Volume 683 Week 22 - Wednesday 12 September 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 683 Week 22 - Wednesday 12 September 2012 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5121. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 12 September 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before we get to questions I want to raise with you a point of order that goes to Speakers’ rulings 151/2 and 151/5-6 and to your ruling on 22 May which has not yet made it into the green book. 
Mr Speaker you have given Opposition members in particular some good advice over a period of time regarding making questions specific and clear if we expect Ministers to be prepared to answer them. This morning the Labour Opposition lodged a question to the Prime Minister that asked whether he stood by his statements that he and his Ministers had made in relation to the Reading Recovery question—that is whether the Prime Minister stands by his statement. That goes to what is in the Prime Minister’s mind and his opinion. Speaker’s ruling 151/2 does make it clear that there is an ability to transfer as we all know but I raised with you through your office the question of whether Speakers’ ruling 151/5 might apply in this case as to whether it was possible for another Minister to indicate what was in the Prime Minister’s mind and who has responsibility for that. I will get back to that point in a second. 
The next draft of the question that came back from the Government—it was a proposal to shift it to the Minister of Education—asked whether she stands by her statements and those of the Prime Minister. That is clearly a very different question. It is not a question about whether the Prime Minister stood by his statements; it is a question as to whether that Minister stood by hers and agreed with the Prime Minister which is quite different. I think we would all accept that no junior Minister could be responsible for what is in the Prime Minister’s mind. It then moved along to whether she had been informed whether the Prime Minister stands by his statements in relation to this and that is the question that appears on the Order Paper. 
Mr Speaker the point that I would like to take you back to is your ruling on 22 May where I think you gave some very good advice to I think Dr Norman on that particular occasion. You said in the case of a question to the Prime Minister that had the member simply asked the Prime Minister whether he stood by his statement with regard to asset sales etc. and then stopped the question the member’s point would have had merit. We took on your advice from that. We did not ask about ministry advice we did not ask about any other related matters and we submitted a question in that format because we thought that at that point it would not be possible—it is a direct question. Obviously it is a matter of public knowledge that the Prime Minister is not here but we have an Acting Prime Minister. It is our view that it becomes a farce if this Parliament—if Opposition members of this Parliament—cannot ask the Prime Minister whether he stands by his statements made about a particular issue in the very recent past. That is why I indicated to the Clerk’s Office for you that I thought that this could well be a case for Speaker’s ruling 151/5 because we are getting to the point where it becomes almost impossible to hold the Government to account to hold the Prime Minister to account for what he says if in fact questions are transferred in this way. I can accept that in a lot of areas it can be appropriate to transfer them but my submission to you Mr Speaker is that it is not possible for any other Minister to be responsible for what is in the Prime Minister’s mind and therefore this goes to the type of question for which transfer should not be allowed. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think two things are relevant here. Firstly the question was to do with Reading Recovery and with comments by other Ministers as well. Secondly we do not abuse the process and I reject completely the suggestion by the shadow Leader of the House that we do. Transferring the question to the Minister of Education particularly on a day when it is plain and evident to everybody that the Prime Minister himself is not in the country let alone in the House would have given a better opportunity for the information that the Opposition clearly wanted around Reading Recovery to be properly discussed. The questions never stop with just the question: “Do you stand by all your statements? Yes I do; end of the question.” They do not. They carry on through the supplementary question process where further information is sought presumably and usually about the issue that is identified as part of that question. In transferring the question to the Minister we were simply wanting to create an opportunity for more information to be more authoritatively given to the House. 
But what I would say also is that the question that now appears on the Order Paper is I think a little on the tough side. I can see now how we got to this because both parties would appear to be somewhat unhappy about the question. But I think rather than going into the merits of the question and how we got there I would like to just leave my contribution strongly at the fact that we are not trying to frustrate the process at all. 
You have been very very strong over the past few years—the last 4 years—in requiring Ministers to answer questions and to provide information to the House. You have pulled many of us up including me for not giving enough information. That is a consideration that we always have in mind when we look at whether or not a question should be transferred. In this circumstance with Mr Mallard’s own comments that no other Minister could know what was on the mind of the Prime Minister it seems somewhat ridiculous to be suggesting that the transfer was inappropriate when in fact the information itself could never be directly solicited. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Speaking very briefly to that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear very briefly further from the honourable shadow Leader of the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are two points. The first is that it is well established in the Speakers’ rulings that the absence of a Minister is not the reason for the transfer. It is a matter of responsibility not presence and therefore I think part of the response from the Leader of the House fails. But if it was a matter of having a Minister who might be more informed than the person currently acting for the Prime Minister in responding to the question but keeping the question the same it is always an option for the Government to have in the absence of the Prime Minister another Minister actually answer on his behalf. That might have been the logical and fair thing to do. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have allowed this point of order to take some time because I think it is a serious issue for the House. I think the Hon Trevor Mallard has raised an interesting dilemma for the House about question time. The fact that New Zealand does not have a Prime Minister’s question time makes our question time a little different from say that of the British Parliament. The dilemma that we all face in this—and I think the honourable Leader of the House referred to this in his response to the point of order—is that where a question is whether the Prime Minister stands by statements and other Ministers’ statements say in relation to a specific issue if the Government is assuming that that issue is of the main interest to the questioner the risk is that if it stays with the Prime Minister the Prime Minister in answering will say that the member should put down a question to the relevant Minister. That is why I think the Government is not trying to in my understanding escape accountability in trying to make sure the substance of the issue can best be covered by the relevant Minister. 
But I accept that it may not be that way. The questioner may in fact wish to be pursuing something very much specific to the Prime Minister’s statement but that will not automatically be obvious from the question. That is the dilemma. The Government is absolutely entitled to transfer a question unless it would be anathema to accountability for that to be the case. The member has raised that point and I agree with him that were the Prime Minister to be the only person who could possibly have information on a certain issue then the question should not be transferred. Where an opinion is being sought the bar is not quite at the same level I would suggest because an opinion is never quite as important an accountability issue as where the Prime Minister is being questioned on whether or not something happened. And if the Prime Minister is the only person who could possibly know that then it would be contrary to accountability in this House for such a question to be transferred. 
We are in something of a dilemma. As Speaker I am in something of a dilemma in handling this. I absolutely support the Government’s right to transfer questions. What I would like to suggest for the longer term perhaps is that the Standing Orders Committee give some thought to whether or not this House would like to set aside any time during a parliamentary session for questions to the Prime Minister. Other Parliaments do have them. That may get over this problem. That is something I leave in members’ minds. I cannot see us easily resolving the issue with our current Standing Orders because the Speaker cannot possibly know the intention of the questioner when they put the question down—whether they intend to go into the substance of a matter or to stick just with the opinion as to whether the Prime Minister stands by any statements. Opinions certainly are not matters that would prevent a question from being transferred. There is no way in my view that we should allow the House to set a standard that a question cannot be transferred just when an opinion is being sought. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you just two issues. The first is just to touch on the last point you made which is that I think it is unreasonable for the Government to transfer a question based on where it thinks the Opposition is likely to be going with the question rather than on where the primary question itself goes. The primary question in this case was quite specific to the Prime Minister’s comments on a particular issue. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: And all his Ministers. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Well it is a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Chris Hipkins. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: So the issue we have is that I think the public quite rightly expect the Leader of the Opposition to be asking the Prime Minister questions about his comments on a whole range of issues. And where the Prime Minister refuses to answer the question by transferring it to another member the public rightly will think that Parliament is becoming a farce. It is not unreasonable to expect that the Prime Minister will be answering questions from the Leader of the Opposition about comments he has made in public. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear what the member is saying but the obvious problem in the argument being put forward is that one assumes that members are actually interested in the substance of the issues—one assumes that. As soon as the questioner gets into the substance of the issue the Prime Minister is absolutely at liberty to say that the member should put down a question to the relevant Minister. That has happened and it has caused points of order to be raised in recent weeks on that very issue because it was alleged that the Prime Minister had not answered the question. The Prime Minister is absolutely at liberty to make the point that if members want detailed information on a particular issue the question should be referred to that Minister. The Government is absolutely entitled to transfer questions unless the Prime Minister or the Minister to whom the question is addressed is the only person who could possibly have information of significance. Opinions about whether people stand by certain statements are hardly matters that reach that test in my view. It is only in recent years that questions have been allowed to cover opinions and I am not about to see the bar raised on opinions to a situation where questions that seek opinions cannot be transferred. Disallowing the transferral of a question must be restricted only to issues of real significance where the Prime Minister or the Minister to whom the question is being addressed is the only person who could possibly have that information. 
Hon JOHN BANKS (Minister for Regulatory Reform) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I can make an observation about these matters because I was here and Phil Goff was here in 1981 and I know that over recent years these Standing Orders and procedural matters around question time have been changed—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! It is a point of order. 
Hon JOHN BANKS 
: But the point I make is this: question time in this House is now for interested observers like myself and the public that sit here every day listening a shambles. It does the Parliament no good— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon JOHN BANKS 
: —and I suggest— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. Order! It is not a point of order. It is not a point of order to go down that track. 
Questions to Ministers 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 In light of your decision regarding that question Mr Speaker I am now faced with a question that is very very different from the one I actually began with. My feeling therefore is that if I am not able to ask the Prime Minister or the Acting Prime Minister the question I originally intended and to hold him to account I respectfully withdraw my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member is entitled to do that. Question No. 2 Dr Russel Norman. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I have called Dr Russel Norman. [ 
Interruption 
] Now look. This nonsense will stop. I have acknowledged that we have an issue here and I think it is worth giving further attention to this issue. I have suggested a way forward on this issue. But I have now called Dr Russel Norman for question No. 2. 
Children—Prime Minister’s Statements 
2. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “The Government wants all young New Zealanders to have the opportunities they need to succeed and reach their full potential”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has he seen the Cabinet paper on the social obligations for parents policy that states that 2200 parents will have their benefits cut in the first year and how does that help their children reach their full potential? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I understand that that is not actually what the Cabinet paper says. But I think that parents’ knowledge of those obligations means they are likely to comply with them precisely so that they do not put the welfare of their children at risk. In fact if they meet those obligations it will be positive for their children. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table the Cabinet paper that shows that 2200 parents will have their benefits cut in the first year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that the Cabinet paper specifies that only “the most disadvantaged and vulnerable beneficiary families will be tested for complying with the regime” what will happen to their kids once their parents’ income is slashed? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government takes the view that almost all of those parents will understand that they are reasonable obligations because they are not so much obligations to the Government they are obligations to their own children. We believe that most parents—in fact almost all parents—would comply with those obligations. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that the Cabinet paper itself admits that around 2200 parents will not comply with the obligations and hence will have their benefit cut is it really moral for the Government to punish children for the perceived sins of their parents? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In the first place let us get it clear that it would be the parents who are punishing their children not the Government. Secondly we take a more optimistic view than the officials’ view in the Cabinet paper. The Prime Minister’s view is that most parents—in fact almost all parents—are likely to comply with those obligations and that means better results for their children. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why does the Minister continue to make the point to argue that parents— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What’s going on here? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Is the member calling a point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No I am asking a question. It is called question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Sorry. I beg the member’s pardon but I did not see him stand and I called Dr Russel Norman. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that the Cabinet paper itself says that around 2200 parents will not meet the requirements of this policy and will hence have their incomes slashed by the Government does he take responsibility for the fact that the children of those parents will go hungry because his Government will cut their income by 50 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I believe that the presence of the sanction will encourage almost all parents except maybe those who are completely reckless in their regard for their own children to comply with the obligations. It is an obligation to their children in the first place and in the second place to the taxpayers who are providing almost all of the income on which those families are living. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Prime Minister able to stand by his statement as outlined in question No. 2 today but not stand by his statement as outlined in question No. 1 today? What is the difference here? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The difference is that he was not asked question No. 1. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He most certainly was asked question No. 1 which related to all the statements he— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have not finished yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member will resume his seat. We are both of advanced years but we can move a little quicker than that. The question on the Order Paper today was not to the Prime Minister and that is the end of the matter as far as this House is concerned. The Minister’s answer was perfectly proper. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect the original question that went in from the leader of the Labour Party was to the Prime Minister. That has been clearly established. It was then changed and then withdrawn. I am making the point that the primary question that first came to the Prime Minister question No. 1 which was to do with a statement as in question No. 2 is in fact therefore the same. Therefore why is he able to answer question No. 2 today and not question No. 1 as originally asked? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister’s answer was a perfectly fair answer because question No. 1 today is to the Minister of Education. If the member wants to dig deeper he has further supplementary questions. But I cannot say to the Minister answering it: “Minister you mustn’t give that kind of answer. You must actually interpret the member’s question as meaning this.” I cannot do that. The Minister answers the question he hears and he gave a perfectly fair answer to the question he heard. There are further supplementary questions for the member to challenge that and I am sure he is perfectly capable of that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First of all is there something going on here where the person in control of the sound system decides unilaterally that he himself will stop the conversation here? That has clearly been perceived outside this House. It is not a laughing matter; it is serious. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! When I get to my feet I think they know that members are meant to cease speaking and resume their seats and I suspect they are being helpful to members because if they do not do that they may not remain in the House that much longer. It has been a practice for some time that when Speakers are dealing with a matter the member whose microphone was on has it switched off. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Am I to understand that that is a directive that the sound system controller is in charge of—that he got a directive saying that or he just worked it out for himself? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Had the member been around during recent years he would have found that it has been a practice that has been going on for some time. I have not directed them whatsoever to do it. I think it is a practice that has developed to assist with the order in the House so that members can hear the Speaker and not other members when the Speaker is delivering rulings to the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect it is not the job of that man there or woman or whoever he is to make those— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will resume his seat right away. I will not tolerate this nonsense any more. It is the Speaker’s responsibility to maintain order in this House and the member is just trifling with the Chair. I have invited the member to carry on his line of questioning. He has got supplementary questions that he can ask the Minister. If he wants to pursue a matter of interest he should do that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are saying that we have got supplementary questions to clear this up but the problem is that we have all got limited supplementary questions here. I have a question at No. 11 and every supplementary question I use trying to find out what happened here I have lost when I come to question No. 11. That is surely not an answer. What I want to know is first of all whether or not the Acting Prime Minister was prepared to admit that the question first came to the Prime Minister when it was put in this morning at 10.30. That is the fact that I am trying to get out and I should not have to waste five supplementary questions to get to a specific fact on that matter. It was a very clear question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I accept the member’s right to ask the question absolutely but the question the Minister hears is the question the Minister is obliged to answer. That is why we have supplementary questions. I accept the member’s point that there are limited numbers but it is a matter of what is most important to the right honourable gentleman. The member has to focus on what is most important and use the questions as he sees fit. But I cannot say to a Minister answering a question: “Look the questioner really wanted this answer or meant that.” I cannot do that. That would be wrong for the Speaker to be doing that. I have to try to insist that Ministers answer the questions they hear. The Minister answered the question he heard. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that his earlier answers acknowledged that there will be some parents—possibly up to 2200—who will have their benefit cut as a result of this policy how can it possibly be ethically acceptable to punish the children of those parents because the Government does not like the actions of those parents? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The point of the policy is to ensure that the parents take actions that are consistent with better prospects for their children in the first place and that secondly they meet their obligations to the broader community which is offering support for that family. The Government is planning to introduce sanctions as the member has pointed out. Those are fairly robust sanctions and the relevant department would ensure that every option is given to the parents to enable them to meet their obligation in the first place. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. Does the Prime Minister agree that the $6.5 million negotiated in Budget 2011 by Maori Party Ministers to expand family-based literacy programmes to all decile 1 2 and 3 schools is a positive step towards allowing those young New Zealanders in those deciles to have the opportunity they need to succeed and reach their full potential? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes and a feature of those programmes is precisely that the parents learn alongside the children. It is consistent with the Maori Party’s general line on policy in this respect: it prefers to discourage dependency and encourage independence if at all possible and the means of doing that should be consistent with the values of whanau rather than the individuals concerned. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: If the principal reason that the Minister is giving behind this policy is that parents in receipt of Government support should be obliged to send their children to preschool and other requirements then why will he not make the same demands of parents in receipt of Working for Families given that they also are in receipt of Government support? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In some respects it is a matter of the practicality of operating this kind of policy. It is simply going to be quite a challenge to operate it for all parents on benefits let alone parents who are in work. But secondly all the indicators show that once a family has work income coming into the household almost all the indicators for children improve significantly. That is why the other complementary part of this policy alongside social obligations is active intervention by Government to help these families get into work and strong encouragement for them to get into work. 
David Shearer 
: Will he commit to a Government obligation to guarantee that every child has a place in early childhood education and free doctors’ visits no matter where they live? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well in the first place if there is not an early childhood education place immediately available of course parents cannot be sanctioned for not meeting that obligation. [ 
Interruption 
] Well we do not need a guarantee because actually with growing demand the early childhood sector will respond as it always has and more places will be available. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear Dr Russel Norman’s question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: What kind of a monstrous Government punishes children because it does not like the actions of their parents and is not this Government policy—to paraphrase Exodus—a policy of laying the alleged sins of the parents upon their children? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would ask the question of what kind of a monstrous Government of which the Greens were a part up to 2008 did absolutely nothing—absolutely nothing—for the most vulnerable children and the most impoverished families in this country. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The answer given by the Minister was not an answer to the question that was asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member must resume his seat—the member must. I just invite him to go and read the  
Hansard 
. The question asked was somewhat provocative and the answer given was somewhat provocative but that is the way it works. 
David Shearer 
: Does he believe that access to the Reading Recovery programme is important for ensuring all young New Zealanders are able to succeed and reach their potential? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: For some young children that is the case. For some children actually Reading Recovery does not work; maybe they need access to other programmes. But in the end the measure of it is what those children are able to achieve and that is why it is hard to understand the confused Labour Party policy which cannot decide whether it supports measures of child achievement or not. 
David Shearer 
: Does he agree with the Hon Bill English that “Reading Recovery is a safety net for children who are struggling but half of this country’s lower decile schools for whatever reason are not making use of it.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes he does agree with him—the statement was made I think 6 or 7 years ago. The member advises the Prime Minister that the reason that a lot of low-decile schools do not use it is that it does not work for their kids so they use other programmes. 
David Shearer 
: Does he agree with the statement made by the Hon Bill English that “thousands of six-year-olds are missing their last chance to be caught in the safety net”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I do and that is one of the reasons we came up with the policy of national standards which the Labour Party will be forced to support eventually—within months—because it tells us which individual children are missing out on the safety net. 
David Shearer 
: Does he agree with the Hon Bill English’s statement about the lack of Reading Recovery in low-decile schools: “This leaves a huge hole and helps explain why New Zealand has one of the biggest disparities in reading in the developed world”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The one modification the member would now make to that statement is realising that Reading Recovery does not meet the needs of every child. If that was the case every school would be using it and every child would be able to read. But unfortunately about one in five of our kids is not successfully reading. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked whether he agreed with the statement and we are still waiting to know what the answer to that is. If we are going to have some exactitude in question time then let us have it in answer time too. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He was asked whether he agreed with the statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I hear the right honourable member and I thought I heard fairly clearly that the Minister did not agree and that he actually would modify it now. [ 
Interruption 
] He would modify it now. If the Minister says he would now modify it clearly he does not agree with what he said originally. I mean it is not that difficult. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect I do not think that really we are helping the process if you are constantly doing the interpreting for the Minister. I want to read in  
Hansard 
 what he said not what you said he said. That is how it works. It is actually a situation where tomorrow I cannot use his quote because he did not give the answer you did. So with respect could we have the judge staying on the bench? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I just invite the member to apply his mind. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that that was an unreasonable comment for you to make to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Speaker is very rapidly losing his patience. The member will resume his seat. I think some of the comments made were not that reasonable. 
David Shearer 
: Given that the Prime Minister disagrees with the Hon Bill English is he aware now that the proportion of low-decile schools offering Reading Recovery is currently lower than when Bill English expressed his concern before? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not sure whether the Prime Minister is aware of that or not but the fact is that now that schools need to comply with national standards they have every reason to seek out the reading programme that works best for their children. It is probably the case that trying to force them all into one Reading Recovery - type programme is misjudging what works best for their children. 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Interjections should be rare and reasonable. I could not even hear for the barracking from the Labour Party. This is the barking and barracking—this is the shambles—I talk about Mr Speaker. Settle them down so we can listen to the answers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I ask the House to come to order. I realise it has been a testy start to question time because of the transferral of a question but we need to get on top of that. I think the House should just come to order. The member’s point is well made. 
Economic Programme—Job Creation and Productivity 
3. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is the Government doing to increase jobs and support a productive and competitive economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government has taken a number of quite significant measures to help businesses employ more people and pay them more. The 90-day trial period for new employees has created 13000 jobs. Business tax in New Zealand has been held to 28c in the dollar—lower than Australia’s—so businesses retain more of their profits to invest in their business. ACC levies have been reduced this year by $600 million reducing costs to business. And the Government has removed 170 unnecessary and excessive regulations saving an estimated $200 million in compliance costs for businesses. 
Jonathan Young 
: How has the New Zealand economy and employment market performed over the last 2 years and what is the outlook for the next few years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Prior to the last 2 years of course with the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009 there was a sharp rise in unemployment. In the past 2 years however almost 60000 net new jobs have been created and 150000 new jobs are forecast over the next 4 years. The after-tax average wage is up by 20 percent since 2008. The everyday cost of living is increasing at its slowest rate in 12 years. Interest rates are at the lowest levels in 45 years saving a family with a $200000 mortgage $200 a week compared with 4 years ago. And we would expect consistent with the Budget 2012 forecasts that economic growth of 2 to 3 percent will continue this success. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does he agree with Fitch Ratings that the forecast widening in the current account deficit and the high New Zealand dollar pose a risk to New Zealand; if so does he think he needs to do something about it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes but I do not believe that the answer to it is a 20 percent devaluation in the exchange rate as advocated by those Opposition parties. It is not clear even how they would do it even if they want to do something that is a bit odd. 
Jonathan Young 
: How is the Government supporting people to move from welfare into work? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We need to take the opportunity in a growing job market to assist people from welfare into work. In Budget 2012 and over the next few years the Government will be investing around $500 million in welfare reforms. Current programmes include the $62 million Job Streams package for wage subsidies $55.1 million for 155 dedicated Work and Income staff to support job seekers and sole parents looking for work $80 million for early childhood education childcare and the guaranteed childcare assistance payment and $150 million for youth services including wraparound support for young people not in education employment or training. 
Hon David Parker 
: Are record numbers of New Zealanders leaving for Australia because his programme to increase jobs and improve the New Zealand economy is working or are they leaving because his Government has let them down and failed to achieve the promises made when it was elected in 2008 and again in 2011? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think a number have been leaving because Australia has experienced a once-in-100-years terms of trade boost which has meant it has been getting record prices for commodities and paying very high wages to dig those commodities out of the ground. In more recent months those commodity prices have dropped off and Australia may become a less attractive option. In fact in the next 12 months New Zealand is likely to grow just as fast as if not faster than Australia. 
Jonathan Young 
: What recent reports has he seen on jobs and growth in the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There have been a number of reports about jobs including jobs that have been lost and new jobs that have been created. But the Manpower Employment Outlook Survey a survey of 650 employers which was released earlier this week found that 27 percent intend to increase hiring and 8 percent plan to reduce hiring. When we have got relatively moderate growth rates some businesses and some sectors will be doing well while others as we have seen in the last couple of weeks will be doing poorly. But on average the economy is producing more jobs. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Proposed Changes 
4. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he agree with Dr Jan Wright the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that his Government’s changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme “makes a farce of our climate change commitments”; if not why not? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
 on behalf of the Minister for Climate Change Issues: No. New Zealand remains on track to meet its first commitment period obligations under the Kyoto Protocol to maintain its average emissions at 1990 levels during the period 2008 to 2012. In fact New Zealand is expected to exceed its commitment. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the Ministry for the Environment correct when it estimates that the direct cost to the taxpayer of the proposed changes in this bill will be $330 million? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: We do not see actually that amount of money as a revenue stream. In fact what it is was the accounting by officials going forward of revenue coming to the Crown. Well that is not the situation. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table a Cabinet paper from the office of the Minister for Climate Change Issues which includes a table on the net fiscal impact of the proposed policy changes showing a $330 million impact. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why is he prepared to see ordinary New Zealanders pay their share of carbon costs through petrol and electricity prices but under this legislation give polluters an indefinite 90 percent subsidy on their emissions at a cost of $330 million to those ordinary taxpayers? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: We do not view this as a subsidy—we do not agree with the characterisation there—but the fact of the matter is that we have made a judgment that actually we live in very fragile economic conditions globally and that it is not right to heap costs on to business and households at this time. 
Grant Robertson 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear the question. I say to members please the noise is unreasonable. Grant Robertson. 
Grant Robertson 
: Has the Minister spoken to the chair of the select committee today who drew into question Dr Jan Wright’s independence and impartiality— 
Hon Member 
: No he didn’t. 
Grant Robertson 
: —sorry one of the members of the select committee who today drew into question the impartiality and independence of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment simply because she had raised concerns that this Government continues to subsidise polluters at the cost of taxpayers? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as the Minister is responsible the Hon Simon Bridges. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: No. Look the commissioner is entitled to her views but so are the members on this side of the House. 
Welfare Reforms—Investment Approach 
5. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: How will the Government’s investment approach refocus New Zealand’s welfare system? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear the answer. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Today we have announced further detail on the Government’s investment approach to welfare. Our reforms will fundamentally change the way welfare is delivered. We are applying an investment approach to understand where best to target support looking at each individual on a benefit given their needs challenges and prospects of a quick return to work. To do this we tasked experts to undertake an actuarial valuation of the welfare system which shows us the different types of benefits and the effect of policy changes on individuals within the benefit system. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What does the valuation show about the costs of different types of benefits? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The valuation shows that the lifetime cost of New Zealand’s current benefit population is $78 billion. This reinforces exactly why we have got to invest in people through a work focus system—so that they do not get caught in the trap of long-term welfare dependency. The valuation tells us that those on unemployment benefits represent just 5 percent of the lifetime cost of welfare— 
Andrew Little 
: What a waste of money! 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: —the angrier you get the less likely you are to win the argument but that is fine—yet currently they receive the lion’s share of support to get them off welfare and into work compared with sole parents at 23 percent those on sickness benefits at 9 percent and those on invalids benefits at 24 percent. 
Sue Moroney 
: Trying to look busy. Doing nothing about jobs trying to look busy. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Opposition members call out but actually although the unemployment benefit did drop under them we saw the sickness benefit increasing we saw the invalids benefit increasing and actually they should be ashamed of what they did for those people in that time. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How does the valuation support the Government’s changes to the welfare system to date? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Well the valuation confirms that our changes to date are focused on the right groups. The group with the highest individual lifetime cost on welfare is those who go on benefits before the age of 18. The valuation shows that just 4000 16 and 17-year-olds on benefits account for $1 billion of the lifetime cost. This underlines why the Government’s first stage of welfare reforms was rightly focused on ensuring young people do not become welfare dependent. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Has anything changed since the Ministry of Social Development in a similar exercise roughly 18 months ago told us that to save money we should invest in the young the unwell parents and those on benefits for longer periods; if not what has the Australian company Taylor Fry told her that she did not already know? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Actually the valuation has given us a lot of things that we did not know. It has taken at least 40 different models of analysing the system and has come up with a robust piece of data. It has taken more than 20 years of behaviours of beneficiaries to come up with something that will actually give more transparency or accountability actually to New Zealanders on what is working and what is not over a long period of time. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can she confirm that in the next year superannuation will cost twice as much per annum as all main benefits combined; if so why will she not address the cost and sustainability of this scheme or is this about costing what is politically convenient? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I presume that the member is taking that information in part from the actuarial that was done today that she is now dissing. The facts are that we need to do projections so that we can look at where the spend really is. I do not have a crystal ball to tell me exactly what is going to happen with benefits but with the right sorts of interventions we can bring them down and see better results for those people who need them. 
