic behind this decision. There is no reasoning or detailed scientific analysis for the extension of this moratorium. In fact there is no indication that it will work at all except to shut down an area of work and opportunity in New Zealand when a lot of New Zealand families are waiting for the technologies that can arise as a result of this kind of work. 
It was interesting to hear the member opposite talk about arrogance. I think it is arrogance to stand in the way of some life-saving technologies that can make a difference to some New Zealanders’ lives. Unless one is in that situation and really knows what it is like to face those sorts of family difficulties one does not know what one is talking about when pontificating about cultural sensitivities. 
I have had a look at some of the work put out by the Bioethics Council and I have to say that it is an absolute load of tripe. Constituents of mine have been involved in the consultation process in Dunedin and have been subjected to handholding exercises where people ask questions about what happens if someone takes on a pig kidney and suddenly starts to behave like a pig. That is absolute rubbish. There is no scientific base to that sort of discussion. There is no knowledge or detailed understanding of this extremely high-tech scientific area. 
So I think that holding back the tide here does not do the best for New Zealanders. It does not do the best for the many Kiwi families who are waiting for all sorts of solutions to very many debilitating diseases and health conditions that keep people from living full and active lives. It is very easy I think for the Government to bring up some basically extremely spurious reasons why this moratorium should be continued but there is no logic to it. There is no reason or scientific base. I do not think the Government has listened to a lot of the groups—the patients and the families—who are waiting for some of these lifesaving techniques and technologies. 
I worry that so many of our best scientists are going offshore. There are a lot of areas where one cannot do leading-edge research now because of the regulations and hurdles that have been put in place. The scientists in those areas have brains that are easily exportable. They can go offshore and get better salaries and greater continuity in their incomes and careers rather than stay here and see artificial barriers put in place that disallow them from doing good scientific work. I do not think there are any mad scientists in New Zealand. There is a group of scientists who want to do some studies in an area that I think will make a huge difference to the lives of a lot of New Zealanders. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: A lot of them are under stress though. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: My colleague says that some are under stress. That is no surprise. I think some members opposite wish that John Tamihere would be xenotransplanted into another party. But as he says that he will die a Labour man despite apparently humbling himself before the caucus today—although he does not retract any of his comments—it seems that that will not be the case either so they should think about putting a moratorium on John Tamihere. That might do them a better service than trying to put up artificial barriers that will just cause loss of life and remove opportunities for New Zealanders to have access to some of these technologies that will make a difference to their lives. 
Darren Hughes 
: Is this the same woman who got sacked? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Until Darren Hughes faces a parent on dialysis or a family member who is looking for a transplant of some kind he should keep his mouth shut because he has no idea what it is like. He can pontificate about the cultural sensitivities of xenotransplantation but just wait until he sees a dialysis patient in his constituency office who says: “Your rules are standing between me having a life and not being able to continue.” Then I think he might change his tune—once he understands the human face of these decisions. 
The Government is trying to hold back the tide of science. It is quite Luddite to pretend that science will stop its work in this area. It is only New Zealand that will stop work in this area while the rest of the world will continue to provide opportunities for science. Science will march on and provide some life-giving solutions to a lot of people who are waiting for these opportunities—who are waiting for the second chance at life that might come from a pig kidney a pig liver or some other transplanted organ. 
So it is all very well for members opposite to be theoretical about this moratorium and pretend that it will not have an impact. We know that it will. Many many New Zealanders will be worse off because the Labour Government thinks it can hold back the scientific tide and deny a lot of New Zealanders many lifesaving solutions that will make a difference to their lives and allow them to continue—if of course we have any scientists to continue this work once this moratorium is over. As we know not many scientists who go to the United States or to the UK make the transition back into New Zealand. A few have but not many come back once they get used to research grants good salaries better conditions continuity in their work and better opportunities. We are worse off because we lose those brains—those people who could do a huge amount of work within our Crown research institutes here in New Zealand. 
Finally I tell Government members to remember the human face of this problem to remember that they will have constituents coming into their offices saying: “Why are you against something that could have made a difference to my life?” and to remember that this moratorium is nothing short of Luddite. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. What an extraordinary speech we just heard from Katherine Rich! Speaking as someone who actually graduated from university with an honours degree in science I can say that all my friends who left this country to do science overseas did so under a National Government after Labour had left office. The most important thing to them was that they had low employment conditions or wages that were not worth staying for and the institutes that they worked for were severely underfunded. So it is a bit rich to hear the National Party complaining about the brain drain. 
We are talking about an area of science that we as a Government are still not convinced should go ahead. We are talking about experimentation on human beings. I find it interesting that Dr Paul Hutchison is very quick to attack the Government about the efficacy of testing pharmaceuticals but is saying that we should be injecting animal cells into humans right now without ensuring that firstly the technology will work and secondly it will not cause the transmission of infections or viruses that at their very worst could cause a pandemic. If a pandemic had occurred that might have been caused by a retrovirus Katherine Rich in her former life in this Parliament would have been the first to attack this Government and ask how many more invalids beneficiaries there would be as a result of this Government allowing the use of techniques that were not tested and that we were not sure of. 
We need to be secure about this technology because it will not help the New Zealand scientific community if something goes wrong and we do not take all the necessary precautions. Biotechnology of which this area is a very small part is also a very small part of science. I am sure that many scientists who are out there working very hard get sick of the focus on this area. Science in this country needs to have an international standard that is recognised overseas. Sure our scientists will go overseas—and a lot of them will come back because that is the nature of the international science community. It does this country and the biotechnology industry absolutely no favours to push ahead using technology that has not yet been proven safe and that we as a Government are not yet prepared to go ahead with and see used on humans. As the Minister of Health says we do not do it with pharmaceuticals and we certainly should not be doing it with xenotransplantation. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand will oppose the first reading of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. I would like to support the comments made by the two National Party speakers. The previous speech by the Labour member was extraordinary. Supposedly based on science she said that this Government is not prepared to risk the citizens of this country. Let us get real about this. The reason this bill has come before us now under urgency is that the Government is kicking for touch. An election is coming up and the Government wants to play it safe. If we just read the explanatory note of the bill we see that the Government is very clear about what it wants to do. The explanatory note states: “It is proposed in the long term that xenotransplantation be covered by new human tissue legislation and therapeutic products legislation.” To allow time for that legislation to be drawn up the Government wants to extend the moratorium. Let us get real here: this bill does not address the real issue. Extending the moratorium just kicks for touch and avoids a confrontational issue—something people feel very strongly about on both sides of the fence. It is just about political expediency: about not offending anybody in election year and about putting off dealing with the real problem until a much later date. 
The National Party members both spoke with a great deal of authority—particularly Dr Hutchison—and with a great deal of passion about the problems experienced by many people. 
Hon Annette King 
: I would be quite happy to go back to being a dental nurse. 
HEATHER ROY 
: The Minister of Health Annette King who is sitting over here has interrupted and interjected all the way through this debate but we know the value she puts on lives. It was not acceptable for a single person to die while on the waiting lists when she was the Opposition spokesperson on health but now suddenly it is perfectly acceptable to have several die. No longer do we have to worry about whether people on waiting lists may die—no. But we are certainly not prepared to help to save the lives of people who have no other option but to consider xenotransplantation in order to cure their ailments. 
In this country we have rigorous regulatory regimes. We should be encouraging—[ 
Interruption 
] There is nothing wrong with physiotherapy as a profession and I would suggest that a qualification in physiotherapy may actually be a superior qualification to that of a dental nurse—but let us not go there. I have actually come to the House to debate xenotransplantation because I think that the issue is very important. The Minister of Health may want to laugh it off and think she is doing a good job by extending a moratorium. In fact she is not. The extension is about political expediency as I said. She just does not want to offend anybody in election year. She is worried about the people in Rongotai who may or may not vote for her. As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted we have rigorous regulatory regimes in this country to deal with research and we should have some faith and put some trust in the Bioethics Council and in the people who are responsible for making the decisions about those matters. Those people are experts unlike the Minister of Health and unlike myself. I am unwilling to stand up here and say that we should not do this research because it is the wrong thing to do. I think we should put some trust and some faith in the scientists of this country—the very well-qualified scientists like Moana Mackey who has decided for whatever reason to change careers. We should put some faith in the people who are experts and let them do the deciding not the 120 members of Parliament who have absolutely no knowledge—except for Moana Mackey of course—about xenotransplantation. 
We may be worried about retroviruses and the member from Labour quite rightly raised that matter. But I ask whether we worry about tourists coming into this country and bringing retroviruses with them. Are we worried about the pandemics that may arise? Are we so worried about tourists bringing retroviruses in that we screen tourists? No we do not. Are we so worried about immigrants coming into this country spreading retroviruses and perhaps as Moana Mackey said causing a pandemic that we bother to screen them at the border? No we do not. So why are we so worried— 
Peter Brown 
: We would. 
HEATHER ROY 
: New Zealand First is worried. I am pleased to hear its members are worried about something. No we do not worry about tourists or about immigrants so why are we worried when we have to jump through hoops in order to do research in this country about xenotransplantation and the spread of retroviruses? We should undertake absolutely rigorous watertight risk analysis before we proceed with that research and we should put some trust and some faith in the experts. 
Many members will remember the fiasco about the environment surrounding the issue of transgenic cows. It took 2 years of jumping through hoops getting approval and doing the right things—and it was $500000 later—before anything could happen. That sent a very pertinent signal to the scientific world with regard to genomic research in New Zealand. It was a very powerful signal that said: “Don’t bother coming to do any research here. You guys you scientists whom we have trained we will train you for export just as we are doing with our doctors our nurses and our health professionals. We are training you here in this country and giving you a very good training and we want you to go overseas”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will please not refer to the Speaker. 
HEATHER ROY 
: We want scientists to go overseas and do their work there because we do not want to do any of that very nasty biotechnology work here in New Zealand. So that is exactly what has happened of course. Our scientists our best and our brightest our very well-qualified scientists particularly in biotechnology have headed off overseas. And who can blame them? There is nothing for them here in New Zealand. So New Zealand scientists who are known for their innovation and expertise will no longer be doing anything here in New Zealand; they are being sent offshore to do their research there. That is a huge loss not only to the scientific community here in New Zealand but to New Zealanders and to those patients who made informed decisions about whether they should have some research done on themselves. I have met one of the people who had some xenotransplantation research done and she is living a very productive happy and healthy life as a result of xenotransplantation. But that will no longer be the situation. Nobody else will have the opportunity to have that done here because our scientists have been sent off. The moratorium is to be extended and that is another lost opportunity for the people of New Zealand for the scientists of New Zealand and for the scientific reputation of New Zealand which in the past has been a very good one. 
ACT opposes this bill. We think we should deal with the real issue. Let us not pretend that the legislation is not ready to be drawn up. Let us not deny that the moratorium is being extended only because there is an election coming and the Minister of Health is worried about her votes. Let us not pretend that we are not ready to address the real issues. People in New Zealand are ready to address them and it is only the arrogance of their Government that suggests otherwise. Let us not kick for touch; let us have the real debate and the real discussion. Let us see that legislation— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Ha ha! 
HEATHER ROY 
: I do not think that this is a joking matter as the Government does. Let us discuss the real issues for once instead of just kicking for touch yet again. I do not want to see our scientists go offshore; I want to see them come back to New Zealand. But what is here for them to come back to? Very little! We have systems in place to deal with these things and we should deal with the risk analysis. People are quite right to be concerned about retroviruses. But we have the expertise here to address that issue and the research should be allowed to happen. ACT New Zealand says we should address the real issues and deal with them here and now not put them off yet again. How many more times does that have to happen? Let us treat our scientists our well-trained scientists with the respect they deserve. Let us deal with this issue right now and not put it off. ACT will oppose this bill for that very reason. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party rises to support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill which is essentially just a date-change. It is an extension of the moratorium so that legislation can be more thoughtfully developed in order ultimately for xenotransplantation to be covered by new human tissue legislation and therapeutic products legislation. Possibly there is no more important legislation this Parliament will consider than that covering xenotransplantation. It is crucial that we get that legislation right and do not rush into it and the Green Party is absolutely delighted that the Government is spending more time on it and is extending the moratorium so that we can give more thought to the legislation in the hope that we will get it right. 
Despite what has been said xenotransplantation is an issue with profound ethical and safety considerations. It involves crossing the species barrier between humans and animals that has existed for millennia. In that sense it involves tampering with the very basis of life and whatever our opponents say it does raise the possibly of disease transfer between species of crossover diseases from for example pigs to humans and of new infectious and possibly deadly viruses. There is no point in just dismissing those possibilities because there is experimental evidence to show that in some cases pig retroviruses have survived for long periods inside humans. We have all heard of the great panic about the possibility of bird flu emerging in South-east Asia. Why with that possibility looming would we rush to transfer something from animals into humans when that could raise the possibility of outbreaks such as mad cow disease and bird flu and of untreatable diseases? That is the reality. Some members of the Opposition will try to dismiss that but it is the truth and we need to acknowledge the truth. We cannot rush into legislation in this area. We need to take the time to get it right. 
There are many unknowns in the field of xenotransplantation and nobody really knows what the implications of it are. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Why would bird flu be transferred through pigs? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Maurice Williamson is interjecting but he does not know what the implications of xenotransplantation are and nor does anyone in this House. So it is essential that all the issues are thoroughly investigated and that there is wide-ranging consultation and debate before any approvals are given for clinical trials. Let us not repeat the mistakes made with regard to genetic engineering by trying to introduce a new highly risky and controversial technology when there has not been a proper public debate on it or even a proper regulatory regime put in place. I believe that consultation is taking place on the issue. That is good. Let us not rush in where angels would fear to tread—let us tread very warily on this very important issue. 
Diabetes is the issue that most people raise when they talk about xenotransplantation. Of course it is a very difficult ethical and scientific decision to weigh up the possible benefits of xenotransplantation to individual diabetes sufferers against the possible risk it poses to the whole population. But the truth is that everyone likes a quick fix—a technological solution. Putting pigs’ organs into humans sounds like a great quick-fix solution to for example diabetes—that is the issue that has been most frequently mentioned in this context. But instead of looking at doing something as radical and with such political risks as xenotransplantation why do we not look in the first instance at the causes of diabetes and at some simple steps that we as a population could take which are right under our noses to try to prevent diabetes or reduce the epidemic of diabetes? Yes there is an epidemic and a huge increase in type 2 diabetes—about 127000 New Zealanders now suffer from diabetes—but why do we not look at the causes of that rather than try to think of quick-fix solutions? 
We know for example that a high-sugar diet is one of the causes of diabetes. A high-fat diet is another. We know that but what are we doing about it? We are doing very little. We allow children in taxpayer-funded schools to have access to vending machines. Cash-strapped schools use vending machines to sell high-sugar drinks in order to try to eke out a little bit of extra money. I am told that a big school can get about $12000 a year if it has a vending machine. So we allow the sale of high-sugar high-fat food which we know contributes to diabetes in our schools simply in order to help cash-strapped schools to earn a little money. We know that fast-food companies like McDonald’s sell high-sugar drinks and are synonymous with chips and burgers which are high-fat foods. So what are we doing to try to discourage our children from eating the sorts of foods that contribute to diabetes? We are participating in the marketing campaign of McDonald’s by putting its symbols on mobile dental clinics. We are getting fast-food companies to pay for essential public health services like mobile dental clinics. How crazy is that? On the one hand we want to rush around and engage in xenotransplantation—putting say pigs’ organs into humans—but on the other hand we are not prepared to do something as simple as take steps to reduce the amount of high-fat high-sugar food that our children are eating which we know contributes to diabetes. 
Indeed this Government— 
Dail Jones 
: This isn’t very relevant. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: It is extremely relevant because one of the main things that has been mentioned about xenotransplantation is that it may offer a cure for diabetics. So it is entirely relevant that we should consider what we can do to try to reduce the incidence of diabetes rather than simply look at a high-tech solution at the end of the line. Frankly it is shocking that the Government allows a fast-food company to use its marketing symbols on mobile dental vans and allows such companies which sell the food that we know contributes to diabetes to fund core health services. If they did not sell the food that contributed to diabetes then it might be an interesting proposition. But that is the reality. Coca-Cola burgers and chips are the staple sorts of foods sold by those companies although some improvements are being made. Therefore we need to look much more widely at the whole issue of how we tackle diabetes. 
In the meantime we are pleased to support this bill. The Government is saying that we should get the legislation on xenotransplantation right and not rush into doing something about which there is such huge scientific uncertainty. If we did put pig organs into humans in order to try to solve the problem of diabetes and if we got it wrong and it resulted in a retrovirus—such as the equivalent of a new form of bird flu or of bovine spongiform encephalopathy—it would be a disaster for humanity. It would open Pandora’s box. There is no more important legislation that we should spend time on getting right than the legislation on xenotransplantation. We strongly support this bill. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to debate the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. But before I get on to the substance of the bill I will refer to a few things that have struck me as being rather odd about the previous speaker. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: A few things? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: A lot of things actually! The contribution of fast foods to diabetes leaves out the most important ingredient of all. It is not in the bun it is not in the meat and it is not in the lettuce. Guess what? It is personal responsibility. Nobody shoves that stuff down people’s throats; they choose it for themselves. If they cannot decide what their diet should be they should not look to capitalist organisations which are there simply to provide a service. The fact is that if those organisations can turn a profit— 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take personal offence at being described as “odd”. I would like the member to apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the member desist from using terms like that. The member has taken offence. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I shall desist from calling her odd. Capitalist organisations like McDonald’s should be congratulated on opening institutions like Ronald McDonald House. If those institutions were not available who would then provide those services? The fact that McDonald’s can get leverage from their products to fund those institutions is not a bad thing—they fulfil a service. I for one am very grateful as are many parents who have used Ronald McDonald House for the money the company forwards to help parents and children in times of absolute need. It is outrageous that members of this House would shoot themselves in the foot and shoot the good Samaritan ethic in the foot by suggesting that it is a bad thing altogether. That is absolutely nuts. I suggest and I might be in trouble for saying so that a bit of inter-species transplantation might be exactly the ticket for not only that member but the whole Green Party. While this amendment is a short one— 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to say—it relates to Standing Order 116 “Personal reflections”. The member will withdraw. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I withdraw. Although the amendment is a short one at its heart is a significant and complex question of whether living cells tissues or organs from animals and other organisms should be used to treat humans—an issue that United Future believes needs to be publicly debated and the wide-ranging implications for society of such procedures needs to be thoroughly understood. This bill does not stop science—it gives us a pause. It gives us an opportunity to rethink things and it allows the public to come in on the debate. No group in society scientists included should be favoured by having its views aired and pushed forward over and above those of everybody else. We have to work together on an approach that benefits all of us. Having this bill to extend the moratorium date does just that. It does not stop science—it proceeds nevertheless. All we are doing basically is giving ourselves a bit of time to look at what the legislation is all about. 