Early Childhood Education—Government Policy 
6. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What plans does she have to improve the provision of early childhood education? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. First early childhood education is provided by organisations licensed by the Government to do so. Second this Government has invested $1.3 billion in early childhood education in Budget 2012-13. Third we have set a Better Public Services target that 98 percent of all new entrants will have participated in quality early childhood education by 2016. Fourth we are building an early learning information system so that we can better understand who and where our earliest learners are so that we can better target to their needs. Fifth I have established an Early Childhood Education Task Force in the Ministry of Education that is right now working with communities to raise participation in early childhood education. Sixth I have made it clear to existing providers by increasing the targeted equity funding to $47.9 million that they must gear up their efforts to engage and retain those who have lower participation rates. Seventh we have set aside $19.1 million to support Maori-medium early childhood education provision. Eighth I have prioritised developing models that work for Pasifika communities— 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that I think that by the time the list gets to eight if it was a question the member asking the question would have been already stood down. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not unsympathetic to the member’s point that the answer was taking a long time. As I sought to stop the Minister in my mind I relooked at the question and it asked what plans the Minister has. It says: “What plans does she have to improve the provision of early childhood education?”. It is a fairly open question. The discipline on the Minister is that everything she has raised is now open to questioning. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. For that to be symmetrical we would have to be able to ask questions that long putting that many issues to a Minister. Given that Ministers are required only to answer one part of the question that would be wasting the House’s time just as that answer did. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The question is actually framed as a plural. I was not asked “what plan”; I was asked “what plans”. I was doing my very best to answer all of those and I had only one more point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I just ask the House and Ministers also to be a little bit reasonable. The question did ask “what plans” and who is the Speaker to stop a Minister from outlining the plans? That is the dilemma with that kind of question. Had the Minister moved—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The House will come to order. The mood today is just unacceptable. It will look so bad on the television—so bad. It will look so bad. Believe me I watch it all the time and it will look so bad. I just recommend to the House to please be a little more reasonable. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question I asked and it was on notice specifically asked about plans to improve the provision and I would point out that most of the list did not in fact improve provision. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member just lost a supplementary question because that was not a point of order. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is she aware that when Ministry of Education official Richard Walley met with the early childhood advisory committee to report on the work of her funding advisory group he referred to consideration of the funding model used in the tertiary sector where funding depends on the students’ successful completion of courses and qualifications for use in early childhood education? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon Hekia Parata. Did the Minister not hear the question clearly? To save time I invite the member to repeat her question. 
Sue Moroney 
: She is trying to think of an answer now. Is she aware that when Ministry of Education official Richard Walley met with the early childhood advisory committee to report on the work of her funding advisory group he referred to consideration of the funding model used in the tertiary sector where funding depends on the students’ successful completion of courses and qualifications for use in early childhood education? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No I was not aware of that. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I invite you to reflect on your ruling in respect of Sue Moroney. Another member in this Chamber Mr Banks trifled with you. I am not sure whether he is allocated a supplementary question each day. I tried to get that information. You did not embark on any sanctioning on him at all yet you embarked on sanctioning my colleague and docking a supplementary question. Where is the consistency— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I call Sue Moroney if she has a further supplementary question. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to raise an issue with you with regard to a point of order that was raised earlier by David Parker in regard to when Ministers give very very long answers. We are limited in the number of supplementary questions that we can ask. I appreciate that you have ruled that Sue Moroney’s point of order was unnecessary but she has only a very limited number of supplementary questions with which she could respond to all of the content that the Minister raised. I just ask you to reconsider the reasonableness of that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! And I invite the member to reflect on the fact that when the Minister did not hear the member’s question clearly I invited the member to repeat her question so it could be heard clearly. The member chose after I had already deducted a supplementary question to make an unhelpful comment when repeating her question. I did nothing about that because I had already taken action against the member. All members seem to think that I am being unfair on their side. The only conclusion that I can arrive at is that I am probably about—[ 
Interruption 
] Well let me be blunt. If the Labour Party feels I have been tough on it today some of the interjections I have had to tolerate today coming across from the second bench of the Labour Party have been totally unacceptable. If I hear any more of them today members will be leaving because they have been totally outside the Standing Orders. I have chosen to ignore them because I do not want to be seen to be picking on one side of the House but you know that what is good for the goose has got to be good for the gander. I am not going to tolerate any more nonsense on this. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you are reflecting on me and I just ask you what options there are for Labour members when Government Ministers make up Labour policy— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! This is not a point of order and I—even though it is not a point of order at this stage in the proceedings I do hear what the member is saying. I will try to make sure that I deal with that. There was one instance today I do accept where I did not deal with it and I should have. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to frustrate you but we are entitled in this place to take points of order. Could I invite you to reflect on your previous ruling. You said that there had been two transgressions by my colleague Sue Moroney but your ruling in respect of a supplementary question deduction happened before the second transgression. So my question to you simply is this: in the case of Mr Banks you did nothing and in the case of Sue Moroney—and I would argue that Mr Banks trifled with you— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Look I have dealt with this matter. I will not tolerate any more such nonsense. The Speaker has absolute control over supplementary questions. We will get on with question time. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why when asked if national standards were being considered for early childhood education did her ministry official reply “Not yet.”? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: First of all I do not know whether my ministry official did reply to that in that way—[ 
Interruption 
] I do not know that to be the case. I was not present. I do not know which official—I did not hear it. I cannot answer for that official. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear this—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! Now Government members are not helping. I want to hear this supplementary question. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is her assurance that exams for 3 and 4-year-old children are not on her agenda just as reassuring as the previous Minister Anne Tolley’s assurances before the election that league tables were not on her agenda? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: What is on my agenda in early childhood education is that 98 percent of all new entrants will have participated in quality early childhood education by 2016. They will be able to go to school having completed the Te Whariki curriculum where they are competent confident socially engaged and ready to learn. This is in a context where this Government has increased investment in early childhood education by 34 percent since 2008 where it has become 32 percent more affordable than in 2007 and where enrolments have increased between 2 percent and 4 percent a year—nearly 10 percent in total—since 2008. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A point of order has been raised. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table the newsletter of the New Zealand Childcare Association Te TariPuna Ora o Aotearoa dated 5 September to its membership informing its membership of those comments from the ministry officials. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 7 David Bennett. 
Melissa Lee 
: Supplementary. Supplementary. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question—I have already called question No. 7. The member should have got to her feet sooner. David Bennett question No. 7. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member was trying. I mean it might have been that you were not looking for her but she was on her feet even if she was not as loud as some of us are. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the member’s care. He may have noticed that the supplementary questions have now been balanced up. Question No. 7 David Bennett. 
Science and Manufacturing Funding—2012 Science Investment Round Grants 
7. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Science and Innovation 
: What new investment is the Government making in innovation and high-value manufacturing? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation) 
: 
 Today I announced that 31 projects at universities Crown research institutes and private research organisations have been awarded research grants in the high-value manufacturing sector. The 31 projects range from medical technologies like early cancer detection to nanotechnology insulation and cryogenic refrigeration. The $92 million for the projects over 6 years is the second tranche of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment’s 2012 science investment round and follows the $133 million in science research grants that I announced last month. 
David Bennett 
: What other investment has the Government made to encourage innovation and high-value manufacturing? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The research grant funding announced today is in addition to the $115 million the Government has invested this year in research and development co-funding for business. In addition to that in July the Prime Minister and I announced the establishment of the Advanced Technology Institute which will be named after the late Sir Paul Callaghan. The Advanced Technology Institute will be a one-stop shop to help hi-tech and high-value manufacturing firms become more competitive and get New Zealand’s best ideas out of the lab and into the market place faster. Legislation to establish the Advanced Technology Institute was tabled in the House this week and we are hoping it will receive its first reading shortly. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—Consultation on Bid for Wiri Prison Contract 
8. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What consultation took place between her and ACC or between her predecessor and ACC over ACC becoming a member of the consortium that bid successfully to build New Zealand’s first public-private partnership prison at Wiri? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 There was no consultation between me and ACC over this investment decision. I checked with ACC and with my predecessor and I am advised that there was no consultation between Dr Nick Smith and ACC over the decision. However Dr Smith was notified prior to the announcement of the decision by ACC on a no-surprises basis of ACC’s decision. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is she concerned about the risks to ACC’s investment in Wiri given the widespread opposition to the private operation of prisons amongst the public and across at least half the political parties represented in this House? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is she aware specifically or generally of the terms of the contract between the Department of Corrections and the consortium; if so how; and if not how can she be so confident about ACC’s risk position? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No I do not have those details. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does she have a view in light of reports that the contract is worth nearly $1 billion and of a duration of over 30 years on the appropriateness given the extent of public investment in the consortium of keeping most of its terms secret from the New Zealand public? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well I do not think that is really a matter for ACC. But I would say that I thought that that member was actually in favour of Government investment in infrastructure such as prisons and I would have thought that ACC was clearly one of those Government investors. 
Prison Wiri—Secure Future Consortium Contract 
9. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What progress has been made on the new prison to be built at Wiri? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yesterday a contract was finalised allowing the Secure Future Consortium to design build operate and maintain the new 960-bed public-private partnership prison at Wiri. The new prison will deliver value for taxpayers and support the Government in reaching the target of a 25 percent reduction in reoffending by 2017. The 25-year contract is worth approximately $840 million which is 17 percent less than if the prison was procured through conventional means representing a $170 million saving for taxpayers. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What impact will the construction of the new prison have on the Greater Auckland economy? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The new prison will provide a huge boost to the Auckland economy. This is a very significant infrastructure project that will see up to a thousand workers involved in the construction of the prison over the next 2 years and the ongoing running of the prison will create about 300 permanent jobs. In addition the prison’s ongoing maintenance and management will inject millions of dollars into the Greater Auckland economy every year. 
Ross Sea Marine Protected Area Proposal—Effect on Toothfish Catch 
10. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What advice has he received on how New Zealand’s Ross Sea Marine Protected Area proposal would have affected the percentage of the toothfish catch landed by New Zealand fishers in the last three years? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 The total allowable catch for the toothfish fishery in the Ross Sea region will not change as a result of a marine protected area. I have been advised that the New Zealand Ross Sea Marine Protected Area proposal would change the location in which fish are caught but not necessarily the total amount of fish that New Zealand fishers would catch. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Is it correct then that 84 percent of the historical catch has been from areas that his plan leaves wide open to further fishing? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I am informed that if you take a historical average over the last 10 years then approximately 16 percent of the catch would have been in the area in the proposed marine protected area—the proposal put forward by New Zealand. So on that basis the member’s assertion would be correct yes. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Does the Minister stand by his comment made in the film  
The Last Ocean 
 about the Ross Sea that he wanted New Zealand to be a conservation leader; if so why did Cabinet reject the stronger protection proposal developed with the US Government? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The submission of a marine protected area proposal is merely the start of a process not the end of it. Amongst the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources nations that will deal with the proposals there are 25 countries represented with a diverse range of interests. Some are more heavily emphasising science and conservation interests; others are more focused on national fisheries concerns. I suggest to the member that if a proposal advances any one of those considerations to the exclusion or disbenefit of others then it is quite likely there will be no marine protected area agreed upon at all and that is the real risk we now confront. 
Gareth Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a pretty clear question. I asked why Cabinet rejected working with the US which is what the Government has been doing for the last few years. I specifically asked: “Why did Cabinet reject the stronger protection proposal developed with the US Government?”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought I heard an explanation. I believe I heard an explanation. A number of reasons were given there. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Did he simply draw a line around the main toothfish area and draw a line around the biodiversity hot spots and is his plan not simply a fishing industry protection plan and not really a marine protection plan? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: Can I assure the member and the House that I left the drawing of lines as he puts it to people with significantly greater knowledge and qualifications than I possess myself. Can I repeat the comment I have just made which is that the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources process involves 25 different nations. There will be those who want to emphasise scientific considerations particularly science research those who want to put a stronger focus on conservation and those who are more interested in the fisheries outcomes. Any attempt to focus exclusively on one of those is likely to lead to no agreement amongst those 25 countries. New Zealand has sought to take forward a proposal that captures the best prospects of seeing an agreement made. 
Gareth Hughes 
: I seek leave to table two maps produced by the Antarctic Ocean Alliance which show the Government’s proposal where the biodiversity is and where the fishing occurs and the fact that they do not mix. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Exchange Rate—Minister’s Statements 
11. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What did he mean when he said that there is a “level of discomfort about the high level of the New Zealand dollar” in answer to Oral Question No 2 yesterday? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I meant what I said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I go to the Rt Hon Winston Peters for a primary question I think it is not an acceptable answer to say: “I meant what I said.” The question asked what he meant when he said that and I think some explanation is not unreasonable. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: What I said yesterday was there is a level of discomfort about the high level of the New Zealand dollar. That put it about as accurately as I could have at the time and I have no further explanation despite your wish for one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What would be a little bit helpful would be to hear who has the level of discomfort. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No he didn’t ask that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No order! The question asked what did he mean by—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! You know it is a primary question. The question asked about his saying there is level of discomfort. Is the member saying that he has a level of discomfort? The primary question asked for an expansion on that answer and I think the House does deserve an expansion on that answer from the Minister of Finance in answering a primary question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am in a difficult position because I have no expansion on it. I made that comment. We could get into theories about exchange rates and adjustments. We could get into what “discomfort” might or might not mean. But I do not have any extra thing to say on it that will assist the member. I am happy to assist him if he has some other question but in response to that question that actually sums up the Government’s position about the New Zealand dollar. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: So the Minister has explained that the Government has a level of discomfort. [ 
Interruption 
] I am being serious here. This is a primary question on the Order Paper to the Minister of Finance. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you are going to go down this track then you would need to put in front of you the question that was asked yesterday that elicited that answer because I think then it would be seen that the answer given by the Hon Bill English was perfectly reasonable and should have been abundantly clear. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That might be the member’s view but the primary question was asked and it is not acceptable simply to answer a primary question with “I meant what I said.” when the answer that was referred to was simply a level of discomfort about the high level of the New Zealand dollar. There is a genuine interest in this issue. I believe that this House deserves better from the Minister of Finance. I expect the Minister of Finance to be able to answer that primary question and expand a little on those words. I am not asking for more than a little further explanation of what he meant by that. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I object to being forced by the Speaker to give an answer more than what I am willing able and can justify giving. I have never seen this happen in the House before. The member asked a question which I thought was not that sensible a question because I said— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member cannot do that. I accept that if the Minister is invoking the public interest if he does not believe that it is in the public interest to expand further on that answer I fully accept that—I fully accept that. But the question was accepted as being in order and therefore being a primary question there were several hours to prepare an answer to it—and it is on an issue of significant public interest. I believe that the House does deserve an answer. If it is not in the public interest to expand on that answer I am absolutely prepared to accept that. If that is the Minister’s position I fully accept that. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry but I do not believe that the Minister made any claims that it was not in the public interest to answer the question. I accept you may be trying to interpolate that but I think actually we need to hear from the Minister. If he is arguing it is not in the public interest to answer I believe he needs to say that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I interpreted what he said as alleging it was not in the public interest to expand further on that answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been unusually restrained on this matter as you will have been well aware. But does this mean that henceforth any Minister can get up and take the Minister of Finance’s view that all he has to do is use the word “discomfort” and refuse to explain what it means to anybody— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! This is not really a point of order. This is now getting into the Minister’s answer. The member has seen me attempt to elicit an answer to a primary question. I have interpreted what the Minister has said as that in his view it is not in the public interest to expand further on that particular answer. The member can dig into that further with the supplementary questions he has. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not believe that is actually what is happening here. The Minister is simply refusing to answer the question under your direction. He is not claiming a public interest defence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member is not particularly helping the order of the House. He has seen me push a Minister harder than he has seen any other Speaker ever push a Minister. If he wants the Speaker to continue to actually try to elicit answers from Ministers then it is not very helpful to take this line. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does his answer to my primary question mean that he and his ministry after 3½ hours cannot tell us whether or not the level of discomfort includes his concern that the dollar might be overvalued? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No it does not mean that. What the answer to the question means is that as the Government has said quite often we would prefer the level of the dollar to be lower. That would make it easier to rebalance the economy. However on the other hand it would if it was lower reduce the standard of living of New Zealand households. Either way we cannot influence the level of the dollar directly and we are getting on with helping our exporters be more competitive because unlike the Opposition we do not think we can choose the level of the exchange rate. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept that you provided quite a lot of assistance in trying to get the answer to the primary question and the Minister did not answer. But the answer that he has just given effectively could have been the answer to the first question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No this is unhelpful to the progress of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think my colleague in a way that he should not have has interjected that you did not hear the point of order and I think it would have been appropriate to hear it. Mr Speaker you interpreted that the Minister had said it was not in the public interest. Our view is that your interpretation was wrong. That has just been confirmed by the Minister answering in a way that he should have originally. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the honourable Bill English. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am just trying to assist the progress of the House. There is not much point in our having a long debate about the answer to the first question. I gave you a point of view about that the member asked another question and I could easily have got up and just said “No” and sat back down but I do not think that would have assisted the progress of the House. I do not think there is a lot of point in our going back and litigating that. I am happy to answer the question the member asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And indeed the question was a slightly different question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If as he says—and I quote him—he “would prefer the dollar to be lower” how lower does he prefer it to be? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not have in mind and I do not think anyone has in mind a particular level. All the measures of relative values of the New Zealand dollar show that by historical standards it is at high levels. If it was 75c in the US dollar that would be easier. If it was 70c it would be even easier for exporters but bear in mind that would also mean a reduction in living standards for New Zealanders. As I said before either way we cannot pick the exchange rate. We do not try to pick the exchange rate. We get on with making our exporters as competitive as they possibly can be. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has once again given an answer that could have been given to the primary question. I would argue that he has defied you in not answering the primary question because you interpreted that he was acting—you said that it was not in the public interest. It— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! This is not helpful to the order of the House. The Speaker makes his judgments and that matter is now dealt with. We are getting answers to the supplementary questions and I think that is good progress for the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that he had 3½ hours to answer the primary question and about 3 seconds to answer the supplementary questions today does he consider his assessment of the situation to be better than that of the IMF which has said the dollar needs to be about— 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Better than John Walley’s. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: There is only one wally around here and I am looking at him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Members should know the mood the House is in today. It is unhelpful to make any kind of interjection like that. The Rt Hon Winston Peters please to ask his supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that he had 3½ hours to prepare the primary question’s answer and 3 seconds to answer the supplementary questions does he consider his assessment of the situation to be better than that of the IMF which has said the dollar needs to be about 15 percent weaker than its current level or the Prime Minister’s statement on 17 April that “We’ve been overvalued for a few days.” when the New Zealand dollar was trading at US82c the same level it is at now? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not believe that my assessment is better than others’ but I think it is about as good. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When he told Radio Live on Monday that the Reserve Bank “would be looking to intervene” did he mean to say he supports the dollar reflecting New Zealand’s economic fundamentals or what did he mean? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could I ask the right honourable member please to repeat his question. It just was not heard clearly. If the member could repeat his supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Perhaps you could turn it on again so I can print it off. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When he told Radio Live on Monday that the Reserve Bank—and I quote him—“would be looking to intervene” did he mean to say he as the Minister of Finance supports our dollar reflecting New Zealand’s economic fundamentals; if not what did he mean? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I was asked a question about the speculation by some trader that the kiwi could go to US90c and I pointed out that if it looked like that was happening based on historical experience the Reserve Bank might look to intervene. But then that is ultimately a matter for it. In respect of the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy we are fundamentally a bit more sound at the moment than a lot of other developed economies. That is one reason the dollar is a bit higher. If we continue to perform in the way we are with growth of 2 percent to 3 percent that will put us in a pretty special group of developed economies. That level of performance is likely to keep the dollar somewhere around where it is. 
Hon David Parker 
: And still we get poorer. And still we get poorer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: What we need to do is make our exporters as competitive as possible so that regardless of the level of the dollar they can be profitable. And by the way the way to get poorer is actually to devalue by 20 percent as the Labour Party is advocating. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] No. Order! The Minister cannot allege policies to another party. 
Accident Compensation Corporation Board—Appointments and Culture Change 
12. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does she stand by her statement that recent appointments to the board of ACC “underline the Government’s commitment to genuine culture change and will lead to a more balanced and comprehensive approach to the governance and operation of ACC”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes. 
Andrew Little 
: What culture change is she expecting from the appointment of Trevor Janes who was a director of Capital and Merchant Finance in August 2006 when the board of that company signed off a prospectus so fraudulent that three other directors were recently sentenced to the harshest jail terms ever in New Zealand for corporate fraud as a result and over which Mr Janes took no action in the form of whistle-blowing or other protection of investors’ interests and merely resigned after the damage was done? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Janes has had nothing to do with the matters that have been before the court as that member well knows. 
Andrew Little 
: In light of the New Zealand Institute of Directors’ practice note No. 4 dated 7 September 2012 entitled “Lessons learned from the ‘hands-off’ approach to governance” and containing the advice “A director must not abdicate responsibility” and the further advice that directors have a high level of responsibility “not only about what they know but about what they ought reasonably to have known.” will she reconsider Mr Janes’ appointment? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Certainly not. 
Andrew Little 
: I seek leave to table practice note No. 4 from the New Zealand Institute of Directors on the matter just referred to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
General Debate 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. In a world increasingly dominated by debt deficits and demonstrations this is a Government that is protecting New Zealanders and growing the economy. Nothing is more important to New Zealanders today than a strong economy because that is where the jobs come from that is where the independence comes from and that is where security for our families comes from—a strong growing economy. That is where top-quality health and education services come from. So this is a Government focused on the economy. This is not a Government focused on trivial electoral fluff like taking GST off food free this and free that. This is a Government that is backing the producers of New Zealand to get the economy moving for all. We have cut taxes. We have got the lowest interest rates that we need. We have got low inflation. This Government has reduced compliance costs. We heard earlier on from the Hon Steven Joyce I think that we have removed 170 unnecessary and excessive regulations from the law book. There is an unprecedented amount of progress on free-trade agreements around the world. This Government has tidied up the capital markets and made a huge investment in innovation. 
This Government has been dedicated to protecting New Zealanders from the sharp edges of the recession and the increasingly serious global financial crisis and worsening international debt situation. The latest European GDP quarters results stand in strong contrast to the performance here in the New Zealand economy especially when it comes to the debt crisis that Europe is sliding further and further into. In the last quarter New Zealand grew about 1 percent. You just need to compare that with a negative growth rate across Europe in that period. Germany Spain Italy France and Portugal all had negative growth rates. In the last four of five quarters France has had a zero growth rate. The Socialist President elected on a platform of spend spend spend has just told the French people that he is now embarking on a programme of cut cut cut. So the French have got their debt out of control. Every week we are seeing the evidence on our television screens of how serious the impacts of economic stagnation or decline are in Europe where even countries like Germany are facing these problems. 
But here in New Zealand with a balanced approach of control on spending and a focus on value for money and a determination to reduce the deficit control debt and improve public services New Zealand is being able to deliver for its people. In fact a report released on Tuesday overnight from the OECD says that this Government spends more of its Budget on education than any of the other 33 countries in the OECD. So we are right up there. We will not comment about the Opposition: it has spent the last 10 years saying there is nothing wrong with the New Zealand education system and all of a sudden we need Reading Recovery. It said there is nothing wrong with the New Zealand education system but all of a sudden we need Reading Recovery. 
Let us focus just on what the OECD has actually said about the New Zealand education system and the spending from this Government in the toughest of times. The OECD says that New Zealand directed in the latest year available over 21 percent of its public spending to education. That was enough to push us beyond the previous bigger spender Mexico by nearly 1 percent. The OECD average is 13 percent. The report also considers public spending on education as a proportion of GDP. Again New Zealand ranks highly with 7.2 percent exceeded only by Sweden Norway Denmark and Iceland. That is a major achievement for New Zealand. In health the average OECD country had a zero increase in the year under review whereas New Zealand had the second-highest increase of public commitment to health services in the OECD. 
So in a world increasingly dominated by debt deficits and demonstrations from upset voters this Government is protecting New Zealanders and growing the economy and every day we can see a Government that is determined to work hard for New Zealanders. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 Tomorrow New Zealand First is releasing a report from Business and Economic Research summarising the case for amending the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. The Business and Economic Research report concludes that New Zealanders’ lives will benefit from an amended Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. In alignment with the Business and Economic Research report there is now a broad consensus on the need for an amendment to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. The International Monetary Fund exporters manufacturers many leading economists and commentators and even our own Reserve Bank are all agreed. 
No serious economist will deny that our exchange rate is overvalued but yesterday in this House when the Minister of Finance was asked whether he agreed with the overwhelming weight of expert opinion on the overvalued dollar he fudged it. Today in this House he fudged it once again. I quote the Minister’s comment yesterday: “We do agree with their level of discomfort about the high level of the New Zealand dollar”. So that is all right then is it? It is all right that there is a level of discomfort and the Minister even today cannot disclose or give us any more information on how that level of discomfort is out there. 
“Discomfort” is such a nice word—an inoffensive and euphemistic word. But ask the workers in Kawerau ask the workers in Bluff and ask the workers in Timaru in South Auckland and throughout New Zealand who have lost their jobs because the business they work in no longer is competitive due to an overvalued dollar if they are experiencing “discomfort”. Are they experiencing “discomfort”? Most certainly they are. If you ask them that question you will get a very blunt answer. 
The plain fact is that the current Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act is seriously flawed. The focus on inflation is having a dire impact on New Zealand’s international competitiveness. The current Act dates from 1989—a whole different epoch. The fixation on a narrow inflation target may have been appropriate in the past but is now creating a major headwind in the form of an overvalued New Zealand currency creating a great competitive disadvantage for our economy. Globally inflation is not the threat it was back in 1989. 
Today we face a different threat to our economy: cut-throat competition in our export markets the very basis of our survival as a developed trading nation. What the current Act has given us is a chronically overvalued exchange rate and the result is that every week businesses are closing markets are in jeopardy and jobs are being lost. The New Zealand public is now asking why there is no urgency why there is no action from this Government and why there is no resolve. 
The basic economics are straightforward. Our currency should reflect New Zealand’s economic fundamentals. Instead we have a persistently overvalued exchange rate. That has served the interests of international currency speculators—the so-called carry trade the people from the likes of Merrill Lynch and other money traders—who have done well out of trading currency in this country. Our overvalued exchange rate has encouraged people to park money here simply to earn higher interest rates. That has led to all manner of distortions. The facts and consequences of an overvalued exchange rate are not in doubt. The facts on the ground are stark. The loss of competitiveness is costing us markets costing us jobs and losing us many major employers. 
So the time for prevarication and passivity over the Reserve Bank is over. The damage needs to be stopped before more irreparable harm is done to our economic capacity. The bill that New Zealand First has introduced to amend the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act will mean the Reserve Bank can pursue a balanced macroeconomic policy in which price stability although remaining important is no longer the overriding policy objective. We will have an amended Reserve Bank that is fit for purpose and will promote growth jobs and more important exports. So in summary everyone agrees the dollar is overvalued— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: No! What should the value be Andrew? 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Everyone agrees the dollar is overvalued—the Minister of Finance said as much this week. The damage to our economy is now widespread and growing. We are undermining our economic capacity in the country day by day. The Government is stuck in passive mode. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 What a shocker of a day it has been for Labour. You know Labour had a great chance this afternoon for their leader to get up and make a real impact in this House and what did he do? The one question he had he withdrew. I think there would have been major disappointment amongst the grassroots Labour Party membership out there to see the Labour caucus performance in question time today. I tell you what if it is not time for a change of Labour leadership there never will be. My advice to people over there is that they have got to grasp the nettle and get on with the tough decisions. 
It has not been a good day for Labour online either because we had Mr Shearer’s online chat today. I am sure that Labour supporters that dwindling number throughout New Zealand would have been looking for some real substance. Well there it was. Clint asked Mr Shearer: “How do you get New Zealand out of debt without selling assets raising tax or taking away the few benefits that middle-class New Zealanders receive?”. Mr Shearer said: “We need to grow the economy and that needs pro-growth tax reform.” And then Sally asked: “Well what do you mean by pro-growth tax reform Mr Shearer?”. Mr Shearer said: “The big change we would make is a capital gains tax.” So that is the answer. On the one hand if Labour is in Government with New Zealand First we are going to have the exchange rate fixed and then the big answer is going to be capital gains. Well I can tell one that is not going to be what gets New Zealand going ahead. 
What is going to get the country going is sound economic management and the sort of leadership that John Key is bringing to the country. If you look at that online poll—I am sure the Labour Party will have seen it today—1800 readers of the  
New Zealand Herald  
were asked who they would be voting for: 49 percent National 22 percent Labour. They are on course for an absolute shocker. So when we see the sorts of theatrics we are getting from Trevor Mallard and co. in the House today you can tell that those people over there have lost the plot. 
Meanwhile what we are focusing on is solid performance in the economy. Unlike Labour who were supporting the crazy Green bill banning the sale of all land to overseas owners a bill that would have really severely dented our economy and sent terrible signals overseas unlike them we are getting on and encouraging investment into New Zealand and making sure we have got the capital in this country to grow the economy. A good example if the Labour Party had been in charge is that none of these decisions would have been made. So you would not have had the Japanese investor who fronted up with the capital to save 60 jobs at Terrace Downs estate in Christchurch. No the Labour Party opposed that. You would not have had the American non-profit organisation that purchased 15 hectares in Richmond and has produced jobs in construction and tourism and made sure that the people working there have maintained their jobs. No that would have been gone under Labour because it supported that ridiculous Green bill that would have banned the sale of land to all foreigners. Carbon Conscious Holdings and Kingheim Ltd would not have been allowed to purchase their forestry investments which have produced jobs and growth in New Zealand. There would not be any jobs from expansions in new projects by TAG Oil and Bathurst Resources. They would all be gone under Labour. Basically when you look at it what you are hearing from Labour members is just rhetoric. They are opposed to anything that results in economic growth. I challenge them—and I hope it is Mr Shearer who gets up next—to actually say what the Labour Party would do to grow the economy. 
Today Mr Shearer was asked some very straight questions during his online chat. He was asked what his stance was on decriminalisation of cannabis: “David yes or no; are you for the decriminalisation of cannabis?”. “I’m not making policy on the hoof.” said Mr Shearer. Mr Shearer could not even say whether he was against our young people being able to smoke marijuana or not. Well I can tell you on this side of the House we are pretty clear-cut on that stuff. I oppose the decriminalisation of marijuana because we know what it does to our young people. Labour is now trying to deflate the argument and move it off the agenda. 
But what I can say is that the Labour Party is opposed to anything that means jobs or growth for New Zealanders and New Zealanders know that. New Zealanders know that the path ahead is the very sensible course that John Key has got this Government on. I think the argument is pretty clear-cut. I think it is being reflected at the polls. The path ahead is the sensible investment decisions that this Government is encouraging. What we are seeing from those members is support of policies that are going to lead this country down the gurgler. The case rests. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I just want to say thank you and pass on my gratitude to the last speaker Jonathan Coleman for helping me to get elected into the Mt Albert seat. His ongoing and persistent efforts were certainly missed in the last election but I certainly did appreciate those during the by-election. 
Today we have been confronted with a $78 billion figure from the Minister for Social Development. Nobody quite knows exactly what that means. It is a meaningless figure. The last figure that we heard along those lines was from the Ministry of Social Development. It was a $45 billion figure and nobody quite knew what that meant either. What her figure is supposed to say or what she is claiming it is saying is the cost of our social welfare spend in this country. 
What this Government is really good at doing is measuring not very much and doing very very little. So we actually do not know how we are going to move past those numbers to actual real improvement. But let me give you some other numbers. These are the costs to this country of kids growing up in poverty. It is $8.8 billion a year. That $8.8 billion a year is what it is costing this country because of kids growing up in poverty: lost productivity $2 billion; crime $2.2 billion; health costs between $3 billion and $4.5 billion; and social welfare $1.4 billion. That is $400 billion over a lifetime. That is nearly 10 times what that Minister was talking about in terms of social welfare. If she actually solved the real problems in this country—the real problem is about child poverty. 
This week we put on the table some proactive positive steps forward in terms of changing the way that we do something about the choices that kids have in their schools. You go to schools across this country and you look at those kids at those schools. They look up at you and they are eager. They are ready to learn and are willing. Then you look a little bit harder and you notice that many of them do not have shoes. They have got no jumpers on. They are cold and many of them according to their teachers come to school without lunches. We can argue about whether that is the parents’ responsibility or not—of course it is the parents’ responsibility for the kids to come along to school well fed and with lunch but the reality is that they are not. More than 80000 kids are coming to school without those things. Without lunch and without having something to eat before school of course they are not going to do well in the classroom—either for themselves or as a distraction to others. 
We are proposing to put food into schools to ensure that those kids get the best start. What does that mean? What does that actually mean? That means that when those kids get a good start they do not come out the other end and fall into the unemployment queue or form part of our health statistics or our crime statistics. 
What else are we proposing to do? Actually what we are proposing to do is something that we only just discovered that Bill English was proposing just a few years ago and that is to make sure that every kid has access to Reading Recovery. One in five children in this country has problems with reading. Reading Recovery has an 80 percent success rate—80 percent. It is the gold standard across the world. Yet Reading Recovery is not available in every one of our schools. 
So what we are proposing is making sure that every kid has access to Reading Recovery making sure kids have food in their stomachs when they go to school and making sure that they get picked up if they are having reading difficulties. This will mean that they come out the other end and contribute to our society and the meaningless statistics that the social development Minister came up with today will not need to be pandered around this Parliament. They are ridiculous. They are ridiculous because all they do is throw out a number when what we are really looking for is solutions. This Government has no solutions. If it did have solutions it would have come up with them and we would not be in this situation. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Does it not speak volumes about the level of confidence in the leadership of the Labour Party that there is fewer than half the caucus here this afternoon to listen to their leader? I remember in the days when National was in Opposition and John Key was the leader that you would have had every single member of the National caucus down here backing the leadership and the team. But having heard the content I am not surprised that the Labour caucus is sitting up in their offices embarrassed by the content. You see the Leader of the Opposition has just said he does not understand the significance of a $78 billion social welfare liability. Well I say to the Leader of the Opposition that until he understands the scale of the welfare challenge and the importance of getting families into work and off welfare he has no prospects of being a Minister—let alone a Prime Minister—in the Government of New Zealand. 
What a contrast there has been over the adjournment in the approaches to the challenges that face New Zealand. I want to commend Paula Bennett on the powerful work that she is doing to change this country for the better in the way in which she is dealing with those welfare challenges. You see Paula Bennett and this John Key - led Government understand the obligations and responsibilities that must sit alongside rights. For instance we on this side of the House say that a person should be able to be drug tested whether they are in work or whether they want to get a welfare benefit. The Leader of the Opposition does not even know where he stands on the issue of whether we should liberalise cannabis laws in this country. We on this side of the House know that children need to get access to doctors to early childhood education and to schools to be able to get ahead in life. That is why the Minister has announced a pre-requirement for those families that we are financing to make sure they meet that obligation. I hear New Zealanders from Kaitaia to Bluff saying hear hear! 
You know the biggest absence in commentary from the Labour Party is where they stand on national standards. Is it not interesting to see Julia Gillard the Prime Minister of Australia championing the cause and the importance of measuring how kids do in Australia and yet we have a Labour Party in New Zealand that is so beholden to the teachers unions that it is not prepared to stand up for what is right and for measuring how our kids do at school? 
 But the contrast goes far deeper than that—far deeper than that. You see what we heard from the Government over the adjournment was how we grow the economy and from the Opposition we heard how we spend how we borrow and how we get New Zealand further into difficulty. What we have from Labour in that confused and muddled speech from the Leader of the Opposition is not one mention of the biggest issue that confronts our country and that is how we are going to grow wages and grow jobs so that this country can provide the education the health and the opportunities for the next generation of New Zealanders. 
So often we on this side of the House have said that Labour is living on some different planet and that was reinforced in the contribution today. All around the world countries are trying to confront the issues of debt of deficits and of how to grow the economy. Yet we have not had a single idea from members opposite on how to achieve those things. Let me just reflect just quickly on the good things that this Government is doing in that space. Firstly let us look at the issue of jobs. There have been 40000 new net jobs created in the last 2 years in the New Zealand economy a faster rate of job growth than any other OECD country and it has been achieved in incredibly challenging financial times. 
Sue Moroney 
: What rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask the member who is interjecting what the unemployment level is in Spain. It is 24 percent. What is it in Italy and Ireland and other countries in Europe? It is in double digits. New Zealand has one of the lowest levels of unemployment because of the competent economic management the focus on growth and the package of measures that colleagues are rolling out which gives this country hope for a brighter future. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 It has not escaped anybody’s attention that Bill English refused to back the Prime Minister today and refused to defend the Prime Minister’s comments on Reading Recovery. He would not go anywhere near it. When a question was put to the Acting Prime Minister he went out of his way to get it off his desk because he did not want to back the Prime Minister on Reading Recovery. Why did he not want to do that? Because the comments and the commitments that the Labour Party has made with regard to Reading Recovery are the same sentiments that Bill English was expressing when he was in Opposition. And has National done it? After 4 years has it delivered on it? No it has not. 
In fact the problem has got worse. There are fewer decile 1 2 and 3 schools delivering Reading Recovery today than there were when Bill English was lamenting the fact that not enough schools were delivering it. It is no wonder Bill English was ducking for cover and was refusing to back John Key on Reading Recovery because it would simply have shown once again that what Bill English said in Opposition is not what he has been doing in Government. Nothing that the National Party said when it was in Opposition can be relied upon as a guide for what it has been doing in Government. For 4 years New Zealanders have been waiting for the brighter future the National Party promised them and they are still going to be waiting at the next election when they turf National out and introduce a Labour Government because then they will actually see the brighter future that New Zealanders hunger for and want to see. 
New Zealanders know that education is a core part a core way that we can deliver the brighter future and it is not going to come from this National Government. This National Government is destroying the most positive aspects of our New Zealand education system which is one of the best in the world. National is tinkering with it experimenting with it and turning our kids into guinea pigs. It is turning to the countries in the world that are way down the ladder and have a worse education system than us and it is copying the things they do. It is copying the things they do and it is hoping that that is going to improve our education system. Well it will not. 
The National Party tells parents that they cannot trust teachers. The National Party at its core hates teachers. They really do not like teachers over there in the National Party and they keep telling parents they cannot trust teachers. Their solution to improving the quality of teaching was to make classes bigger and when that failed they resorted to a new plan to introduce charter schools without having qualified teachers in them. That was National’s solution to the fact that parents overwhelmingly rejected its plan for bigger class sizes. So what did National members do? They went back to the drawing board and said: “Let’s just not have qualified teachers. Let’s just reduce the number of qualified teachers in charter schools.” That is not going to be the solution to the problem. We have a very efficient education system when it comes to building schools. What is the National Party’s solution to that? “Oh” National says “we better get the for-profit private sector involved. We are going to build some public-private partnership schools that cost more than the regular public schools are going to cost.” That is the bright future the National Party is promising to New Zealanders. 
We should know of course that National is not committed to qualified teachers because one of the very first things it did was to lower the standards for early childhood education by reducing the number of qualified teachers that an early childhood education centre is expected to have. 
Katrina Shanks 
: That’s rubbish. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That was one of the first things Anne Tolley did when she became the Minister of Education and I agree with Katrina Shanks—it was a rubbish decision that Anne Tolley made when she lowered the standards for early childhood education. 
This is a Government that does not have a clear agenda for education. It does not have any idea what it is trying to achieve. It has the charter schools idea—the silver bullet. So now we are going to have the “Merrill Lynch School for Ethical Investment”. We are going to have the “KFC School for Nutritional Studies”. We will have the “Monsanto School of Organic Agriculture” and the “Rothmans School for Health Studies”. That is fundamentally what the National Party believes—that running schools is a business that someone should be able to make a profit out of and they do not even have to deliver on quality. They do not even have to deliver on quality. It does not matter whether they have qualified teachers in the classrooms of these new charter schools. That does not matter to the National Party because fundamentally it does not know what it is trying to achieve in education. It does not have a programme that will improve our education system. 
What we need to be focused on is how we go from having one of the best education systems in the world to having the best education system in the world. That is what the Labour Party under David Shearer’s leadership is committed to. That is what we are going to deliver when we win the next general election. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 One of the really difficult things the public has to do at the moment is to try to discern what Labour actually stands for. Dr Nick Smith has gone through some very excellent examples of that in the realm of education. I want to touch on this in relation to fiscal policy because there was a fascinating exchange during question time today when the Deputy Prime Minister in suggesting that Opposition parties advocate an exchange rate that was 20 percent or so lower received a barrage of interjection from Mr Mallard and Mr Goff. In fact Mr Mallard even received a withering look from the Speaker as he said something like “Don’t tell lies.” 
I am actually very interested in this because I know that Mr Parker has just been overseas and has been blogging about his trip to the US and the UK. He was meeting with some of the world’s greatest economists apparently not to listen very carefully and learn as much as he could but to discuss his ideas on monetary policy and the exchange rate—not to listen and learn but to tell the best economists in the world what he thought. He says in the blog: “He agreed”—quoting Mr Olivier Blanchard so he obviously was saying that he agreed with Mr Parker—“countries need to attend to the competitiveness of their exchange rates.” I can only infer from that that Labour and Mr Parker at least want lower exchange rates. 
More extraordinarily there is a belief which I believe is Mr Parker’s that exchange rates can be controlled for longer periods than have traditionally been acknowledged by most economists—here it is—“without losing the battle to control inflation.” So I want members to consider what a 20 percent lower exchange rate would mean for consumers. Do members know those $2 a litre petrol prices? They would go to $2.80 without any other inflationary impacts. Petrol would go straight to $2.80. What would that mean for transport? Well a lot of our freight goods are transported by road by trucks. That is the cost of goods even those we export. So our exports become less competitive even though the exchange rate is lower. In terms of imported goods—often those that form the basis of the products that we value-add and then export again—they will be 20 percent to 25 percent more expensive. The cost of home appliances all our imported electrical goods will be 20 percent to 25 percent higher. In an inflationary environment lowering the exchange rate will only add to inflation. 
I worked for a bank in the 1980s when I was giving out mortgages of 19.5 percent and 20.5 percent—runaway inflation. Nobody can remember what the exchange rate was then—nobody can remember what the exchange rate was—but they sure as heck know what their mortgage rates were. We are now paying mortgage rates of what 5.75 percent to 5.8 percent floating rates. I think the public of New Zealand are entitled to know the impact of Labour’s proposal—even if it was possible—to lever down the exchange rate. How on earth it would do that without taking one of the biggest fiscal crapshoots in world economic history is absolutely beyond me. But the public need to know what that will mean for their incomes and for the cost of living in their households and I can tell you it is extraordinarily high. 
The impact on that in jobs is anybody’s guess but one of the things that I do know is that Labour members are very good at telling half a story well. This is a Government that is firmly focused on jobs and growth. Yes there is concern when things like the Kawerau pulp and paper mill and the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter announce plans to reduce hundreds of jobs. Tiwai is fascinating. Mr Parker in the previous Parliament decried the fact that it was getting what he described as 90 percent subsidies. In fact when we softened Labour’s emissions trading scheme the subsidy if you want to call it that went from 80 percent to 90 percent. Labour members were quite happy to do it when they were in Government. That lower exchange rate might increase the value of aluminium exports—that is not clear—but it would certainly increase the costs of production. 
So yes it is concerning when those jobs go but let us talk about the growth in jobs as well. Let us talk about IBM and Unitec announcing 400 jobs; Todd Corporation and Methanex adding another 500 construction jobs for methanol manufacturing at Motunui;  
The 
Hobbit 
—we do not need to talk too much about  
The Hobbit— 
and Bathurst Resources a salve on the West Coast which is experiencing some very challenging times with Solid Energy jobs at risk. Bathurst is quietly getting on growing jobs growing exports and doing well for New Zealanders. The news is very good. It would be bad if we tried to engineer our exchange rate down. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
Tena koe. It is Conservation Week this week and it is particularly significant this year because of the historic announcement that NgaiTuhoe are prepared to accept the Crown’s offer to settle their claims and grievances under the Treaty of Waitangi. A major part of that settlement relates to Te Urewera National Park. The Government plans to introduce special legislation that would give the park its own separate legal identity rather than being a national park managed under the National Parks Act 1980. That will be landmark legislation because of the way in which it must combine both biodiversity protection and adequate recognition of Tuhoe’s cultural spiritual and historical connection with Te Urewera and we look forward to it. 
But the Minister of Conservation has marked Conservation Week by announcing an increase in penalties for the smuggling of our native wildlife. That is very welcome but getting tougher on wildlife smugglers cannot disguise this Government’s neglect of the spectacular landscapes and of our native indigenous wildlife and plant communities. The previous speaker Michael Woodhouse was a case in point. He was talking about Bathurst Resources quietly getting on with the job. He was totally failing to appreciate the significance of the Denniston Plateau where that open-cast coalmine by this Aussie coalminer is proposed to take place. The Denniston Plateau is one of the key areas of conservation land that this Government should be protecting and preserving. It is one of our special places. It is no place for an open-cast coalmine. 
This Government repeatedly talks about balance. If it was serious about balance then it would recognise that the Stockton Plateau has been much mined over recent decades and much of the remainder of the Stockton Plateau which is adjacent to the Denniston Plateau is proposed for mining and it would keep the Denniston Plateau and the unique coal measure ecosystems which that plateau is home to as conservation land that is protected because of its distinctive character. These coal measure ecosystems their plants and animals are adapted to live in these very harsh growing conditions in the infertile acidic soils. We have got over 20 different species of earthworm on the plateau alone. That is more than exist on the rest of the West Coast. We have got giant carnivorous  
Powelliphanta 
 land snails which go right back to Gondwana. We have got a giant weta species. We have got species that were previously undiscovered like a moth species until the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society’s bioblitz. 
The Denniston Plateau is no place for this Government’s crazy economic development trash-the-environment plans. It is a place that should be protected as conservation land. It has got small pygmy plants. The Government fails to recognise that these species have value. It is miserly when it comes to investing in conservation. It has cut $54 million from the conservation budget yet it is spendthrift when it comes to propping up polluters like Fonterra shareholders and like coalminers by subsidising them through the very flawed emissions trading scheme. Yet it slashes money from conservation and it fails to recognise that our public protected lands are the essential infrastructure of our economy and that a healthy environment is the basis for a healthy economy. 
The Government needs to invest much more in conservation not the piddling expenditure that we have seen on Conservation Week this week. It is a reflection I guess of the overall miserliness with the conservation budget that this year the department has spent $3000 on Conservation Week. It used to spend $30000 each year on Conservation Week enabling it to educate a lot of children provide literature handbooks posters bookmarks and to have a lot more activity around New Zealand in reaching out and showing a lot of schoolchildren how special a lot of our conservation lands are and why we have to protect our forests our wetlands and our estuaries. That has been cut back as part of an overall cutback in conservation funding which is seeing failure to do adequate pest control failure to acquire new unprotected areas to add to the conservation estate and failure to do proper advocacy—the department being absent from a number of critical resource management hearings. Yet instead the Government is propping up polluters through the failed and flawed emissions trading scheme. 
A healthy environment is the basis of a healthy economy. Protecting places like the Denniston Plateau not opening them up to mining is protecting those areas for present and future generations for their values and their value for tourism. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call in the general debate. I want to touch on job creation and employment because that is what this Government is focused on. It is focused on getting more jobs creating good-quality jobs and growing our economy. Let me put some facts on the table to begin with. I want to talk about our unemployment rate: 6.7 percent is our unemployment rate. Obviously it is higher than what we want it to be but it is what it is right here and right now. When you compare it with other countries around the world we are certainly in a really good position. There are many countries that are envious of what we have done with our employment. Unemployment in Spain is 24 percent. Youth unemployment in Spain is 51 percent. 
Let us look at Europe. There is 11 percent across-the-board unemployment. Greece has 22 percent. France Italy Ireland Turkey and Poland to name just a few are all in double digits. Britain and the USA have 8.3 percent. Canada has 7.3 percent. So New Zealand is doing really well compared with the rest of the world and that is what we should focus on. 
Let me put some more facts on the table. This Government has created 60000 more jobs in the last 2 years—60000 more jobs—and we are going to create another 154000 over the next 4 years. A significant number of those will be in Christchurch with the rebuild of Christchurch. 
This is a really interesting fact I want to talk about: more people are employed as a percentage of the population on this side of the Tasman than in Australia. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. There are just over 49000 people on the unemployment benefit which is 18000 fewer than 18 months ago. That is a significant change when you think where New Zealand has been what the financial crisis has looked like and where we are going now. We want to create more jobs in New Zealand. We want to do it through being competitive. We want to do it to ensure that our companies are productive and that our businesses can invest grow employ and pay higher wages in New Zealand. So that is what we are focusing on—our businesses—because unless we can create that growth in New Zealand we are not going to create more jobs. 
We have some fantastic companies in New Zealand that are growing going into new markets and doing it all on their own. This Government has provided a framework for them to be able to grow and develop and they are going out and doing it on their own. A perfect example is in the Hutt—I am sure the member Chris Hipkins has been to see it—and that is Fraser Engineering. It is an absolutely fantastic progressive company in New Zealand. It produces fire engines. Not only does it produce all the fire engines in New Zealand but it has now entered the Australian market and is producing fire engines in Australia as well. It is a very progressive company that is doing great work and it has been very innovative investing a lot of its money back into its research to ensure that it stays cutting edge. 
This Government is creating a lot of initiatives to ensure that we have got jobs. One of the big initiatives has been the 90-day trial period. This is allowing employers and employees to work together to ensure that businesses can employ more people because what we have had are businesses not being prepared to take a bit of risk. So with the 90-day trial period it has allowed businesses to take a bit of a risk to employ somebody they might not have employed or somebody whom they were unsure whether there was a position for or not and put them on a 90-day trial period to see whether it would work. It has been extremely successful in New Zealand. In fact the Department of Labour has done some research around this. Eighty percent of those people who went through the 90-day trial period have been employed. Employers said that they would not have hired to begin with—40 percent of employers said that they would not have hired to begin with—unless they had that 90-day trial period. This initiative has created 13000 more jobs in New Zealand. That is significant—13000 jobs from one policy. It is one policy that has created jobs in New Zealand which has been fantastic. 
We also know that to do that we have to support our businesses and give them the support they need to be able to grow. You would not be a National member of Parliament for Wellington— 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 That last speech by Katrina Shanks was an example of just how much the National Government lacks in ambition for this country. Apparently we are supposed to feel that it is doing a good job because the unemployment rate is not at 24 percent. That is what we are told. We are supposed to be thankful and grateful to that Government because we are not at 24 percent unemployment. Well when Labour was the Government it boasted the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD—not just saying: “Well gosh you know Spain and Portugal and Ireland are ahead of us and Greece is ahead of us.” Actually unemployment was the lowest in the OECD under Labour. That is because we actually had a plan and we knew what we were doing. 
If you want to look for vision these days on the political scene in New Zealand then you need to look no further than David Shearer’s speech on education. He was not prepared to sit back and say: “Well as long as we’re just a little bit below Spain and Portugal and Ireland and Greece we’re fine.” He was not prepared to say that. What David Shearer said was that Labour will ensure the world’s best education—the best education in the world—is available at every school. We want every child and every community to have access to world-class education. We are not satisfied with the situation where parents have to drive often past four or five school gates to get to a school that they feel is the right one for their child. We do not agree with this idea of charter schools of actually giving public money over to the private sector to make a profit out of education. 
In fact what David Shearer said—he was the one coming up with the fresh new ideas—was: “We’re going to actually deal with the real issues there in the community. We’re going to work with community agencies to put food in low-decile schools.”—the very thing that the National Government is in complete denial over. Labour knows what is going on out in the community and we have a plan to fix it. We will also extend Reading Recovery to all schools because we just cannot afford to have kids dropping out without basic skills. We are also going to introduce clear and easy-to-understand school report cards to parents so they know what is going on in their schools. The Education Review Office produces reports now but for most parents it is actually like reading gobbledegook. I think it is going to be great for parents to get an easy-to-understand report on how their school is actually doing. Those are the commitments from Labour and that is where a vision is coming from on the political scene in New Zealand at the moment. 
Contrast that with the National Party. What has it got to say about education? Well the only plans it has for education are to increase class sizes so that teachers have many more children to try to interact with and of course we all know and all the parents throughout this country know that the quality of education will go down. Well what are its other plans? Charter schools as I said before without qualified teachers. It wants to dumb down the quality of teaching by introducing charter schools. That is the vision that the National Government has and league tables. Today we learn about possible exams for 3 and 4-year-olds. That is where it is heading next. That is where it is heading next because Hekia Parata had plenty of opportunity in question time today to deny that she was going down that path. She absolutely would not deny that work is being done on introducing national standards for our preschool children. Three and 4-year-olds being under exam pressure is not the vision for New Zealand. It is not the vision that Labour has. 
But it is not only with regard to the threat of exams for 3 and 4-year-olds that the National Government is in trouble with early childhood education. Yesterday the Minister for Social Development Paula Bennett was actually announcing a whole series of compulsions but compulsions only for the children of beneficiaries to have to take part in early childhood education at ages 3 and 4. But here is the strange thing: costs for early childhood education under this Government have risen four times the rate of wages since 2010. This Government has been busily putting fees up in early childhood education and now it is going to punish beneficiaries because they cannot afford to send their children to early childhood education. It is going to punish not only the beneficiaries but the children of those beneficiaries because they cannot afford to send their children to early childhood education. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to take the opportunity to speak in the general debate today to comment on the fantastic progress this Government is making with things that really matter to New Zealand. It is making great progress with the building of an economic platform that will set this country on the way to a brighter future. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has the member learnt how to do supplementary questions yet? 
IAN McKELVIE 
: I would remind the member that I am talking not him. 
I wanted to just comment on comments that we have heard this afternoon about education from the Labour Party which clearly has forgotten that it has been only 4 years since it had an opportunity to sort out our education policy. It did absolutely nothing about it and the reason we have had to increase the expenditure in education in the last 4 years is because of the neglect it suffered in the previous 9 years. 
I want to also while I am on the topic of education just make a couple of comments on some stuff that Mr Hipkins talked about in respect of education and wonder seriously whether he ever visits a school because frankly I do not think he does. In my electorate we also have interestingly decile 1 schools. We have all ranges of schools. In those communities they find ways of ensuring that children go to school with shoes on and they find ways of ensuring that children have uniforms on and that they are provided with food during school hours whether or not their parents can achieve that. I think that that is the great strength we see in our school system today. We have some amazing school teachers they provide a wonderful service for our community and I think that for the Labour Party members to be speaking in the way they have been about teachers and education in the last half an hour is extraordinarily stupid. 
In the 8 months I have been privileged to represent the Rangitikei electorate in this Parliament I have seen and heard many exciting and forward-thinking people who comment on the way the New Zealand economy is moving in what can only be seen as extremely difficult times. We have a Minister for Social Development who is driving and understands the need to reform our welfare environment to both encourage people into work and get an education that enables them to work productively for New Zealand and their own futures. 
We have a welfare system that cares for our elderly. In rural New Zealand that is pretty important because we have the privilege in New Zealand of being able to be born and die in our communities. I think it is most important that we can live our life in one community.  
Dr Megan Woods 
: Unless you’re forced to move to Australia by this Government. 
IAN McKELVIE 
: The other thing that happens in electorates like mine—which may well be foreign to Christchurch—is that because of the extraordinarily testing amount of manual work that people in the Rangitikei electorate do the retirement age suits those people and we need to protect their ability to retire and get some years of comfortable retirement as a result of our current retirement age. 
 We also have a Minister of Education fully occupied in increasing the skills knowledge and achievement of our school-leavers. As I have already commented I think our education system is on the right track and in my electorate the teachers are reasonably comfortable with the way we are moving forward. To complete the triangle we have the Minister of Health driving a very strong performance in our health business in New Zealand in very challenging times. Our expectations and survival rates are increasing dramatically and adding challenges to the health sector at an unprecedented rate. 
These three sectors are like a tripod. They keep our economy based and they give us a base from which to leverage from. Having set that platform I want to turn to the productive sector. This is of course what the Rangitikei does best. We grow trees we grow sheep we grow cattle we produce milk we grow root vegetables and we service agriculture the world over. We service agriculture not only through our science and development which take place at Massey University but also through some innovative businesses that are growing the New Zealand economy. 
I want to just talk very briefly about three issues that have an impact on New Zealand’s economy and particularly on the Rangitikei electorate which relies heavily on tourism and agriculture for its living. 
Chris Hipkins 
: No tourist wants to go to Palmerston North. 