United Future awaits the results of the Bioethics Council’s consultation on xenotransplantation. That is a work in progress. We need to give that time to come through—it will not be far away—and then we can debate sensibly the issues from both the scientific and public interest points of view. United Future wholeheartedly supports the process of course. We need to hear from New Zealanders regarding their views on decisions that will shape the boundaries between what is scientifically possible and what is beneficial for the social and ethical future of the country. It needs to be put in perspective. Giving the OK to one group of people and shutting everybody else out of the debate does not do that. 
In order to allow this debate to run its full course and also to have time to fully consider appropriate legislation United Future supports the extension of the current controls placed on xenotransplantation procedures provided for by this bill until 31 December next year. It is clear that science needs to have some sense of direction. It cannot work with a stop-start sort of approach. I understand that and this bill does do a little bit of that unfortunately. But it is nevertheless an opportunity to look at the further reaches of what kind of scientific achievement we will end up with in New Zealand. 
We need to have the debate but we need to do it sensibly. We need a conclusion to this process because we cannot continually hold off science just for the next year the year after that or the year after that. People need to know what amount of time they have to start applying to science vis-à-vis money and investment into the procedures they are trying to look into. We believe though that it is essential to have the momentum to ensure that this matter is fully debated so that interested groups on both sides of the issue can have certainty in the near future. 
United Future will support this bill only at the first reading and going to the select committee. Thereafter it will depend very much on what the public debate is all about and on how that progresses seeing the balance needed between the scientific interest and the public good. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill being referred to the Health Committee. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be referred to the Health Committee 
 for consideration that the committee present its final report on or before 28 May 2005 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Rail Network Bill 
First Reading 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Transport 
: I move  
That the Rail Network Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is the Minister’s intention to move at the appropriate time that the Rail Network Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration that the committee report by 23 June 2005 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting despite Standing Orders 191 193(a) and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
Rail plays a significant role in this Government’s vision of an affordable integrated safe responsive and sustainable transport system. In order to achieve that vision and secure a vital part of New Zealand’s land transport infrastructure the Government repurchased the national rail network in June 2004. On 30 August 2004 the rail network assets and responsibility for operating the national rail network passed to the New Zealand Railways Corporation which is now trading as ONTRACK. That occurred because of the spectacular failure of National’s privatisation of rail. I reassure the House that rail is now safe in the hands of this good Government. That has created a need for new legislation to provide for the rolling governance of ONTRACK and to assist it to operate the rail network more effectively. 
Although ONTRACK has been able to operate under its existing legislation with an amended statement of intent many of the provisions it is operating under are outdated or redundant. The bill repeals the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act and the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act and provides for ONTRACK’s new role as rail network owner and controller. It also provides ONTRACK with modernised governance arrangements while carrying over some of the existing provisions. In particular the provisions relating to the holding and disposal of rail network land are retained. 
Under the bill the New Zealand Railways Corporation will continue in existence with the same legal name. However it will continue to trade under its trading name of ONTRACK. The bill also provides for ONTRACK’s new objective and functions and for some principles concerning how it must perform its functions. It aligns the objective and functions of ONTRACK with the New Zealand Transport Strategy without compromising its commercial focus. 
 The bill changes ONTRACK from a State-owned enterprise to a Crown entity—in particular a Crown agent—under the Crown Entities Act. The Government considers that that is the most appropriate structure to take ONTRACK forward considering its new role objective and core functions. While ONTRACK will have a strong commercial focus return on investment will not be its sole focus. As a Crown entity ONTRACK will be required to give effect to Government policy in particular the New Zealand Transport Strategy and the forthcoming national rail strategy. ONTRACK’s objective also reflects the expectation that it will take a commercial approach. I note that the commercial access agreements provide the framework for commitments that ONTRACK has entered into with rail operators for ensuring that the network is operated maintained and renewed in a safe responsive efficient and effective manner. In order to contribute to the Government’s aim of a more integrated and consistent approach to land transport funding and management the bill will also require ONTRACK to prepare a 10-year capital development programme. 
The bill carries over and consolidates all the provisions from the existing legislation relating to the ability to deal with land held for rail purposes with the intention of preserving the current position. These provisions give ONTRACK the power to deal with the Crown-owned rail network land that was previously known as land held for railway purposes including the power—subject of course to the consent of the Minister responsible—to dispose of surplus land. In particular the 1990 Act contains specific provisions that differ from the section 40 Public Works Act provisions for offer back to former owners which enable railways land to be retained for future rail use. The bill provides for a governing board of between five and eight members to continue to provide it with additional expertise and oversight. The Government has recently strengthened ONTRACK’s board making a number of new appointments including the appointment of a new chair Mr Cameron Moore and a new chief executive Mr David George. 
Rail will play a major role in achieving the Government’s vision of an integrated affordable safe and sustainable transport system for New Zealand. For years there has been low and declining investment in the rail network which has led to problems with deferred maintenance and associated safety concerns and declining service capability. The rail network has been run down and underutilised. Establishing ONTRACK as an integral part of New Zealand’s land transport infrastructure provides the structure to meet the demanding challenges in its new role of maintaining developing and operating New Zealand’s rail infrastructure in a commercial rail environment. It has been established to promote the best outcomes in terms of return on investment congestion reduction improvements for business commuters local communities and the environment. ONTRACK requires modern legislation to adapt to its new role and allow it to continue fulfilling this vision. The bill provides the institutional arrangements for ONTRACK that will allow it to do that. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I say from the outset that the National Party will certainly be supporting this bill to select committee. We understand the need for legislation that tidies up the legalities around what is referred to in the bill as “the entity”—that is a corporation by the name of the New Zealand Railways Corporation which has the responsibility for owning and operating the rail. But the National Party also has some quite serious concerns about the detail of this bill and we will be asking some questions at the select committee and seeing whether we can get either some additional clauses put into this bill or some clauses changed. 
The Government is very very quick to roll out its transport mantra just about everywhere that it can. It wants it to be “an integrated safe responsive and sustainable transport system”. I do not think that there is anything wrong with those four things but they go nowhere near enough to put realistic limits on the bill. For example what we are creating here and what members need to understand we are creating here is actually a monopoly: a business that can provide access to the rail track—but it is the only one. For many years I have asked why there is only one monopolies commission actually and I have never had a sensible answer to that question. But when it comes to rail—and Harry Duynhoven may laugh—I understand why there may be only the one operator of the rail track and a whole lot of rolling stock operators gaining access to it. I can live with that. 
However just like the fact that I can live with there being only one Auckland airport and a whole lot of aircraft operators in the name of airlines using it there have to be some rules about what these entities can charge. I mean who is to stop the entity from seeking monopoly rents from the users of the rail track? There is nothing in this legislation that states: “Now you are the only owner of the railway line. Charge what you will.” because if Toll Holdings does not like it it would be a matter of bad luck unless there were some quite severe limitations about the use of monopoly rents and the ability to rack-rent. 
I also notice that there is some stuff in this bill about the returning of land to the original owner under the Public Works Act of 1981 and I think that is a perfectly sensible thing. But it also gives some exemptions and I wondered why that was and then the penny dropped for me as to why. I guessed that if the New Zealand Railways Corporation owned a very thin sliver of land that was only the width of a railway track between two quite large blocks of privately held land it would be a bit of a nonsense to go back to the original owner and say: “You can own this nice little wee thin strip of land but you cannot get access to it. It lies between two private sections of land.” I notice that there are some provisions in the bill for not having to offer the land back to the original owners where the entity is getting rid of a very small piece. I think it states that it is something to do with its size shape and structure and the entity may not have to force the land back. 
So overall yes there is a need to have a proper legislative framework for the New Zealand Railways Corporation to act under. Secondly I am staggered that the Government is so reluctant to ever put the words “economic efficiency” into anything. It was the same with some of the road legislation when we were talking about the Land Transport Management Act. The Government fought tooth and nail against having the words “economic efficiency” in the legislation and I cannot understand for the life of me why. Other than the Greens who do not believe in economic efficiency I do not know of anybody in this House who would not want New Zealand Railways to run on an economically efficient basis. I will certainly be moving some amendments either at the select committee stage or when the bill comes back into the Committee of the whole House so that we do not only seek as the bill states that the objective of the entity is to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to “the aim of achieving an integrated safe responsive and sustainable transport system”. 
Well those are lovely words. Those are like mother’s milk apple pie and so on. But those words do not actually talk about how this entity would operate in the commercial world and this is a commercial entity—a business that will charge people to use it. There are no powers fettering its monopoly position as far as I can see. We have in the airports legislation some restrictions about how those airports can either use or misuse their monopoly powers. I would like to put in some words about economic efficiency and to also have some limitations on the abuse of a monopoly power. 
Having said all that though the bill is necessary and the National Party will not do anything to hinder its passage to a select committee that will hear the necessary submissions and make what we hope will be some constructive suggestions for improving the bill. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill; to thank the National Party for its support of this bill and to say I look forward to its contribution when this bill reaches a select committee; to thank my colleague the Minister for Transport Safety for his erudite opening remarks; and to say that this bill marks the end of an era that began when the then National Government sought to privatise the railways which was arguably the worst act of privatisation in New Zealand’s privatisation era. I have a great deal of pleasure in seeing the rail track—indeed a monopoly provision—not only returned to State control but also under this legislation having statutory identity. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a call pending the return to the House of my colleague Peter Brown from the Business Committee. Perhaps he will be given the opportunity to say a few words shortly because from the sound of things I am sure there would be no objection to New Zealand First having two calls on this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I can tell the member that without rails they would not run. As we know this Rail Network Bill provides for the long-term structure and role of the New Zealand Railways Corporation which has responsibility for owning and operating the national rail network following its purchase by the Crown. As the previous speaker indicated the preceding National Government has a lot to answer for. Now I can resume my seat because the person who knows everything about this bill has come into the House and will be only too pleased to take the next call. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There was a time not long ago possibly 10 years ago when we heard that the railways were to be ultra-modern that they were to go into private hands and that they were to be a world example. I think they were set up for sale by the Labour Government of course. I think Richard Prebble as Minister of Transport had set them all up some years before and when National came to power in the 1990s—[ 
Interruption 
] The member says we would not have a railway. Let me just say that the year after Richard Prebble set it up the railways made a profit for the first time ever. Up until that time the taxpayer carried the whole thing paid for the redundancies and what have you. 
Then the Government—and I am sure the member will correct me if I am wrong—employed a couple of consultants from Fay Richwhite to arrange the sale. A few weeks before the sale they sort of jumped ship and became part of the purchasing team. As a result I think that organisation made a lot of money out of New Zealand Rail. 
Dail Jones 
: $300 million. 
PETER BROWN 
: It made $300 million. What did the country get? It got a rather run-down railway track and railway service to be honest. And only a year or so ago this Government was forced to purchase the network back—a network that was in a dilapidated state in many many areas. 
In Tauranga I was invited out by some concerned residents who asked me to look at a railway track and see what was holding it in the ground. I went there and I found that it was literally easier to pick the bolts out than to pull pins out of a pincushion—and it was not just one bolt; there were quite a few. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: So what did the member do about it? 
PETER BROWN 
: The member rang the honourable Minister Harry Duynhoven who I know likes to get his hands dirty and is not afraid to get some action around the place. After that meeting with the residents and seeing the state of the track I had gone home thinking that I now had to do something about the situation because if anything were to go off the rails that night it would be on my conscience. That railway track runs along an embankment between rows of housing so if something went over it would go right into a house—and God knows what would have happened. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What did Harry do? 
PETER BROWN 
: Harry Duynhoven got straight on to the case. He went up in my esteem enormously. There was no mucking around. He got straight on to it. I understand that he had quite some debate to get action. But fair go he did get some work done on that railway track in rapid order. 
Having said all of that I have to say that our railway tracks need a fair amount of money put into them and I hope the Government is aware of that. I think it is programming $200 million but that is not enough. I do not believe it will be enough. I think it is programming $200 million over 5 years and I do not believe that will be enough. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: We’ve already put $80 million into it. 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to the honourable Minister that I think he has to have a good deal more money than he has probably budgeted for. This country needs an efficient railway service because it is long skinny country separated by Cook Strait and the railway could play a very important part in our economic well-being. I am not only talking about it carrying passengers. It is obviously important in areas like Wellington and Auckland that it does carry passengers but it is also an ideal system for carrying long-haul freight. To my mind and to the minds of my colleagues it is essential that we get the railway system built up to the appropriate standard in short order. 
New Zealand First has always believed that this country would be better served if the tracks were owned by the taxpayer and we allowed operators to operate on the tracks—exactly as the roading system works. We have advocated that for many a year and we are very very pleased that the Government has picked up that idea. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Probably Duynhoven’s policy. 
PETER BROWN 
: I have given the Minister enough credit for one day. I think I am going to claim a little bit for my colleagues here. New Zealand First has advocated that the tracks should be owned by the taxpayer and that the operators who use the tracks should pay rail-user charges in exactly the same way as trucking companies pay for using the roads. I do not think I need to express any more concerns about that except—[ 
Interruption 
] The Minister Pete Hodgson who is on his feet is a little bit premature. 
I want to know why this bill is being sent to the Government Administration Committee. We have in the Hon Mark Gosche a very competent chairman of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. He is well-served by the members on that committee and they are very keen about transport matters. The Minister in sending this bill to the Government Administration Committee is doing a disservice to the transport-minded people who work so diligently on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Dail Jones 
: They want it back by June. 
PETER BROWN 
: Then the Minister had better send it to the professionals to the guys who really have their finger on the button and not to the Government Administration Committee. With due respect to the members on that committee when it comes to trains I do not think they would know the front end of a train from the back of a bus. 
Jill Pettis 
: That’s a patronising comment! 
PETER BROWN 
: I think I have my answer and I will quit while I am ahead. But I ask the Minister to rethink which committee he sends the bill to and send it to the correct one. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I am curious too as to why this bill is going to the Government Administration Committee. I presume it is because it is legislation that deals with the administration of the rail network. I actually agree with Peter Brown who has just spoken that we have a very good Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and an excellent chairman and that we do have the time to get through legislation like this. Although ACT is supporting the bill going to the Government Administration Committee I am disappointed that it will not be to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because one of the reasons for that support was that I was very interested to see the submissions on it. 
There has been a lot of talk about the long-term structure and role of the New Zealand Railways Corporation in terms of owning the national rail network. There was a lot of lobbying in 2002-03 by what became known as the “big four”. I think it was Solid Energy—and I can see the Minister racking his brain as I am. Four big companies wanted the Government to buy back the rail network so they could have the exclusive use of it. Of course that would never have worked because rail is not like a road where there are passing lanes etc. We opposed this buy-back of the rail network. One of the biggest mistakes that Richard Prebble ever made was not selling the railways. He is always accused of selling the railways. In fact he never did sell the railways. One of the greatest myths in modern politics is that Richard Prebble sold the railways. Had he sold the railways had he privatised them we would have had a successful privatisation like Telecom—and I do not see this Government moving back to buying back Telecom and turning it into New Zealand Post. 
Peter Brown mentioned the fact that the railways used to lose a lot of money. In the year 1979-80 the railways lost $90 million of taxpayers’ money. It was an appalling situation. We saw this move by the Government to buy back the network as a retrograde step. 
There has also been talk about buying back this network as a sweetheart deal with Toll Holdings. That is why I would be interested to see the submissions to the select committee—the submissions that will inevitably come in from New Zealand transport operators who will have a lot to say about this legislation which has appeared to favour an Australian mega transport company that is trying to swallow up New Zealand transport companies. Peter Brown advocated that his party has always foreseen a situation where the taxpayer owned the rail network and the companies such as the trucking companies used it—as a parallel with the roading network. Does he not see what a disaster we already have with the roading network? Yes the trucking companies do pay massive road-user charges to use the roads but what do they get back in return? They get nothing like what they pay. They get nothing in terms of goods and services commensurate with what they pay for. 
If it is estimated that $200 million a year is what is needed to be spent on the rail network we will never achieve that. We cannot even achieve it with the roads let alone with a rail network. What people always forget when they criticise the run-down state of rail in New Zealand is that the geography of New Zealand is such that it makes it very very expensive to maintain a rail network. People always talk about Britain and America but we have a totally different situation here. Whenever there is talk about a line closing down—an example was the Napier to Gisborne line—all these sentiments come out. People have this emotional attachment to the rail networks—“Save Rail”. How many of those people actually use the rail? They want it for a once-in-a-lifetime scenic trip that they may take but it is a cost to the taxpayer. If we go back to the time when we spent $90 million a year on our rail network the cost to the taxpayer was just exorbitant. 