IAN McKELVIE 
: I must remind you that the member of Parliament for Palmerston North sits on the other side of the House. I want to talk very briefly about the emissions trading scheme and capital gains tax and the effect they would have on an electorate like mine and its potential to produce jobs and to fix the environment in the current system we live in. Our environment is particularly precious to both tourism and agriculture and if we do not invest in the future and fix some of the challenges we have around our environment we are going to have serious problems in the future. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take the last call in this general debate. We have had to sit here for the last hour and endure the National Party members opposite chanting that they are on the right track with job creation and employment and that they are creating their version of a brighter future. This has been hollow rhetoric from hollow members. What we have is aspiration that today we are not Spain and that we do not have unemployment of 24 percent. Well we on this side of the House want something more for our nation. We want something more for our future than that. We want something more than the 160000 people whom members opposite have thrown on the scrap heap of unemployment. We do not want to see 50000 people leaving every year for Australia because there is no future here for them. 
How does Labour propose to do this? Well Labour sees education as an investment in our future and not a cost to cut which is what members opposite have shown. Education is at the very foundation of a fairer and more prosperous New Zealand. We have heard from members opposite that we have to get the economy right if we want to pay for health and education. Well we will never get the economy right if we do not invest in our future and our education system. It is not an either/or situation. A good education provides our children with a lifetime of opportunities. Children have the right to the best education from their first day of school through to their first day on the job. Labour has a vision for education. It is a priority for Labour. What we have is a National Government that is presiding over a disaster in education. 
Today I want to focus on three areas of this disaster. I want to talk about the University of Canterbury where today the library went into lockdown because there was the first of what I predict will be many student protests. I want to point out that this was quite a small student protest today. 
Grant Robertson 
: Not like the ones that member was part of. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS 
: It was not like the ones this member was part of. It was because there is a Government opposite that has failed the University of Canterbury. Post-earthquake like so many things in Canterbury and Christchurch the Government made a commitment to support the University of Canterbury. But are we seeing support? No. We are seeing one in five staff at the university lose their job. We are seeing an 18 percent reduction in that workforce. We are seeing a Government that is doing nothing but failing the university. 
If the Government’s own scenarios of economic recovery are to be believed the rebuild will be under way student numbers will recover and the university has to be at the heart of that rebuild. But we see a Government that puts no confidence in the university and is simply failing it. Instead the Government is resorting to bullying tactics with the university with its own internal papers showing and telling us that the implicit message from the Tertiary Education Commission and the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment is that if the institution is willing to lead the way with cuts that could easily run to hundreds of jobs the State may invest in the university. The university thinks that this is reprehensible. What we have are students being the collateral damage of this—students who are giving up on their university and do not see their future residing there. 
Just as I was reading the Twitter reports of the mini-protest at the University of Canterbury today I received an invitation to an event. It is a collaboration between the Canterbury Museum and the University of Canterbury called Canterbury Tales. It is going to show artefacts from the university and the museum. Well you know what? My fear is that graduates and students from the University of Canterbury will soon be the only artefact. This is a university that is in trouble and this is a university that this Government needs to step up and do something about. 
The second disaster of education in Canterbury that I want to talk about is the Canterbury schools blueprint that is going to be released tomorrow. The Minister of Education is claiming that it will foster close connections across the education sector. This is far from the truth. Instead what we are seeing today is Christchurch swirling with rumour with uncertainty— 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Patents Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Patents Bill be now read a second time 
. First I would like to thank the Commerce Committee for its consideration of the Patents Bill. The committee’s report includes many sensible recommendations that will assist in ensuring that New Zealand’s patents system meets the objective of the bill: to promote innovation and economic growth while providing an appropriate balance between the interests of inventors and patent owners and the interests of society as a whole. 
A patent is an intellectual property right granted for new inventions. The grant of a patent provides the patent owner with the right to prevent others from commercially exploiting the invention for the term of the patent. This is intended to provide an incentive for innovation and its dissemination that might not otherwise occur. Although patents can benefit society by providing an incentive for innovation they can also impose costs on society as they are effectively a form of monopoly right. It is therefore important that the patent system be structured so as to ensure as far as possible that the patent system provides sufficient to offset the costs so that there is a net benefit to society. 
The bill will replace the Patents Act 1953 other than provisions relating to patent attorneys. It is an important step in modernising 60-year-old patent legislation. The Patents Bill is intended to deal with the deficiencies of the Patents Act 1953 by introducing stricter criteria for granting a patent than those required by the Patents Act 1953. This will reduce the likelihood of overly broad patents being granted and avoid the economic costs imposed by such patents. This is of particular importance in New Zealand where most patents are granted to applicants from outside of New Zealand. 
The bill will also ensure New Zealand’s patents legislation reflects local and international developments in technology business and business practice by providing criteria for the grant of a patent that are more aligned with those of other countries. It continues to promote innovation and competition and encourages technology transfer to New Zealand by ensuring an appropriate balance between the interests of the patent owners and society as a whole so as to maximise the benefits to New Zealand of the patents system. 
 During its consideration of the bill the committee heard many submissions from groups opposed to the granting of patents for computer programs. The Patents Act 1953 does not mention computer programs. However computer programs can be patented under the existing Act of 1953 if they produce a commercially useful effect following a 1994 ruling of the Commissioner of Patents. Under this ruling most computer programs can be patented in New Zealand. 
Various submitters considered that the granting of patents for computer software can inhibit innovation and competition. The committee was also made aware that some New Zealand companies have made significant investments in embedded software. This is the sort of software that is used for example to control devices such as home appliances digital cameras and mobile phones. The committee accepted that although the patentability of computer programs themselves should be restricted patent protection should still be available where an invention includes embedded software. 
After considering the approaches taken in other jurisdictions the committee decided and recommended that the bill provide that computer programs should not be a patentable invention. It is clear in the commentary on the bill that the committee did not intend that an invention should be ineligible for patent protection merely because it makes use of or is implemented by a computer program. Rather the intention was that the granting of a patent should be prevented only where the novelty and inventive step lie in a computer program. 
In order to make the committee’s intention clear and to avoid any doubt as to what is intended I propose that the computer program provision be amended so as to provide that only computer programs as such are ineligible for patent protection. In addition I also propose that the provision be moved from clause 15 to new clause 10A which would provide that computer programs as such are not an invention for the purposes of the legislation. I acknowledge that there has been discussion around the changes that I have introduced through Supplementary Order Paper 120 but I reiterate that there has been no change to the select committee’s intention that computer programs should not be patentable. Let me be clear: a computer program as such is not patentable. Let me be clear: a computer program itself under the Supplementary Order Paper and this bill is not patentable. 
Another reason for this amendment is to ensure consistency with New Zealand’s obligations under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS agreement). The amendments to this provision which reflect the legislative provisions in the United Kingdom and the European Patent Convention are contained in a Supplementary Order Paper that will be considered during the Committee stage. The proposed amendment also reduces the risk that the provisions could be challenged as inconsistent with our international obligations. 
The bill provides that patents can be refused for inventions whose commercial exploitation would be contrary to public order or morality. The committee has recommended that the bill be amended to include a list of examples of inventions where exploitation is considered contrary to public order or morality and hence are not patentable. This will provide guidance as to the type of inventions excluded from patent protection under that provision. 
The bill as introduced did not contain provisions for pre-grant opposition. Such provisions allow third parties to formally oppose the granting of a patent. Many submissions to the committee argued that pre-grant opposition be retained as it prevents patent owners from asserting invalid patent rights. This provision is contained in the current Act but was not retained in the bill as introduced as it was considered that the stricter criteria for granting a patent contained in the bill would largely remove the need for pre-grant opposition. The committee recommended that the bill be amended to include the provision for pre-grant opposition. 
Another recommendation of the committee is that the grounds for pre-grant opposition re-examination and post-grant revocation be aligned. The bill as reported back contains provisions that allow New Zealand to become an exporting member under the terms of the protocol amending the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS agreement) to implement the Doha declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health. New Zealand lodged its instrument of acceptance of the protocol in October 2011. 
The effect of the provisions is that New Zealand will be able to issue compulsory licences for the export of patented pharmaceuticals to developing countries with little or no pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity of their own where the pharmaceutical is necessary to deal with a public health problem such as an epidemic. 
The bill as introduced also contained provisions updating the regulatory regime for patent attorneys in New Zealand. The provisions have been split out of the Patents Bill into a new Patent Attorneys Bill. This will allow the Patents Bill to continue to proceed while work continues on developing a new trans-Tasman regulatory regime for patent attorneys. This work is part of the single economic market agenda announced by New Zealand and Australian Prime Ministers in August 2009. 
I intend to move during the Committee stage the amendments contained in Supplementary Order Paper 120 in my name. The Supplementary Order Paper contains the amendments to the computer program provisions that I discussed earlier in this speech. The remaining amendments proposed in the Supplementary Order Paper are technical amendments intended merely to clarify drafting correct errors and update consequential amendments. Let me be clear: under this bill and the proposed amendments a computer program as such is not patentable. Under this bill and the proposed Supplementary Order Paper a computer program itself is not patentable. I commend this bill to the House. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I want to start with a story. It is a story about opportunity potential and Kiwi ingenuity. But it is at risk of being stopped in its tracks and being stuffed up by a poorly conceived badly worded amendment to the Patents Bill that will only stifle innovation and promote litigation. 
Yesterday we heard that Kiwi video games studios in New Zealand released 73 commercial video games in the last year primarily selling them digitally on iPhones on websites and on Android smartphones. And that local industry has nearly doubled in the last 2 years. It employs 380 fulltime-equivalent game developers. It is a high-tech high-growth industry. The chair of the New Zealand Game Developers Association said: “We’ve learnt how to make money from business models like digital distribution freemium virtual goods and crowdfunding. Exporting and acting global from day one have been key to the industry’s growth.” Ninety-seven percent of Kiwi games were digital downloads with low distribution costs and high margins. Ninety-nine percent of sales revenue came from exports with the USA and Europe being the largest markets.  
I want to make two points here. The first is that very few—I betcha—of the members on that side of the House understood half of what I just said or understand how successful this industry is and how it got to where it is. The second thing is that it is at risk because of the amendment that the Minister of Commerce Craig Foss has put in front of this House and because of his lack of understanding of how the software industry works and its importance to the New Zealand economy—not only to the New Zealand economy but also to the future of our children’s jobs in this country.  
The game development industry is a software industry. Software is an integral part of the technology sector which was identified in the  
TIN100 Report 
 as being worth more than $7 billion in revenue and $5 billion in export revenue. In 2011 this industry grew by 13 percent and its employees by 6 percent. It relies on its ability to innovate. Software—for the Minister’s benefit—is lines of code like music is lines of notes and books are lines of text. Software is a collection of mathematical algorithms and mathematical equations. In order to create new software you have to build on existing software. It cannot be patented because that would stop it in its tracks. That is what this bill tries to do and that is what that amendment that the Minister is putting in front of this House today will stuff up. There is an important principle that underlies this bill and that is that innovation is good and litigation is bad. 
 When the Patents Bill was sent back to the House from the Commerce Committee in 2010 it was a major accomplishment. I know that patent law is not everyone’s cup of tea. It happens to get me a bit excited but I know it does not get a lot of other people excited. But at the heart of this bill and the changes to this bill is a commitment to provide a real incentive to help grow the New Zealand economy through its software industry and through its weightless economy. It is a major opportunity and it should be a major priority for all of us every single member in this House. 
An awful lot of work went into this bill at the Commerce Committee which was chaired by the Hon Lianne Dalziel who did a very good job of working us through the very complex issues that were brought before us. I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary lengths gone to by the officials on this bill. They were sent back on several occasions by the committee to do more research and they did a good job of it. It was exhaustive. We thought long and hard about how to propose a responsible balanced piece of law that updated patent law from 1953. My concern is about the advice that has been given to the Minister subsequent to the select committee reporting the bill back to the House and where that advice has come from because it is not sound. 
What this bill seeks to address is that New Zealand’s existing patent law is too generous to those people seeking patents. Too many corporations get monopoly rights and many are multinational corporations that can get patent rights to inventions inside New Zealand that would not be protected overseas. That discourages innovation and growth which is the last thing that we want to do as a nation—to have more software companies being taken to court and tied up for years and to stop those companies from inventing new software because of the threat of patent lawsuits. 
Many of New Zealand’s most successful software companies are coming up against nuisance software patent claims now and that is what this bill is trying to address and trying to stop. Unfortunately the prospect that we are facing today because of this Supplementary Order Paper is more litigation and as I have said I am very disturbed at the wording of this Supplementary Order Paper. I challenge the Minister to reveal to the House where the wording of that Supplementary Order Paper came from and who is meant to benefit from it. 
Yesterday I released another Supplementary Order Paper another amendment that is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Very well drafted. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: It is very well drafted and it does attempt to fix this up. We hope that the other parties in this House will take the time to understand and consider the implication of Mr Foss’ amendment because we think that with such a significant amendment there should have been wider consultation and now that it is tabled the Committee stage will be the first time that this House will have to grapple with the implications of it. 
The amendment that has been tabled by Labour provides very simple language and a clear definition of what the committee actually intended. The bill actually as it stands simply says: “A computer program is not a patentable invention.” That is the intent of the select committee. Our Supplementary Order Paper clarifies that by saying that it does not prevent an invention that makes use of an embedded computer program from being patentable. 
I want to tell you what lies behind that and why that is important. The select committee said—and the Minister should listen very carefully—that “While the bill would provide adequate incentives for innovation however we are aware of New Zealand companies who have invested in a significant number of software-related inventions involving embedded software.” Embedded software for those who do not know is computer software that plays an integral role in the electronics it has supplied such as cars pacemakers washing machines and telephones. 
We sought advice on this approach taken in other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom the United States and Europe and we got advice back saying that the best thing that we could do for the sake of clarity and the lack of litigation was to have a very simple approach. We received advice that our recommendation would include computer programs on the inventions that may not be patented and that would not prevent the granting of patents for inventions involving embedded software. We recommended that there be regulations provided by the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand guidelines around that. This Government claims its amendment is based on the European system. We discovered that the European system is not that crash hot either. Europe has not worked it out. It has different jurisdictions in different countries that all conflict with each other. 
Labour has stood up for the innovator. We are unashamed about that because our nation’s future relies on creative people who have ideas and use technology to build new products and services that can build our skills and our export industries and make New Zealand a desirable place for investors and provide careers for our kids. Mr Foss’ amendment will stuff this up. The software and information and communications technology industry knows this; it got motivated and developed a petition that provided a sensible and cleanly worded alternative which is what my Supplementary Order Paper is based on. More than 1000 small software companies and sole operators signed it in just a few days showing the strength of feeling. 
We need to innovate. This bill is a good bill. Let us not put our new industry at risk. Let us innovate and not litigate. Today we support the second reading of this bill but we will not be able to support it at the Committee stage or the third reading with the Minister’s amendment as it stands. My amendment will fix that situation. It makes the intent of the bill clearer and I hope it will gain the support of the House. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I believe that the previous speaker Clare Curran has alluded to the fact that the previous Commerce Committee in the previous Government really grappled with this situation and it is a very difficult situation— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Previous Parliament same Government—previous Parliament. 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: The previous Parliament really grappled with this situation. It is one that is very difficult. I do recall the Minister of Commerce saying a number of times in his speech today that computer software is not a patentable invention. He made that very clear in a number of very strong statements. Obviously through this debate and through the Committee of the whole House this will be the crux of the issues that we face. Indeed through that process of the select committee which I was a member of it was the one issue that did consume a tremendous amount of our time to get some progress on. 
The bill that we are looking at the Patents Bill replaces the Patents Act 1953 and it is time that we modernised this legal regime especially since we as a nation are pushing far more strongly into innovation around the technology particularly around our foodstuffs particularly around our manufacturing and also around technology and electronics. Progressing the Patents Bill is one of the initiatives outlined in the Building Innovation progress report that was released about 2 weeks ago. It is the second in a series of six progress reports under the Government’s Business Growth Agenda. We know that for our inventors our innovators and our manufacturing companies and in order to protect our intellectual property to innovate and to get the gains that we know this will bring to our country and our economy having a very effective and modern and robust patent regime is incredibly important. 
Probably about 3 years ago I visited the Central Taiwan Science Park where a growing group of companies cluster to engage in fields such as information and communications technology biotechnology precision machinery and optoelectronics. This Central Taiwan Science Park generated over $9 billion in 2008 with total revenue of all three of Taiwan’s science parks generating $58 billion revenue—in a nation that is approximately the same geographic size of New Zealand and in a nation that is probably four times the size. But because of its innovation because of its ability to take ideas and commercialise them to supply products to a world hungry for those sorts of products it is able to bring a very significant level of quality of life to its people. In all of this the effective and modern patents system protects that innovation. 
I understand that there is a balance between encouraging innovation and protecting the bounty or the windfall that comes from that innovation. We will get this right in our country. Recently it was announced that the Advanced Technology Institute is going to be set up and established. It will be named after Sir Paul Callaghan one of our great scientists. He said that science could make New Zealand a better place and that is such a true thing. We are focused on boosting growth and creating jobs and you do not do that just by talking about it. You have to innovate you have to invest and you have to then commercialise those inventions and those products in order to get the financial gain from them. 
The purpose of the Advanced Technology Institute is to help get New Zealand’s most innovative ideas out of the lab and into the market place more quickly. It is a one-stop shop that will help high-tech firms become more competitive by better connecting them with innovation and business development and expertise. Undergirding this is a modern and effective patents regime system. Even today the Government has announced it is injecting a further $92 million which has been received very positively in the market place into research that will help grow the high-tech manufacturing sector in New Zealand. This funding is for high-value manufacturing and services research. It is the second tranche of the 2012 science investment round of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. 
The existing New Zealand patents system needs this updating. A patent is a right granted by the Commissioner of Patents after examination by the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand. In New Zealand a patent may be granted for an invention that is a manner of new manufacture and entitles the patent owner the right to exclude others from making using or assigning the patented invention during the 20-year term of the patent. The patent owner must make public a complete description of the invention so that once the patent expires others will be able to use it. As we move through this bill particularly through the Committee stage we are going to get to the very nub of some of these issues that members have raised in this House. I believe that we are going to work through and have a system a regime that is going to serve the innovators and inventors of our country very well and we will continue to see and reap the benefits of that great work. Thank you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 This is an unusual circumstance that we find ourselves in. This bill the Patents Bill was introduced by the previous Labour Government. I was not on the Commerce Committee at that point but as I understand it the committee exhaustively examined the issues surrounding this legislation. The bill had in general widespread and bipartisan support—I think unanimous support; I am looking at the former chair of the Commerce Committee. The committee reported back the legislation with a report that was supported unanimously. I know other colleagues were on that committee. Even I am advised the former Minister in charge of this bill Simon Power was in agreement with the position of the committee. Then under the cover of darkness the new Minister of Commerce Craig Foss some time later popped out a rather controversial amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 120 as articulated by my colleague Clare Curran that effectively fired a torpedo into the consensus of the committee. We do not know who the Minister consulted with if he consulted with anyone. We know that this is an extremely contentious issue which was resolved by the previous Commerce Committee as evidenced by the bill. It was unanimously resolved. I believe that basically it has widespread support. 
The question I have which I know we will delve into in greater detail in the Committee stage is where this amendment has come from. My colleague Clare Curran used the colloquial term “stuff-up” and it appears that this is yet another one from this Government. It is a different time and a different place but this is a mirror image of the State-owned enterprises debacle. There was no consultation. It came out under the cover of darkness. Maybe the Minister went up to the office had a couple of Beroccas had a wee think got out the pen and paper and decided to fire this one in. 
What this has created to return to my first point is a situation that we are faced with now as an Opposition. We are in the unusual position that we were supportive of this bill as it was and now we are in a position where if Clare Curran’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 123 is not accepted which would confirm the previous committee’s unanimous position then we will be forced in future stages of this bill to oppose it. Although I want to make it clear that for many of the things that Jonathan Young the current chair of the Commerce Committee commented on in terms of creating an environment for innovation science technology IT and other industries I doubt whether there is anybody in the House who would be unsupportive of that stance—maybe John Banks given that he is an honorary member of the Flat Earth Society but I do not know. Apart from that I think we all agree that obviously we want to balance the two aspects— 
Mike Sabin 
: I think you’re referring to the people to your left there. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well there might be another couple of alumni over there of course. We want to balance the dual interests—first allowing innovators to profit from their inventions— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: He doesn’t deserve to be treated so badly by Labour. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh “The Maestro”. “The Maestro” would not have messed this up. “The Maestro” would not have messed this up. Oh maybe he would. Dr Coleman if he were the Minister in charge of this bill would probably at least have had a couple of Beroccas gone out consulted his colleagues and maybe gone and talked to Simon Power the previous Minister and said: “Simon Power why was it that you supported the committee which in a bipartisan way unanimously resolved this issue? Why were you supportive of that position?”. Why should the current Minister or Dr Coleman if he were the Minister change that? I suspect given the large and long track record of political success that Jonathan Coleman has had in managing various campaigns and others Jonathan Coleman probably would not have made the same mistake that Mr Foss has made. 
As I say and I return to this point we all agree with balancing the two points—firstly allowing innovators to profit from their inventions and secondly ensuring that the monopoly rights that accompany patents are not unduly exploited. That was the position. It is a difficult position to reconcile at the committee. Sam Lotu-Iiga was a member of that committee I believe. He voted in favour of this as did Ms Dalziel and the Labour members. Consensus and peace broke out. I think amongst the industry generally— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Always did when I was chairing it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well the kumara never says how sweet it is but that is probably true. But now we have this amendment that has popped out and has not been consulted on or if it has we do not know. I would have thought that that is a bad way—a bad way—to engage in the legislative process. Yes of course there are always Supplementary Order Papers. Yes there are always matters to be tidied up and to be fixed—things that did not hit the oversight of a select committee; they are a given. But this point goes to the centre and heart of critical issues in our economy in our innovative sectors and in our technological science and innovation sectors. We have a Minister who wanders along and says things maybe because he got his arm twisted by a few big guys in the industry—maybe; I do not know. That could be uncharitable. Maybe he just believes that he should override the unanimous view of even his own parliamentary colleagues on his side like the previous Minister Simon Power who did have a longstanding interest in these matters. Maybe he believes this is the best way to go to just pop it out. 
Usually in commerce legislation there is general agreement—Mr Jonathan Young nods; there is general agreement on the committee he chairs and he chairs it well—that these are the right things to do. But this sort of smacks to me of the fiasco that we had on the Finance and Expenditure Committee when things sort of popped out of the ether around State-owned enterprises. And look at the stuff-up to quote Clare Curran again that has occurred in an appalling legislative process around some of New Zealand’s biggest assets. But those geniuses over there do not learn. Even though they are warned that these things could happen they do not learn. They just trundle on to protect the pride and vanity of their leadership. They do not actually sit back and say: “Maybe we got it wrong.” 
This is a very bizarre case because as I understand it there was and is no politics in this. It was a unanimous position of the committee. The committee did a diligent job. It listened to the submissions. That is not to say that all submitters supported the view of the committee ultimately but this was a position where Labour National and other political parties that were represented agreed on a position that was then supported by the Minister at the time. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Someone went round the back door. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well someone went round the back door my colleague said—yes. Then Minister Craig Foss simply had a rush of blood to various extremities of his person and came out with this amendment and suddenly that political consensus is asunder. I would be very interested to hear my colleague Sam Lotu-Iiga’s view put on the record of Parliament as he is one who supported this piece of legislation—supported it as I understand it wholeheartedly—and was convinced of the validity of the committee’s position. I would not mind an explanation from him if the Minister will not give one as to why the change has occurred. Does Mr Lotu-Iiga support the position of his Minister? And if he does OK what has changed his mind? What has changed the minds of the other colleagues who were on that committee which reported back in a unanimous way? 
There is a hell of a lot at stake for this. Clare Curran’s Supplementary Order Paper simply clarifies and makes crystal clear—crystal clear—in an unambiguous way the position that existed when the bill came out of the Commerce Committee which is that computer programs are not patentable inventions. It clarifies that position. It restores to the legislation the position of the then Commerce Committee. 
We would like some explanations. We are not seeking to change the rules or the position here; we on this side are seeking to restore that consensus. We have heard nothing no explanation from the Minister who has proposed this change. I see the Attorney-General has walked in—a learned learned lawyer I am told even by him occasionally. I am sure he might be able to give perhaps an explanation as to why as a member of Cabinet the Minister Craig Foss has proposed this Supplementary Order Paper and this change. Somebody should explain because if it is going to be rammed through by majority in this Chamber then the innovative industries those that support the Minister’s amendment and more especially those that oppose it will want to know why they have been sold out. They will want to know why. There is a duty of care from a Government that abrogates truncates and puts the sword into the basic legislative process to give an explanation to the people of New Zealand and the sectors that it is going to negatively affect. We have heard no explanation. We were supportive of this bill but we give notice that if Clare Curran’s Supplementary Order Paper is not supported we will disengage support for the legislation. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the petition No Software Patents in NZ signed by 1078 New Zealand software companies and sole operators including Xero— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: All right. [ 
Interruption 
] No we know what it is. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [ 
Interruption 
] There is objection? [ 
Interruption 
] There is objection. 
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party opposes this Patents Bill and it opposes it for a number of reasons. It actually sees some merit in a number of aspects of it but there are some glaring shortcomings with the bill. 
I will start in terms of the interests of Maori. We have a problem here. Albeit the Commerce Committee in its report suggested that Maori interests are looked after or could be looked after later on with amendments as part of a Government response to the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on Wai 262 the bill is actually woeful in terms of support for Maori interests and for indigenous plants which are very important for the whole of New Zealand. 
If we look at the Maori advisory committee that is to be set up as part of this bill the Commissioner of Patents appoints a committee called the Maori advisory committee. The commissioner may at any time appoint a person to the committee or remove a person from the committee as the commissioner sees fit. I think that shows no sign of representation or certainty that Maori interests are being represented. The function of the committee is to advise the commissioner on request so the committee does not even get to get stuck in as it sees fit; it gives advice to the commissioner only on request. That is inadequate as well. The commissioner must consider but is not bound by advice given by the Maori advisory committee. Why not? What is the purpose of this committee which is appointed by the commissioner who may or may not even give it serious cognisance? The commissioner must consider its advice but it does not necessarily give any effect to it. And the committee may regulate its own procedure subject to any direction given by the commissioner. The Green Party sees this as woefully inadequate. 
I have tabled Supplementary Order Paper 124 on the crucial issue of making sure that companies cannot patent life. This bill is very very patchy in that area. We cannot afford intentionally or not to allow for the patenting of life forms. It would encourage biopiracy of indigenous resources. It would turn life forms into commodities to be used for profit. It would put up barriers to the free flow of scientific research. 
Patents were designed to ensure that inventors could gain financial returns for their hard work and ingenuity and that makes sense in terms of things—in terms of chemistry and physics—but not life. Living organisms were originally excluded from the patent system. They were a product of nature—that is what they were seen as a product of nature—not a human invention. 
But this changed in 1980 when courts elsewhere found that living organisms could be a human invention. What made this possible was genetic engineering. The tweaking of genes is now classed as an invention. There is very little invention about it. Most organisms—and my Supplementary Order Paper 124 talks of exclusion from the Patents Bill of organisms—have 30000 genes whether it is a human a plant or whatever. Genetic engineering changes just one or two genes and butchers up a whole lot of others in the process with little regard to effects further on. But because they have just done that—one or two genes out of 30000-odd—then they say that they have got something significantly different and it deserves a patent. Rubbish! 
Organisms and genetics are part of our global living heritage. They are part of our growing heritage. Allowing the passing of this bill without supporting my Supplementary Order Paper will lead to the continued blocking of pure research of open research. Private profit-making from our collectively owned genes and resources will importantly continue the process of stealing resources this time including the intellectual property of Maori—removing it from the commons for private gain. Instead of rewarding ingenious inventors the patent system applied to living organisms is rewarding just big business. 
 These industries seek out organisms draw upon the intellectual property of indigenous peoples and then use laboratory techniques to isolate parts of those organisms and patent them. Teams are bioprospecting—we hear of them going into the jungles of South America or the scrublands forests or wetlands of New Zealand for that matter—to find plants and organisms that they will then try to claim some level of ownership over. Biopiracy is another issue. There are instances of plants that are absolutely used by full cultures where big business has gone in to patent them that so that it can have control of any potential gain on an international level. 
I have just toured this country with two Australian farmers to talk about the effect that genetic engineering has had in their communities. The important part of that is that the product of genetic engineering that affects them so much is so influential because it has a patent on it. They spoke to farmers and others all over New Zealand about the financial risks imposed on them by the patenting of life by others. What they have is a situation—and the best example was probably in parts of Western Australia and Victoria—where Monsanto and other companies have been allowed to let go a GE genetically engineered genetically modified or whatever you want to call it patented canola plant. Just a couple of genes were shifted in that plant out of 30000-odd and they have been able to patent it for resistance to a herbicide. 