The other issue that comes up is rail safety and how the Government should have ownership because private ownership never takes care of safety. In 2003 I went to a really interesting conference in Britain. It was a conference on how the media report disasters. There has been a lot of reporting in Britain about how privatisation of rail networks in Britain led to a decrease in safety standards and bigger disasters. This conference actually showed that when one compared like with like—if one compared all the equivalents and eliminated things—and compared roading with rail road travel was far more unsafe than rail. It is just that when there is a rail disaster it is a big one and it is a shocking one. The media report it and blow it up. Everyone is really interested in it and says how ghastly it is and we have all these tales. Every day that number of people and more can be killed on the roads in Britain and no one takes any notice. So it is all about perceptions. There is no evidence to show that private ownership of any rail network automatically leads to a decline in safety standards. 
The Government was not forced to purchase back the rail network. Yes I agree that the privatisation of the rail network was badly handled. But that does not mean to say that it should be one or the other. It could have been fixed up or improved instead of going back to a situation where the taxpayer now owns and carries the risk of running maintaining and pouring more and more dollars into the national rail network. As I said we are supporting this bill to select committee. I am disappointed it is not going to our select committee—the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—but we will support it and see what happens when it comes back to the House. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand and speak in support of the Rail Network Bill. The legislation is necessitated by the buy back of the rail-track. I might add that the Greens have advocated the buy back of the rail-track for many years and we are pleased to see the Government adopt the strategy and actually buy it back—and I might add get a bargain—and put ourselves in a position to establish a comprehensive transport strategy that includes rail. We are pleased to see measures long advocated by us actually happen. But the rail network development plan that this bill requires has important implications for the energy and conservation future of this country and it also has important implications for the travel future of this country. 
It is now 12 years since our rail system was disastrously privatised and allowed to run down. The $200 million and 10-year capital improvement programme that this legislation facilitates will provide New Zealand with an essential component of a sustainable transport system. The bill is good news for motorists who have seen their safety undermined by the proliferation of road freight. In view of the fact that road freight operators meet only 56 percent of their roading costs and rail pays 82 percent this bill and the $200 million commitment is an overdue redressing of an out-of-kilter transport system. 
The bill is good news for rail commuters in Wellington and Auckland as well. As our summers get longer and hotter the new owners of the rail-track have a responsibility to see that the track stands up to the pressure without inconveniencing passengers as rails buckle as they have in the past. With peak oil charges and a pressing need to deal with climate change New Zealand needs the fuel efficiency that rail offers for the movement of freight and people. There is no doubt that oil will become more expensive. There is no doubt that climate change is looming. Rail is an important component in providing both sustainable and affordable transport and reducing carbon emissions thereby helping us to comply with our Kyoto Protocol commitments. 
The bill gives effect to New Zealand’s transport strategy to expand the role of rail. There is much that needs to be done to restore rail and the communities and the workforces along the rail-track are likely to get a lift as a consequence of this bill. It is critical that rail is integrated with the other transport modes so that commuters and freight operators can mix and match their transport options. One of the things that was discovered in surveys of local communities was that they wanted to be able to put their bikes on the trains so that they could do part of their journey by cycle and part of their journey on the train. It makes good sense. It is simple for cyclists to carry their bikes on the trains and that will improve patronage. It is also important that parking adjacent to railway stations urban railway stations in particular is provided so again users can mix and match their transport options. Peter Brown asked what New Zealand got. He suggested a rather dilapidated rail-track. I would suggest New Zealand has an opportunity to have a comprehensive transport strategy. 
I hope new rail-track will be laid. I live in Nelson. The Environment Court recently turned down a request by the city of Nelson to build a 2½ kilometre road—a third highway into the city—that would cost $20 million - odd. I asked Tranz Rail some time back what it would cost to build a rail network and it said something like $1 million a kilometre. I cannot remember who it was—maybe it was Deborah Coddington—who said that rail is great for long-haul freight. I would suggest that it has a role for short-haul freight as well. Nelson’s main road—a lovely scenic road—runs around the waterfront and it gets clogged with very large lorries. Traffic on the road is actually overcapacity most of the day. Certainly if it is not overcapacity it does not take much for it to grind to a halt. A rail network into the city is something that should certainly be investigated. In the past I have asked for something to be done. So far people have said: “Oh we don’t build rail any more.” Well I would suggest that with peak oil prices along with climate change it is one of those things that needs to be investigated. It would certainly make our port road a whole lot more enjoyable as a scenic road and a whole lot safer for motorists. 
Deborah Coddington mentioned the inefficiencies of rail. Well could I say that the efficiencies will improve as freight volumes and passenger volumes increase. She spoke also about an emotional attachment. Well it is an emotional attachment that would be good to see renewed and revived because in fact rail plays a really important role I believe in the slowing-down movement that is advocated all over the world these days. As I see the mist roll in over Wellington harbour yet again today it may well be that rail will become more reliable in the future and it may be even faster than using aeroplanes. 
 It is interesting to see the successive rail works marketed. It is not enough simply to put in the infrastructure; we do need to market it. We have a very attractive product but there needs to be somebody out there saying to folk: “Go and catch the train. Go and see our country. Go and enjoy it.” Of course visitors to New Zealand like the Tranz Scenic train journey that goes from Canterbury to the West Coast and return. It is a lovely trip and of course we have scenery like that all over the country. Having rail in place so that scenery can be explored and enjoyed by more New Zealanders and also overseas visitors makes eminently good sense. The Greens are supporting this bill. It is another piece of legislation that is the result I like to think of the close relationship between the Government and ourselves on transport and it promises a much more enlightened transport future for New Zealanders. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I am pleased to support the first reading of the Rail Network Bill. This is yet another piece of legislation that this Government has put into place that adds to its record of revitalising the transport infrastructure in New Zealand. I remind members in the House that this Government is about to spend $18.7 billion on transport over the next 10 years to fix up the terrible mistakes of the past—as Peter Brown indicated in his speech—that saw our rail system almost at the point of extinction. We have picked it back up and bought it back for $1. We are putting in $200 million to fix up the rail system which was badly neglected by the private sector. 
It was extraordinary to hear Maurice Williamson say the National Party wants to remove a monopoly from the situation. Is National proposing to build another railway line next to the current one so that there is choice? Anything is possible with the National Party and of course that is the kind of nonsense we would expect from it. The competition is transport on the roads and transport on the sea. Rail has to be a vital part of transport competition. That is why the Government has stepped back in—to make sure that we have a rail system. We know that in some circumstances the roading system would cost a lot more to fix up than the rail system. The options have to be left open. 
It is also extraordinary to have the ACT party saying it is opposed to international investment in the form of Toll NZ coming in to help fix up the rail system. Toll NZ will be scratching its head wondering whether the ACT party is the party that is supposed to be for private enterprise. One of its members criticised Richard Prebble; well I criticise him for everything he has done in his time in Parliament but I would not be so ungracious as Deborah Coddington one of his mates has been in doing so. 
Anyway this is a good bill. It is very necessary. The Government Administration Committee is a wonderful committee that has always considered this type of legislation. I am sure that all those members who want to be part of the consideration will be able to get on that committee if they wish. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of the Rail Network Bill. We welcome this bill into the House. It will make very positive progress in the re-establishment of our rail network throughout this nation. 
The bill sets out to update the legislation under which the rail network operating authority ONTRACK operates. It repeals the outmoded New Zealand Railways Corporation Act of 1981 and the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act of 1990. It also provides ONTRACK with the necessary modernised governance arrangements and allows for carry-over provisions relating to the holding and disposal of rail network land with the intention of preserving the current position. 
I am particularly interested in the provisions that allow ONTRACK to acquire new land for expansion of the rail network because I believe it is important that as we develop new motorways in this nation—which United Future is very keen to see happen—some forward-thinking people anticipate the possibility that there may be at some stage in the future an interest in expanding our rail network alongside those motorways. I am pleased that the bill will make provision for that. 
This bill can be seen as a significant step towards restoring and properly developing rail as a key part of New Zealand’s freight and passenger transport networks. The fact that this bill will also require ONTRACK to prepare a 10-year capital development programme is testimony to the fact that the current thinking is in line with the long-term strategy thinking which is encouraging. We must plan better for not only our rail network but our road network in this country and have goals that will provide the infrastructure we need for an effective economy in this country. The rail network is far too important for any Government to sit idly by and watch it deteriorate as others have done and I must congratulate this Government on taking the bull by the horns—so to speak—stepping in and reclaiming the rail network in this country and being prepared to invest in it. It is never ever a good idea to watch infrastructure sit and rust away and investments made in the past be wasted. 
For us the preferred option is not just pouring money into infrastructure but offering—and this is met in this bill—a sensible balance between extracting a return from an investment and still ensuring its sustainability. That is sound logic and United Future always errs on the side of logic as members of the House have come to know over the past few years. Calling for greater investment in infrastructure is a hallmark of United Future’s policy planks that we have been pursuing during this term of Parliament. This bill represents such a position with regard to our nation’s rail network. It offers prudent and necessary measures and as such we will be pleased to support its passage at the first reading. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 We had a very lucid address from our member the Hon Maurice Williamson who made a very good speech. He indicated some changes he would like to see happen at the select committee. We are pleased to support this bill. We subscribe to his view that we should support this bill through to a select committee. We will be doing that. The bill will go to the Government Administration Committee of which I am a member so I look forward to receiving it there. However one thing we will vote against is the resolution by the Minister that would have that committee meeting at any time. We certainly will not be supporting that although we support the bill. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Transport 
: I move  
That the Rail Network Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee 
for consideration that the committee report by 23 June 2005 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting despite Standing Orders 191 193(a) and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) 
First Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Police 
: I move  
That the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
 I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee. This bill amends the Arms Act which has not been significantly amended since 1992. The bill is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It replaces the previous Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) which was introduced in July 1999 and reported back from the select committee in February 2001 without a recommendation as to whether the bill should proceed. After careful consideration of advice from the New Zealand Police the Government has decided that unlike the previous bill this bill will not include provision for the establishment of a comprehensive firearms registration regime—that is a requirement for firearms owners to apply to the police for the registration of all firearms in their possession. 
There is insignificant evidence to conclude that the benefits of such a registration regime would be justified through benefits to crime prevention and detection. It is not realistic to expect that it would be possible to register all or nearly all of the firearms in New Zealand including those in the possession of the criminal community. Without being able to guarantee that the effectiveness of the registration system is seriously compromised. 
It is already the case that at the time of relicensing with police firearms licence applicants voluntarily allow the recording of details of firearms they possess. This acts as a property-recording device and provides a cross-reference when checking the security arrangements required for firearms. The Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) addresses the minimum legislative requirements for New Zealand compliance with the Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms their Parts and Components and Ammunition—the firearms protocol—which supplements the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. 
The passage of this bill along with minor amendments to regulations will enable New Zealand to become party to that firearms protocol. Cabinet has authorised New Zealand to deposit an instrument of accession to the protocol subject to the completion of the parliamentary treaty examination process and the passage of implementing legislation. 
The Law and Order Committee has reported back on the protocol. Although it did not reach agreement on whether New Zealand should become a party to the protocol the Government is proceeding with the Bill since the House will be in a better position to judge the matter now that the legislative consequences are being set out in this bill. 
Accession to the protocol is consistent with New Zealand’s involvement in multilateral initiatives against transnational organised crime and its commitment to collective efforts to prevent the illicit trafficking of firearms and combating terrorism. 
In addition to enabling New Zealand to meet international standards set out in the protocol the bill will include a number of amendments to enhance the effectiveness of the Arms Act and to assist the police with their enforcement role in respect of this legislation. Part one of the bill amends definitions in the current Act and extends the range of activities for which a dealer’s licence will be required—for example the hiring out of firearms or the manufacture of ammunition in the course of business. The bill amends provisions relating to the importation of firearms parts of firearms restricted weapons starting pistols and ammunition. 
The current seizure provisions for illegally imported firearms are extended to include ammunition. In the main these provisions relate to the minimum requirements of the firearms protocol. This part also provides that firearms licences will not be issued unless the police are satisfied that the applicant has or has access to secure facilities for the storage of firearms. This will also apply to when firearms owners are seeking the renewal of their licences. 
There is a provision for the police to temporarily suspend a person’s firearms licence when they are considering the revocation of the licence. This is where there are grounds for deciding that a person is no longer a fit and proper person to be in possession of a firearm where the person has not had his or her firearm securely stored or the person has had his or her licence seized by police following a search of that person or that person’s property in relation to criminal activity or suspected criminal activity. This suspension is to prevent the person from acquiring new firearms during the time it takes to process the revocation. 
Part 2 of the bill comprises amendments relating to criminal activity. It creates a new offence of manufacturing by way of business firearms air guns restricted weapons or their parts or ammunition without a dealer’s licence; a new offence of contravening the legal requirements for importing or exporting firearms restricted weapons starting pistols or ammunition; and a new offence of altering falsifying obliterating or removing an identifying mark on a firearm without lawful and sufficient purpose. 
Offences will be punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment or by a fine of up to $10000 or both. This will enable the Proceeds of Crime Act and the money-laundering offences in the Crimes Act to apply to these offences. 
There are some new offences relating to the possession for illegal purposes of body armour designed for protection against firearm projectiles. There are increases to some of the maximum penalties under the Arms Act and a new order of the court is established applicable to many of the offences in the Arms Act which is the suspension of a firearms licence a dealer’s licence or an endorsement on a firearms licence. 
Suspensions are to be for a period of at least 3 months as determined by the court. The prospect of losing their licences and firearms for such periods should further discourage firearms licence holders from contravening the Arms Act. 
There is clarification of the current provisions in the Arms Act that relate to searches of property or people and the seizure of firearms air guns imitation firearms restricted weapons ammunition and body armour where the police have reason to suspect that an offence has been or is about to be committed. There is a provision for the seizure of a person’s firearms licence pending suspension prior to revocation. 
There are consequential amendments to the Extradition Act and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act so that these Acts apply to the new offences of unlawful manufacturing unlawful trafficking and unlawful modification of firearms markings. A number of technical inconsistencies in the current Arms Act are also remedied. 
The Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) strikes a balance between strengthening New Zealand’s ability to prevent arms being used in transnational crime and minimising the cost of complying with the firearms protocol. It is not a vehicle to introduce a comprehensive domestic firearms registration system; rather it will help ensure that New Zealand has effective control systems and record-keeping for the export import and manufacture of firearms. I expect that many people will make submissions to the committee and this will enable the matters addressed in the bill to be thoroughly canvassed. I commend the bill to the House. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I am pleased to see my colleagues Ron Mark and Ken Shirley in the House to debate the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) because those gentlemen were members of the Law and Order Committee along with myself during the last Parliament. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: A very good committee. 
SIMON POWER 
: It was a good committee I say to Mr Shirley. It was well chaired by Janet Mackey. It was that committee that had to deal with the submissions on the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) and its report back to Parliament. From memory there were some 6000 submissions. I think that is correct and I am sure a member to speak after me will correct me if I am wrong. This was the first select committee I had sat on during my time as a member of Parliament. Janet Mackey Ken Shirley and Ron Mark sat on that committee. Brian Neeson and Tony Steel might have been there as well. Judith Tizard— 
Georgina Beyer 
: I was on it. 
SIMON POWER 
: Georgina Beyer was on that committee. That is right. The interesting thing is how the select committee process works. As the Minister rightly pointed out this bill was originally sent to the select committee by the previous National Government and it was well intentioned. But when members of the committee sat down to go through the bill and listened to the submissions that were brought before the committee it became apparent not only to myself and other National members on that committee and not only to Mr Shirley and Mr Mark but more particularly and more interestingly to the Government members on that committee that the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) would not work in a million years. 
 Even the police advisers to the select committee towards the end were saying that it did not look that tidy. The reason was simple. If there were a registration system for every single firearm in New Zealand we would essentially be saying to the criminal element of New Zealand: “Look would you mind coming in and registering your firearm?”. That was never going to happen and that was essentially the fall-down position of this bill. The more we heard about how guns come into the hands of people who use them for ill means the more we realised that actually a registration system for the firearm itself would penalise only those well-intentioned law-abiding citizens who would bring their firearms forward to be registered. The last thing somebody who is going to rob a bank will do is to say: “Before I rob that bank I must dash in and get this firearm registered.” 
That was never going to happen. So we travelled the country Janet Mackey Ken Shirley Ron Mark and myself. Stephen Franks was there a bit and that other guy from the Alliance who was here for one term—Kevin Campbell. Kevin Campbell travelled with us from time to time as well. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: He was a good bloke. 
SIMON POWER 
: He was a good bloke; he gave a good valedictory. It became clear that the legislation was never going to work. So we said to Janet Mackey who did a fine job of chairing that select committee that she had to go back to her caucus and tell George Hawkins that it was not a runner. I do not know whether she did but what happened was that the bill was reported back with the committee being unable to reach a recommendation. It was reported back actually on 22 February 2001 and there it sat on the Order Paper until now. That was over 3 years ago. From time to time the shadow Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee and I have queried this. After the business statement on Thursday Mr Brownlee would often ask how we were getting on with the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2). It was pretty obvious that Mr Hawkins’ office struggled with this—amongst other things—and in the end the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) was born of that frustration and the legacy of the Law and Order Committee in the Parliament before this. 
This bill is significant not for what it does but what it does not do. Even Judith Tizard pointed out it was pointless trying to get people to register firearms who were not that way disposed. So we find ourselves now with a bill that does not register firearms actually. What it does is try to drive our domestic legislative agenda to a point where it coincides with more UN protocols. Regardless of one’s view of the UN—and we could stand here all night talking about the UN—the fact is this legislation is designed to do two things. The first is to drive our domestic legislation closer to that protocol. I believe the Minister herself said during her contribution that she could not guarantee it would meet the protocol at that point if the bill was passed by this Parliament but it would get legs to get partly there. So there is a protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms their parts and components that supplements the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. It creates offences around the illicit manufacture of firearms and their parts and their trafficking. That seems fair enough. It is difficult to argue with that. 