But there is a problem with that for farmers. Not only do they have to pay a lot extra for the seed because they have been told all sorts of stuff—that it is going to be better for them—but there is contamination of neighbouring farms. Those farmers have no choice in it. Their farms are contaminated. But because there is a patent on the seeds Monsanto is able to claim royalties off them. So when the plants grow again the next year and there is contamination Monsanto can get end point royalties it can charge a fee for the seed and it can do all sorts on that. That is just unethical. It can happen only because of a patent on the seed. 
There is an increased cost of seed with a patent and not only that; sometimes farmers are obliged to follow particular agronomic instructions on how they are meant to grow the seeds and what sprays they are meant to use. There is an issue then that there is actually ownership. So Monsanto in this case actually owns the plant the material that is in the paddock of someone who did not want it. The company also then controls the supply chain. It says where to get something better than $50 less per tonne than normal for the end product and even where farmers have to deliver it if they want to get only $10 less a tonne. 
Patenting life is not the way forward and so I ask all the parties in this House to support at the Committee stage my Supplementary Order Paper to protect living organisms from being able to be patented. In New Zealand we have another vision. It is “100% Pure New Zealand” a clean green New Zealand and the Greens do not see any need for this sort of patenting in there. Thank you. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a privilege to stand and speak to the second reading of this the Patents Bill and may I commend the Minister of Commerce the Hon Craig Foss for continuing on the fine work of the last Minister. Also what has been mentioned here tonight has been the work of the Commerce Committee under the last Parliament in terms of bringing together the quite difficult issues around patents. The bill actually updates a statute that is 59 years old. With such an archaic statute the bill really is about bringing the reform process to bear on some of the important statutes on our book. It complements the economic growth agenda that this Government is running in terms of promoting science and innovation and in terms of promoting economic growth and jobs and opportunities. Intellectual property is an important part of it because as we have already heard today it is balancing research and development and innovation and the rights of those who put an investment of resources and funds into those things and also with the rights of those who want to get on and do business. So this is about making a balanced approach to what are important issues around intellectual property rights. 
It is about removing some of the impediments that were in the old legislation. How that works is that we considered what patents are so the bill looks at novelty and inventive step. All countries consider information made available anywhere in the world when they look at patents and applicants are not generally given the benefit of the doubt in any dispute. But under the old statute novelty is determined on the basis of what is known in New Zealand. So from that you can get quite distorted outcomes around how patent rights are granted in New Zealand. Those rights can often be broader than what would be available in other countries— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was this speech written in New Zealand? 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: —and Mr Mallard knows that. So it has the potential to disadvantage New Zealand businesses and consumers as technology that is covered by these patents is freely available elsewhere. 
Much of our innovation as has already been stated—and I see a lot of this in my own electorate of Maungakiekie—is incremental and it builds on what has gone on before. We certainly grappled with a number of issues around computer software and computer programs but on this side of the House we are committed and determined to focus on boosting growth and jobs so this bill in its entirety is about updating our patent laws and providing incentives for innovation. We have got to balance that with those who are taking on new inventions and adding to them. So I commend this bill to the House. I certainly support the recommendations that were made by the Commerce Committee; I sat on that select committee in the last Parliament. I certainly commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 With only a couple of reservations New Zealand First supports and welcomes the Patents Bill which was introduced in 2008. It is clearly a bill a long time in gestation but it is good to see a bill to replace the Patents Act 1953 which is obviously outdated and not compatible with some overseas legislation modelled as it was on the earlier UK Act of 1949. The 1953 Act has a low threshold for patentability compared with other countries. Therefore broader patent rights were available here than elsewhere. So technology freely available elsewhere might not be available here in New Zealand because of coverage by patents. This could of course damage New Zealand business innovation damage business growth and productivity and also restrict consumer choice. 
The bill will modernise and upgrade patents law in New Zealand. Part 5 as we know has been split away from this bill and will now form part of the new Patent Attorneys Bill. The new Patents Bill being now considered will be good for New Zealand business for the reasons I have already mentioned and it will align the New Zealand law with international practice and so it should. It will strengthen the criteria for granting patents in New Zealand to an absolute novelty standard so that a patent applied for here will be examined for usefulness and for the presence of an inventive step. So although patents will not be available according to the broader regime previously available the new standards applicable will ensure we believe better patents better products and therefore a better outcome overall for New Zealand business. 
It is a very large and comprehensive bill developed since at least 2008 and we think that the Commerce Committee has done a great job with it over that period of time. For those reasons the bill fundamentally deserves support with only a couple of reservations which I will come to in a minute. 
The main changes recommended by the select committee as I say with a couple of exceptions are supported by New Zealand First. They add value to the bill as presented. These include some important exclusions from patentability in relation to public order and morality by adding some examples which I note are a process for cloning human beings a process for modifying the germ line genetic identity of human beings an invention that involves the use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes an invention that is a process for modifying the genetic identity of animals that is likely to cause them suffering and so on. Those are very good examples and are good additions to the legislation as recommended by the committee. 
Then there is a very clear requirement in clause 37(1) for the description of inventions using the words “disclose the invention in a manner that is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to be performed by a person skilled in the art;”. Further the recommendations preserve pre-grant opposition rights which we agree with and in clause 138A they provide for protection against infringement proceedings where a person had been continuously exploiting an invention immediately before the priority date. Such a person would be allowed to continue using the invention even if another person or company obtained a patent for the invention without being subject to infringement action. We think those are all very sensible additions to the legislation. 
However coming to the reservations that we have we also believe as the Labour representatives have stated that new clause 10A(1) and (2) in Supplementary Order Paper 120 is problematic as recommended by the Minister’s amendment which frankly seems to me to be complete gobbledegook. I believe that Supplementary Order Paper 123 provides for a much better alternative in that it states: “Subsection (1) does not prevent an invention that makes use of an embedded computer program from being patentable.” When you compare that with the amendment recommended in Supplementary Order Paper 120—which says: “Subsection (1) prevents anything from being an invention for the purposes of this Act only to the extent that a patent or an application relates to a computer program as such.”—to me that is very problematical in that it is capable of a number of different interpretations. I think I know what it means but I am sure that there will be others who would have totally different interpretations. So from a completely clarity point of view I think the amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 123 is much better. 
New Zealand First also supports Supplementary Order Paper 124 which was introduced by the Green Party concerning the non-patentability of organisms whether genetically modified or not. We think that is a useful addition which should be incorporated into the bill. We will therefore support that amendment for those reasons. 
Otherwise the recommendations of the select committee are supported by New Zealand First as is the bill as a whole. As I said at the beginning I think this will update and improve New Zealand patent law make it compatible with overseas countries and be a good template going forward for people in this country who rely on patent rights for their business for the economy and therefore for the country as a whole. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the petition “No Software Patents in NZ” signed by 1078 New Zealand software companies and sole operators including Xero Jade and Orion Health. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 






Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this the second reading of the Patents Bill. I would just like to acknowledge the hard work that was put into this bill by the previous Commerce Committee. Some of its members are sitting on the present Commerce Committee and I look forward to getting their input on this bill. This is an important bill that modernises New Zealand’s patents law. The bill reflects the Government’s commitment to aiding economic growth through innovation. As we have heard previously our system was established under the Patents Act back in 1953 and based around the United Kingdom Patents Act 1949. The UK went on and replaced its statute in 1977 but we have made no substantial changes since 1953. It is time to bring this Act into the 21st century. Intellectual property is critically important to the future of many countries including New Zealand. This bill ensures that New Zealand intellectual property legislation takes into account international changes and developments. It is important that as a country we do not get in our own way by relying on old legislation that dates back to 1953. 
One of the changes that I feel is critical is that the bill strengthens the criteria for granting a patent to ensure that patents are granted only for genuine innovations defined as a manner of manufacture and that they are novel non-obvious and useful. This change brings us into line with international best practice. It will simplify the procedures for granting a patent including removing the current requirement for local applicants to seek permission to file a foreign patent application if they have not filed an application in New Zealand. It will also streamline the procedures for challenging the granting of a patent. This is a very good bill. I congratulate the Minister of Commerce Craig Foss and am pleased to be able to commend this bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am finding it difficult to follow why the Government is adopting the line that it is adopting on this particular bill the Patents Bill. We are so close to having I believe not unanimity obviously with some parties opposing it altogether but an overwhelming majority in this House in support of the bill that it seems crazy we have ended up in the situation where we are debating over a single clause in what is a substantial rewrite of patents law—which is of course well overdue. This bill was reported back from the Commerce Committee 2 years ago and as others have commented I was the chair of the select committee that considered this bill and we did put a lot of time and effort into this particular matter. To find such a substantial change introduced by the Minister by way of Supplementary Order Paper 120 simply notified to the other side of the House without any consultation or any engagement with us over why the Government has adopted this position I do not believe makes for very good governance of an issue that is of such major importance. 
I have to say that I had a really good working relationship with the previous Minister of Commerce on this matter when I was the spokesperson. I consulted with him all the way through the select committee process. Indeed when we were dealing with this very issue it was the subject of quite a substantial conversation. I think my colleague Clare Curran joined me on that occasion and we really nutted through the issues. We felt both of us on this side of the House that we had been well received and that we had reached a good outcome. 
Unfortunately what seems to have happened is that there seem to have been some discussions behind closed doors which this side of the House has not been privy to but which were the subject of quite a substantial blog post. I want to comment about this blog post and I am going to table it in the House because it actually raises some serious questions. I do not have a specific date on this blog post but it looks like it was just after the bill was reported back in June 2010. What it does is it reports on a meeting. I understand that this blog post has now been taken down from the patents4software website so there is an element of a sense of cover-up around this which I think people ought to be aware of. It quotes an official who is still working in the competition trade and investment part of the new “Mobie” I think it is called now—the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment formerly known as the Ministry of Economic Development. I also understand that the person who wrote this particular communication that is the subject of the blog post one Brett O’Riley is now also working for the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. Not that the two factors necessarily show a conspiracy but it is ironic that in fact the very person who wrote this is now working for that ministry in this particular field. 
The opening statement is: “New Zealand looks like its reversing course on software patent protection.” That is the opening statement. So that means that there is a very clear understanding that the Government straight after the select committee had reported back to the House in good faith with very explicit wording—the bill stating “A computer programme is not a patentable invention.”—we have the statement: “New Zealand looks like its reversing course on software patent protection. On June 9 there was a meeting between representatives of the NZ Ministry of Economic Development (MED) and representatives of NZICT group.” The NZICT group the New Zealand Information and Communication Technologies Group are the big boys. They are the big players in this field. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Microsoft. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: This is Microsoft and the rest of them. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Are any of them owned in New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: None of them are owned in New Zealand as far as I am aware. The blog post goes on: “It appears that New Zealand is likely to ultimately adopt an approach to software patents that is consistent with the EPO’s position. My thanks to”—and he mentions two people one from a company called Schwegman Lundberg and Woessner and the other from IBM—“for relaying this information. Here is the summary of the meeting provided by Brett O’Riley CEO of NZICT: Our representative delegation met with MED in Wellington yesterday. This was to discuss the formal submission we had made to Hon Simon Power last week covering our concerns about the proposed draft legislation. The end result of the meeting was extremely encouraging. While section 15 (3A) will not be removed (our ideal outcome)”. Excuse me is section 15(3A) removed by this Minister? Yes it is. So actually the Government has gone further than they thought they were going to get back then. 
The blog post continues: “Hon Simon Power has asked MED to work with the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office to redraft the section along the lines of the European Patent Convention. He has informed the Commerce Select Committee that Crown Law will be undertaking some redrafting before the bill gets to its Second Reading.” Well that conversation simply did not happen. “While it’s obviously not the end of the journey it was very pleasing to have a positive indication that the Government recognises there is a need to amend section 15(3A)”—this is the one that this Supplementary Order Paper 120 removes altogether—“‘to make sure it’s consistent with the intent of adopting European practice. While European law does restrict software patents this is positive progress and the view of our team is that is that this would be a good outcome for the New Zealand ICT industry.” 
Clare Curran 
: Which parts? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Not the ones that my colleague has just tabled in their submission in the House. 
Clare Curran 
: Not the Kiwi software industry. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The Kiwi software companies do not want this Supplementary Order Paper 120. 
The blog post continues: “In summary the MED confirmed earlier statements from Select Committee members … that the intent was to follow European law”—and I am not sure where that came from—and “The MED acknowledged that amendment is required to achieve this”. Then it talks about who attended the meeting. Then it talks about Rory McLeod director of the competition trade and investment branch who “began with an update on the Patents Bill clause 15 (3A). He described the decision of the Select Committee as being to move to a ‘normal patentable situation as in Europe’ that did not allow patenting of software per se. Rory then went into some detail (partly in response to questions we had raised) about what the Select Committee intent was: The intent had never been to ban software patents outright (and the MED would have had serious concerns about that if it were proposed).” Well that is precisely what we did. 
It continues: “Software should be treated like other technology so should have a technical purpose and be an inventive step to be patentable as in Europe.”—and that is the problem in Europe. “Not just any software would be patentable it would need to meet the above test. Embedded or not embedded is or was not the distinction that is intended. The signal that the Government wants to send is to follow European law and practice. The MED also now clearly acknowledge that clause 15(3A) is not adequate to convey this intent. It was great being able to present practical examples of world leading software being developed by Pingar and Aptimize”—if I have pronounced those correctly—“and hear MED recognise the importance of these companies being able to seek patent protection.” 
There was no mistake in what was discussed at that meeting and I am not surprised that this blog post has been taken down off the website and I am glad that I am going to have the opportunity to table it in the House because it is I think really important that we know that behind the backs of the select committee behind all of the proper processes that we had in place to deal with this major update of our patent law— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If it happened in the States we’d call it corruption. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: We would call it corruption in other countries but fortunately New Zealand is a corruption-free country so we would not call it corruption here. But there is no question that a process that had been fully agreed and properly worked through by the select committee has ended up being overturned by this meeting that we would not otherwise have known about. 
So it is quite clear that there has been quite a substantial amount of work done behind the scenes—truly behind the scenes—and I believe that Parliament has a right to know that this is going on and that we are opposing the changes that the Minister is putting forward. We invite the House to very carefully consider what has been laid before it and to perhaps talk to the Minister. And maybe the Minister when he has the opportunity in the Committee stage on this bill might actually reflect upon the amendment that my colleague Clare Curran has proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 123 because it is on that condition that we will support the bill’s passage through the House. 
I seek leave to table a post from the blog “patents4software”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 






Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I will take a short call on this bill the Patents Bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What’s that on his tie? 
MIKE SABIN 
: It is Homer Simpson Mr Mallard a very well-known— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member’s hero. 
MIKE SABIN 
: He is reacting in quite the way I am sure he did on election night. Let us stick to the task at hand shall we. 
I will take a short call on the Patents Bill which updates and replaces the Patents Act of 1953. The members opposite have alluded to the fact that there was significant political consensus on the bill in its early passage through the Commerce Committee and they have traversed the concerns they raised with regard to Supplementary Order Paper 120 from the Hon Craig Foss. I do not intend to cover that any more other than to say that I am sure that as this matter moves further through the Committee stage members on both sides of the House will work diligently to ensure that the right outcome is achieved in the interests of New Zealand because this bill very much goes to the heart of growing the economy through the innovation that New Zealand has become so known for. In fact this bill and its updates do reflect the commitment that this Government has to growing the economy and supporting our innovative sector as one of our four key priorities to grow a more productive and competitive economy and providing that platform through this bill is a very good example of that. 
One of the very important aspects if I can talk in just broad terms is the fact that patent rights granted in New Zealand can in fact be somewhat broader than those of other countries for the same invention which does place New Zealand at something of a disadvantage. This bill really aims to strengthen the criteria for granting— 
Clare Curran 
: No it doesn’t. It’ll end up in the courts. 
MIKE SABIN 
: Well on this side of the House we think it does. You are quite entitled to object to that of course and I am sure you will—not you Mr Speaker but that member. 
Clare Curran 
: Have you read it? 
MIKE SABIN 
: I have read the bill—certainly the relevant parts I am going to speak to. What the bill does is bring New Zealand patent law into line with best practice international standards. It helps address concerns by Maori related to patents on major indigenous plants and animals and traditional knowledge. It takes account of international developments it simplifies procedures in terms of granting patents and it streamlines procedures for challenging the grant of a patent. So while it seems obvious that the Opposition members from the Labour benches have chosen to focus simply on the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by the Minister I think it is clear that there is a lot of other good work going on in this bill. I am certainly very comfortable to commend this bill to the House and to see that the good work that is going on here will be available to New Zealanders as it passes into law. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand the next call is a split call. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a short call on the Patents Bill. Labour supports this bill but importantly at this stage only pending clarification of the Government’s willingness to accept our own Supplementary Order Paper 123 in Clare Curran’s name which of course is backed by the vast majority of New Zealand’s innovators. It stipulates that a computer program “does not prevent an invention that makes use of an embedded computer program from being patentable.” It leaves the boundaries of embedded software to be determined by the Government on a case by case basis as is appropriate. It would be a nonsense frankly to make any computer program patentable because subprograms could be used to block the development of innovation. So we are putting that matter on the floor of the House for the Government to listen to. We are signalling very clearly that our support for the rest of the bill is contingent and conditional on the Government’s willingness to accept what has the almost universal support of the industry—perhaps Microsoft and a couple of others excepted—but the list of names of New Zealand’s finest innovative young companies is I think incontrovertible— 
Clare Curran 
: The patent attorneys support it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —and of course the Institute of Patent Attorneys as my colleague Clare Curran reminds me supports that amendment. 
You know sometimes something like the Patents Bill is seen as a technical boring piece of legislation but it is hugely important to understand the importance of patenting to our economy and to our economic development future. If we do not want to be just exporting raw logs or exporting raw milk and if we want to have a high-value high-income high-export economy we absolutely survive by our brains not just by our brawn. Our brains have to produce something that is novel and new and that can then be defended against others who want to copy that. The way we do that is through the patent law. This law makes it clear that you have to be really new really novel in order to get a patent and that is probably appropriate. 
The bill has had bipartisan support from its outset. It was originally introduced by Labour; it has been worked on by National. These are complex issues and it is good to see MPs cooperating across the House to try to get the best possible result for New Zealand businesses because we all as Kiwis share a common interest in our exporters being able to do as well as possible in international markets. For that reason the bill does not cave in to the big pharmaceutical industry which wanted to extend the 20-year terms of pharmaceutical patents. It does not allow people to patent medical procedures because that is not in the interests of public health. 
One thing that I still have a lingering concern about—and I want to put it on the floor of the House for the record—is that I do have some concerns about requiring patents to be novel after a global search of international precedents rather than on the basis of New Zealand novelty. The reason for that is that it becomes an impediment to small emerging companies which may not have the resources to pay a patent attorney to do a complete global search. The counterargument is of course we live in a global market; if you are going to defend globally you have to be prepared to accept that. What I would warn and I think it is a multipartisan issue is that most New Zealand companies by world standards are small companies so we have to have a law that is relatively user-friendly if we want our small stars to take on the big guys and hold their own. 
Most innovators even the Googles and the Facebooks and the Apples started in a garage somewhere off in Palo Alto. We have got lot of garages in New Zealand—[ 
Bell rung 
]—1 minute—with incredibly innovative Kiwis coming up with the Googles of tomorrow. This bill is really important because it has to get the balance right between making it easy to innovate and secure enough when you get a patent to be able to defend it against the world. 
An interesting thing: I have a relation—I will not name him—who is a very good patent attorney and he tells me that 90 percent of the patents patented in New Zealand are defensive patents by major international corporations. Less than 10 percent of the patents in New Zealand are done by New Zealanders. We need to shift that over time. 
Mr Speaker is giving me the signal so I will close now. Labour supports the bill this far but only if my colleague Ms Curran’s Supplementary Order Paper is adopted in a bipartisan fashion by the Government— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation about one of the comments I made during my speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It has been drawn to my attention that I made a mistake in relation to where Brett O’Reilly was employed. He was employed in the business and innovation and investment section of the Ministry of Science and Innovation. That was prior to its merger with the Ministry for Business Innovation and— 
Hon Member 
: “Mobie”. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: “Mobie”—yes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to speak on the Patents Bill and its ugly cousin the Minister’s amendments. I am pleased to be saying the Green Party will be voting against this bill on its second reading. I mean talk about messing it up. It is high time we updated our antiquated 1950s patent law. I know it is laughed at around the world. It is laughed at by patent lawyers. It is good we are modernising it but talk about messing it up. Where we have messed it up where the Minister has dropped the ball is around software patents. The Minister has irresponsibly tabled this significant amendment which has muddied this crystal-clear unambiguous consensus that came out of the Commerce Committee that software should not be patented. 
Software should not be patented because what we are talking about is code. It is like we are talking about maths. Copyright is fine. This is about protecting New Zealand’s thriving growing information and communications technology and software development industry. Foss has muddied the waters with the introduction of two new words—only two words—“as such” which is what is scaring our thriving industry. The industry quite rightly I think is describing it as a stab in the back. They are describing it as being thrown under the bus. These are not your extremists. These are people like the New Zealand Institute of IT Professionals. We are talking about the Open Source Society. We are talking about InternetNZ. We are talking about some very respected very influential people and we hope the Government listens to them because it has introduced this huge legal— 
Clare Curran 
: Orion Health 
GARETH HUGHES 
: I do not want to miss anyone out: the Open Source Society Orion Health and Jade Software Corporation Ltd. I have got only 5 minutes so I will not go through the whole list because there are another 1000 people and software developers who have added their names to this list. 
So the Government introduced this huge legal loophole with no consultation and with no ability for the Commerce Committee to have any scrutiny over it. It is highly irresponsible. The Government is looking to Europe but I do not know why you would look to Europe on this measure when what we see there is a great deal of litigation. What we want to see in New Zealand if we want to see our economy going forward is we want to have our innovators innovating. We do not want to have our innovators litigating and that is exactly what we are going to see under this bill. The Government has thrown away that consensus. We saw on the select committee that software should not be patentable—copyright is perfectly fine. You know it was a unanimous call out of the select committee out of all the parties involved. 
I think it is patently absurd that this Government is standing up here today saying: “Well we don’t think the software should be patented too.” If that is what it believes it should say it in the laws of our country and not just say it in the House. This is what the IT industry wants to hear. And the key question that has got to be asked is who benefits from the changes— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Microsoft. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: We know it is the multinationals. We know they are the ones with the deep pockets and the big legal teams that are going to benefit from this bill. I do not want to talk ill of patent lawyers because as Mr Cunliffe pointed out there is a great deal of defensive patenting. Many of them do a great job. What we want to see though is our creators be they manufacturers or software developers creating not litigating. 
We saw the Government sit on its hands for years despite the very strong calls of the industry to get a move on and pass the patents law as it came out. A big concern is that the Trans-Pacific Partnership was influencing that—I think quite rightly so. We see our Government literally throwing policemen out of helicopters to arrest an alleged copyright infringer—the Megaupload case—and the Skynet legal case laws. We saw the US Government offering to write the legislation for the Government. We should be rightly concerned. 
It is irresponsible because we have had no select committee scrutiny of this significant change to the legislation. It changes the whole effect of the law. I called for the Government to send it back to the select committee. I acknowledge that people have been waiting an awful long time for this law to get passed but they want to see a good law passed; they do not want to see this. 
We have heard only a red herring justification from the Government of why it is doing it. The fact is that this red herring that it is clasping on to is trying to mask the fishy thing that is happening. Everyone agrees that user-invented software should be patentable just not the software in it. The irony is that the Government is introducing even more legal uncertainty into the issue. We are going to see more legal cases and I think the Fisher and Paykels of this world should be concerned because now they are going to have to decide what “as such” means. It is going to be the lawyers who are going to be benefiting not the creators not the innovators and not the manufacturers. 
I would like to congratulate all the groups that have formed the No Software Patents in NZ group. It has come up with an elegant common-sense simple solution which I urge the Government to adopt. Look it is simple: the Government needs to either throw out this amendment before we vote on it or support the amendment. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I am pleased that the Government has decided not to take its last call because it gives a chance for the Opposition to reinforce the position that we are in. What has become clear over the last few days is that this Government has been captured. The Minister of Commerce has been captured by offshore people who are involved in the software industry. 
It is vitally important to thousands of jobs in smaller businesses around New Zealand that we have a clear policy in this area one that is easily understood on the face of the legislation and not one that has to be sorted out time and time and time and time again in the courts. I like only a few members now was a member at the time when Vodafone was trying to set up in New Zealand and Telecom was the organisation that was the incumbent. Telecom chose time after time after time to try to block Vodafone almost never successfully. It used any possible ambiguity in the law to take a case to take it to the High Court to take an appeal to take it to the Court of Appeal—I think the Supreme Court did not exist in New Zealand then—and on occasion to take it even to the Privy Council. The reason that it was able to do that was that there was a bit of doubt in a number of areas of law that had become dated and did not work. These people from Telecom knew that they had the big pockets. Telecom clearly had the big pockets and it knew that the longer it could delay the better its chance of preserving its monopoly and its position for a period of time. 
What we have now is a group of overseas-owned companies that had an agent who was working for them who is alleged—I do not know this for a fact but I will rely on the comments made by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel. The person who was the agent for these multinational software companies working against the interests of New Zealand software companies is now the person who is drafting the rules for the Minister. If that is the case it is an absolute disgrace—an absolute disgrace—if that person is employed by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. I want to say that I have worked with the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment before Mr David Smol. I think he is a highly ethical person who has an understanding of the rules of the Public Service. I am working on the assumption that he is not aware of what is going on here because it is happening down the chain a bit. But I do give notice that the Labour Party will be pursuing this because it is just not ethical for someone to jump from the employ of the group of overseas-owned software companies into a job where they are drafting the rules and changing what was I understand the unanimous view of the Commerce Committee on this. 
I tell you what: this issue is not a new issue. It is not a simple issue. I can remember discussions on this issue when I was the Minister for Economic Development and those discussions go back probably to 2006 and 2007—around those times. It is not simple. The select committee I think made a lot of progress. It got the basic policy position right and then the Government motivated by big offshore interests working for—I want to now say to go back that apparently the individual worked for the Ministry of Science and Innovation. I think that is in the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment now is it? 
Clare Curran 
: It is. He worked for Science and Innovation at the time. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Not at the time. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: But not at the time—but not at the time. The point that I want to make is that there was unanimity coming out of the select committee there is another position that has come from the Minister and there is now a third position which might be even better than the select committee position—certainly a bit clearer. It has been drafted by my colleague Clare Curran with the advice of some people who have a lot of knowledge in the legal area and in the drafting area. It is something that will mean the intention is clear and we are unlikely to get litigation in this area. 
Clare Curran 
: Elegant solution. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member claims that she is elegant in her solution. I can accept that her claim is true. But the point that I would like to make is that there are over a thousand New Zealand companies—and not little companies. I do not know how many members opposite are aware of Orion Software and the incredible international work that it does but I think most people are aware of Jade. People in this House who are not aware of Jade are people who are pretty ignorant. They are the big companies but there are over a thousand small companies. One can wander down Jackson Street in Petone and go upstairs to find probably a dozen places where people are developing software. Some of those places have only one person working there—they are a sole trader. Some of them have two three five or 12 people working there. 
Their businesses are being placed at risk by Craig Foss. I want to ask Craig Foss why he wants to destroy the jobs that exist in Petone. Why does he hate New Zealand software developers so much that he wants Microsoft that he wants other offshore companies like IBM and similar people to be able to tie them up in courts when he could have clear law that will do what he says he wants to do anyway? 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I thought I would conclude my speech by quoting from Philip Fierlinger from Xero. He is its head of software design. He said: “We have chosen not to seek software patents because we don’t believe they are good for the industry. They divert resources and attention both when creating and enforcing. More importantly they stifle innovation and restrict competition. Competition is a good thing. We welcome competition as a motivation to build a better product. We also stand on the shoulders of giants—our predecessors who designed and invented fundamental software mechanisms and patterns that make software what it is today.” That is a New Zealand innovator. That is the sort of person who will be locked out by the giant international companies if the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 120 is agreed to. 