 The National Party will not be opposing the passage of this legislation to the select committee; what it will be doing is saying that at this point we will support the bill to a select committee but we will listen with interest to submissions. One thing is for sure—as Ken Shirley and Ron Mark know—this bill will attract large numbers of submissions. There is nothing surer than that. The gun lobby as well as those around various other organisations will definitely want to make submissions on the bill. At that point the other amendments will no doubt be addressed by those submitters—issues around body armour search powers seizure of licences temporary suspension of licences and importantly as pointed out by Judith Tizard one positive and significant step in this bill relates to the storage and security of firearms and their components. That makes sense. It is a positive thing that the bill does as opposed to it being more interesting for what it does not do following on from the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2). 
The other thing worth looking at is the air guns clauses. Those weapons if one likes are becoming more and more powerful. Some of them that have muzzle energy of a certain magnitude will be brought under the registration scheme and that is a good thing. So we wait with interest to see whether the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) draws as much attention as the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) which as I said earlier from recollection had about 6500 submissions. We sat through adjournments and goodness knows what else. It was very interesting. I learnt more about firearms in that 6 months than I ever had before. 
The National Party will support the bill to select committee and we will listen with interest to what submitters say. The mistake of the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) was that it was conceived tabled and sent to a select committee on the basis of the Thorp report without having had the benefit of submissions. This is one case where even under an MMP environment the select committee process between Government and Opposition members came to a sensible and rational conclusion and we hope that the passage of the No. 3 bill allows us to have those same sorts of considerations. 
Debate interrupted. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussions at the Business Committee this afternoon and unanimous agreement and on the understanding that all business in the urgency motion down to the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill will be completed by 6 p.m. on Friday I seek leave for there to be questions for oral answer on Wednesday and Thursday of this sitting. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 As the chair of the Law and Order Committee which I understand from the Minister’s speech will have the task of considering this bill I would like to take a relatively brief call. I also acknowledge the previous speaker Simon Power and his compliments to the former chairperson of the committee Janet Mackey and his description of her as a very very good chair. I certainly would not disagree with that at all. I also compliment the previous members of the Law and Order Committee and the work they did on the No. 2 bill and in particular the work of the chair of the committee at the time Janet Mackey. 
For the benefit of the House and the wider public I will restate the fundamental tenets of this bill as I understand it in terms of my reading. This bill amends the Arms Act and it replaces the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) that was introduced in July 1999. Unlike that bill this bill will not include provision for the establishment of comprehensive firearms registration. However the passage of this bill will enable New Zealand to become party to the firearms protocol. It is important to restate that that protocol is against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms—their parts and components and ammunition—supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime. 
I have no problem with international agencies—including the United Nations obviously in the very critical work it has to do in our fight against highly organised transnational crime. I would say that anything that improves international cooperation and reinforces some of those protocols must by its nature be a very very good thing. Obviously we are well aware that this is a very very serious issue internationally. 
The Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) also includes a number of amendments to enhance the effectiveness of the Arms Act as I understand it from my first reading and to assist the police in their enforcement role in respect of this legislation. For example there will be new offences relating to the possession for illegal purposes of body armour designed for protection against firearm projectiles—as again was outlined in the Minister’s speech—and increases to some of the maximum penalties for offences under the Arms Act as was also outlined very clearly in the Minister’s speech. 
It seems to me upon reading this bill that it strikes a balance between strengthening New Zealand’s ability to prevent arms from being used in transnational crime and minimising the costs of complying with the firearms protocol. It is not as has previously been stated a vehicle to introduce a comprehensive domestic firearms registration system; rather it will help to ensure that New Zealand has effective control systems and record-keeping on the export import and manufacture of firearms. 
I am very sure that all members of the Law and Order Committee will undertake their very important task of considering this bill and the submissions on it with absolute goodwill and integrity. I am hopeful that the process will not be used for some sort of political grandstanding exercise. I am sure it will not be. There are some very important fundamental issues in this bill. I note from the explanatory note of the bill that a number of Government agencies were consulted. I also note that we are advised: “Police also sought the views of some representatives of firearms owner groups in particular the New Zealand Council of Licensed Firearms Owners the New Zealand Pistol Association the Sports Trade Industry and the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council.” All those organisations do very very positive work on issues of firearms safety. I absolutely agree with the previous speaker in anticipating that there will be quite a significant number of submissions on this bill and I will look forward as a member of the committee to the very considered submissions from those organisations and of course from the professionals in the New Zealand Police as well. 
I will not take any further time because I am well aware that a number of speakers want to follow me with their input on this bill. As chair of the Law and Order Committee I think I can say that we look forward to our task. We will certainly be doing our very best to give the various submissions that we will receive on this bill very very close and careful consideration. In the end again I guess from what I can see this bill will attempt to strike the right balance. Obviously we will recognise New Zealand’s obligations in terms of international protocols and do what we can to ensure the ongoing international fight against transnational organised crime when it comes to the illicit trade in and supply of firearms. We look forward to working on this bill and the submissions that will come to us in the course of our hearings on it. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 In the 6 minutes prior to the dinner break let me say that I really do hate to shatter the illusion of cooperation and understanding that seemed to flow from the National and Labour Party speakers who preceded me. But let us not forget that the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) which this bill replaces was introduced by a National Government. It was a National bill to bring about gun registration and to require aspects of the Thorp report—erroneous misguided and flawed as they were—to be brought into legislation. The fact that the National Government led by Jenny Shipley sought to impose such laws upon the farming rural and hunting communities of New Zealand was absolutely astounding but it happened to go hand in hand with a number of other liberal things that that National Government did was party to supported and progressed such as the lowering of the drinking age. 
National has gone through a transformation since then in the Law and Order Committee which was ably led by Janet Mackey. The one regret New Zealand First has is that after Janet Mackey’s sterling work the great chairmanship she brought to that committee and her presentation of a report that made it very clear to this Government that it was misguided in pursuing the agenda of registration and buy-back of military style semi-automatics and the like the report embarrassed the Minister of Police and frightened him into not presenting it to the House and not allowing a debate on it—because in the cosy little arrangement that exists within the old club National and Labour neither of them wanted to be embarrassed by the findings of that report. The tragedy is that Janet Mackey was never rewarded with an Associate Minister job or even made a senior private secretary to some insignificant Minister let alone given a ministerial job. 
There she sits due to leave this House after many years of loyally serving the Labour Party having not been given a ministerial portfolio. We ask ourselves why that is so. The only conclusion we can come to is that she was fair firm competent and productive and that she did a good job and that that is not the sort of leadership the Labour Party wants anywhere near its Government benches let alone in its ministerial portfolios. It would rather have someone like John Tamihere there. That is a sad indictment. Janet Mackey deserves some credit for doing a very difficult job. She produced a result that was very much disliked by many of her caucus colleagues but it was a fair and accurate report and that is why the Minister never allowed it to be debated in this House. 
Let us get to the nuts and bolts. This bill is rubbish. New Zealand First will not be supporting it because it seeks to enshrine in New Zealand legislation some toadyish behaviour by this Government to cede this country’s sovereignty and the Government’s responsibility to a bunch of knee-jerk United Nations representatives in some insignificant committee that purportedly wants to deal with illicit trading in small arms ammunition and spare parts. We have done a review of this—the Law and Order Committee reviewed this treaty. It concluded that it could not report back to the House one way or the other on whether the treaty was a good idea. So here we have a situation whereby the Law and Order Committee analysed the Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms their Parts and Components and Ammunition supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and could not agree that it added one jot to the betterment of New Zealand law. All it did was to sign us up with a bunch of toady Third World countries of dubious reputation such as Azerbaijan Saudi Arabia and a few others that are themselves steeped in such activities. 
What we found in talking to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials and the police is that New Zealand does not have a problem in manufacturing firearms. Our manufacturing capability is minuscule. We do not have a problem in illicit trading. Indeed all the officials could point to as justification for this bill was the illicit trading in Government-owned firearms in the Solomons. Excuse me? The only activity they could identify as being in any way reflected in this bill was not happening in New Zealand; it was happening in the Solomons. And it was not a trade in illicit firearms; those firearms were purchased and owned by the legitimate Government which failed to secure them. It had corrupt police and it could not control them—and now we have this bill! This is rubbish. The fact is New Zealand First would support changes to the law that deal with the nonsense— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Debate interrupted. 
Personal Explanations 
Question No. 9 to Minister 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This afternoon on a point of order I told the House that the Local Government and Environment Committee had issued a press release stating simply that we had met in private with Judge Bollard the Principal Environment Court Judge in relation to the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill. The select committee decided to issue such a release on Friday at its meeting in Auckland last week. Because it was a straight statement of fact I did not expect that it would be run past me before release and I expected that it would have been issued yesterday. I was wrong. The clerk’s intention was always to put it in the weekly omnibus release that goes out on a Friday. Our resolution was not in time to make the 11 o’clock deadline last Friday so it was to be issued next Friday. I apologise if I have misled the House about that. The release has not been issued. The committee decided that it would be issued but it has not yet been published. 
Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the dinner break this legislation is absolutely pointless. It is needless. It will take up select committee time which is unnecessary. It will take the time of the House which is unnecessary to make law changes that are unnecessary which will bring upon and inflict upon people who legitimately go about their business of selling firearms unnecessary compliance costs in terms of keeping registers. Of all things it seeks to try to account for every last bullet or round imported into New Zealand—members should think about it—that is every last .177 slug from an air rifle and every last .22 round from a 22-calibre rifle. 
What is the point? The point is that this politically correct Government wants to sign up to a United Nations convention that has 23-odd signatories from Third World punter countries that are the least likely to apply firearms legislation effectively that are most likely to employ mercenaries and that are most likely to trade illicitly in arms—to sign up a country New Zealand about which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade came to the select committee and said no problems existed. The real problem that this bill should be focusing on is what is currently happening with our ineffectual laws in the hands of some of our ineffectual judges. If this bill went some way to templating law to require judges to lock people up for a 5 years’ minimum sentence for commissioning a crime with a firearm then it would be a good thing. That is New Zealand First’s policy. 
So why add more laws when this country is not enforcing the firearms laws that exist? I will give some examples. A person who pointed a firearm at another person and threatened to shoot during a gang confrontation got—what? The person got neither a $4000 or $5000 fine nor 4 years’ imprisonment—which is actually what is available—but 6 months’ jail. 
Pita Paraone 
: What? 
RON MARK 
: Six months’ jail! Do members want another example? Here is another one: a person was arrested after a firearm was allegedly pointed at a police officer on the outskirts of Hamilton during a pursuit. What did the person get? Well as for some others of those people it was such a thing as community service. Other cases concerned aggravated robbery with a firearm committing a crime with a firearm and unlawfully possessing a firearm. One person who recklessly discharged a firearm to steal $120-worth of cash and $200-worth of cigarettes was ordered to do a family group conference. 
What is the point of passing laws if this Government does not enforce the ones that exist? We do not need new laws that tie us into funny little United Nations committees’ agreements. After all it was this Government on the foreshore and seabed legislation that told a poky little committee at the United Nations to butt out of New Zealand’s business. Well this Government should do the same on this matter. We do not need to be signing up to an illicit protocol on trafficking in small arms and their bits and pieces with a bunch of Third World punters in order to placate them and make ourselves feel good; we can tell them to buzz off just as the Deputy Prime Minister did to that little United Nations committee that dared to criticise our sovereign right to make the decisions on the foreshore and seabed legislation that we did. 
New Zealand First opposes this legislation because we say that it is unnecessary. We can see that it will impose unnecessary compliance costs on firearms dealers and on legitimate firearms owners but in relation to the laws we really need to tighten up on the things we really need to tighten up on firmly are the judges who do not apply the law as it stands but who dish out the penalties they currently dish out to people who are stealing firearms illegally owning them and using them to commit crimes. That is what we should be focusing on—nothing else. There should be a 5-year minimum jail sentence for anyone commissioning a crime with a firearm and then we would see an even further reduction in the very low rate of offending with firearms that we have in our country of New Zealand. 
The firearms owners of New Zealand should be applauded; they are good law-abiding citizens. What they do not need is more useless legislation that simply adds compliance requirements on to them. We should let them get on and enjoy their sport so let us let this legislation fall off the table—as the last bill did. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party strongly opposes this legislation. It is unnecessary as the New Zealand First Party member has just pointed out. Indeed it reminds me of the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) and the disgraceful fiasco this House experienced with regard to it. That bill was brought to Parliament over 3 years ago now. I was on the Law and Order Committee as was Ron Mark and Simon Power. It was a disgraceful piece of legislation and there were 6000 submissions on it. It was quite clear that it was unworkable and that it was foolish. Even the police in the end—Mr Green I think was the name of their representative—advised the committee that yes that legislation would not work and there was no way the police could run the system that was proposed. So that bill was put on the back burner. But it was clear that this Government still wanted to put some runs on the board because it pledged to implement the Thorp report. Now if ever there was a foolish report it was the Thorp report. But this Government actually campaigned on the basis that it would implement that report so I think that in part this bill is all about trying to assuage those who still want the Government to be seen to be tough. 
I remember the Minister of Police being led by the nose on the previous bill. That was clear when it went on to the back burner because the select committee did not do a report on it in order to save the Government from its own embarrassment. The Government’s own members on the select committee then chaired by Janet Mackey conceded in the end that the legislation was a nonsense and an absolutely farcical situation so the select committee did not do a report on the bill and the Government just left the matter on the back burner. The Government was waiting for another sort of Aramoana situation or another Port Arthur or Dunblane situation where it could rush in with the support of public sentiment and legislate again against firearms. 
In this country we actually have quite good firearms laws if only we did not fiddle with them and as the previous spokesperson said as long as we actually enforced the existing laws rather than rushing to legislate for more controls. Here in this bill we have a classic response of the Labour Government in trying to curry favour with yet another United Nations committee. As if trying to wear the thickest hair shirt in the world on Kyoto is not enough the Government is rushing out here to sign up to the firearms protocol. We will probably find that the committee is chaired by a Nigerian—and there are incredible human rights issues in Nigeria—or by someone from the Ivory Coast or Liberia perhaps— 
Ron Mark 
: Mugabe. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Or by Mugabe. Yet New Zealand is rushing out to wear a thick hair shirt and say that yes we will comply with the letter of the protocol of the UN committee. 
 I think we have had enough of that nonsense in this country. It is time the Government woke up to the feelings and sentiments of the voting public who have also had enough of the politically correct claptrap that keeps coming into Parliament. There are many law-abiding citizens who own guns in this country and who are very responsible people. The point has been made about the folly of the earlier legislation which tried to move to the registration of firearms and firearm owners. Will gang members rush in to see that their firearms are registered before they hold up a bank? Will they rush in to make sure that they are registered before they do that? I do not think so. But somehow the Labour Government thinks we need more firearms legislation. There are many more pressing issues facing the country as we all know than the bill that is before the House tonight. 
My colleague Stephen Franks who is out on the campaign trail would have dearly loved to take part in this debate. He has already tabled Supplementary Order Paper 345 in his name and I draw that to the attention of members because he is using that opportunity to introduce some things that would be worthwhile to include if we are hell-bent on amending our firearms laws. In particular I refer to the fact that back in 1983 a right was taken away from New Zealanders by a law change regarding the legality of the use of force in self-defence—that is when victims reasonably feared that they were at risk of harm from an unprovoked offender or that a crime would continue if self-defence was not used. In 1983 we stripped the legal use of force in self-defence away from people when protecting themselves their families and their property. 
The ACT party says that we should restore the right to use force in self-defence. It is a fundamental right of citizens to defend themselves. The State says that people are not allowed to do that because it is illegal and that the State will act on behalf of people—that all they have to do is to ring 111 and the police will be there forthwith. We know that that is a lie. The Government cannot offer the protection to its citizenry that it purports to offer. Therefore citizens should have the right to defend themselves. We have the incredible situation whereby a Northland farmer could lose his farm because he has to meet the legal costs over charges he faced for defending his property and his family against an intruder who was committing theft on his property. Even though the farmer has been acquitted by a court the Crown continues to persecute him and he could lose his farm because he has to pay those legal costs. That is not right and that is what the amendment in Stephen Franks’ Supplementary Order Paper will address. We will be hearing a lot more about that as we move to the Committee stage of this bill. 
In summary we do not need this law. It should not be a priority. The Government has gone into urgency—the Leader of the House Dr Cullen acknowledges that the House has gone into urgency—and has put up bills like this one which nobody wants. Why is that? 
Ron Mark 
: Kofi Annan wants it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Kofi Annan wants it and so does Robert Mugabe. A United Nations committee has written a letter to someone in Government and George Hawkins our Minister of Police—who championed the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2)— 
Ron Mark 
: The “Minister of Silly Ideas”. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: He certainly is the “Minister of Silly Ideas” as Mr Mark points out. George Hawkins perhaps looking for his swansong failed with the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2). Even his own colleagues on the select committee would not support it. The chair of the committee at that time Janet Mackey who is one of the most sensible members in the Labour caucus recognised that it was nonsensical and foolish legislation. Mr Hawkins was defeated and humiliated over the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) so we have had this little token gesture to the Thorp report and to a committee of the United Nations return to Parliament. It beggars belief that Parliament will consume time on the consideration of this foolish bill. The ACT party will not even give it the dignity of voting for it to go to a select committee. Parliament has already considered the arms issue in the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2). There were 6000 submissions from the New Zealand public and I would say that 98 percent of them opposed it. Overwhelmingly submitters said that the existing laws were all right and that all we required was for the courts to enforce the existing laws. We do not need to rush new laws into Parliament that are foolish in concept. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I rise to make a brief contribution on behalf of my colleague Keith Locke. The Greens will support this bill. 
It replaces the 1999 legislation and amends the Arms Act 1983. Some of the amendments will enable New Zealand to comply with the Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms their Parts and Components and Ammunition. It supplements the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and I think we should be able to support that. 
The bill also makes other amendments. It provides for restrictions to be placed on powerful air guns and for the importation of firearms parts to require police approval. It also gives the police wider powers including search powers to deal with the unlawful possession of firearms and the ability to suspend firearms licences. The bill extends the list of agents and employees of the Crown that are exempt from aspects of the legislation by adding “a visiting member of an overseas police or law enforcement agency who is operating under the direction of the Commissioner”—Commissioner of Police—and “an officer or agent of the New Zealand Customs Service.” to the list. There is no provision for the introduction of a universal firearms registry. This is a very poor thing. I think we lost control of arms as soon as we went to registering owners rather than firearms. 
The bill establishes three new offences. First is the illicit manufacture of firearms and their parts. Second is the illicit trafficking of firearms their parts and ammunition. Third is the removal or altering of firearms’ markings without lawful excuse. These offences have maximum penalties of 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $10000 or both. 
Both the extension of the list of those exempt from the bill and the widening of police search powers should be viewed with some apprehension. The exemption for customs officers is arguably to fill a gap in the current law that leaves them in breach whenever they have possession of any firearms they are confiscating. The extension of search without warrant powers seems superfluous given that police can already enter a property without a warrant in order to make an arrest if they have reason to suspect someone of committing a crime on the premises or if they have found someone committing an offence and are freshly pursuing that person. They can also enter to prevent an offence if they suspect an offence that is likely to cause immediate and serious injury to any person or property is about to be committed. These powers already allow police to exercise their discretion in order to protect people. 
However overall this is a move to tighten up arms control and to comply with international agreements. Therefore we believe that it should be endorsed. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I find myself in a rather precarious position with regard to this bill because I have deep misgivings about many aspects of it. However it ought to be debated and for that reason alone we will be supporting it at least to the select committee if not beyond. Part of the reason we have decided to support it is the fact that one of our partners Outdoor Recreation New Zealand actively supports it. It has had a look at the bill and wants the opportunity to have it debated. Outdoor Recreation New Zealand would like to come and make a submission. On those grounds we will be supporting the bill at least as far as that. 
The other sense of disquiet that I have is about going along like a puppy-dog with the United Nations as has been mentioned a few times already and bowing our head yet again to that organisation. It is an organisation with which we have signed up to so many accords and protocols yet strangely enough we have not signed up to the one that matters the most at least from our perspective—the Doha declaration which puts the place of family at the heart of the community. I do not understand why the Government is so keen to sign up to everything else but not to that. Still I guess that that is something we need to debate another day. This Bill is intended to comply with the minimum legislative requirements of the Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms their Parts and Components and Ammunition supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. It all sounds wonderful. It sounds as though if we sign up to that protocol international crime will just come to a great standstill because we will have armed the defenders of freedom against those individuals. I tell members that I just do not believe it. I do not have as much faith as that in the United Nations and I do not understand why this Government does. Nevertheless if the purpose of the firearms protocol is to promote facilitate and strengthen international cooperation in order to prevent combat and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms their parts components and ammunition I do not understand why we are giving up our own sense of sovereignty—things we can do ourselves for our own nation. 
If we are talking about the immediate vicinity of the Pacific Island nations I strongly suggest that the very people involved in that sort of trade are in fact the various Government lackeys attached to those Governments. I am not sure that this bill will do anything other than remove their competition. I am not sure that that is such a clever way to go. 
However there are some good things in this bill. Some of the provisions are sensible. I agree with the search powers—the fact that the bill makes it clear that police search powers under the principal Act in respect of buildings premises and vehicles include the detention and search of people found on or in places. In respect of the temporary suspension of licences the police will be able to temporarily suspend a licence while its revocation is being considered. I also agree that in respect of high-powered air guns the definition of a firearm should be amended to include any air gun that has a muzzle energy of more than—to get technical—34 joules etc. 
I have had one particular instance that seemingly did not get taken very seriously by police. In front of my home in Christchurch there is a kindergarten. One day I found broken windows on my property. I subsequently had a look and there were about 60 slugs from an air gun all over the place on my property the trajectory of which had obviously come over the kindergarten. We called up the police—they were not particularly interested. I guess one just has to call 111 and scream. Eventually after thumping of the table I managed to get sufficient police attention and they came over. They actually ended up finding the kid who had been given the rifle and he got nothing—a wet bus ticket. His father got a telling-off. 
Jill Pettis 
: For heaven’s sake! 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: The point is that you may be happy— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Not the Speaker please. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I say to the member Jill Pettis that she may be very happy to have air guns fired over a kindergarten which may very well injure a young child but I take it rather seriously. So I am at least glad that that will be included. In the section entitled “Additional amendments” The explanatory note states: “There is also to be a new penalty of a suspension of a licence or endorsement applicable to many of the offences against the principal Act.” Ron Mark was quite right. We have a lot of laws in this country that are just not asserted. Judges need to apply the maximum penalties but unfortunately they do not. It is a tragedy but I guess that victims still come second in this country. I do not see this legislation doing very much about that even though it talks tough. We still have to have the right to defend ourselves and I would like to debate that at the select committee. 
We need to expand what we consider to be reasonable force to defend ourselves. I do not want a 75-year-old man or woman to have to scrimmage around the house looking for a lump of wood to fend off an attacker when there is a rifle within easy reach. I do not want to see that when it puts people at risk. [ 
Interruption 
] There goes that member again—yakkety-yak-yak! If we could harness the hot air coming out of her we would keep Auckland going for a month or so. 
Some people would say that guns do not kill; that only people do. Clearly guns play their part. For people to go around saying: “Bang bang!” probably would not do much good. From that perspective we need legislation to cover all firearms but I think we already have plenty of laws—we just need to assert them. All the same as I mentioned Outdoor Recreation NZ is supportive of this bill—at least of it going to select committee. That is where we will have the debate. The committee will have a much more thorough look at the propositions being put forward in this bill. I suppose the other side of the coin is the question of what regulations will accompany this bill—what regulations will actually give effect to it. That is the crux of a problem that we will I hope determine through the select committee process. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) 
: 
 I rise very briefly to support this Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) in the context of being the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control. In this bill there is some responsibility around the export of small arms. Those members who have served in the Solomons and in Bougainville will be very much aware of the question that has troubled people in the Pacific including the Pacific Islands Forum about where they get those arms from. 
It just so happens—[ 
Interruption 
] I wonder whether that member would listen. It just so happens that a representative of the New Zealand Council of Licensed Firearms Owners came to visit me at my electorate office concerned about the proposed legislation. I raised with him the issue of small arms control particularly as it related to the Pacific. He then took up the offer from the disarmament mission inside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to go to a meeting of Pacific nations—I think it was in Fiji. As a result of that he realised that there was a severe and serious problem around the control of small arms in the Pacific and he has offered the help and expertise of the New Zealand Council of Licensed Firearms Owners to the Pacific nations to help them with that issue. 
I am the Minister responsible for disarmament in terms of nuclear weapons. What I know is that in the Pacific more people die from small arms injuries than do because of nuclear arms and nuclear weapons. [ 
Interruption 
] This is a really important issue and unlike that member the council when it got to the Pacific really saw the issue and wanted to engage in work with us. We have not been working away from the firearms people. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) be referred to the Law and Order Committee 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 In order to facilitate the debate on this second reading which will cover matters that at the moment are not part of the bill I seek leave that it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361. We are seeking leave now that the Committee can consider the Supplementary Order Paper to enable the House to include those amendments in its consideration of the second reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Second Reading 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to express my thanks to the Government Administration Committee for its swift consideration of the bill. 
At the appropriate time I intend to table a Supplementary Order Paper to clarify the bill’s amendments to the Copyright Act. The Supplementary Order Paper will clarify that if the Crown owns the copyright in a work and that work is incorporated by reference in another work listed in section 27(1) of the Copyright Act then the copyright in the first mentioned work is removed. Where however the copyright in a work is owned by a person other than the Crown and that work is incorporated as just described the copyright remains unaffected. 
As members will know the bill amends the Building Act the Commerce Act and the Health Act to remove the requirement that where material is incorporated by reference under those Acts those with delegated or statutory responsibility must make that material such as building standards in the case of the Building Act available free of charge on the Internet. “Incorporation by reference” is a term used to describe a mechanism that gives legal effect to provisions contained in a document without repeating those provisions in the text of the legislation that incorporates that document. 
The amendments proposed in this bill endeavour to strike a balance between facilitating access to material incorporated by reference and the legitimate commercial interests of the owners of copyright and standards and of other material that may be incorporated by reference. The amendments in the bill will ensure that the Government is not expropriating or infringing the copyright of other parties both in New Zealand and overseas that the standards development process in New Zealand is up to date with international best practice and that the development of joint standards by Australia and New Zealand can continue. 
As all parties know following consultation over the last week it is the Government’s intention to make further amendments to the Building Act by way of a further Supplementary Order Paper to this bill. Those amendments are technical in nature and relate to omissions inconsistencies or clarifications. Substantive amendments are however proposed in section 363 to address practical issues that have arisen during the implementation of the Act. At the appropriate time I will move a motion that the Committee of the whole House have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on that Supplementary Order Paper 361. 
I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 It is no wonder the Minister mumbled into his microphone and held his head in shame in respect of this bill because it is a diabolical mess. What the Minister did not mention was that for the last 13 days this Government has been breaking the law. This Government wrote a new Building Act rushed it through under urgency and now it is breaking the law. Did we hear that from the Minister? 
What is even worse is that according to officials who briefed the Government Administration Committee the Government was advised in January of this problem—in January! So for 3½ months the Government has done nothing and in particular the Minister Chris Carter who was quite properly described by John Tamihere as a “tosser” because he was briefed in January that the Government was breaking the law did nothing. He did absolutely nothing. 
Dianne Yates 
: That’s not true. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Dianne Yates says that that is not true. Well I ask Dianne: when did we get the bill? 
Dianne Yates 
: You weren’t at the committee. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member knows— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will use the member’s full name title or electorate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Dianne Yates interjects and suggests that I am incorrect. The officials were very explicit at the select committee. Chris Carter was advised in January that the Building Act was a botched mess and that the Government was going to break its own law from 1 April and we did not see a bill until 30 March. That is the sort of respect this Government gives to the law of the land. On this side of the House— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: You are not the law of the land. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Dr Cullen who is the Attorney-General—the Minister who is responsible for enforcing the law of the land—says that it does not really matter. If the Government breaks the law it is OK. That is probably why Helen Clark signs paintings fraudulently. That is probably why she speeds at 150 kilometres an hour while at the same time if any ordinary New Zealander goes 10 kilometres over the speed limit he or she gets pinged. 
This bill is about patching up the Government’s breaking of its own law. What has happened here is actually quite straightforward. The Government keeps passing all sorts of control freak legislation telling New Zealanders to do this and telling New Zealanders to do that but when it affects the Government the Government simply ignores it. So what we have here is a bill being passed under urgency to fix problems in another Act that was passed under urgency. One would think the Government would learn. One would think that somehow the Government would work it out that if it passes rushed legislation it will botch it up and it will end up having to pass amendments. 
The building industry is worth $18 billion a year to the New Zealand economy. We are talking about an industry involving 230000 people. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can the member come back to the content of the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The very content of the bill is that the Government is breaking the law. The Minister and the Department of Building and Housing have both admitted it. They have both admitted that they are in breach of the law. I say that an industry that is worth $18 billion a year to the New Zealand economy—an industry that employs 230000 people—deserves better than a Government that breaks its own law. Do people know what this Government does? The Government with this legislation is going to pass requirements that people cannot do building work even on their own homes. [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis the member for Whanganui probably does not understand that there are Kiwi battlers in Wanganui who get themselves ahead by buying a home working their little rings out and upgrading their house selling it and improving their equity. That is how generations of New Zealanders have been able to get ahead in life. What has Jill Pettis’ Government done? It has abolished it. The Government has banned it. 
Dianne Yates 
: What are you talking about? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member Dianne Yates asks what I am talking about. I am talking about the botched Building Act—which was examined by the select committee that she was the chair of—that prohibits New Zealanders from being able to do building work on their own homes. My challenge to members opposite is for them to give me a single example of where a leaky home problem has been caused by a do-it-yourself builder. [ 
Interruption 
] Dianne Yates says that I do not have it correct. Well members should hang on a moment. I now have a Supplementary Order Paper before the House to fix 18 stupid mistakes that her select committee got wrong. 
Dianne Yates 
: No we didn’t. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Dianne Yates says: “We haven’t got it wrong.” Why is it then I ask Dianne Yates that I have not one not two but 40 pages of legislation before this very House today to fix the botch-ups that she and her select committee made in this important area of building law? They have made a hash of it. The Government has imposed all sorts of controls on other New Zealanders and it has not been able to provide sensible building laws that will work for New Zealand. 
I see that the Minister for Building Issues is now in the House and I am pleased. But I must point out that he is the seventh Minister that we have had in this portfolio. 
 Is it any wonder— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: And the most successful. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Chris Carter says that he is the most successful. 
Hon David Carter 
: What a tosser! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have to agree with David Carter and John Tamihere when they refer to Chris Carter as a tosser because only a tosser— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the member please come back to the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I know it is embarrassing for the Government because the ink on this bill— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I haven’t had to seek psychiatric treatment. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Chris Carter the moment one challenges— 
Jill Pettis 
: Go and have a lie down. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can we just have order. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The comment made by the member was out of order. He knows that no such reference is to be made to members and I want him to stand and withdraw the comment he made about my colleague Dr Nick Smith. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Jill Pettis 
: There is somebody there with an elevated voice. I take exception to what both David Carter and Nick Smith said. However I thought I would let what they said go because Nick Smith has only a couple of minutes left to speak anyway. But given that the National Party has taken a point of order I have responded to it. Its members made an offensive comment as well and I suggest that to keep the slate clean both Mr David Carter and Mr Chris Carter get up and withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank both honourable members for their contributions. I realise that the debate is rather testy at the present stage and recognise that there is going to be this sort of leeway backwards and forwards. I am prepared to leave it at that. 
Hon David Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As I am going to be making a contribution shortly I want to clarify the use of the word “tosser”. I acknowledge that I did make an interjection referring in it to Mr Chris Carter as a “tosser”. I want to know whether that is an acceptable and legitimate word for the House or only for Mr Tamihere. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Standing Order 115 and I leave it at that. I know that the member can read it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Chris Carter gets nasty the moment he is in trouble. The ink is not dry on his Building Act yet here we have 30 pages of amendments. Any Minister worth his or her salt would be hiding his or her head in shame and embarrassment with that sort of botch-up of the law of the land. I am looking forward to Chris Carter apologising because it was only 2 weeks ago—and I can quote from  
Hansard 
—when I raised concerns in respect of the Building Act that Chris Carter said these words: “There is no problem.” Well if there is no problem why is the House under urgency? Why do we have 30 pages of amendments to fix up the Minister’s mess? If Chris Carter is correct in what he told the House just 10 days ago that there is no problem then why do we have 30 pages of amendments to fix up his botched law? The truth is that you have completely screwed up you have not listened to the industry— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please do not bring the Speaker into the debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister responsible for the legislation has made a complete mess. As I said earlier we have had six Ministers. They are playing a game of musical chairs with a portfolio as important as building and people’s houses. It is a mess. Chris Carter— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member should come back to the bill. The bill itself does not contain these provisions. I refer members to Speakers’ rulings 95/1 which states that a Supplementary Order Paper cannot be debated in detail during a second reading. The time to debate the Supplementary Order Paper will be when the Minister moves an instruction. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As this matter has now been alluded to can I clarify the situation. As I understand it the Minister sought leave to include the Supplementary Order Paper. That leave was declined. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have a point of order on the floor of the House. The correct procedure when there is a point of order is that it is heard in silence. 
Dail Jones 
:As I was saying the Minister sought leave to include this Supplementary Order Paper and the leave was declined. Therefore the Supplementary Order Paper cannot be debated at all at this stage or even at the Committee stage unless the Government moves a normal debatable motion that the Supplementary Order Paper be included. 
I am just making the point that until that procedure is adopted there is a second reason for not debating the Supplementary Order Paper at the report back of the select committee’s report. That is my understanding of the procedure that needs to be followed. A formal motion has to be moved and debated in the normal way by the House before the Supplementary Order Paper can be discussed by the Committee of the whole House. So New Zealand First will be debating the report back of the bill from the select committee but we will not be referring to the Supplementary Order Paper because as yet the Government has no right to have it before the House. That is my understanding of the situation. As the matter has been alluded to maybe it could be clarified. The Supplementary Order Paper is outside the terms of the bill and because it is so far outside the terms of the bill it cannot be accepted by the House except by leave or by a motion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Supplementary Order Paper can be debated to the extent allowed by Speakers’ rulings 95/1 which is that a full debate will follow on the instruction. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: One can see that we have an awful botch-up. What we have with this bill is rushed legislation that was given to the select committee to consider for only 24 hours because the Government is breaking the law. Anybody else breaking the law gets prosecuted but this is a Government that says it makes the rules but does not abide by them. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next member I just say that I had referred the member on my left to Standing Order 115 “Offensive or disorderly words”. I expect the member to understand by that that I took offence at the use of that word. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s OK for John Tamihere. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: In this debating chamber we have a certain standard. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 We have just been subjected to 5 or maybe 7 minutes of nasty personal attack and extravagant statements from Nick Smith the previous speaker who is from the National Party. Essentially he is glorying in calling me a tosser. At least I have never been sent from Parliament to seek psychiatric help for a stress-related condition. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point or order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member please be seated while I rule on this. I know what he is going to say. I tell the honourable Minister that I have just ruled that word out of order in this House. I know that the member was rebutting but I did ask Mr David Carter not to use it and I would appreciate it if we could get back to the debate and carry on. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I give an undertaking that I will not refer to Dr Smith’s mental condition again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is a personal reflection now and I ask the Minister to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has referred to my mental state three times. He has claimed three times that I have seen a psychiatrist. I inform the member in the House that I have never seen— 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
:He thinks it is funny. He is dragging this House down. If I challenge him on matters of legislation on issues before Parliament he gets nasty. I want to make it a matter of personal explanation that I have never in my entire life ever seen— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member seeking leave to make a personal explanation? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
:Yes I am. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that I have now dealt with this issue and I want to get back to the debate. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not going to put up with this. Three times that member has made the accusation that I have seen a psychiatrist. That is totally untrue. What am I to do? I have known of members in the House Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just want everyone to take a deep breath for a minute. The matter has been dealt with. The honourable Minister has withdrawn and apologised and the member’s explanation has been accepted. I have now dealt with the matter and there I want to leave it; I want to move on. I think it is in order that we move on. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. I would like to thank all the stakeholders involved in the development of the Supplementary Order Paper. Although the Supplementary Order Paper has been developed at a rapid pace the provisions in it have been thoroughly considered and the industry has been closely involved in the development of the provisions. 