The Labour members will support the second reading of the Patents Bill but we plead with the National Party members to look at Supplementary Order Paper 123 in the name of Clare Curran and to support it. I want to make it absolutely clear that the Committee stage will take a very long time because we will fight them tooth and nail if that amendment is not agreed to and we will not support later stages of this bill if in fact the National Party decides to support overseas-owned giant semi-monopolies—semi-monopolies—against our local software designers. 
Bill read a second time. 
Biosecurity Law Reform Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Primary Industries) 
: 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill be now read a third time 
. The Biosecurity Law Reform Bill makes a wide range of improvements to the legislation that underpins our biosecurity system. The initial policy development work was started under the previous Labour Government and I want to acknowledge the continued support of the Labour Party. The bill was introduced during the last Parliament in November 2010 and was considered by the Primary Production Committee in the first half of 2011. The bill was reported back to the committee in June 2011 and was read a second time before Parliament was dissolved for the general election. 
I talked in my first reading speech about the key themes that run across the amendments of the bill and it is useful to re-emphasise those again. Firstly we need to continue to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the biosecurity system. We need to make sure that resources are allocated according to the level of risk and are used to deliver the greatest level of protection possible. Secondly we need to ensure that there is clarity around roles and responsibilities and to promote partnerships and collaboration. Protecting New Zealand from biosecurity risk cannot be the role of Government alone. We need to ensure that we harness the combined efforts of others who are well placed to act such as industry and such as regional councils. Thirdly we need to futureproof the legislation so that it has the flexibility to allow the biosecurity system to continue to evolve over time. 
The bill adds a number of new provisions that will improve effectiveness and efficiency in the management of biosecurity risk at our borders. These include improved powers to gather information and use it for risk profiling so as to ensure that the resources are allocated according to the level of risk adding a new duty that requires importers to ensure that their goods comply with the applicable import rules improving the enforcement options for dealing with non-compliance at the border and improving the tools for dealing with the biosecurity risks that are presented by craft. 
The bill will help to provide clarity around the roles and responsibilities and promote partnerships and collaboration. A key initiative in this area is the Government-industry agreement for readiness and response. Over the last 12 months tremendous progress has been made in this regard. Industry organisations are working more closely with the Ministry for Primary Industries on taking this initiative forward. The Government-industry agreement will promote better prioritisation of activities in the readiness and response area improve preparedness for incursions and enable industry perspectives and expertise to be brought to the decision-making table. 
The bill includes a number of amendments that will futureproof this legislation. These include allowing for increased use of electronic systems and enabling the Biosecurity Act to be used to manage biosecurity risks that arise in the exclusive economic zone. 
Of the many other enhancements that the bill makes I would like to also briefly mention firstly improving the information that is available on the FarmsOnline database to support incursion responses and secondly important changes in the pest management area including streamlining the process for developing pest management plans. 
Members from across the House have talked in previous debates about how important the biosecurity system is to New Zealand and our economy. I would like to emphasise to the House that I am in complete agreement about the importance of biosecurity to our country. I would also like to acknowledge the genuine concern of growers farmers and producers about New Zealand’s biosecurity system. I encourage them to raise their concerns with me and to engage in constructive debate as is their right. However I am disappointed at the manner in which biosecurity has been frequently used as a political football by some politicians and some industry leaders. I hope that the passage of this bill with good cross-party support will bring about more constructive engagement both in Parliament and outside rather than the continuation of some of the negative politics of recent times. 
I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank the staff throughout New Zealand’s biosecurity system. They are hard-working they are dedicated to doing their best and they deserve to be congratulated on their consistently high standard of work which has ensured that New Zealand’s biosecurity system is indeed world class. 
As I have said before biosecurity is and always will be my highest priority as the Minister for Primary Industries. This bill reflects that by bringing in reforms that will be of benefit across the whole of the biosecurity system. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I was very pleased to hear the Minister for Primary Industries commit once again to the biosecurity system and the importance of it for our economy. Indeed I have just come from a Young Farmers gathering with the Minister here in Wellington. It was a great event hosted by the Young Farmers where the chief executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries said that biosecurity as he has said before is the single most important consideration and the single biggest threat to primary industries in this country. I absolutely agree. 
Can I quote something: “I told you so. It had to happen and it did. On 8 May the export of produce from New Zealand worth $2.5 billion per year was put in doubt when one male Queensland fruit fly was found in a pheromone trap in Avondale.” These are not my words; these are from Andrew Fenton President of Horticulture New Zealand. He said it was only a matter of time not a matter of if. He said that Horticulture New Zealand has been going on about this for years that cost cutting kicked in with restructuring for greater efficiency and effectiveness and that “we lost 100 percent X-ray of baggage entering our borders.” The number of front-line staff and detector dogs has been reduced in favour of passenger profiling. 
We think biosecurity is the single biggest threat to this country—to our whole economy. We supported most of the provisions in the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill—in fact we initiated them—but we were concerned that the Government in pushing ahead with this bill at the same time cut funding to front-line biosecurity in its first Budget and has now slashed front-line staff and staff at Biosecurity New Zealand by about 90 staff. The Minister just got up in the House and said that the Government thinks that it is the most important thing for primary production. Well if one fruit fly can put $2.5 billion worth of exports at risk think of what one bit of dirt with foot and mouth on it on the soles of the shoes of any used or unused footwear coming into this country would cost this economy. It is in the billions and billions of dollars. 
We have agreed to support this bill because it does bring in some new provisions that allow better information-sharing across Government agencies. It however also puts in place basically a system of self-regulation. The National Party has been known for self-regulation. In fact it did it in the mining industry it did it in the building industry and it did it in electricity. In fact everywhere it has done it there has been a disaster. It is doing it also in the area of the meat industry where companies will now self-regulate on meat inspection. There are real dangers when industries under pressure cut corners. The component of self-regulation here—where in the Minister’s words exporters have to share the responsibility—places the whole economy of our country in the hands of what might be some desperate importers with their backs to the wall trying to make a buck to survive. Well that is simply not good enough. We need a robust secure front-line system analysing risk offshore analysing risk as the people and all the imported goods come to this country and having robust very secure front-line checking systems in place—never mind what might happen should an outbreak occur. 
That is another component of the bill—Government-industry agreements. Industries have been very concerned because in fact the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries—as it was and then it was the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and now it is the Ministry for Primary Industries—was dictating to industries what they were likely to incur by way of costs should there be an incursion of the Queensland fruit fly the painted apple moth varroa or the numbers of experiences that we have unfortunately had to face and heaven forbid if we were ever to face a foot-and-mouth outbreak. Costs now would be shared by industry and by the Government. Some may say that that is fine because they are the beneficiaries. The problem is that when importers bring products into the country or people travel they actually are the ones providing the risk. They are the ones—they are the exacerbators—who are threatening the industries here. Industry without the ability to have some say on how that is managed thought that very unfair. 
The Minister has introduced a Supplementary Order Paper that does go some way to addressing industry concerns—that is it commits to consultation around how incursions would be managed here but also some discussion into how front-line biosecurity systems are run. With that Supplementary Order Paper on balance the Labour Party is prepared to support the bill on the basis of improvements made around technology and upgrading the systems of information gathering and sharing. But we do not support this bill on the basis that we are endorsing the current biosecurity systems in this country. This is one component. It is a modernisation as the Minister said in some ways. 
I received today  
NZ Grower 
 a magazine. It says that the officials and the Government are determined to impose on the growers of capsicums cucumbers zucchinis and tomatoes a new import health standard. In spite of our ability to grow all those things supermarkets and others want to import those products into this country and the Government wants to dumb down the import health standards for the importation of those things. The growers think that places us at greater risk of a biosecurity incursion. The new import health standards allow—Mr Nick Smith probably does not know this—a certain number of fruit fly eggs and larvae to enter New Zealand because that is an acceptable level of risk under the proposed import health standards. That is not good enough. That is an outrageous dumbing down of the biosecurity protection of this country to all the growers in that horticultural area. The growers have an opportunity to submit. I hope the Minister is listening. He has not been listening on many things. I hope he listens to them because in no way are we supporting the Government in the dumbing down of import health standards as I said for these horticultural products. 
There is currently a legal battle in the courts because pork producers in this country have had to go to court to uphold and protect their industry and to uphold the standards that will keep out porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome—basically the AIDS of the pork industry. We do not have it. Australia does not have it. Virtually every other country in the world has it and this Government wants to dumb down the import health standards to allow the importation of pork that places far greater risk of the transfer of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome from Canada or any European country—or anywhere else in the world effectively because they have got it—into our country. Why would we do that? It is dumb it is cost cutting and it is ideology by the Government over there which says we should let the market forces determine where we should lie. The members over there are shaking their heads. Read this. It is saying that the import health standards for capsicums and tomatoes are proposed to be dumbed down. We know it is in the area of pork. We are concerned about importing honey and we know that the Government cut front-line biosecurity border protection services—fact. No debate—that is a fact.  
The Government and the next speaker might say “Oh we have good systems and we have all these things in place.” but the fact is that we got a Queensland fruit fly through the border and through the systems. We picked it up thankfully. I am acknowledging that the systems here can pick that up hopefully every time. But I guess the more border breaches that occur the less likely we are to pick up each and every one of them.  
In supporting this bill which allows the modernisation of parts of the biosecurity system in no way does Labour support the dumbing down of biosecurity across the board in this country. It is the one single thing that keeps the Director-General awake at night he said. It is the single biggest threat to this economy because we still rely on biological production we still rely on primary production and this Government has not been prepared to put the resources in to ensure the level of risk is appropriate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This Biosecurity Law Reform Bill is the most substantive change in New Zealand biosecurity laws for more than 15 years. I want to challenge the member who has just spoken opposite Damien O’Connor who has beaten his chest around how important biosecurity is. Why is it that in the three terms—9 years—of a Labour Government we did not have any substantive law reform in the very area of biosecurity? Let us just go through the track record of this Government in biosecurity. In our very first year in Government National brought in laws that more than doubled the fines for those who breach our biosecurity laws and this evening in the House after a comprehensive review of our biosecurity laws we have this very substantive bill that improves our laws. For all the huff and the puff from Damien O’Connor did you not hear the words “But we’re going to support the bill.”? He knows in his heart of hearts that this is good law that will help protect New Zealand’s vital exporting industries. 
I want to challenge the member on a few aspects of his speech. The first is that like every Labour spokesperson he promises more spending. It does not matter whether it is education health an extra TV channel putting the school age down to 4 or more money for ACC every single one of Labour’s spokespeople is hopping around the country promising more money. And the simple question is that the challenge that faces every Western Government is where the money is coming from. I have a very specific question that Damien O’Connor needs to answer given that rave: how much extra money per year will Labour commit to biosecurity? 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: You wait and see. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh you wait and see! You wait and see! What sort of weasel words—what sort of weasel words! I have a copy here of Labour’s biosecurity policy at the last election. You would have thought that after all the rhetoric from Mr O’Connor that Labour would have had some hard dollars on the table and that it felt so strongly that it had a certain amount of extra money that it was going to put into biosecurity. Do you know what? Not one specific dollar amount was committed by Mr O’Connor in respect of biosecurity. 
The member Mr O’Connor has said that the fruit fly incident that occurred in Avondale shows our biosecurity systems are not working. He is wrong. Exactly the opposite is true—exactly the opposite is true. The fact that our monitoring systems picked it up and the way in which the systems respond are things that we should salute and we should be proud of the response that occurred and the way that incident was dealt with. Then we had another one of these Labour attempts to sort of rewrite the history. Let me go through. He said that this is just like what occurred in the building and mining industry regulatory setting. Well I would love to quote in terms of the building law reform Mr O’Connor the words of George Hawkins one of his colleagues. Do you know what George Hawkins said? He said “How dare the National Party claim credit for the building liberalisation that occurred in 1991.” He said that all of this is Labour’s work. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Tongue in cheek. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well no actually. For the record Mr O’Connor the building law reform was introduced by the fourth Labour Government. The bill was introduced by Margaret Austin and actually it had its third reading only after the change of Government. 
I have a question on mining. Mr O’Connor wants to highlight the mining. I have a simple question for him: during his 9 years in Government from 1999 to 2008 if he was so wise about the deficiencies in the mining industry regulations why did Labour do absolutely nothing for 9 years? You know what really is the issue with Mr O’Connor? Mr O’Connor will play petty politics over the 29 tragic dead miners on the West Coast just in the same way as he will play petty politics with the issue of biosecurity rather than actually making sure that this country has the right systems and the right rules around protecting our vital industries. 
I want to also talk about the issue of SmartGate. It is interesting Mr O’Connor that we have just had a review of SmartGate. That member repeatedly stood up in the House and said that SmartGate would increase the biosecurity risk for New Zealand. Do you know what the review shows? Actually they are getting more and improving New Zealand’s biosecurity. It is delivering better biosecurity results in the audit that has just been published 3 weeks ago showing again the success of this Government. 
The last point I want to challenge Mr O’Connor and the Labour Party on is this playing politics. Whether it be in terms of the capsicums the pork the honey or the tomato we on this side of the House say that our biosecurity decisions need to be made on the basis of good risk management and science not politics—not politics. You see we have had an age-old argument—90 years going—in respect of access for apples into Australia. We are a country that makes our living out of exporting biological products in markets overseas and we cannot have a double standard saying in one breath that when Australians come to make decisions about New Zealand apples and managing the risk of fire blight we want an independent science-based approach and then when it comes to New Zealand on the other foot and it comes to issues of pork or capsicums or honey or any other we are going to take a political and not a science-based approach. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: It’s not based on science Nick. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Mr O’Connor that what he is effectively arguing is that the decisions about those biosecurity and import standards should be made by political representatives rather than by scientists and we on this side of the House as a party that stands for trade and for earning this country’s living from biological products say that our biosecurity systems need to be first class and our decisions about import standards need to be based on science not politics. That is what this bill is about. This Government is proud of the work that we are doing in biosecurity. It is part of what we are doing to build a better future for this country. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. I want everyone to know that the contribution just given by Dr Nick Smith demonstrates that the only knowledge he has about biosecurity is a knowledge of the clever root weevil an experience the man can no doubt elaborate upon at a given point in time. Perhaps he might be a bit more at home however talking about the sea squirt or anything because no one on this side of the House is playing petty politics. He is such a senior parliamentarian and I accept that there has been a bit of peevishness in the House today and I accept that he has been through somewhat of a torrid time which I can relate to myself. But I say do not bring into the House in a debate the names or the fact that we have suffered those fatalities. You are better than that Dr Smith. This is about the quality of our systems to ensure that the primary produce owners can continue to invest into the future. Do not allow your rhetoric to cause you to fail to live up to your own standards as a senior parliamentarian which you are more than capable of maintaining. 
So we will support this bill the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. We are of the view however that the Government for reasons that it understands better than perhaps we do did cut into the available budget and we feel as we have said on numerous occasions that that weakens the ability of those who are guardians at the edges of the State to actually maintain our standards. About two-thirds of the general primary produce merchandise sector etc. actually is at stake here. I accept that that member does come from a part of New Zealand where there is the vestiges of a pipfruit industry. Without a doubt if we continue to allow and observe and even respond to Dr Smith’s contributions we will be not only worsening his reputation but lessening the tone of the debate. 
The guts of the debate is this: although we will support the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill there are sections we remain mightily concerned about. It is the right of every parliamentarian to continue to point out that you cannot cut indiscriminately. Every time that we point out that indiscriminate cuts are at stake here the Government hopes to cause us to have to defend our preference for spending money. In actual fact it is an investment in the largest single contributing sector to our exports. Without exports to borrow their own narrative there is no growth in GDP because the Government has shrivelled and shrunk the size of the domestic economy as it pursues excessive levels of austerity etc.—freeze the regions forget about the regions. Whether it is in transport whether it is in the ports sector whether it is in the manufacturing sector what are we left to fall back upon? We fall back upon those very types of produce that need very good sector protection. 
It could be said that it sounds slightly trivialising to talk about sniffer dogs but without a doubt those of us who travel frequently are often very happy to see the sniffer dogs going about their business. The fact that only one new sniffer dog has been produced suggests that there are no pest dangers coming back or that it has become too expensive. Often the public need to see a symbol or something that epitomises the miserly foolish approach taken by the current Government. If you looked at the money that has been wasted in putting together the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment those funds would be better dedicated to the men and women who work inordinately long hours etc. doing a difficult job because you are dealing with people who are often offended and who are often frightened or confused as they come into our country. Those biosecurity staff need to be rewarded. They need to be talked up. They do not need to be sold out. 
On this side of the House we are very conscious of not only the work they do but the inordinate amount of investment at stake. Sure that side of the House is arguing that we live in austere times. We are suffering the ongoing effects of the global financial crisis. But you will have no economy unless you continually remain alert and send a constant message as the changing nature of our own population grows that when you come to our country not only are these the rules but your wrongdoing your foolishness or your ignorance will not go undetected. Those are welcome and obvious contributions that should be coming into this debate—not these very shallow and loud remarks coming from the member as he watches my good friend Sam Lotu-Iiga beat him back into Cabinet. But that is another matter. We do not want to stir up the prospect that we might suffer God forbid a foot-and-mouth scare—a foot-and-mouth experience—but I remind the members on the other side of the House as one of my colleagues said earlier that there was a certain moth. Just look at the tragedy that befalls unfortunately a lot of our whanau. There is a disproportionately large element of Maori investment in the kiwifruit industry so we know personally even in that part which is often not thought of as a key contributor to the pastoral sector or the horticultural sector of the dangers and the downsides. 
How can the current administration genuinely believe that it is going to grow—whatever flash name it uses partnership engagements etc.—by throwing money at the meat industry the wool industry and various other elements of the pastoral sector if they are going to cut the most valuable thin line of resistance? It cannot escape the mathematics. It may seek to justify that but all we have got to do is remind it of that unwanted Australian otherwise known as the Queensland fruit fly. I am disappointed that Dr Nick Smith did not focus on the fruit fly. No doubt the man could expand at length—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I have got to tell you once you stand and you make the silly mistake of invoking the names or the fact that fatalities have been suffered and you try to sheet that home to a member on this side of the House then shame on Nick Smith for diminishing the quality of this debate and being so foolhardy as to do that as a senior parliamentarian. I do not in the short term intend to allow him to forget that. 
But on to the other elements of the bill. I have an orientation towards supporting a lot of self-regulation but in this case we cannot allow those who are advocates of self-regulation to enjoy all of the responsibility without any clear direction and in addition to that with the right balance between who will pay because they will bear the costs if they get it wrong. I think it is a legitimate political debate and it is a legitimate philosophical debate as to what extent the State can hand out. I happen to think that Judith Collins on the matter of alcohol has probably got it wrong because there will be no adequate self-regulation in the alcohol industry but we will sort that into the future. There is a case for self-regulation here in the meat industry but as my colleague said we cannot back it indiscriminately in the event that there is no overarching direction or there is not an adequacy of resources. But that is not to say that they should not be able to come and advocate—not so much only on the basis of historical experience overseas but with genuine data and science. 
I actually have a great deal of sympathy for what the pork industry is currently saying. Unfortunately I doubt whether it will make much impact on this particular administration. That is not to say that the current Minister for Primary Industries is pigheaded or anything like that. But once they set their sight on a course of action we have here in many cases amongst the senior Cabinet Ministers a level of intransigence that they will not turn. They seem to seek to ape the excesses of Margaret Thatcher or something like that. Unfortunately I have very little confidence that the pork industry is going to not so much get its way but be able to make an impact. As my colleague has said it is providing genuine data. It is providing genuine scientific information. Perhaps it has been lost in the swirl that passes for—well not even the swirl but the torpor of the bureaucracy etc. 
But in that lies an exact example as to why yes you can support self-regulation to a certain level but in the absence of an overarching direction and in the absence of adequate resources not only are we putting our key contributors to our export sector at risk but we are actually diminishing the underlying worth of the principle—i.e. that the State does not need to do everything but the State cannot yield unless there is an adequate level of resource and a clear overarching direction. Despite these misgivings we will continue to support the bill. Kia ora tatou. 
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party unfortunately is opposing the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. This bill does not go nearly far enough and even if it did this bill is not being resourced well enough. We would need some significant changes which have not come through the select committee process at all. There are parts of the bill that we can see could have benefits. Extending our reach to the exclusive economic zone is consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and would ratify the international conventions for ship ballast water and there are some immediate benefits there. Establishing a national policy direction would make the Crown be bound to regional pest plans—and we may speak to that a bit more because that is flawed as well—but the theory behind it is all good. 
I turn to distributed responsibility for biosecurity management. Biosecurity management would be less centralised with new duties placed on the importers to proactively manage the risks. But that leaves a huge hole as well particularly when our inspections are under-resourced. Industry groups can become management agencies with significant powers to make decisions and raise levies. There is a benefit here. The new agencies would be subject to the Official Information Act and we may actually get some real inside stuff on whether or not they are working. But I would suspect that some of the sectors will be reluctant to be open to that level of scrutiny and may be reluctant to join in to some of those agreements that the Government is trying to put on to them. The new biosecurity information database will mean that personal land and biosecurity data will be collected and shared enabling better risk management in the future. So there are some positive things. 
However there are a number of other parts of the bill that are very concerning to us and we cannot support the bill. Targeted risk management seems like a good idea at first glance and yes we do need to target our limited resources in the best way. Recognising the huge size of the biosecurity task this bill attempts to prioritise scarce resources—and they are becoming scarcer all the time as this Government keeps shrinking back on biosecurity. All of the Government’s current activity leads to these resources being targeted at the cash cows of the economy while ignoring other vulnerable industries. The big economic cash cows of the moment may not be the big cash cows in the future and the shortcomings in this bill and the huge shortcomings in the resourcing of biosecurity by this Government stand to leave a legacy for ongoing generations. We can think of the pests that have come in in recent years that are here that are not going away and that future generations have to factor in for their management in primary industries. I can point out a few. 
In the marine area  
Undaria 
 costs the marine aquaculture industry significantly and it hooked into it and did something about it. But  
Undaria 
 is here to stay and it is spreading as we speak. Yep we may take an opportunity out of that and grow  
Undaria 
for some markets—probably markets in the countries where it came from—but at the same time it is a massive cost. Pacific oyster—the way that was spread around supported by a previous Minister of Fisheries Sir Doug Kidd who helped with that one. The South African brown mussel was brought on a ship into Tasman Bay. Some of the sea squirts and there are more by the year in our marine environment. Kiwifruit—well we know all about kiwifruit and the Psa the pollen imports that came in so recklessly and were allowed by this Government. The kiwifruit industry of course is subject to huge risk by fruit fly and other potential pests as well. 
The import health standard for capsicum eggplant tomatoes cucumbers and all of those things was just mentioned before by Labour. The risk of fruit fly getting into that industry—and a number of the other fruit industries—is immense. To be actually allowing the possibility and accepting a certain number of eggs coming in as a measure as a baseline for biosecurity is appalling. We have already got the psyllid which has come in and has thrashed that industry and is causing huge amounts of pesticide to be used that was not being used before. It is the same with the potato industry—$250 million already down the tubes because of biosecurity shortfalls by this Government. We could have used that $250 million in biosecurity to prevent other things getting in. We know that if the fruit fly gets into the Bay of Plenty they anticipate $820 million will be lost with 3500 jobs down the tubes because of it. But maybe that is already halfway down because of the slackness around the pollen and the Psa. In Hawke’s Bay roughly $390 million will be down the tubes if fruit fly gets in with 3000 jobs gone. In Nelson it will be $265 million and almost 2000 jobs are anticipated to be lost as well. 
And then there is the honey. We anticipate because of the free-trade agreements allowing honey imports from Australia with known risk with known disease factors that we do not have in New Zealand already. That means a lot more chemicals being used around our hives and a reduction in the quality of the produce that we want to send overseas. I will just mention by the way with capsicum eggplant tomatoes cucumber potatoes—things affected by the psyllid particularly the  
Solanums 
—there is a huge amount of pesticide being used. Those industries were getting better and better particularly the glasshouse industry at not using dangerous pesticides on our kai on our food. But what has happened now? They were using biological controls and they were very good managers very efficient managers bringing in insects that would deal with the pests that they had at the time which were the other form of white fly aphis mites and things. They were all under control through using biological means. We have got the psyllid. It is costing us as a community and in health because if we test that produce—if we dare to test that produce at the moment—we will always find significant chemical residues and not just one but a multiplicity of residues in that produce because they have not got a solution for psyllid. 
We have to get on top of biosecurity better than this bill is setting up. It is setting up purely to alleviate the Government some money in looking after biosecurity. It is looking after the cash cows. It is forgetting about the other industries out there the flower industry the pork industry and the honey industry—those other ones that the Government seems to think are too small to worry about—which may be the Zespris and the Fonterras in the future if things go wrong in those industries. Our trees our forest industry are also at significant risk and the huge cost to the community when we spray them when there is a gypsy moth outbreak is not acceptable. 
The other thing with this bill is it does not really deal with the risks of genetic engineering and the risks of contamination that are inevitable if we have GE getting in in the wrong way in this country. There are people who do not understand the depth of the cost of that to New Zealand and to Brand New Zealand if we get it wrong in terms of imports and contamination through seed whether it be canola corn or something else that has not appeared here as yet. 
Lastly this bill specifically makes biosecurity law subject to the limitation of international trade agreements. That is terrible. We lose our sovereignty on how we can look after biosecurity in this country for future generations. Thank you. Unfortunately the Green Party will not be able to support this bill. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It occurs to me that we have lost our way with this debate somewhat. I think that the debate here relates to a piece of legislation the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill that in my view is a very good piece of legislation. The amount of money you put behind a piece of legislation is quite a different issue and clearly the Greens particularly have lost sight of that fact. I think this piece of legislation is a very good piece of legislation. It has been very well-thought-out over a long long time and so I do not think we should ever lose sight of the fact that we have such a piece of legislation. How we fund it is another matter. I certainly support the way this Government is funding it because at the end of the day $750 million is a fairly significant slice of cash to put behind a biosecurity system. 
We also should realise that we live in an isolated place probably one of the most isolated agricultural producing countries in the world so we are halfway to protecting ourselves naturally by the tyranny of distance. The other thing however that I guess to some extent circumvents that is the fact that we have one of the largest coastlines in the world. It is clearly impossible for us to guarantee we are going to protect our coastline however much money we put into it and however much resource we put into it. 
This piece of legislation is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation this House will put through in this term of Parliament. There is some groundbreaking change in this. It is the modernisation of a system. It allows those of us who wish to travel to travel—provided we do not take extra stuff in our bags—much more efficiently effectively and quickly than we used to. It also allows through much better systems the identification of risks to our economy and the biosecurity system can pick that up. 
This Biosecurity Law Reform Bill is intended to provide a more efficient and effective biosecurity system. It provides for partnerships where applicable and allows for the fleet-footedness of our border control. Not every industry in New Zealand is going to be able to participate in this partnership. There are some that clearly do not have the structure to join partnerships with the Government and I guess the equine industry is one of those where it is spread right throughout New Zealand and does not have a body that could coordinate it. So that is a challenge for the future for pieces of legislation such as this. 
During the course of our history we have had some spectacular success really at dealing with incursions in the past with one of those being the scrapie disease. It came to New Zealand about 20 or 30 years ago. We managed to remove that from the country. It did no further damage to our livestock industry at all. More recently we had the equine flu in Australia which was kept from New Zealand by a very effective and efficient border control system. So we do have a border control system that works. A biosecurity— 
Brendan Horan 
: Oh come on. What about the Psa virus? 
IAN McKELVIE 
: Well if you bring it in in your suitcase you will always get it in will you not? We have a border control system and a biosecurity system that I think works extremely effectively and if people wish to try to shyster the system they will always be able to get through a system because no system is bulletproof. But I think this bill puts in place a very strong system—a system that certainly complements the way we want to operate in New Zealand in the future. The trick for any business—in fact for the Government—is to get the balance between risk and reward correct in the pursuit of a healthy economy and a better outcome for our country. I was not on the select— 
Brendan Horan 
: If you start employing people and employ more biosecurity staff that would be a better outcome. 
IAN McKELVIE 
: We also banned parrots quite some time ago from this country—I am not sure how he got here. I was not on the select committee that dealt with this business when it first came before the House but I certainly have no problem in supporting the third reading of this bill and I am sure it will be a great success for the future of New Zealand. Thank you. 
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on this the third reading the final act we could say of the great theatre by which the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill becomes law. New Zealand First is opposed to the passage of this legislation not because we do not agree with the stated aims of the bill—we do agree with them; there is fine intention within this bill—and not because there are not good aspects to the bill or there are not good elements within it. The extension of New Zealand’s biosecurity laws and the ability to enforce them to the 200-mile exclusive economic zone is a good thing. Measures that will prevent unwanted organisms from entering our waters via the ballast tanks carried by cargo ships are a good thing. 
The omnibus provisions of the bill bring several other Acts of this Parliament as they relate to biosecurity under one umbrella. That is a good thing. But there are exasperating elements to this bill also. I am prompted to bring to the attention of the House the North American groundhog Marmotamonax. It is a squirrel-like creature a ground squirrel a rodent of the family Sciuridae. It is known in some parts of the United States as variously the land beaver the woodchuck and on occasion even the whistle-pig—the whistle-pig. I am given cause to wonder whether if one gives a whistle to a pig it is still a pig. But I digress—I digress perhaps just a little. 
I mentioned Marmotamonax because it is the inspiration for a film. It is a funny film starring Bill Murray who is a funny man. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What’s it called? 
RICHARD PROSSER 
:  
Groundhog Day 
. In the film which strangely enough is entitled  
Groundhog Day 
 Bill Murray’s character relives the same day over and over. It is this that reminds me of this bill. Bill Murray is a funny man; he is a funny Bill. This bill is not a funny bill. It is not funny because just like in the film when we look at this bill we are faced with the same sense of déjà vu as Bill Murray’s character experiences throughout the story. Here we go again; that is the theme of the movie. Once again this Government this National Government has correctly identified a problem—indeed a set of problems—and then gone about creating a bill that will entirely fail to properly address them. All too often this Government does this. This Government creates legislation that takes entirely the opposite approach to problems from that which is required in order to solve them. It is the same thing and it keeps happening over and over. We are trapped in our own Groundhog Day with this bill and others of this Government’s creation. 
There are other eerie parallels between the groundhog and this bill. Its various names have a curious relevance to aspects of this bill and to the way in which they will impact on New Zealand’s biosecurity. Members may think I am taking a rather odd approach to this third reading by drawing numerous references to a rather odd North American rodent. I believe it is wholly appropriate because it is reflective of this Government’s rather odd approach to biosecurity which is at the heart of this bill’s failings. 
I reiterate and we are happy to acknowledge that there are good things within this bill and its stated intent is a good one. But at the heart of its failings is the moving of the focus of biosecurity away from direct inspections and towards a targeted regime based on risk assessment and profiling. New Zealand First regards this approach as deeply flawed. We know from experience—everyone in New Zealand knows from experience—that with the best will in the world we cannot stop every last pest or disease or other biosecurity threat from crossing our borders. But with proper vigilance we can minimise the threat of an incursion. Even with full inspection we know that something going wrong is a case of not if but of when and without proper vigilance and full inspection it becomes a case of not when but of how soon. If we drop our guard in this ill-advised manner something will go wrong and something will get in—than that there is nothing more certain. 
How does this relate to the groundhog? Well as I mentioned before one of its names is woodchuck. There is a well-known tongue-twister that asks the question how much wood a woodchuck could chuck under various circumstances. The answer in New Zealand’s case might very well be none at all if our lax approach to biosecurity means that we let in a moth or a virus that devastates our pine forests. Without trees there will be no wood for the woodchuck to chuck no revenue from forestry and no jobs for forestry workers either. Do we really want to open ourselves up to that sort of risk? 
The whistle-pig is another name for the groundhog. And whistling forlornly for non-existent pigs might be all that remains for our pork industry if inadequate safeguards at the border mean that we allow the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus to enter and establish itself here. The land beaver—I do not even wish to begin drawing comparisons between this bill and any sort of beaver however appropriate the connotation might be. Suffice to say in moving the focus of biosecurity inspection in the way that this bill would bring about we are virtually admitting that not only do we expect the horse to bolt but that we are leaving the stable door open to make its escape even easier. And shifting responsibility for compliance from Government to industry is yet another example of the type of self-regulation that we have seen so often and that we know does not work. We have had leaky buildings we have had Pike River and now this bill will deliver us foot and mouth disease—not if but when. You can take that to the bank. 
New Zealand First supports calls from across the primary production sector for the 100 percent inspection of all goods crossing the border and for the screening of all passengers regardless of who they are and where they are travelling from. We salute the Government’s intentions where this bill is concerned and we really wish it had been able to get it right. But just like Groundhog Day here we go again: it has not. This is a deficient bill that will cost New Zealand dearly and irrevocably and New Zealand First does not support it. Thank you. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 After 23 years in the dairy industry and 15 years as a fish exporter I am very very aware of our dependence on effective biosecurity measures. But I would like to speak in relation to this Biosecurity Law Reform Bill on pest control—pest control. This bill is worthy of support and I am very glad to hear it is getting cross-party support particularly from our friends in the Labour Party. I am sorry that New Zealand First although praising the bill cannot see fit to support it and it is a disappointment that the Greens although they support it do not actually come up to the bar and get in behind it. 
However in terms of the pest control aspect my interest in this particular bill is concentrated on the way it affects other enactments and one in particular is Part 3 clause 79 “Amendment to Ombudsmen Act 1975”. Just to quote: “Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 is amended by inserting ‘Management agencies under Biosecurity Act 1993 if they are corporate bodies in their role under pest management plans or pathway management plans’ …” will be affected. 
I am advised that the effect of this will be to ensure that the Animal Health Board will be subject to the Official Information Act. This has long been a request of the people of the West Coast and Tasman and I am very pleased to be able to announce it to them this evening—as long as the bill passes. I am grateful to the Minister for the inclusion in this particular bill. Thank you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 As a former member—an alumnus—of the Primary Production Committee for 6 years but not a current member I was not going to take a call in this debate because this is a very important piece of legislation until I heard the contribution of that well-known diplomat Nick Smith. I can talk about this because I am going to respond to the scurrilous speech that he made in this House. This is a bill about biosecurity. Traditionally the Primary Production Committee chaired formerly by my colleague Damien O’Connor and now by Shane Ardern has always been a committee that has been bipartisan. I remember one colleague—I think it was David Carter; I am sure my colleague Damien O’Connor will recall this—in the select committee saying when they were in Opposition: “We know we’re going to lose on this but we’re going to make our points. We’re going to ensure that the legislation coming out of the Primary Production Committee which is vital to our primary industries comes to this House in as good a shape as it can be because our primary industries are so important to us.” 
So this legislation is generally non-partisan and there have been some non-partisan contributions tonight apart from the scurrilous contribution—the scurrilous low-life contribution—from Nick Smith. What Nick Smith did which had nothing to do with this bill was accuse my colleague Damien O’Connor the member for the West Coast of playing politics with the tragedy that happened at Pike River. That speech by Nick Smith will stand in infamy. I acknowledge my colleague Damien O’Connor and I think it is appropriate to also acknowledge Chris Auchinvole and other politicians who were in and around that tragedy just like the Canterbury earthquakes and other tragedies that we have had. I think beyond politics people responded as best they could in a non-partisan way to assist their communities to put an arm around those who had lost loved ones to express their love and affection for those communities and to support them. And for that scurrilous member Nick Smith— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! I understand what the member is doing but all members are honourable members. The use of that kind of adjective against the member is out of order. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That honourable member—ha ha—Nick Smith showed scurrilous behaviour in this House tonight and this is a serious issue. He brought a member into disrepute and made a scurrilous series of accusations that my colleague played politics with people’s lives and played politics with a tragedy. His electorate borders the West Coast and if anybody in their whole entire career has played politics over and over and over again whether it be ACC whether it be a whole host of issues and wallowed in the gutter—the political gutter—it is the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
I stand here in defence of my colleague and in defence of and alongside Chris Auchinvole and the other colleagues who went down to Pike River along with leaders in the community and who stood by those men and women who lost loved ones. And if they are watching tonight I apologise on behalf of this Parliament for the despicable speech and accusation that that member Nick Smith made—and on the back of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. 
So Nick Smith’s intent was not to get up and talk about a bill that was in any way connected to that series of tragedies; it was to get up on any piece of legislation and put the boot into a colleague but in doing so trample over the memories the tragedy and the emotions of those people who lost loved ones in that tragedy. 
Politicians get accused of a lot. Sometimes yeah we are a bit nasty. Sometimes we do put the slipper into each other and sometimes we do get a bit passionate but by God there was a colleague of mine who talked about the fact that there are written Standing Orders and there are unwritten standing orders. The unwritten standing orders are basically protocols between members of Parliament where there is a line that you do not cross. I am glad the member is here. I am glad he is here with his hair standing on end and his red face. I am glad he is here to listen because that member’s behaviour has been scurrilous. There is a lot said in this Chamber. As I have said the slipper goes in from time to time but it has been— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Attack the issue. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will attack the issue all right. The issue is that of a member of Parliament coming into this Chamber using a basically bipartisan piece of legislation to accuse another member of playing politics with those who died in a tragedy—died in a tragedy. 
| 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It was Mr O’Connor who raised the issue of Pike. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: And here we go because Dr Nick Smith—I am glad he is here—shows no remorse in trampling over the spirit and memory of those people who were lost. 
That member is a sort of political version of a limbo dancer. He will go as low as he can in this House and he did tonight—over a biosecurity bill. It would not have mattered whether it was a bill on anything. He got up to talk about biosecurity to put the slipper in. Well I am going to move to the legislation because that member is not worth it. But I do apologise to those watching because that member tonight has brought this Chamber into disrepute lowered the tone and wallowed in the political sewer where he treads very very often—[ 
Interruption 
] Very very often. 
Louise Upston 
: Who’s in the sewer? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh so I am accused of that. No I am accused of standing up and defending a colleague from a vicious and scurrilous attack by that piece of work over there. 
Louise Upston 
: Who started it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well there you go! There is the second one. I could forgive that member because she has not been around here that long and she is not that experienced and these things happen but oh no not that one over there—the member for Nelson. He knew exactly what he was doing exactly what he was saying. It was calculated and it is seen for what it is. 
We move to the legislation. I say this: we will as Damien O’Connor said support this piece of legislation but with some gross reservations. Because of course this legislation has been around for a while dressed up brought into the Chamber and trumpeted in a lofty way that the National Party does. But then we look at the history and the facts. We know that Dr Nick Smith is great at getting up and lecturing us on history and lecturing us on what other Governments have done. But you see on entry into this place in Government what Nick Smith’s Government did was cut—immediately in its first Budget—$2.8 million out of the biosecurity budget. That was its commitment to biosecurity. We know on all sides of this House because we support our primary industries that an incursion of any kind whether it be a minor incursion or God forbid whether it be foot-and-mouth or whatever would be terminal for our primary industries in New Zealand. 
Then it followed of course that in 2009 Dr Smith’s Government slashed 54 front-line biosecurity officers. More redundancies have followed and the latest figures show there are 91 fewer staff on our borders now than in 2008. So such is its commitment to biosecurity. Then we talk about the biosecurity dogs the sniffer dogs. I do not think Wellington Airport has had a sniffer dog I think since October—over a year ago. So such is the Government’s commitment to biosecurity. So yes we will support the bill but we know of course that if New Zealand had an outbreak of foot-and-mouth it would cost us billions and billions of dollars. It would destroy our primary industries and destroy our economic base. 
So I say to Dr Smith and others as they stand here and lecture us on history that they should look at their own recent history in respect of their last few years in office and their commitment to biosecurity. There are many farmers on that side. There are many farmers who are in the industry doing the business who know far more about this sort of thing than many of us in this place who are townies. 
But there is a commitment that is needed a real one not a piece of legislation that is dressed up but some dollars some cents and some staff to protect our border. This is what this is about and this is about “New Zealand Inc.” This is not about politics. This is about a bipartisan approach as we have generally had to primary industries in this country. So I say we should get a bit real about this. We should make a serious attempt to get to grips with this and protect our border. We should not engage in scurrilous and underhanded political sewer tactics which we saw tonight from that member Nick Smith. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I rise to support the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill in its third reading. In doing so I want to remind the House that I am a new member to this House and I am not going to therefore dignify the contribution of the member who has preceded me with a response other than to say that as a new member I know that that is the kind of speech that makes the public who are listening to and watching this presentation on TV tonight roll their eyes and wonder what it is that we do in this House. 
Here we are debating important legislation—important legislation that goes to the very root of supporting our primary industries and the very basis of our economy and prosperity for the future. So because we live in challenging global times and a challenging global environment and because we have been so reliant over so many years—in fact our entire history—on the virtue of our distance and our position on the globe as the main preventer and barrier to our biosecurity lapses it comes now as being very appropriate that this piece of legislation should come before the House and be passed this evening. I am delighted and thrilled that it seems to have bipartisan support across the House. That is a good thing—a very good thing. 
I have the pleasure of representing a rural electorate—the very fine electorate of Coromandel. In that electorate of course horticulture agriculture—and all the cultures for that matter—and aquaculture as well are all primary industries that are the backbone of the Coromandel electorate. I know that in my electorate the communities in Katikati and in Waihi and most recently in the area of Whenuakite on the northern end of the peninsula have been plagued by the Psa drama that is confronting our kiwifruit industry. So biosecurity is important in my electorate and will continue to be so. 
I am very pleased that this Government is taking the appropriate action and prevention measures that are required to ensure that our primary industries are protected in a way that is effective going forward. I remember—it was only a few months ago—the example that we had of the single Queensland fruit fly that was found in the urban electorate of Mt Roskill. For me that proved that the system does work. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: It was Phil Goff. 
SCOTT SIMPSON 
: It was Phil Goff’s electorate that is right. But it was not Phil Goff who was the fruit fly. So the system worked. It worked well and for me it gives me great confidence as a rural constituent member to support this bill. So I do so with vigour and commend the bill to the House. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is this a split call? 
Rino Tirikatene 
: Yes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is; right. A 5-minute call Rino Tirikatene. 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am pleased to make a short contribution on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill at its third reading. As I have mentioned in my other contributions biosecurity is vitally important to our country to our primary sectors. It is about protecting our industries our regions our brand and our pa. I use that descriptive term because it is a battle that goes on every day at our border where we have our visitors coming through our airports and goods that come through our ports and the flows that happen every day. So it is an ongoing battle that goes on and we need the best biosecurity systems in the world. 
I know that the Minister for Primary Industries does say that we do have a world-class biosecurity system and that must be the aspiration that we want to achieve. Unfortunately we have seen some really serious mishaps particularly over the past couple of years with some serious pest incursions as Mr Simpson has just spoken about. We have had the Psa virus affecting the kiwifruit industry and some other serious incursions such as the fruit fly from Queensland. The varroa bee mite was another one that has come through. 
We need to protect our pa and Labour does support this legislation. We have supported it right the way through. We have expressed a lot of reservations around particular things like the Government-industry agreements but on the whole we do support the bill because there were a lot of aspects around our biosecurity systems that needed updating amending and improving and they are incorporated into the bill which we have supported. 
As Mr McKelvie mentioned though there can be the most elegantly drafted piece of legislation that has all the bells and whistles in it but it is actually the resourcing that underpins that legislation that is vitally important. So I do differ from Mr McKelvie because it is the resourcing of our biosecurity system that has faced significant cuts under this Government. Hence we have heavyweights from right across our primary sector that have been really upset at the amount of cuts that have happened to the biosecurity sector and right across the board. I am talking about organisations like Federated Farmers Horticulture New Zealand and New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers. They have said that there need to be fundamental changes to the biosecurity system and there needs to be more resourcing put into the system. 
What we have seen under this current Government is a relaxing of our biosecurity system. The Government wants to make things easier. It wants to make travel tourism trade and the importing of goods a lot easier for business so it has lowered the cost of our biosecurity system and our model and it is putting more of an emphasis on risk management rather than risk prevention. Well if the Government listened to our primary sector industries which are saying we need to put the emphasis right on protecting our pa if it listened to Federated Farmers and to those other esteemed industry organisations that represent the primary sector it would hear them saying that we need to beef up the funding and the resourcing that goes into biosecurity. 
We need only to look at things like what the industry is calling for—100 per cent X-ray checking of all baggage through all our airports and sniffer dogs. We all travel regularly in and out of Wellington Airport. I have not seen one little beagle sniffer dog for years. We also need an increase in biosecurity staff. We have seen a 12 percent reduction in front-line biosecurity staff under this Government yet we have seen a 14 percent increase in the amount of international visitors so there have definitely been cuts to the resourcing of the biosecurity system. So that is what we do challenge the Government on. 
We do understand that this piece of legislation is long overdue. A lot of the measures in the legislation were created under the Labour Government so we do commend this bill at its third reading but we implore the Government to further resource the biosecurity sector. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 This evening there has been a fair amount of self-congratulation from some of the Government members. I just want to begin by correcting a logical error that has appeared in several of their speeches and that is that finding a pest finding the Queensland fruit fly in Mount Roskill is not evidence that the system works. It is evidence that the system is not a complete failure. We actually do not know how good our system is. We do know that there have already been some very substantial and dangerous incursions and that we have ample evidence of the risk of many others. 
What I wanted to spend the bulk of my time on this evening was an aspect of this issue of biosecurity that has not been explored in the debate tonight on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill and that is the importance of biosecurity not for our primary industries but for our natural biodiversity. I have said previously in debates on this bill and on other biosecurity measures that the flora and fauna of this country are unique in the world. If they do not survive here they are lost to the world for ever. So the consequences of biosecurity risks are not only to the primary industries—and I am sure that everybody in the House shares concern about those—but also to the natural world and yet this bill and the measures it includes and all of the thinking that underpins it have been largely silent on that issue. 
Why is that a problem? It is a problem because of the consequence of targeting. When we choose to target a particular set of measures or a particular set of issues we are implicitly choosing to de-target everything else. What that means is that when we target even more the primary industries through this bill we are placing even less emphasis on the importance of protecting our natural biodiversity and that is a major problem. It is also a problem within the measures of the bill because one of the things that I anticipate and confidently predict will occur under this bill is that with these Government-industry agreements those sectors that are able to afford a significant investment into such agreements will be the ones that get the great treatment from our biosecurity services and those sectors that cannot will not get that same service. Conservation of our natural biodiversity will be at the very end of the queue. 
But the consequences of this bill for conservation are worse still than those that I have mentioned. One of the provisions of this bill will bind the Crown to regional pest plans. That in and of itself is not a problem—in fact it is probably a good thing to do—but that new obligation which will have at the very least a multimillion-dollar impact and liability on the Department of Conservation does not come matched with the funding to be able to meet that obligation. What it means is that in addition to effectively less protection from biosecurity risks for our conservation estate for our natural biodiversity—in addition to that problem—there will also be effectively a major funding cut to the Department of Conservation because funds that were intended to protect our natural biodiversity through Vote Conservation will be lost to the sector. So there will be multiple problems for conservation. 
I want to finish by talking briefly about free trade because it seems to me that in many ways biosecurity is the victim of the obsession with free trade that seems to have gripped this country—in several ways. No one argues that there is enough money to pay for all of the things that one could possibly do to protect our country from biosecurity risks. But given unlimited risks that are proportional to the amount of stuff that we import and limited dollars the logical rational response would be to take whatever steps we can to restrict the imports. We do not do that because of the obsession with free trade. The Green Party opposes the bill. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 It is my great pleasure to take what I think is the last call in this third reading debate on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. I want to firstly thank Mr Mallard for reminding me before the dinner hour that every call slot is precious. This bill has been well canvassed on its third reading and I commend it to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 95 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 26 
Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill signals the Government’s support for police officers and corrections officers who are the community’s first line of defence against dangerous offenders. It will ensure that the courts regard an offence against these law enforcement officers as an aggravating factor at sentencing. Although the current law includes a number of offences specific to police and corrections officers the most serious assaults are dealt with as generic offences such as attempted murder or wounding with intent to injure. There is no requirement on the court to take special notice of the fact that the victim was a law enforcement officer. This bill will mean that every judge must consider the fact that an offence has been committed against a police or corrections officer as an aggravating factor when sentencing the offender. 
As I confirmed at the Committee of the whole House stage the Government is supporting Charles Chauvel’s Supplementary Order Paper 14 providing an additional aggravating factor for emergency services providers. This will include doctors nurses paramedics ambulance officers and firefighters attending emergencies. The Government recognises that front-line emergency workers attending emergency situations deserve special protection in a similar way to police and corrections officers acting in the course of their duties. 
All of these front-line staff have to work in highly dangerous situations in the course of their everyday duties. Police officers and corrections officers are exposed to danger because they deal with the most dangerous people in our society. When we as ordinary people encounter dangerous situations we call the police to deal with them. When offenders are removed from our community to prison corrections officers have the responsibility for the safe custody of these individuals. When our friends relatives or community members are in an accident or their house catches fire it is the other first responders whom we expect to save them. These front-line officers and emergency workers cannot leave when a situation gets too dangerous or risky because their jobs require them to protect and to save the lives of others. These workers are the first and last port of call and for that reason we are making sure that the law recognises the importance of the contribution they make to society. I commend this bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge the tribute that the Minister of Justice just paid to front-line emergency workers. I think it is certainly one that I would want to associate myself with. The Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill as originally drafted as she noted would have expressly provided that an assault on a police officer or corrections officer would have to be taken into account as an expressly aggravating factor by a sentencing judge in the act of sentencing. 
I proposed a Supplementary Order Paper that recognised that just as police and corrections officers do a job where they have no choice about putting themselves on to the front line and into positions of danger and do that job admirably and in a way that society ought to always remember with gratitude emergency front-line responders in the health system are required to go to accidents and firefighters have a similar duty. They are not given the option of saying “Well no I’m not going to go to that call out; I’m not going to attend that fire.” They also serve without choice under the terms of their engagement in difficult situations and they ought to have the same recognition for that as others who in their professional circumstances are in the same position. So I am pleased that the Government is supporting Supplementary Order Paper 14 in my name which will extend that recognition to emergency front-line medical responders and to those in the Fire Service be they volunteers or otherwise. 
This legislation expands on an existing provision in the Sentencing Act. The legislation already provides that the judge is to take into account any aggravating or mitigating factor that the judge thinks fit in addition to the specific factors listed in section 9 already. I see no harm in making express that one of those aggravating factors ought to be an assault on a person whose job gives them no choice as to whether they put themselves into harm’s way. That is the basis upon which the Labour Opposition associates itself with and supports this legislation. In doing so we accept that the evidence is mixed on whether sentencing actually has much of deterrent effect. The jury as it were is still out on that question. But it seems to us that there is no harm associated with a measure that confers the recognition that this legislation does and so I am pleased to commend this bill to the House on its third reading. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge and thank the members of the Law and Order Committee who worked in a collegial fashion on this bill which was a relatively simple bill to consider with a relatively narrow scope. The committee received 11 submissions on this bill from interested groups and we heard I think something like four submitters. 
I am pleased also to endorse the comments of the Minister of Justice Judith Collins who said that it is this Government’s intention to recognise the work of the police and corrections staff and also doctors nurses Fire Service and emergency services people whose job it is—and this was expressed to us quite clearly through one of the submissions—to walk towards trouble. 
The rest of us have the luxury of seeing an event happening and being able to stand aside. Most of us would not of course—we would do what we could to help—but we do have the option of stepping away and leaving the way clear for the emergency services to step in and deal with whatever it is that they have to deal with. Of course those police corrections and emergency services people do not have that option. They do not have that option because they do not want that option. They do not want that option because that is why they are in there doing the jobs that they do. 
Charles Chauvel mentioned whether or not this bill provided a deterrent to assaults upon those people who are named in this bill. I hope that the provisions of this bill will provide a deterrent but more important than that it sends the signal that the New Zealand Parliament supports the work values the work and recognises the work that these people do on all our behalf in New Zealand. 
I am very pleased to support this bill. Once again I want to thank the officials who worked well with the select committee. Once again I want to thank the New Zealand Parliament and the parliamentarians on the Law and Order Committee who supported this bill and I commend it to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I too rise to support the final reading of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. I am pleased that the Government has moved to add to the aggravating factors to be taken into account by a sentencing judge the fact that the victim was a constable or prison officer acting in the course of his or her duty and also for adopting Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of my colleague Charles Chauvel which includes as an aggravating factor the fact that the victim was an emergency health or a Fire Service provider acting in the course of his or her duty at the scene of an emergency. The reason I am pleased that these matters have been attended to is that they do place on the record really of the House the importance of the front-line activities that these hard-working members of our community undertake and the risks that are posed when they do put themselves in harm’s way when they are actually trying to help people. 
When I discussed the issue of the emergency health and fire service providers with my colleague Charles Chauvel we were both very much aware of individual firefighters and people who worked in the emergency health area particularly ambulance officers who had found themselves in a situation where they were trying to assist people and in fact were not able to provide that assistance because of the resistance that they met from the individual concerned. Can I say to this House that in every single one of those cases alcohol was involved. Serious quantities of alcohol had been consumed before either an accident ensued or a crash or indeed a major assault. To that occasion would be brought the first responders of the emergency health sector and in these instances they would be our ambulance officers. 
To hear ambulance officers talk about being assaulted as they attempted to resolve difficult situations as a result of the amount of alcohol that had been consumed was kind of a double whammy. Here we are talking about what a judge has to take into account when sentencing somebody after that assault has taken place and the consequences have been carried by that individual and their family instead of actually at the front end talking about the alcohol-related issues that this country has failed to face up to year after year after year after year. 
I know that we are going to be debating in this House the Alcohol Reform Bill and I have to say to this House that it does not go far enough. It will not resolve this problem here that we are having to confront with the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff shall I say literally in this case rather than the fence at the top of the cliff which would have much more control over the amount of alcohol that is in our communities and is causing so much violence so many injuries and hardship right across the board not only from those who have consumed too much but also obviously for those who are the victims of their actions as a result. 
I would actually call upon the Government to think very seriously about some of the amendments that we are proposing to the Alcohol Reform Bill and we have taken it on as individual members of Parliament—and I will keep to the point which is that if people are going to end up having to go to the scenes of emergencies as we are talking about in this bill here we have to seriously think about maybe some of the aggravating factors that are involved in bringing people to that particular situation. 
Leaving the front end of it aside can I say also that I have spoken also to a number of volunteer firefighters who have found themselves in exactly the same situation where they have turned up on the front line in order to assist and found themselves in the situation where they are confronted by people who do not want them to assist for whatever reason. There may be circumstances relating to a particular occasion that has caused the fire to occur and so they find themselves in this incredibly difficult situation. I really do support the fact that these aggravating factors are to be taken into account. 
I would like to make a comment to the member who just spoke Jacqui Dean. She said that she hoped that this law around sentencing would have a deterrent effect. I can say from all of the experience that I have and certainly with all of the literature that I have read on the subject that sentencing has almost no deterrent impact unfortunately. I actually remember— 
Mike Sabin 
: We won’t bother having any sentencing then. We won’t bother having any sentences if that’s the case. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The member might want to listen to this. I remember a very interesting speech that David Lange once made in this House. He said that if you really wanted to have a deterrent sentence that actually resulted in 100 percent compliance with that particular law then you would introduce the death penalty for parking offences. I think the point that he was making was that deterrents operate on the basis of the knowledge of the behaviour and the consequences the risk of getting caught and the consequences of getting caught. The higher the risk of getting caught and the more outrageous really the consequences of getting caught are as he proposed in that particular scenario the much more likely it is that there would be compliance. 
He was simply making a point which I think is a valid point and it is that most of the sorts of crimes that we are talking about here are carried out in the heat of the moment. Nobody stops and thinks for a minute: “I am going to get caught for this particular illegal act and as a result of that I think that the judge is going to add some aggravating factors to my sentence.” Because that is not what happens very few of these kinds of sentences actually have a deterrent impact. 
So I do not support this legislation for its deterrent impact; I actually support this legislation for what it says about our police and our emergency workers as they work on the front line for us. I just want to quote something that a judge said about them and this is why I think we should support the legislation. It was a comment from the High Court where they were describing the attack on a police officer. This is the quote: “as ‘equivalent to an attack on the community because our police are the representatives of the community in the matter of law and order in society. They are society’s frontline.’” I think that is the strongest argument for this law that you could possibly have. 
So it is not that the law provides a deterrent effect; it does not. The truth is that people do not take the sentence into account when they commit a crime. What I am saying is that we should support the law not for deterrents but because it says that society believes in what they are doing recognises that they are our representatives in the matter of law and order in society and therefore it is actually a statement by society to those who offend against these people while they are acting in the course of their duty of how offensive that is to us as a society. So that is why I think we should support this legislation but do not think for one minute that it will prevent an offence from taking place. What it will do is state very clearly what we as a society think is highly worthwhile work that requires our House to make a very strong statement about it. 