The Supplementary Order Paper proposes urgent amendments to the Building Act 2004 to improve its workability and to ensure that the transition from the Building Act 1991 is as smooth as possible. The majority of the proposed amendments are technical in nature and relate to omissions inconsistencies and clarifications. Substantive amendments are however proposed to section 363 of the Act. The amendments to section 363 include clarification that the purpose of the section is about protecting the safety of members of the public using premises open to the public or intended for public use; clarification that this section of the Act applies only to the part of the building intended for public use; new provisions to allow the staged use or occupation of buildings intended for public use if it is safe to do so; and new transition arrangements for existing buildings to ensure that the transition from the Building Act 1991 is as smooth as possible. 
These amendments address the issues that have been raised by stakeholders and that have been the subject of much discussion in this House. The Government’s willingness to fix up issues such as the lack of clarity in section 363 demonstrates good management in action. In any law the size of the Building Act 2004—some 450 sections—inevitably there will be drafting issues and matters to be clarified. A sensible Government moves promptly to solve problems once they have been identified as we have done today. Our actions stand in sharp contrast to those of National particularly those of the member Nick Smith who has abandoned any attempt at a constructive contribution. Instead of wanting to fix up problems for the benefit of the industry he has sought to stage a publicity stunt by trying to get the Wellington City Council to close down Parliament because of section 363. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Three times during my contribution on this particular bill you intervened and raised the fact of my not addressing the bill. I have noted that the Minister has well and truly strayed outside it and you are adopting a different standard. The norm from the Chair these days is that there is one set of rules for this side of the House and a different set of rules for the other side of the House. I find that in respect of points of order and I find it in respect of debate and we simply ask for some consistency. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Dr Smith I did intervene in your speech but it would also be correct to say that it was rather late when I did so. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member has egg all over his face because the Wellington City Council has refused to do so saying that it is satisfied that the intent of the Building Act is being observed. In other words he has his facts all wrong. Not only that but Nick Smith and the National Party despite trying to make political capital out of a few drafting errors in the Building Act are now refusing to help fix up those errors. New Zealand’s building industry would be quite right in thinking that National is more interested in petty politicking than in ensuring a robust regulatory environment for safe buildings. 
I would like to thank again the stakeholders involved in the development of the Supplementary Order Paper. This Supplementary Order Paper shows that the Government is listening and that when issues are identified the Government acts quickly. The Building Act aims to ensure that buildings are designed and built right the first time. I am confident that the Act and this Supplementary Order Paper go a long way to achieving that aim. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Did you just hear the interjection from the member? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Hon Dr Nick Smith has the floor. Does Dr Smith have a point of order? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I was expecting you to deal with the issue that was just raised. But I will leave it to Mr Shirley. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I am trying to assist the House here. I heard you intervene in an altercation across the floor of the House when Dr Smith took offence at the member who has just resumed his seat referring to psychiatric treatment. As the Minister sat down he made another quip that was equally offensive. I was offended by it and I am sure that Dr Smith had good cause to be offended by it too. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: What did I say? 
Hon David Carter 
: He has Alzheimer’s disease now. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Yes he has Alzheimer’s disease now. I think the whole House heard the comment and the Minister is trying to pretend he did not say it. I suggest that the Minister should stand withdraw and apologise and in future he should just try to contain and restrain himself. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If the Minister made a derogatory remark—and I was distracted because I was calling Mr Catchpole—I would ask him to stand withdraw apologise and cool down. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Well I did make a derogatory remark. I simply said: “Have a rest. There’s probably a good psychologist somewhere around who could help.” If the member finds that offensive then I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member because remarks like that lead to disorder and make it more difficult to control the House. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: I want to come back to the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill which is the bill on the Table at the moment. I have heard discussion about a Supplementary Order Paper and what have you. I will leave that to the time when the motion is moved to bring the Supplementary Order Paper before the House because a motion has to be brought in order to make sure it can be dealt with. That Supplementary Order Paper is the one on the Building Act. But in reality what we have before us now is the bill. After the original Building Bill went through the Government Administration Committee—and I was on that select committee—and was reported back to the House some additional clauses were added to the bill that had not come before the select committee. One of those clauses that I am referring to in particular is clause 409 which was added to the bill. That provision had the effect of making all the documents available on the website and it had an unfortunate spin-off in that it required additional documents purely by reference to also be included on the website. They included documents such as manufacturers’ specifications and particularly sensitive material that is unique to a manufacturer’s product. All that information under section 409 of the Building Act was going to have to be disclosed free of charge for anybody to access when in actual fact that contravened the copyright regulations and restrictions. Therefore we fell foul of international copyright restrictions on a lot of the products involved and a lot of the information that was appearing on the website. 
This particular bill although it was very very rushed—I point out the Government Administration Committee was given one day to consider the whole thing— 
Hon David Carter 
: Three hours! 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: The member is calling “Three hours”. Well according to the report here it was only 85 minutes. There were 50 minutes of hearing the evidence and another 35 minutes of consideration of the process. So if it was done over a period of 3 hours then perhaps it was broken up during a particular sitting session. I must say that the select committee did a tremendous job to get the bill through in that short time. Given that the select committee had 1 day and that it got through the bill in just under an hour and a half I must congratulate the select committee. Dianne Yates is the chairperson. I know her well; she does a very good job. She keeps the select committee on the ball and she should take a lot of credit for that. So my congratulations go to her. 
However I raise with the Government the issue of rushing these things. We saw that with the original Building Bill. That bill took a considerable time to go through the hearing process but the last phase of it was done under urgency. It was rushed through. Clause 409 was added to the bill prior to it coming to the Committee stage and that was rushed. Nobody had an opportunity to really understand the meaning behind clause 409 and the implications it had with regard to copyright restrictions. Therefore the present bill has had to come before the House. We believe it is a necessity but it would not have been necessary had the original legislation not been rushed. Later on we will hear about the Supplementary Order Paper intended to correct other things within the Building Act. Once again let us not consider this bill in a rushed state. Problems arise because things are rushed. Let us get it right the first time. We should take a little longer and get it right. Had that been done with the Building Bill then we would not have had to have this particular bill. But then the Building Bill was rushed we have this bill and it is important to correct a situation whereby copyright infringements are happening all the time purely because everything was made available free of charge. 
Having said that my concern with regard to the restriction contained in this bill is that it will create barriers to access to the legislation. I notice that the Regulations Review Committee made that comment in its report on the bill and that it was acknowledged by the Government Administration Committee in its report. The fact that there will be barriers to access is a sad situation. I would like to see some way to get around that so that the information can be available but with the copyright restrictions kept in mind. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to address the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill rather than the various Supplementary Order Papers that are floating around. 
I would like to draw Parliament’s attention to the fact that the basic purpose of this bill is to remove the obligation on chief executives to make material available free of charge on the Internet. Basically that is the purpose of this legislation—to remove the obligation to have important material like building regulations freely available on the Internet and to allow various Government departments to charge for what was freely available information. So let us be under no illusion about the purpose of this legislation. It will allow Government departments to charge for information that is fundamentally important; legislation such as building codes—material that should be freely available for example to builders around New Zealand. Now instead of being able to look it up on the Internet they will have to pay for it. This seems to be extraordinarily unwise. 
The Green Party can acknowledge that a certain amount of information if it is international may have copyright issues. Building Act provisions are all basically New Zealand provisions and I question why we are allowing Government departments to charge for what is basic information on building codes etc. The leaky building syndrome showed us that builders and developers around New Zealand were flouting the regulations ignoring the regulations. Surely one of the lessons of that would be to make as much information—certainly all the building codes and regulations—freely available for any builder or developer in New Zealand to access easily on the Internet so that he or she would not be able to argue that somehow he or she had not understood the regulations and had built inadequate buildings. But this legislation basically states that instead of having information freely available on the Internet it can now be charged for. 
As I said in my first reading speech I have seen this in operation with Food Standards Australia New Zealand. A lot of information about food codes is now not available on the Internet instead one has to pay for them or fly to Wellington to Xerox them. One of the provisions of this bill is that some of the information will no longer even be available on the Internet but will be available only in Wellington. So builders and developers around New Zealand will have to fly to Wellington to access important regulations and legislation that they need to know in order to comply with the various building codes. They will be available for inspection only in Wellington. What is the point of that? Will builders around New Zealand fly to Wellington—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes some of it will be available in the regions. The United Future member is rather defensively saying that that is not true but these are the provisions that I understand are available in this bill. It will enable a chief executive to say “No that is not available freely. No you can get that information only if you fly to Wellington go to the office and pay to Xerox the information.” This is silly legislation. It goes against the whole lesson of the leaky building syndrome that we must make sure every builder in New Zealand is fully informed and up to date with all of the building regulations. Now instead of being able to sit and look at them on the Internet they will have to pay for them or fly to Wellington. Guess what! Many of them will not do so. They are not prepared to do that. 
Not only that; the bill is setting a precedent that other Government departments too like the Ministry of Health will now be able to charge for information instead of having that information freely available on the Internet. This is basically a freedom of information issue. The Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill looks very technical and boring. Most people would say how incredibly tedious and would not even read it or give it the time of day. They would not realise that it is setting a precedent to undermine freedom of information in the guise of addressing copyright issues that really only pertain to international regulations. In the guise of that it is removing freedom of access to important information such as basic building standards building codes and so forth and setting up as the New Zealand First speaker said barriers to access to information. That is absolutely true. Now we will have to pay for information that should be freely available and we are setting a precedent so that this can be done by the Ministry of Health the building code and various other parts. 
The Government will now earn another bit of revenue charging for information that should be freely available. For that reason the Green Party will be opposing this bill. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is continuing to support the second reading of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. I must say that the Greens need to be somewhat enlightened on this legislation because Sue Kedgley’s speech in terms of what this bill does and does not do is so far away from reality that it makes no sense at all. 
United Future totally agrees that information has to be available free of charge to builders. That is why United Future succeeded in making major changes to this legislation—in particular to clause 5—in order to ensure that as much information as possible is available to builders and building practitioners around the country. It is simply incorrect to say that the building code and regulations are not available free of charge. They are available free of charge and anybody reading clause 5 will see that there are extensive provisions requiring the chief executive to make available for inspection free of charge all the material that building practitioners will need not only at the Ministry’s office in Wellington but also at all the Ministry’s offices around the country—and also to make material available on the Internet. 
Part of the concession I obtained from the Government in return for United Future’s support of this legislation was to ensure that all compliance documents would be made available free of charge on the Internet. The Government indicated that it was unable to do that under this bill because it was outside the terms of reference and would have required a change to the Building Act but I am delighted to see that that is also going to happen. In practical terms as from about a week ago all compliance documents were made available free of charge on the Internet. What this bill is about is only one small segment of the information that is necessary and that is material incorporated by reference; that is standards that are produced by external agencies that have copyright attracted to them. 
In particular standards associations including Standards New Zealand but perhaps more significantly the Australasian standards bodies—the ones we work in with with Australia—and international bodies produce these standards and the income they get in order to be able to produce these standards comes from the fees they receive by being able to sell them. If they had been made free of charge not only would we breach copyright but these standards associations would then not have the income from the sale of their standards that they need in order to produce and to continue to produce standards and to meet those criteria. 
Those standards associations do a valuable service to the building industry in providing standards that are well researched and take a lot of time and effort in order to ensure that our buildings are safe. I would have thought that the Greens would be totally supportive of the work that standards associations do because of the valuable role they play in ensuring that our buildings are built to adequate standard and that the Greens would not be trying to undermine the work of standards associations nationally and internationally by taking away from them a valuable source of their income to do the job and thereby effectively prohibiting them from doing the work they do. 
So the Greens could not be further wrong in terms of their allegation that this bill is going to restrain the building code and regulations from being available free of charge. The idea that one has to fly to Wellington to get information is quite false. The only restriction in terms of the information that will not be available at regional offices is information relating to products and product safety standards. That is information that manufacturers need in order to manufacture their products. It seems reasonable to me that they should be able to get that from a Wellington source. It is not something they have to run down to the local branch at a day’s notice to get; it is something they require when they are doing planning for the production of their products. 
I am pleased to see that this bill has come back unaltered from the select committee. We were very concerned as was both the select committee and particularly the Regulations Review Committee to ensure that the bill was kept to a minimum in terms of what it protected from free access to the public and I entirely agree with the statements in the report of the Regulations Review Committee which states: “We consider the copyright issues provide appropriate reasons for the change proposed in the bill. We wish to make it clear that in the absence of these issues we would be opposed to the bill. By removing the requirements to place incorporated material on the Internet the bill in effect creates a barrier to accessing legislation. However we accept that difficulties with copyright justify not using the standard clause in this case and that this is an appropriate exception to the principles identified in our report.” 
 That has been United Future’s approach all the way along—that if there is a need to prohibit free access it is kept to the minimum necessary. That is why we successfully approached the Government and got the changes to clause 5 that would ensure that rather than the chief executive having discretion as to how the information would be available there would be a mandatory provision for the chief executive to continue to make all the material possible free of charge. 
That is what the Government has done. As I indicated before one of the concessions we obtained from the Government was an undertaking to consider an inclusion in the first amendment to the Building Act that effectively all compliance documents would be made free of charge. The sort of provision that that would require would be that the chief executive would ensure that new compliance documents when issued would be digitally published; that even when a new compliance document was published any prior versions would also be available because it is essential that there is a historical record so that people who are operating legitimately under a previous code can still get access to that code; and that amendments to compliance documents are clearly shown so that people who were legitimately operating under the compliance document prior to the amendment can still get exactly what they need. 
There is a need to show the progressive change in compliance documents and I am delighted that that is recorded in Supplementary Order Paper 361 in new clause 3D which inserts new section 25A. That means that the undertaking that the Government provided to United Future in return for our support has come to fruition far faster than I had expected it would. 
United Future expected that there would need to be changes to the Building Act. It was inevitable as I said in my speeches on the Building Bill that a document as complex as this Act in terms of the changing of the whole building regime that New Zealand operates on would require some fine-tuning over the next few years as it bedded down. As the Act comes into force some errors have been picked up that need to be incorporated. That will always happen whatever the administration—whether it is Labour National or whoever leading the Government. Inevitably when legislation is as complex as this it will need some settling down some fine-tuning and some amendments to it. 
It is the case that some requirements—in particular the provisions of section 363—have required this to be done as a matter of urgency so we have been put in the situation of having to rush through the amendments which is usually not desirable. But we are faced with the situation which I can talk about when we get to the Committee stage that a reading of section 363—which is ambiguous—could say that as we are in part of a building that is being worked on the whole building is inaccessible. That clearly was not the intention and I note that Supplementary Order Paper 361 will correct that. 
Supplementary Order Paper 356 on copyright again ensures that there is a minimisation of material kept away from the public. In fact the Supplementary Order Paper ensures that the Copyright Act will provide that there will be no Crown copyright on material owned by the Crown. So it will be freely available and able to be reproduced and I think the Government has gone to extensive lengths by that provision and the provisions in the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill to ensure that as much information is available free of charge on the Internet and in hard copy to the public as is conceivably possible. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Speaker; I have sought the call several times during this debate. As the chair of the Government Administration Committee I want to thank Brent Catchpole and Murray Smith for their comments on the bill because both were involved in the select committee. I thank the Government Administration Committee for the work it did on the Building Bill and on this Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. 
The matters in this bill are technical. As has been explained the Government Administration Committee reported the Building Bill back to Parliament and some standard clauses were added that were required by the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines. Those guidelines as Sue Kedgley has pointed out required that material be available on the Internet. What had not been foreseen was that that would have an effect on Standards New Zealand and an effect on copyright law. It would mean that not only would we not be complying with some international regulations but also that Standards New Zealand would be deprived of its income. The Minister was informed of this and has taken legal advice and consequently we are faced with this bill which is moving with urgency to correct that particular unforeseen problem. It was not a fault of the Government Administration Committee or of the original drafting of the bill; it came about because the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines were required to be imposed on the bill at that very late stage and were found to be unworkable around that area of Standards New Zealand as Murray Smith has very well explained. 
Dr Nick Smith who turned up at the select committee just for this bill was not a member of the inquiry on weathertightness of buildings— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Thank goodness. 
DIANNE YATES 
: —thank goodness—as his colleague Wayne Mapp was. He was not part of the select committee when we looked at the Building Bill. If Dr Smith is going to start pointing the finger and talking about botch-ups I will remind him that the problems of weathertightness are multiple. Many of them came about through deregulation of the industry which he will know went back to when his party was in Government. He also might like to recall that George Chapman who I am sure is an old colleague of his was chair of the Building Industry Authority when he was informed of weathertightness problems. What did he do at the time? Nothing. Long before any other people were involved George Chapman was informed of these problems as Dr Smith Wayne Mapp and members of the committee well know. If we are going to start pointing fingers then we need to look back somewhat further than this particular legislation. 