We support this bill. I am very pleased that my colleague Charles Chauvel was able to bring the wider context to this House and that the Government was gracious enough to accept that the bill was improved by the addition of our front-line health workers. On that basis I certainly support the passage of this bill. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. The Green Party will be supporting this bill. It is a short bill with a perfectly reasonable aim. As we have heard it seeks to ensure that an offence committed against a police officer or a prison officer acting in the course of their duties can be taken into account as an aggravating factor at sentencing and of course it was decided by this House to include emergency health professionals and fire services providers as suggested in Charles Chauvel’s Supplementary Order Paper 14. We supported that move as well and believe it did add to the bill considerably. 
That said I would like to take this opportunity to raise some issues regarding this bill. First of all there is actually little practical justification for it. Essentially what this bill provides for already occurs. My colleague David Clendon specifically noted what the Crown Law Office had opined in its review of the bill which I think is worth repeating. It said that “New Zealand sentencing decisions take into account the fact that a victim of an offence was a police officer or prison officer acting in the course of his or her duty as a matter of established practice. The Bill confirms the common law position.” 
So although we find it to be a slightly unnecessary piece of legislation to pass through this House we have opted to support what is the judicial practice of the day because not to support the bill would effectively be a vote of no confidence—it would be a vote against what is currently happening. 
Rethinking Crime and Punishment observed in its submission on this bill that there has been no evidence put forward that showed a significant increase in the number of assaults on prison officers or police officers—although had there been an increase in the number of assaults on prison officers or police officers that would have been cause for immense concern. But the lack of evidence does call into question the practical justification for bringing this bill at this point in time. Why is this the priority? Are there not other more effective things that the Government could be doing with its time? 
Seeing as this bill is here however we would have also liked to see a couple of additions to it in order to increase its scope and potentially its fairness. So as my colleague David Clendon has said although the bill does no harm in its current form it could do some good if these things had been more fully considered. 
Firstly although we agree and commend the intention to recognise the worth of police officers and prison officers and denounce offending against them—and I really have to acknowledge here the excellent comments made by the Hon Lianne Dalziel just previously—in fact it would be erroneous to believe that the aggravating factors in sentencing would result in any deterrence. There is simply not the evidence to suggest that and so we would not want to conflate that reason—deterrence—with the reason of denouncing offending against the important work that is done by prison officers and by police officers. So we simply do not see that the bill actually enhances their protection. 
Greater resources and more legislative emphasis on crime reduction has a much greater proven capacity to increase the security of society as a whole and we would be better served I think to focus on these measures rather than the very narrow scope of this particular bill. This would require of course a much more concerted effort however and I accept that this bill could not possibly deal with it on its own. But for all that it could make some effort in that direction. 
In terms of fairness the bill essentially enshrines the interpretation that offences against specific public servants in the line of their duty ought to be treated more severely by the courts. There is certainly an argument to be made given all we do in this House to acknowledge the importance and worth of police officers and prison officers. However we should note that with the protection of those in a position of authority there should be a similar and equal responsibility. We call this reciprocity. 
Police officers and prison officers most certainly fulfil an important function and serve in a position of authority. They are often placed in harm’s way and they deserve protection against that harm. In turn if they are found to have committed an offence we might consider it only fair that their actions also be considered an aggravating factor in their sentencing should it reach that point on the basis that their position of authority bears that very significant level of responsibility. If their rights are enshrined within the law so too should be their responsibilities. 
I also mentioned earlier a matter of scope and I would like to turn to that now. The New Zealand Public Service Association made the point in its submission that there are a wide range of hugely important public sector roles that will not enjoy the protection or recognition that this bill contains for police officers and prison officers. So we are pleased that the bill has been extended to include emergency health and fire services providers but there are still plenty of public service providers who are left out: mental health workers social workers noise control officers paramedics ambulance drivers—I think actually ambulance drivers might be included—animal control officers and fisheries officers to name just a few of those who are not going to be included. They all perform a vital public service and they run the risk of harm to their person during the performance of their duties. 
The submission said that “PSA workers in a range of front-line occupations including ACC customs and social workers are regularly subject to assault.” Although this bill does not necessarily diminish their worth it certainly does nothing to advance it. We would have liked to see a much broader brush applied with this legislation always keeping in mind of course the principle of reciprocity. 
Despite the issues I have raised I would like to emphasise again that the Green Party will be supporting the bill. It does no harm in that it simply enshrines in law what was already happening in practice. But it also represents a lost opportunity. There is a lot of time and effort that goes into preparing considering and progressing a bill however short it is. We firmly believe that time could have been better spent genuinely advancing the protection of police officers and prison officers or broadening the scope of aggravating factors to include the vocation of a wide range of public service providers who similarly encounter the threat of violence in the performance of their duties. We owe a duty of thanks and care to them just as we do to prison officers and police officers. I hope that in the future we do not leave them out. Thank you. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 This bill the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill makes some very welcome changes to the Sentencing Act. I note that it has got pretty much cross-party support amongst the members of this House and it will be good to see this bill passed into legislation. 
Police officers play an important role in the community; so do prison officers in keeping those behind bars still there. Emergency services and Fire Service officers play an important public role in helping us in times of need. It is important that the sentencing factors taken into account by the judiciary recognise their public role and recognise the important nature of their jobs and if offences are committed against them then it certainly should be an aggravating factor. 
I was not intending on saying very much on this bill but I do wish to pick up on some of the comments of the last speaker Julie Anne Genter. I find myself following her again and wishing to disagree with some of her comments. I do not think this bill is unnecessary. She asked whether or not there was evidence that this was necessary. I have not had a long time to pull out a huge number of statistics in the few minutes I have had but let me give the House just a few. In the 5 years to the end of the last decade total assaults on police increased by a third from 1869 to 2481 while serious assaults increased by 38 percent from 298 to 412. Also attacks on corrections officers have increased. In the same period the number of assaults increased from 151 to 304—that is a doubling of attacks on corrections officers. 
 Certainly there will be a number of judges out there who already quietly take these points into account and treat them as an aggravating factor but I think it is important in order to do justice to the police officers the prison officers and the emergency services personnel that we do enshrine this in legislation and do put in the Sentencing Act the fact that assaults against these people and any crimes against these individuals who are there to serve and protect us are wrong. Certainly I look forward to this House hopefully unanimously passing the bill. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has always put the safety of our police and prison officers as a high priority so we will of course support the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill and with some enthusiasm. With an increase in the severity of assaults on police and prison officers in recent years we do acknowledge the need for a strong deterrent. In this I would have to disagree somewhat with my friend Lianne Dalziel because I think that in the case of inmates in prisons who assault prison officers they may well—in fact I think they will—be deterred if they know that the sentence is likely to be significantly more severe than for an assault on any other member of the public. In addition to that of course Parliament itself needs to reinforce the fact that the community will not tolerate assaults on police officers or on prison officers either. That is just as important. 
We do support the bill although we are disappointed at the Law and Order Committee’s refusal to extend the scope of the coverage for the bill. We note that the aggravating factors to be considered for other people working with prisoners have not been taken into account. They need protection just as much as prison officers do. Other employees of the Department of Corrections will not be covered by the bill even though they may well be subjected to an assault or harmed by an inmate in a similar way. They will be excluded simply because they do not come within the title “prison officer” even though they still have duties to carry out—for example rehabilitation work with inmates in prisons—and that means they are in daily contact with the inmates. 
I am told that the ratio of corrections staff to prisoners is one prison officer to 20 prisoners. Asenati Lole-Taylor was one such person. She tells me that most times she was on her own when working with up to 30 and sometimes 44 prisoners without a prison officer being present and often was called upon to defuse situations amongst some of the prisoners where prison officers could not resolve the situation or settle the prisoners down. You can see that people such as those who were in the position that Asenati Lole-Taylor was in would be just as much at risk of an assault as a warranted prison officer yet for some reason they are not covered by this bill. In her job she was doing exactly the same as if not more than prison officers were yet that work is not taken into account in the bill. It could in fact be perceived by some as a discrimination against those other staff who do not hold warrants as prison officers. 
Although I applaud the Minister of Justice’s decision to extend the scope of the bill to cover emergency services workers I certainly do not applaud the decision not to cover people who work in prisons but are not warranted prison officers. You see the rationale seems to be that the aggravating factors should cover in addition to police warranted prison officers because they are in contact with prisoners and therefore may be assaulted. Well that is the case with those other people working in prisons too yet they are not covered by the bill. So it just does not make sense in that way and that is the source of our disappointment with it. The only reason that I can see as having been given for not extending the scope of the bill in that way is simply that it was not intended to do that in the first place. That is a totally inadequate reason. If it is appropriate to extend it now at this late stage to emergency workers then I would have thought that it should be extended to other people working in prisons who have contact with prisoners but who are not covered because they are not warranted prison officers. 
Although New Zealand First supports the idea behind the bill we think that we need to pay attention to the issue that I have raised. We also ask in addition to that whether the training programmes with police and the prison officers are adequate to assist in avoiding assaults on police officers and prison officers. We think that it would be wise to invest in resources to improve this and that that should be a high priority as well. We believe in a no-nonsense approach for those who lack respect for persons who uphold and enforce the law—in particular those who work in prisons; not just warranted prison officers and police—but we do not think that this bill by itself will be likely to change anything unless additional training and resources for prison officers especially are given. We feel that that is an area that is lacking. 
However with those reservations that I have mentioned especially the lack of coverage for people who work in prisons who are not warranted prison officers New Zealand First does believe that it is a necessary piece of legislation and that it will make a contribution to the safety of the police and people who are warranted prison officers working for the community in prisons. For those reasons New Zealand First will certainly vote in favour of the bill. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Throughout my time in public life the No. 1 priority for our communities has been law and order and the public safety and security of our communities. So I guess finding myself on the Law and Order Committee when I came to Parliament has become a new challenge for me. I think it is something that is well worth looking after and doing as much work as we can to improve the lot of people working in the sector. 
The Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill certainly does that. For those men and women working in our emergency services our law enforcement services in the rural sector it is quite an intimidating place to be out on a dark night on a lonely road attending road accidents and whatever else. So I think that although this bill aims to give added protection to all of those people it hopefully gives new confidence to those people who serve in rural New Zealand because they certainly have a lonely time and an intimidating time at times. 
I have no problem supporting the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill at its third reading. I think it is a good piece of legislation. I think it is hopefully going to give new confidence to those people who serve in the sector and it is hopefully going to act as some form of deterrent. I know we have had that discussion tonight. With those few words I have great pleasure in supporting this bill. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 I have a copy of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill in my hand and as the House will see it is paper-thin. It is one page—two-sided but one page. And I have to say that Supplementary Order Paper 14 is the same length but it actually has more substance and will make more change than the bill itself. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Oh harsh. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No I want the member to listen to this and then the National Party can reply—if it has any reply but I guarantee that it does not. 
The Minister of Justice’s speech at each stage of this bill has barely gone 3 minutes and that is an indication that there is not actually anything in the Minister’s bill itself that will make a material difference in practice. It will not make a difference in practice. What actually makes this bill worthwhile is Supplementary Order Paper 14 introduced by Charles Chauvel my colleague because it does extend the sort of attitude that an assault on a police officer or a prison officer is regarded by the courts as an aggravating factor to other front-line personnel to emergency workers such as fire staff and medical staff. 
 I have to say that I am strongly in favour of that. When I spent a night—into the early hours of the morning or late into the morning actually—at Auckland City Hospital I was told by the doctors there that every Friday and every Saturday night their medical staff are subject to assault by drunken people. That is maybe something this House should consider when we are looking at another piece of legislation the Alcohol Reform Bill. So it is important to extend the sort of recognition to other people at the front line doing their job that Charles Chauvel’s Supplementary Order Paper actually does. 
But I want to come back to the regulatory impact statement. This statement as you are aware is produced by the Government’s advisers the Ministry of Justice. And what does that regulatory impact statement say? Well first of all it says that in certain circumstances legislation explicitly sets out that an attack on police officers or prison officers is an aggravating factor. For the worst offence for example the murder of a prison officer or a police officer there is not any fuzzy statement that the court “should take into account”. It directs the court. It makes it mandatory that the life sentence for murder must begin with at least 17 years. We put that legislation in and it is justifiable. If anybody kills a police officer or a prison officer in the course of their duty of course it is an aggravating factor and it should be treated as such. Further the Crimes Act makes specific reference to the use of firearms against an officer or an aggravated attack. 
But in the Sentencing Act we did not explicitly include that an attack on police officers or prison officers should be regarded as an aggravating factor. Section 9(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002 does run a list of factors that the court must take into account but it is not exhaustive. It does not specifically include an attack on police or prison officers. But section 9(4) of the Sentencing Act covers that. It says that the court may take any other aggravating factor that it thinks fit into account. That is what it says in section 9(4) of the Sentencing Act. And the Ministry of Justice in its regulatory impact statement says that because a factor is listed under section 9(1) does not imply that it should be given any extra weight by the court. In fact it says “there is no impediment to the court regarding the fact that an offence is committed against a police officer or prison officer is an aggravating factor under the current law.” It says it explicitly: the court can regard that now as an aggravating factor. 
Not only can the court regard it as that but also common law shows that the court is doing that. It is doing it right now. In 1985 there was the case of  
R v Tua 
. The judgment of the High Court set out something that I agree with completely. It described an attack on a police officer as “equivalent to an attack on the community because our police are the representatives of the community in the matter of law and order in society. They are society’s front line …”. So there you have in a case 27 years ago explicit recognition by the High Court that any attack on a police officer or a prison officer should be regarded as an aggravating factor and is regarded as an aggravating factor. So this bill does not change current practice. 
One has to ask why the Minister brought a bill into the House that does not change what is already happening. The Court of Appeal has backed up the High Court in this. It has emphasised the gravity of using serious violence against the police and it has upheld sentences that could be regarded as deterrent sentences. I worry about the use of that term “deterrent sentences” because as much as I have read of how sentences impact on criminal behaviour I have not seen any evidence that the sentence acts as a deterrent. Time will prove that this piece of legislation brought in by the Minister will not change the gravity of the sanctions imposed against offenders who attack police and prison officers because that is already an aggravating factor. They are already doing it. 
There is a whole lot more in the regulatory impact statement that makes the point time and again—time and again—that this bill will not change the practice. One wonders about a Minister who brings in a bill complete with a regulatory impact statement from her own department that says that it will make no difference. It talks about the “limited nature of the proposal”. It says that “Offending against law enforcement officers has long been taken into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing at common law.” It says that this bill does not and cannot direct the court to take any specific action. So my challenge to the National Government is that in bringing in this legislation where is there a skerrick of evidence in its own ministry’s regulatory impact statement that says that this bill will make any difference in practice? 
I come back to the statement that I began with: the thing that will make a difference is actually the Supplementary Order Paper that was moved by my colleague. It is not a practice in common law to take into account that an attack on an emergency officer a fire officer or a medical officer should be regarded as an aggravating factor. So that will actually make a difference. I congratulate my colleague on that and I acknowledge the good sense of the Minister in adopting that Supplementary Order Paper into her bill. I think she knows that the bill was empty of any substance and she grasped with great enthusiasm a Supplementary Order Paper moved by a Labour MP that actually added a little bit of substance into the bill. 
I have to say that whatever legislation we pass we have to ask how much difference it will make. Is there a problem? Yes there is a problem. The level of attacks on police and prison officers has been increasing in recent times and that is something that should be of concern to every member of this House. But I have to say that if you are looking to make a difference the fact that the Labour Government in its last term of office increased the police numbers by over 1000 actually made a difference. How many extra police officers did the National Government bring in in its last 3 years not including those who were funded in the 2008 budget? I will tell you: it is a handful—just a handful. 
 So if you are looking at a Government that actually makes a difference in protecting the police and increasing their numbers it is a Labour Government that has done it. If you look at a Government that respects the role of police officers and prison officers by giving them reasonable wage increases it is a Labour Government that has done it. What this Government has just introduced by way of police salary increases does not even meet the level of inflation. What the Labour Government did was bring in real legislation—the Sentencing Act the Parole Act the proceeds of crime Act—not superficial frivolous politically oriented legislation which is what this Government is about. 
I congratulate Charles Chauvel. I say we will support this bill but there is not a member in the National Government who can point to any evidence at all that what they have proposed will make a skerrick of difference in sentencing practice. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Under Labour serious assaults against police officers increased from 216 in 1999 to 412 in 2009. Labour had 9 long years to introduce changes to help keep our law enforcement officers safe but it chose not to. Under Labour violent crime increased by 47 percent. Mr Goff this actually was not part of my speech but I have to say that I acknowledge your service and I acknowledge you as a member of our Law and Order Committee but I feel your comments have been very ungracious towards your Minister who has brought an excellent bill the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill to the House. 
I also congratulate Charles Chauvel because it is an excellent Supplementary Order Paper. I just want to say that last week I did actually attend the Rodney volunteer firefighters awards. What strikes me about this and why I feel this Supplementary Order Paper is so good is that I highlight the fact that they are volunteers. They are first responders and when they are responding they are dealing with motor vehicle accidents they are dealing with fires they are dealing with incidents where there are intoxicated people and they deserve to have the same protection wrapped round them as our police officers and corrections officers and also of course Supplementary Order Paper 14 includes front-line health service providers as well. So I do congratulate Mr Chauvel on his Supplementary Order Paper. 
I would just like to speak about the fact that one of the points Mr Chauvel raised was that he does not feel that this bill is actually going to make any difference in terms of sentencing. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I said the jury is out on that. 
MARK MITCHELL 
: OK he said the jury is out on that. Well I would just like to talk about something a little bit personal to me. I did spend several years as a first responder. I had a very good partner—probably the most loyal partner I have ever had. He was stabbed twice he lost an eye and he had to have surgery to have it put back in he was beaten up kicked and punched and they tried to drown him once and he was not protected by any form of legislation. The only protection he had was under the laws in relation to the SPCA. There was actually a law brought in that made it an offence to assault or kill a police dog. This immediately did wrap some protections round him. All of a sudden he did have some protection and this did make a difference. This made a difference to me it made a difference to my family and it made a difference to members of the public. 
I just wanted to use that as an example of the fact that he was not a dog that sat at home. He was not a family pet. He was actually a dog that went out night after night and put himself in danger chasing offenders pursuing gang members and pursuing the most violent people in our society actually. He was probably a first first responder so he deserved to have more respect and more protection wrapped round him than those dogs that we have sitting at home as our companions. I think exactly the same can be applied to this bill here. Our first responders the people who are going out there who are serving us and who are protecting us deserve to have a bit more protection wrapped round them and this is what this bill does. I commend Minister Collins for bringing this bill to the House. Thank you. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. Like my colleagues I simply make the point that of course it is great to have an opportunity to support those who take on the very hazardous very difficult roles in our community of providing security and safety to the people in our community which is something that Minister Finlayson finds enormously humorous obviously. These are the people who take on a trusted role and a difficult role and they are entitled at least from the lawmakers of this country to have a signal of support and confidence. 
The problem is that until Charles Chauvel’s Supplementary Order Paper 14 this legislation did not have that. This legislation as my colleague Phil Goff has talked about did not add anything to the fabric of our criminal law. We have laws already that deal specifically with crimes against certainly police officers and also prison officers—for example section 10 of the Summary Offences Act which is a specific crime of assault against a police officer and also section 23 of the Summary Offences Act which relates to resisting either a police officer or a prison officer. We also have in addition to the provisions that Phil Goff talked about section 98E of the Crimes Act which provides for a broad range of aggravating factors as escalating or elevating a particular crime. So that is already there including those provisions that the regulatory impact statement refers to and it is entirely appropriate. 
The courts should take cognisance of the fact that a victim is a serving officer who is dealing with those who would commit crime and who would undermine the fabric of our society and our communities and they should be dealt with and treated accordingly. Those who are there to uphold and enforce our laws must be given proper protection in the law by the judiciary and indeed by this House. But that was already there. Until this piece of legislation was changed in the Committee stage in this House to incorporate protections for other front-line emergency staff it added nothing. It is important that when we utilise the important institution that is this House and its time and the time of the people in it we actually do something that is meaningful rather than the gesture politics that we have become so used to over the last few years. So it is good that that amendment was put forward and it is good that the Minister of Justice accepted it in good grace saw the wisdom of it adopted the change and incorporated it into the legislation. 
For those who are dealing with people in the community who—whether they are drunk at the time whether they are unwell at the time or for whatever other reason—become violent and difficult and commit crimes against the person and whatever other crimes against those who are there to assist those in need in the community there must be a signal that those sorts of actions will not be tolerated by the community. There must be a community sanction and this piece of legislation now does that. Those who are charged with those important responsibilities of preserving community safety and providing help and assistance—first response—must be afforded that protection. 
Those who are working in our prisons—and let us face it serious assaults in prisons have been escalating rapidly over the last few years. I know that Jami-Lee Ross and indeed Mark Mitchell talked about the rise in assaults on police officers but in fact the figures that relate to assaults on prison officers over the same period have been much more dramatic with a 100 percent increase in assaults on prison officers over that same 5-year period and a 120 percent increase in serious assaults on prison officers over that time. 
Although it is good that this legislation acknowledges that and will acknowledge and take into account in sentencing now the fact that the victim is a prison officer let us not get complacent about the real demand and the real need of prison officers—that is for good proper protective equipment and enough prison officers I might add too. It has been the claim of prison officers for some time that they need to be properly equipped with proper protective equipment and other gear that can assist them to restrain and manage the extraordinarily violent criminals who are entering the prison system and are increasingly becoming a problem. We need to be cognisant of that. This legislation will send a signal that when it comes to sentencing people who behave in that way in the custody of Her Majesty at least that might make a difference. But as we know an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure and it might help our prison officer population if we actually focused on a bit of prevention as opposed to cure through the sentencing process. So it is good that the legislation as it appears now before the House has taken that into account. 
It has also offered greater protection for those who are sent out to preserve life to pick people up and to scrape them up off the roads. It is important to protect them through the signals through sentencing from being assaulted and obstructed and harassed as they sometimes are and that there is proper recognition given to the important role that they play and the protection that they are entitled to have when they are going about their difficult jobs. It was only in today’s tabloid  
New Zealand Herald 
—with the big giant “H” on the front of it—that a report ran about the ambulance officers in Auckland. A lone ambulance officer was assaulted and confronted and she had to push her assailant out of the ambulance and drive to the nearest police station to get protection. She as a lone ambulance officer simply should not be in that position. So this bill as the members opposite have said hopefully will help. I would like to think that we bank less on hope and more on certainty—planned certainty; good evidence-based legislation—but this is not a bad piece of legislation in the state that it is in thanks to the extensions that have now been added into it. 
I simply reiterate the point that in sentencing with regard to those important officials in our community who are victims of crime sending a signal through the sentencing laws to afford them greater protection is one thing. Putting in place proper measures to provide protection against and to provide prevention of assaults and harassment and violence would be a much more effective approach. Perhaps that might be the next project of this Minister and her colleague the Attorney-General when they come to review the laws and the resourcing of our front-line emergency personnel because that must be more important than—dare I use the pun—the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff that sometimes sentencing laws provide in these sorts of circumstances. 
On that basis as we have said this legislation in its form now before the House will afford a signal—a strong signal—to the courts that this conduct against these important people in our community is not to be tolerated. The legislation will be supported on that basis. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I will take a short call just to round off this particular debate on the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill and I want to touch on these points. 
I reject the notion that this provision is already provided for in legislation. This bill explicitly provides in legislation an aggravating factor for these particular people and I think that is a good thing. In terms of the deterrent which I will come back to I also think it will have a deterrent effect. I can certainly regale members with a situation that involved me that would allude to that. I joined the police in the mid-1990s the same day my brother joined the New Zealand Fire Service. He is still a serving firefighter and I resigned from the police in 2008. I spent time obviously as a front-line police officer as all sworn officers will do then became a detective and worked particularly in the drug area. I saw the growth of methamphetamine and with that saw an amazing increase in violent crimes and indeed assaults against police. 
Drivers of crime have been touched on. This bill is not necessarily going to do anything about those but it is another tool in the armoury if you like in terms of the many approaches that are required. As a serving police officer I was—to name a few—punched kicked spat at bitten assaulted with weapons and cut with a knife and I had a gun pointed at me. I was hit on a couple of occasions with full bottles over the head when I was working in team policing. Unfortunately I got to a point where it just became something I accepted as a police officer that I would be assaulted and that the impact of this was just something you had to suck up. I also worked with other serving police officers who had their arms broken and had their jaw broken and were beaten unconscious stabbed shot and run down and one was run over. On numerous occasions there were other incidents for which charges would not even be laid. 
The thing that I noticed as an individual police officer when I was assaulted was that the times that the charges were actually laid I cannot remember a single time when there was an additional penalty applied in the sentencing process. In fact on one occasion I recall an incident where a violent man with a knife would not leave his car. Dogs batons and sprays did not do that. I effected an entry through a window with a baton. He was wielding a knife I held his knife hand off and I was bitten in the arm. The charges were dismissed and at sentencing the judge made the comment that that is the sort of thing that goes with the territory of being a police officer and that it is just what a police officer needs to get used to. I reject that. I believe that swiftness and certainty play a huge role in deterrence and that the quicker an apprehension can be made and the more certain it is a consequence will be applied the more significant the effect is of deterrence. 
I would also like to add that with regard to the role of this bill sending a message to the community sending a message to police that we back them and sending a message to offenders they are not all at the hardest scale and end of offences but certainly there are many who will stop short and think: “Well if I clock this guy then that is going to be an extra black mark against my name.” Certainly in my experience this has already applied significantly with emergency services such as ambulance and fire but less frequently—far less frequently—with serving police officers. 
I commend the Minister of Justice for this bill. The other work that she has done both as justice Minister and police Minister—this Minister was a very very popular Minister of Police—has restored much to the spirit the heart and the morale of that service and it is in good heart now. I commend this bill to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Members this debate has concluded. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Party vote. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well OK a party vote is called for. I will ask the Clerk to do a party vote. The member must vote against it at the time. There was no one who voted against it at the time. That is why I said that the Ayes had it. Is the member wishing to cast a party vote? 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Yes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: And the member is voting against this bill? 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Mr Speaker I am exercising a proxy vote on behalf of the Mana Party which is voting against it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill aims to improve the administration and integrity of the jury system and also contains provisions that improve jurors’ safety and security. 
To improve the administration and integrity of the jury system a number of miscellaneous provisions were proposed in the bill including allowing for permanent excusals from jury service in certain circumstances requiring those sentenced to less than 3 months’ home detention to be excused or deferred from serving on a jury while subject to their sentence disqualifying those sentenced to home detention of 3 months or more within the previous 5 years from serving on a jury and removing references to corrective training as the sentence had been abolished. 
I would like to take a moment to go through the criteria for permanent excusals from jury service as the pivotal change has caused some comment. Clause 10 of the bill sets out when a permanent excusal from jury service is available. The registrar has discretion to grant permanent excusal from jury service if the person is so disabled or has such bad health that the person would never be able to discharge his or her duties as a juror. The registrar is obliged however to grant a permanent excusal if the person requesting it is aged 65 years or over. Much of the discussion on this bill has centred on the impact of permanent excusals for those aged 65 or over. In particular it has been alleged that this has negative impacts on the rights of older people or is ageism. Let me make this very clear: the Ministry of Justice receives thousands of requests a year from people aged 65 and over who want to be permanently excused from jury service. The bill explicitly responds to those requests and recognises that people aged 65 and over want the ability to be permanently excused. This is not something that happens unless they specifically ask for it. I do not accept that permanent excusal at the request of the person called for jury service is an erosion of their rights. It is quite the contrary. Just like the SuperGold card or universal superannuation it is not ageist it is not derogatory and it is not against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
This bill has had a long process going through the House and through the Law and Order Committee. There are in fact many changes to the bill that have been undertaken. I would like to commend the bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 This bill the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill was originally not accompanied by a regulatory impact statement or any regulatory impact analysis on the basis that the proposals set out in it were not expected to have any major impacts on businesses individuals and not-for-profit entities. But the Cabinet papers do reveal the fact that “Last year there was”—and I am quoting from the papers—“an incident where a self-represented accused corresponded with persons whose names and addresses were on the jury panel for his trial. This raised concerns about the safety of jurors”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.