I thank the members of the Government Administration Committee. I also thank the members of the Regulations Review Committee and in particular Dr Richard Worth for his work. I thank the Regulations Review Committee for giving us its opinion on the necessity to make changes in order to protect copyright laws. It has said of the incorporation by reference in this case: “We consider the copyright issues provide appropriate reasons for the changes proposed in the bill. We wish to make it clear that in the absence of these issues we would be opposed to the bill. By removing the requirement to place incorporated material on the Internet the bill in effect creates a barrier to accessing legislation. However we accept that the difficulties with copyright justify not using the standard clause in this case and that this is an appropriate exception to the principles identified in our report.” I thank the legal minds on the Regulations Review Committee chaired by Dr Richard Worth for their cooperation in getting this bill back to the House and making the necessary changes. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I rise to debate the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill and as I listened to the chair of the Government Administration Committee she reinforced in my mind what a complete and absolute shambolic mess this legislation is. She rose to her feet and said thank you for the valuable contribution that she received on this legislation from Brent Catchpole and from Murray Smith—Brent Catchpole of course being a member from New Zealand First and Murray Smith being a member from United Future. 
 I looked at the report back on this legislation which went to the member’s select committee for a total time of 85 minutes and although the Government Administration Committee considered the legislation Mr Catchpole and Mr Murray Smith were not there. So we have the chair of the select committee ticking off a report yet she has forgotten the members of the select committee who looked at the legislation. It would be hard to find a more shambolic process as we debate the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. 
As I said in my contribution on the first reading the bill is absolutely misleading in its name. This bill is entirely about a Building Act amendment bill and that is where the debate should have been. However the Government has very cunningly said that there are one or two other pieces of legislation with exactly the same problem as the building legislation. First it found that it had to amend the Health Act. If we look at that legislation we see that the Health Act was passed in 1956. Here we are in urgency rushing through legislation that the Government says is a matter of urgency and it is to amend a bill that has been around for 40-odd years. 
The other legislation being amended is the Commerce Act of 1986. The New Zealand public ought to realise that the bill we are absolutely amending with urgency is the Building Act 2004. It was passed at the end of last year when the Government was told that the legislation as passed in this House would not work. Nothing has proved that more succinctly than the fact that we are here dealing with this on 12 April. 
We had an interesting contribution from Murray Smith. Obviously the man from United Future put a lot of effort into the Building Act legislation when it went through the House. In his contribution today he acknowledged that it would need some amending over the years that it came into effect. [ 
Interruption 
] The member nods his head and says that yes those were the remarks he made. I remind the member that this legislation was passed last year and came into effect on 1 April 2005. It has not taken years for this legislation to appear back in the House wanting urgent amendment; it has taken but 12 days. Mr Smith shakes his head in horror. He had not realised that it was as bad as that. 
What I want to say is that the legislation went to the select committee for 85 minutes. Only one minority report is attached to the legislation and it is in the name of the National Party. It makes some very good points as to why the original legislation would never have worked and the Government was told that at the time. The most worrying comments I have found as I have gone through the commentary presented back to the House by the Government Administration Committee are these: “When the Building Bill underwent its third reading in August 2004 concerns were raised that this mandatory requirement could infringe the copyright interests of third parties.” Those words categorically state that the Government passed legislation supported by United Future in August 2004 when it had been told that it would not work. It was told by the industry that the legislation as being passed at the time would breach the Copyright Act. The Government proceeded with the support of United Future to ram that legislation through. I understand that it received its final reading again in urgency yet the Government had been told at the time that the legislation would not work. 
 That is an amazing admission by the Government. But in the meantime we have been saddled with the Building Act 2004 which came into effect on 1 April. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Who saddled us with the Building Act 1991? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister says it is the fault of the Building Act 1991. The Minister should pick up the legislation and look at it. It does not talk at all about the Building Act 1991. I say to Mr Chris Carter that it does not even mention that Act. Part 1 of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill refers to the Building Act 2004 which if my memory serves me correctly was in the name of the Hon Chris Carter or the Hon George Hawkins. One of those Ministers was responsible for the Building Act when it went through this House and that particular Minister was told at the time that it would not work. So here we are rushing through legislation that has been suitably doctored so that it amends two or three other bills that the Government has had to trace back through the statute books—it has found one going back as far as 1956—in an attempt to hide its total embarrassment that we are amending legislation passed about 6 months ago. 
The other thing I want to ask is why this legislation is in the hands of the Hon Pete Hodgson. What has the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill to do with Minister Pete Hodgson and his portfolios? We will ask that question again during the Committee stage because at this stage the Government is making no attempt to answer it. The Government could have done the honest thing. It could have put the bill in the name of the Minister who is responsible for building and construction the Hon Chris Carter. But of course he has been a bit of a target lately. He has been a bit of a target both for members on this side of the House and more spectacularly for a member on the other side of the House John Tamihere who is now on extended leave. I will not quote Mr Tamihere’s words. I assure you Mr Speaker that earlier in the debate when you were not here it was ruled out of order to use those words in Parliament so I will not. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tosser. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No I say to Mr Smith that I will not use that word. That word has been ruled out of order. It does seem incredible to me that that word is out of order in the House yet it is totally in order inside the Labour Party caucus room. 
What the legislation does via the Supplementary Order Paper—and I will refer very briefly to the Supplementary Order Paper because it is substantially larger than the rest of the bill—is to start to wade through the Building Act and the idiotic changes it brought in effective from 1 April 2005. The Building Act amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper will change the rather ridiculous situation we have now where legally the Beehive should not be occupied on any floor because renovations are going on on one of the nine floors. That is the situation my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith has revealed to the House and that is the situation the Government was told about at the time when it passed the legislation—but of course with the arrogance that has now become a hallmark of the Labour Government it ignored all the advice it was given. It passed the legislation. It rushed it through and here we are again in urgency having to try to fix up the mess. I guarantee that Mr Murray Smith’s comments were right—this will not be the last amendment we pass to the Building Act. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 
. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The motion that we have just heard from the Leader of the House shows how arrogant this Government has become in its dealings with Parliament. It shows how close the Government is to its death throes that in the name of Pete Hodgson we are expected to accept a 21-page Supplementary Order Paper that is totally outside— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Oh diddums. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Dr Cullen says “diddums”. Well I say to Dr Cullen that I think ordinary New Zealanders—perhaps the 230000 people who work in the building industry—would want to be given a rational explanation. I ask the Minister Chris Carter why Supplementary Order Paper 361 is not in his name. Why when we have a Minister for Building Issues whose responsibilities specifically include Building Act issues is Pete Hodgson moving that Supplementary Order Paper? What sort of vote of no confidence is that in the tosser we have—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh he does not like what John Tamihere says. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your colleague when he was in the Chair ruled that the word “tosser” is unparliamentary and the member has just used it again. I would like to request that he withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It was used by John Tamihere. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Does Mr Carter feel that that comment was directed at him? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Yes I do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The Hon Dr Nick Smith will please withdraw. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw. Is it not a funny day in the House when John Tamihere from the same party as that member can use that word but nobody else can? I say that every member of the House knows that John Tamihere was right on the money. The smiles on the faces of Dover Samuels and his colleagues show that that is absolutely right. The way this Minister is dealing with these critical issues says it all. 
Let us look to see just what is in the Supplementary Order Paper. Firstly Chris Carter has told the House that there are “no problems with the Building Act”. Well if there are no problems with the Act why are we to accept a Supplementary Order Paper that is 10 times as long as the original version of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill? I ask the Government member and the Minister what sort of incompetent loser we have in the Minister when someone else—Pete Hodgson—has to come along to fix up his botched bill. 
Secondly the Minister says that there are “minor technical problems” with the Act. Let me go through them. Section 7 has a problem with the definition of “building work” and of “restricted building work”. It also has a problem with the definition of “territorial authority”. In section 8 there is a problem with the definition of building. In section 14 there is a problem in respect of the roles of territorial authorities and regional authorities. New section 25A is to be inserted because there is a problem with regard to compliance documents being available on the website. In section 53 there is a problem in terms of the payment of levies. In section 67 there is a problem in respect of the granting of waivers. Section 85 is wrong because it makes a mistake about the supervision of building work. Section 96 is wrong in respect of certificates of acceptance. There is a problem with section 100 in respect of the requirement for a compliance schedule. There is a problem with section 112 in respect of alterations to existing buildings. There is another problem with section 115 in respect of changes in the use of buildings and there is a problem with section 116 in respect of extensions of life for a building requirements affecting subdivision and offences concerning the use of buildings. 
There is a further problem would members believe with section 165 in respect of notices to fix and another problem with section 191 in respect of entering people’s names on the register of building consent authorities. There is a problem with section 212 in respect of a council’s role as a building consent authority. There is a problem with accreditation in section 241 and a problem with the collection of levies in section 243. There is a problem with regard to registers in section 273 and with the functions of registrars in respect of section 311. There is a problem with regard to public buildings a huge problem in section 363 and there is a problem with the provision of code compliance certificates in terms of settlements involving multi-unit titles in section 364. 
Do those problems sound minor—and technical? The ink is not dry on the Act — 
Hon Member 
: Twelve days old. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is only 12 days old yet this Parliament under urgency is expected to pass 21 significant changes without any public submissions any first reading any second reading or any third reading—they are just stuck in the Supplementary Order Paper. I want to challenge the gits in United Future who when they came to this House said they would keep this Government honest. Well I ask them why they are going to allow this motion which is a total abuse of process. What sort of doormat has United Future become that it can allow that? That party should be blamed actually because it was the doormat that allowed the Act to be passed under urgency which has ended up creating this huge raft of problems. 
Let me tell members what some of the problems actually mean. This is how bad the legislation is. If people are among the 15000 architects engineers or designers of buildings they are breaking the law because they are not allowed to do building work—which includes design work—without a building consent. Members should just think about that. Those people cannot get a building consent without doing design work but they are not allowed to do design work without getting a building consent. Has anyone ever heard of such a stupid ridiculous law? Yet that is what was passed by Chris Carter and his mates in United Future who now expect us in urgency to fix up the mess. 
Is this not interesting? I drew the problems of the Act to the attention of the Minister Chris Carter on 30 March and he got up in the House and said that there was no problem. But suddenly I threatened to prosecute the Government because it is illegally occupying the Beehive. That is right. The stupid Act that Labour passed which came into effect on 1 April states that where any building work is going on if there is a building consent and no code compliance certificate the building is not allowed to be occupied. Well occupying such a building is exactly what every Minister of the Government has been doing. We again have the “Don’t do as we say; do as we do.” stuff from the Government. It says that it can pass these stupid control-freak laws and it expects everybody else in the country to follow them but not those people in the Beehive who are breaking the law. Suddenly I threatened to prosecute the Government for that and lo and behold here is this Supplementary Order Paper to patch the situation up—after the Minister had spent weeks saying there was no problem. 
This is a disgraceful abuse of Parliament. I notice that John Tamihere stated in his article that we are verging on a dictatorship—and we are. When we have a Government that is prepared to abuse the Standing Orders by introducing a 21-page Supplementary Order Paper at a quarter past 9 on this Tuesday night and expecting it to be passed through all stages without anybody having a say before tomorrow the situation is truly ridiculous. 
I challenge Government members about this. One of the stupid things they did in the Act was to prohibit New Zealanders from being able to do building work on their own homes. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Nonsense. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: They did! Lianne Dalziel says that that is nonsense but then she is one of the botched Ministers. If that is not true why does that provision have to be amended? That is what the officials say. The Government’s own Department of Building and Housing says that that is exactly what the Government has done. That is stupid law because there is absolutely no evidence that the problem of leaky homes was caused by the do-it-yourself builder. Generations of New Zealanders have improved their equity by doing home improvements myself included. I simply ask members of the Government having admitted they got 21 sections of the Act wrong why they do not simply fix the 22nd mistake they made and allow ordinary New Zealanders to be able to get a building consent improve their homes and improve their lot in life—because that is what is required. 
This motion from the Government is about hiding its mess. Chris Carter is sitting on an awful mess with regard to legislation that is not 12 days old and he wants to completely abuse the process: to avoid a first reading avoid any select committee hearings and avoid allowing any member of the public to have a say. Yet he is making 21 pages of changes to one of New Zealand’s biggest industries. The House should reject this motion and United Future should for once hold this Government to account and ensure that at least third time lucky we get the Act right. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The previous National Party speaker has said most of the things I would like to say. Essentially New Zealand First is of the view that this is very important legislation. It requires proper scrutiny and it should be considered by a select committee. Engineers should have a look at it builders should have a look at it and architects should have a look at it. Local authorities should have a look at it as well so that we know— 
Dianne Yates 
: They have. 
DAIL JONES 
: I tell Dianne Yates that they have not looked at the Supplementary Order Paper. We have not had one single submission on it so the member should please get her facts right. The other aspect of it is that the drafting is still wrong. For example if we look at clause 5A we will see that it repeals the earlier subsections (2) and (3) of section 438 of the principal Act and adds subsections (2) (3) (4) and (6). So what has happened to subsection (5)? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: They can’t count. 
DAIL JONES 
: They cannot count? I ask the Minister whether there is a subsection (5). Is there meant to be a subsection (5) and has it fallen by the wayside? There is a case of bad drafting straight away. There is another example of course of bad drafting in clause 3P with regard to section 241. In the way that that provision is drafted we would think that there was already a numbered subsection (1). In fact there is not. It is just blank. It is just a section. There is no subsection (1) in brackets etc. and then subsection (2). So again there is a drafting error in this legislation. Here we are being made to rush legislation through that rests on that simple construction. I have those subsections here if people want to have a look at them: in section 241 there is no subsection (1). So this thing is a shambles. Already at this very early stage of drafting it does not make proper drafting sense. 
That is what I have picked up in a very short space of time purely on technicalities yet here we are with the Government asking us to rush this legislation through the House right now and it is a case of “She’ll be right.” It was a case of “She’ll be right.” last time and she was not right. 
Hon David Carter 
: She was wrong. 
DAIL JONES 
: Helen Clark was wrong and she should have moved out of the Beehive as should all the other members. But no they insist on breaking the law in that building and now they hope to change the legislation by this piece of drafting. 
Dr Smith has gone through the legislation rather quickly because he had no other alternative. It is so long that he just gave a very quick summary of the general points in the legislation. But I was looking at it and if we have a look at the proposed amendment to section 7 we see that that looks at things such as the integrity of the building and the health and safety of its occupants. I expect that we want legislation that deals with the health and safety of individual occupants to be right. A subsection has been added to that section which relates to design work because it was wrongly left out the first time. Now it has been inserted. 
Clause 3A(3) now adds coastal marine areas to section 7 which were not included in the original Act. We now have legislation that refers to the Resource Management Act and to coastal marine areas and we are supposed to pass it without anyone who is involved with the Resource Management Act having a look at it. I am not the greatest expert on the Resource Management Act and I would expect that local authorities should have a look at it to see whether this is a proper way of drafting that legislation. But no. This Government is rushing it through and could not care less. 
Clause 3B “Building: what it means and includes” states that it “includes the non-moving parts of a cable car attached to or servicing a building”. I would really like to have an engineer look at this to tell me what cable cars that are attached to or servicing a building are likely to do and whether this clause is properly worded. I do not know a thing about cable cars. That is another problem. I remember when Brent Catchpole raised the original Act in caucus and we were discussing it that dams were mentioned. The Government even got dams wrong last time. The new clause 3C substitutes a new section 14 “Roles of building consent authorities territorial authorities and regional authorities in relation to dams”. 
This bill just gets bigger and bigger and of more moment as one goes along. Here we are in Parliament being asked by the Government and by United Future to accept their word that the legislation is OK. But just on my first reading I have pointed out a couple of drafting errors in it. Those are just simple drafting errors. 
An important aspect of this bill for anyone who is concerned about people with disabilities is that clause 3F replaces section 67(3) with a new subsection (3) stating that “The territorial authority cannot grant an application for a building consent subject to a waiver or modification of the building code relating to access and facilities for people with disabilities.” That was left out the first time around; it is in the bill this time. But I would like the people who are involved with disabilities—such as disabilities councils and all those sorts of organisations—to make sure we have it right. Is “people with disabilities” enough? Should there be wider wording than that? We really do not know because we have not had the opportunity to have this put to a select committee. 
Clause 3G addresses more errors that have been made. Clause 3G(1) repeals the earlier legislation and addresses the situation where a person who is not a licensed building practitioner commits offences. New section 116B in clause 3L goes on to address the situation of people who commit offences and who can be fined a maximum of $100000. The new section states that it is an offence to use a building for a use for which it is not safe or not sanitary or if it has inadequate means of escape from fire. This is a totally new section being inserted that gives a penalty of a $100000 fine without the measure going to any parliamentary select committee for consideration. What is more if it is a continuing offence there is a further fine of $10000 for every day or part of a day during which the offence has continued. So if the offence had gone on for a 30-day month that would cost the offender $300000. 
We are rushing through legislation that creates serious offences and we are not looking at any of the basic constitutional requirements. When we were going to fine people at least until today we had the opportunity to go to a select committee to see whether the fine was the correct amount to discuss whether the correct people were being charged and how they were being dealt with. But here we have a $100000 fine imposed with a further $10000 a day. The Labour Party supported by United Future has done this. Murray Smith is a lawyer. I would have thought that a lawyer would be the first person to say that anything to do with an offence of this kind must be given close scrutiny. 
The Law Society for example should have been invited to make submissions. It is basic work in this Parliament that the Law Society should be brought in to give us its view on the constitutional appropriateness of imposing a fine of that amount. But no. It is being rushed through Parliament. A fine of $300000 or more will be imposed on some poor unsuspecting person who has not the faintest idea that whereas yesterday he might have been doing his work appropriately when this bill is passed—and I am not sure when the enactment date is it could be tomorrow or next week for all I know—his work now carries a $10000-a-day fine. A builder may be chipping away on a building site somewhere. He does not listen to Parliament as he listens to a more interesting programme than that. He might be listening to some golden oldies type programme of 1960s and 1970s rock— 
Hon David Carter 
: Winston would be. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes some intelligent people would be doing just that. Then all of a sudden a building inspector comes around when the builder is 3 months into the job and tells him that what he is doing is wrong. The builder will say: “But you gave me the building consent to do it. Four months ago I got this building consent from you to do this and now you are telling me that 3 months ago I started committing an offence.” How can any political party support legislation of this kind being rushed through under urgency? New Zealand First cannot support this legislation. 
We supported the earlier legislation because it was fine. Even though we were on the edge of things we had a discussion and we supported it. But this really is suicidal. This will put builders into all sorts of problems. This is asking for trouble and for people to be prosecuted. We know that the local bodies are the worst for prosecuting on the most trivial things. They will prosecute for almost anything under the sun. The clause states that a fine of $10000 can be imposed for every day. 
How can we support legislation like this? New Zealand First will be opposing this legislation. We would like it to go to select committee to get full consideration so that we can see what is needed to be done and so that all the people involved can have a look at it. If everyone had agreed to it that would have been fine. But rushing it through when we know that the previous legislation was rushed through supported by United Future and has proved to be an absolute disaster shows that we have not learnt from our mistakes. The Government wants us to go through it all over again. I have already pointed out that I have spotted a couple of drafting mistakes in this legislation. New Zealand First cannot support this Supplementary Order Paper and we will be opposing the motion. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will also oppose the Committee considering Supplementary Order Paper 361. I have listened carefully to the previous two speakers and I think the whole House and the whole country should be alarmed at what is occurring here tonight. We have a Supplementary Order Paper that is 10 times bigger than the original bill. Moreover the Act it amends is 12 days old. It is 12 days old. The Labour Government assisted by its doormat the United Future party is making legislation on the hoof. It is rushing through the House under urgency legislation that we know is thoroughly bad. We know that the building legislation in this country is in a terrible mess and all the indications here are that it will get considerably worse. 
I do not think the average Kiwi realises the extent of the problem yet. The traditional do-it-yourselfer or home handyman is out of business and it is the Labour Government’s rhetoric that is driving it. There are 21 pages of this Supplementary Order Paper. It is interesting—and the point has already been made—that the Supplementary Order Paper is in the name of Minister Pete Hodgson not Chris Carter. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Why indeed? Mr Carter has been tossed aside. But the issue is Minister Chris Carter said that he thought there were no problems. To that extent he is tossing the issues aside. He is tossing the issues aside yet he himself has been tossed aside as the Minister fronting the bill. [ 
Interruption 
] No. He is either the “tossee” or the “tossor”. Perhaps Minister Carter could tell us if he is the “tossee” or the “tossor”. 
Hon David Carter 
: Both! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Perhaps he is both. Perhaps he is the “tossee” the “tossor” and as someone else said the tosser. We know he is the “tossee” and the “tossor” and he is a tosser too so he is all three. Could the Government explain to us why the Minister who was in charge of a small piece of legislation has been tossed aside and another Minister has been brought in to do the substantive Supplementary Order Paper which is actually 10 times bigger than the bill? 
 This is the outrage: irrespective of whether he is the “tossee” or the “tossor”—because that is pretty irrelevant actually; who cares—the real issue is that this important legislation which will cause great offence to a lot of New Zealanders is not going anywhere near a select committee. No public submissions have been called for. That is a very arrogant action from any Government. It is legislation on the hoof. It is a Government in meltdown and panic. All it is interested in is public perception and the closing down of issues. It did not want Minister Carter anywhere near the legislation so it tossed him aside and brought in another Minister just to close the issue down. 
The Government had its doormat party United Future to be complicit and to let that happen. Every home handyperson in this country knows who to blame. Who should they blame? United Future. That is the party that has allowed it to happen. 
Dail Jones 
: All in the name of stability. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: All in the name of stability—absolutely. It will provide stability. No matter how outrageous the legislation that the Government wants to ram through Parliament under urgency denying the public the right to be heard and to make a submission in the name of stability United Future will be the doormat and allow that to happen. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Not for long! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Not for long—that is the redeeming feature. We know that it will not be for long because the people will have their revenge. The voters will not tolerate that sort of behaviour. They will have their revenge and it will be sooner rather than later. 
I think they will have their revenge on Mr Carter too. They know that he has been tossed aside. They know that he is either the “tossee” or the “tossor” and some of them suspect that he is the tosser as well. They will have their say and they will throw them all out because this is bad legislation. As it becomes obvious how bad the legislation is the country will realise that the building laws which were already in a mess have been made considerably worse by this Government. It is closing down the right of average Kiwis the home handypersons to do the basic tasks that they have done for generations in this country because it does not understand them. 
Certainly the ACT party will oppose the legislation and I understand that National and New Zealand First will. United Future members were not here a few moments ago—they missed the call. Perhaps they might absent themselves at this late stage in which case we can stop this legislation because New Zealand does not want it. We should all oppose it. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I am happy to front up to the Opposition parties to explain why United Future will support this Supplementary Order Paper which makes amendments to the Building Act being considered by the Committee. I will not take longer than is necessary to talk about it but I am quite happy to explain to the Opposition parties why United Future supports it. 
We have had the benefit—and I know that the Opposition parties have not—of looking at this Supplementary Order Paper over a number of days. We have been able to have a number of lengthy discussions with the Government over its contents and to make some improvements to it. I thank the Government for its willingness to do that. I agree with speakers who say that all legislation should go through the select committee process. In the ordinary course of events I think that is appropriate so that legislation can be subject to good consideration. If this Supplementary Order Paper had not met some exceptions that is what I would have looked for as well. But I think the provisions in it can be and need to be done by way of urgency for a number of reasons. 
The first reason is the provision in clause 3D that effectively carries out a commitment that the Government made to United Future. That was the commitment I alluded to when I spoke at the first reading of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill—namely that if there was to be a restriction on what would be freely available to the public that restriction should be kept to a minimum. Having taken out the provision that allowed documents incorporated by reference to be made available free of charge the Government then made a commitment that at the first opportunity it would include in the Building Act a provision stating that all compliance documents would be made available free of charge on the Internet. They are documents published by the Government that would have been made available free of charge on the Internet under the Building Act as it stood. Because of the changes that were made the provision for compliance documents to be made available free of charge on the Internet would have been removed by the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. 
The provision has now been reinstated in clause 3D which not only requires the chief executive to make the documents available free of charge on the Internet but goes to extended lengths to ensure that even historical compliance documents and compliance documents prior to amendment are made available free of charge so that everybody is well aware of how compliance documents have evolved. If people are operating under a former compliance document that they are entitled legally to operate under they will be able to get access to the former copy as well as the current copy. I have no problems whatsoever with that provision being in this motion because I think it effectively reinstates the circumstances that currently occur. 
The second provision that I have no problem with seeing in an urgency motion is the amendment to section 363 inserted by clause 3T. I note that contrary to what the Opposition parties have alluded to section 363 is at best ambiguous. Section 363 states: “A person commits an offence if the person uses … any part of a building to which this section applies that is affected by building work—”. The confusion arises as to whether we should interpret that to mean a person who uses the actual part of a building that is affected by building work or whether it means a person who uses any part of that building—not just the part that is affected by building work. In the case of the Beehive is it the entire building that nobody can use even if only part of the building is affected or is it only that part that is affected by building work that cannot be used? That is the ambiguity. The intention of course was that only the part of the building affected by building work could not be used. But we have a confusing situation. There has been concern as to whether that will affect building so this provision clarifies that only the part of the building that is affected by building work cannot be used. Of course that part will be blocked off as is happening now in the Beehive so that people cannot access it. That is quite appropriate. 
The Government has moved to allow a certificate of safety to be issued so that parts of a building can be used. I think that makes a lot of sense. It is a matter that had to be dealt with as a matter of urgency which justifies this legislation going through in urgency. 
All the other provisions as I have looked through them are technical or matters of procedure. They are not substantive issues. They are provisions that really just correct errors that have been found in the Act as it is or anomalies that were unintended. They are not matters of huge significance. I do not think they are matters that need to be dealt with through a select committee process. It is inevitable that those will occur in legislation as complex as the Building Act. 
United Future members having looked through this legislation are happy to consent to this matter being dealt with in urgency firstly because of the provisions that need to be dealt with urgently and secondly because the other matters are technical. If there had been matters of substance that needed close consideration by different elements of the building industry and that did not have that urgency to them they certainly should have gone to a select committee but that is not the case here. United Future is happy to support this legislation going through now so that the Building Act can be corrected. The Building Act has in fact been around since August 2004 which was the date of assent. It has been around now for 9 months giving the industry time to look at it and implement it and find anomalies in it. I think it is an appropriate time to be looking at and getting right these things so that the Act can start life on a good footing. 
United Future supports the legislation for that reason and will continue to do so. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Building Act 2004 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I note that Part 1 of this bill is amendments to the Building Act. I also note that the Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled has 21 pages of amendments to the Building Act and I note that the Minister for Building Issues is in the Chamber. Would it not be appropriate for the Government to have the Minister responsible for the Act in the chair? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Minister in charge of the bill is in the chair. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This is an extraordinary situation. As my colleague Ken Shirley pointed out we have a Minister who is paid a ministerial salary gets a flash ministerial house and sits in ministerial cars all for being the Minister for Building Issues we have an awfully botched Act the ink of which is not yet dry and we have 21 pages of amendments to it yet the Minister responsible tosses away all responsibility for it. What sort of Government do we have where the Minister responsible— 
Hon David Carter 
: Tamihere’s right. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He is absolutely right; he is literally right. Chris Carter has tossed away his responsibilities and one who tosses things away is indeed and must be a tosser. We now have some insight as to exactly what John Tamihere was referring to. 
This extraordinary Supplementary Order Paper— 
Darren Hughes 
: This should be the last man to make a comment like that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I would like the young member from the Otaki coast who will be losing his seat in about 4 months’ time to a very talented young guy to explain why we have a Minister for Building Issues who does not introduce Supplementary Order Paper 361 and who is not in the chair to defend his legislation. 
Darren Hughes 
: The member should finish his personal attacks on the Minister and get on with debating the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask the simple question of the hot-headed member for Otaki why we have a Minister for Building Issues who when we have a bill on building issues is nowhere to be seen. The member was very talkative a moment ago. Can he give an answer to a simple question? He is sitting next to the Minister for Building Issues. Why is the Supplementary Order Paper not in his name and why is he not in the chair? 
Darren Hughes 
: Why don’t you talk about the substance of the legislation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member wants to talk about the substance but he is not prepared to answer the question. The key issue is ministerial responsibility. The Minister sitting next to him is the Minister responsible for the biggest botch-up in legislation that I have seen in my 15 years in this place. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: He wasn’t the Minister. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh Lianne Dalziel was the Minister. I just want someone on the Government benches— 
Lianne Dalziel 
: I wasn’t on the select committee. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I simply wish someone on the Government benches would accept responsibility for this awful botch-up which is the worst case I have seen in my time in Parliament in terms of bad law. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: This member needs another rest. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Chris Carter will not answer the basic question as to who is responsible for this mess. Well I have a list here of those who have been the responsible Minister and I would say it is probably the Prime Minister. I will say why. In the last 6 years we have had seven Ministers who have been responsible for building issues. It is little wonder that when the Government has played a game of musical chairs with a portfolio that involves $18 billion a year of our economy we have this sort of legislative mess and this sort of abuse of process. 
I ask Lianne Dalziel why this legislation cannot be referred to a select committee. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Let’s debate the issues. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let us debate the issues then. She is not prepared to answer those questions. Perhaps the Minister in the chair Pete Hodgson can say why clause 5A in the Supplementary Order Paper inserts subsections (1) (2) (3) (4) and (6) into section 438 of the Building Act. I know that education standards have plummeted in the Government I know that Government members cannot count I know that we are expected to rush this legislation through and make it law by tomorrow but can Chris Carter explain why the Government counts its subsections in the order of (1) (2) (3) (4) and (6)? If the Minister in the chair would just pay attention for a moment he would see that on page 15 of the Supplementary Order Paper there is a botch-up. 
I refer to another botch-up that has been drawn to the Committee’s attention by Dail Jones on page 11. Clause 3P adds a new subsection (2) to section 241 and it states that subsection (1) is subject to paragraphs (a) and (b). But there is no subsection (1). I have the Building Act here and section 241 has no subsection (1). So here we have the Government having passed a botched Act rushing in a 21-page Supplementary Order Paper late at night and already—[ 
Interruption 
] Perhaps Chris Carter can answer this question. How can clause 3P have subsection (1) subject to two new provisions when there is no subsection (1)? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Just take a deep breath. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have. Would the member answer the question? [ 
Interruption 
] Are those members not interesting? I ask them a serious question about their flawed law and all they can do is try to divert attention. The fact is the Supplementary Order Paper is a mess as well and this Government is avoiding any select committee process at all in dealing with it. 
The first part of this amendment deals with the definition of building work. I want to say how badly the Government goofed up. What Chris Carter did with the law was to say: “You can’t do any design work on a building until you get a building consent.” 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He thinks that is funny. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Because the member has got it wrong. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well if that is the case why are we altering the definition of building work? 
Lianne Dalziel 
: We are shifting the location of design work. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh well why are we shifting the location of design work? I will tell Lianne Dalziel why. The reason we are shifting the definition of design so that it applies only to Part 4 is that every one of our 15000 building engineers and architects has been breaching the law because of the flawed way that this law was drafted and passed. 
We take the second issue—the mess over dams. If there are any building structures that have the potential to kill people it is dams. The largest man-made disaster in human history was the Vaiont tragedy where 16000 people died as a consequence of a dam failure. But again we find the Government has botched the law in respect of safe dam design. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my friend but I just notice that in the lobbies there are officials perhaps just floating around who I do not think are officials associated with this legislation. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Where? 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Right outside. It is a simple question with a simple answer. I would just like inquiries to be made as to why these people are floating around here. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I believe that they are officials or people assisting the Minister. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I do regret interrupting the flow of my learned friend’s speech but it is quite unsatisfactory. This is not a place for Labour lobbyists to circle round weak Ministers. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: They are officials. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I accept the Minister’s word that they are officials. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am not going to take another point of order. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I would like to ask why it is necessary for more than 10 officials to be in attendance on a Minister on a bill of this complexity. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a question for you to raise but I thank you for raising the first point of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The incompetence of this Government is that even with Parliament swarming with officials we end up with a Supplementary Order Paper that shows that Government members cannot count that has provisions that refer to parts that do not exist and that has 21 pages of changes to the Building Act that are being raced through Parliament to fix up problems that Chris Carter only 2 weeks’ ago said did not exist. What an extraordinary time we have in Parliament with respect to those! 
I want to express serious concern about what is not in this bill. The Government in its stupidity decided to prohibit ordinary New Zealanders from being able to do building work on their own houses. I extended an extra bedroom on my first house in Christchurch which enabled me to extend my equity. This Government is going to prohibit that. Thousands and thousands of New Zealanders have gone about improving their homes adding rooms and doing work. This Government is going to prohibit their being able to do that and I say that is quite wrong. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I shall make a few brief remarks. The first is that the legislation in front of us amends the Building Act the Commerce Act the Health Act and the Copyright Act. I am the Minister of Commerce and what is more I have obligations through my portfolio in commerce for Standards New Zealand which of course is the group that promulgates most but not all of the standards in this country which is why the bill is in my name. Secondly I thank the member for pointing out an error on page 15. It does indeed state (1) (2) (3) (4) (6). They are mistakes or things that are corrected as a matter of course by the Clerk’s Office and do not form part of New Zealand law. The third point I would like to make— 
Murray Smith 
: Mistakes mistakes mistakes. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I shall say it again for the member if he would like to be quiet. I thank the member for drawing to my attention the numeration (1) (2) (3) (4) (6). I have checked it with officials. He is absolutely right; it does not follow but it is not something that needs to be attended to by the House. It is routine after the passage of law for things like line numbers etc. to be checked. They do not form part of New Zealand law but I thank him for drawing it to our attention anyway. My third set of remarks are directed to the member Richard Worth. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Dr Richard Worth. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not think it would be Dr Richard Worth but Richard Worth none the less. I say to him that the reason— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: An explanation is helpful. I welcome an explanation. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member will get an explanation if he would keep his mouth shut and he will not if he does not. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I don’t think I need an explanation but if you must make it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The Minister in the chair has accepted that there is a flaw on page 15 in that the Government cannot count from 1 to 6. 
Darren Hughes 
: Move on. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The seriousness about this is that the Government rushes the Building Act through the Parliament. Before 12 days are up it introduces a 21-page amendment saying “Oops we screwed up. We got it all wrong. Under urgency we have to rush through another amendment but don’t worry we’ve got it all absolutely right.” And then it says: “Sorry we couldn’t count from 1 to 6 and we’ll fix that bit up.” But the Minister has not addressed the substantive part. Clause 3P in the Supplementary Order Paper adds section 241(2) which states that subsection (1) of section 241 is subject to a regional authority’s power under section 244 and does not apply to any function it transfers to another regional authority. That all reads very well except that there is no subsection (1). It does not exist so how can we pass nonsense law that makes a subsection (1) conditional on a paragraph (a) and (b) if subsection (1) does not exist? 
I have to say to the Government that despite the hoards of officials that it may have in the corridors it has got it wrong again. It has made another mistake. I cannot help believing that for all the giggles that can come from the Government benches—[ 
Interruption 
] Our primary responsibility is as legislators and I have not seen in my 15 years in the House a new Act of Parliament so botched so full of errors and causing so many compliance costs. 
The Minister in charge thinks that it is a laughing matter. I have just had a letter from a woman on the North Shore that stated that in applying for her building consent she was told she has to pay $43000 before she is able to get a building consent for a house. Members opposite think that that is quite funny. They think this is all just a bit of a hoot. They think that ordinary New Zealanders come up with $43000 for a new house just like that. Well we do not. Members on this side of the House hold Chris Carter accountable for this sort of botched law. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)