Volume 610 Week 33 - Tuesday 12 August 2003 
Volume 610 Week 33 - Tuesday 12 August 2003 
[Volume:610;Page:7819] 
Tuesday 12 August 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Hon Allan McCready 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 8 August 2003 of the Hon Allan McCready QSO who represented the electorate of Otaki from 1960 to 1972 and that of Manawatu from 1972 to 1978. He was Minister of Defence in 1972 and from 1975 to 1978 and Minister of Police from 1975 to 1978. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Points of Order 
Question Time 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In response to oral questions last week Mr Rick Barker promised information that he was not able to provide last Wednesday in respect of the 35 claims before the Maori Land Court for foreshore and seabed. I have still not received that information 5 days later and I ask for your intervention to ensure that it is promptly provided. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a matter between the member and the Minister but he has brought it to the attention of the House and I will advise the Minister accordingly. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economic Development—Growth 
1. Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What steps has the coalition Government taken to develop a set of economic indicators that will objectively measure economic development and New Zealand’s growth? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 On Thursday of last week I released two Ministry of Economic Development reports. The first is on economic benchmark indicators. The second outlines the progress this coalition Government has made in assisting the New Zealand economy to prosper and develop. For the first time in New Zealand this coalition Government has compiled a set of 17 indicators that will measure objectively not just the health of the New Zealand economy but the progress we are making in continuing the high rates of growth we have achieved over the last 4 years. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: What are the key indicators? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Ministry of Economic Development has identified 17 indicators including labour productivity research and development gross domestic product educational attainment and international openness among many others that I do not have time to go into now. Labour productivity in New Zealand is low by OECD standards yet it is a key contributor to living standards. Although our labour productivity rates are still low they have picked up in the last few years. Our research and development particularly in the private sector has been low by international standards although recent trends are encouraging. 
John Key 
: Do the indicators include an 18th category of lunatic fringe policies and broken promises; if so what does the Minister predict will be the impact on economic growth of the Government’s impending support of 4 weeks’ minimum holiday legislation the imposition of 17 tax increases since 1999 and the current practice of giving huge lumps of corporate welfare to wealthy multinationals or deadbeat companies like Matauri X? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The proof of this pudding is in the eating and during question No. 5 this afternoon the Minister for Social Development and Employment will answer a question on some other indicators that are very positive. It behoves this House sometimes to celebrate success even if it is from political opponents and I wish the Opposition would start practising that. 
Mark Peck 
: In the light of the last question could the Minister tell the House what the significance of the indicators is? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Those indicators put the Government of New Zealand in the role of an honest broker as far as the economic performance of the country is concerned. Until now Governments have reported a series of statistical results over a range of factors which may or may not have significant impacts on our economy. For the first time we have identified those indicators that measure economic performance and that need to be developed so that New Zealand can continue to climb up the OECD ladder. 
Rod Donald 
: Which of those indicators will ensure that the Government can tell whether today’s growth is genuinely sustainable or is simply passing problems to the next generation as has been the case for example with dioxins contaminating soil and water chlorofluorocarbons damaging the ozone layer and greenhouse gas emissions changing the climate; if none of them do that when will the Government develop such indicators? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Not only has the Government developed measurements for economic development but also it has developed measurements for social development and will announce later this year some measures for cultural development. I think this Government can hold its head up very high in terms of the achievements it has made across the whole spectrum of development issues. New Zealand is better in terms of the well-being of its individuals the progress of its economic development the regions of the country being at such strength and the environment of New Zealand being in good heart and is looking to the future to build on the progress that has already been made. 
Rod Donald 
: When will the Government have economic indicators that ensure that the costs of crime accidents pollution and resource depletion do not add to growth and does he agree with the United Nations  
System of National Accounts  
handbook that it is important accurately to subtract the negatives in order to measure an economy’s real performance? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: That is the precise reason there are 17 economic indicators. There are social well-being indicators and there are cultural indicators and in my view all of them are pointing in the right direction. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Crown Ownership 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does her statement that “No one is going to get any new exclusive ownership to the foreshore and seabed.” mean that she will ensure that the Crown has exclusive title to the foreshore and seabed; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The Prime Minister’s statement means what it says. The member will just have to be patient. This is a more complex issue than simplistic billboard slogans allow for. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the issue is simple enough that the Prime Minister can state: “There will be no private ownership of the beaches and the seabed.” why can she not say whether there will be exclusive Crown ownership of the beaches and the seabed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member will just have to wait. But as I pointed out to him before legislating for Crown ownership would not prevent Maori customary rights as he seems to think it would. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Can the Prime Minister explain her introduction of the word “exclusive” into the foreshore and seabed debate; does it mean that the Crown will not allow any new title that has any degree of exclusivity to it such as the ability to demand rents for marine farming or is the Prime Minister using the word “exclusive” to mean that Labour is willing to see the creation of any new title over the foreshore and seabed provided that it is not 100 percent? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No and generally speaking apart from mussels etc. marine farms exist above the seabed not on it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a serious question as to whether it was one sort or the other and the answer I got was “No”. That cannot be an answer. I was asking the Prime Minister whether she could explain in what sense she was using the word “exclusive”. That answer cannot in any way address the question. I did not ask anything about where the foreshore limits are. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am quite happy to state that what the Prime Minister is referring to there is that the existence of freehold title which is possible under the present Maori Land Act system would provide exclusive rights of ownership. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that new exclusive ownership does not include Maori customary title which as a pre-1840 existing right is not new and as a tikanga-based collective form of ownership is certainly not exclusive; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Maori customary rights could only pertain to particular Maori in particular places for particular purposes. They could not possibly apply to all New Zealanders in the same way. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: When the Prime Minister told a press conference yesterday that some groups would be disappointed at the Government’s eventual decision to which groups was she referring? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Those on the extremes. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I’m pretty upset already. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the one interjection that is being warned about. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Government intend to legislate for exclusive Crown title to the beaches and the seabed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member will have to wait a few more days to see the Government’s proposals to their full extent. I do note that some 10 years ago in this context the member himself said that environmental groups and public access groups are the most openly racist groups in our society. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why would we be expected to have any confidence in this Government’s handling of this issue when by its own behaviour it has indicated its preference for one side of the debate—namely its consultation with some Maori to the exclusion of all other New Zealanders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In the Labour caucus we normally have discussions internally first then we go for public consultation outside. That is exactly what will be happening in this case. There will be full public consultation on the proposals which will be in the public arena. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: When the Government eventually announces its plans will they include plans to legislate definitions of Maori customary usage customary right and customary title; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In terms of Maori customary usage and Maori customary rights those are matters for iwi hapu and whanau groups to establish in front of the Maori Land Court. Clearly the main ones of those are already established in legislation in terms of the recognition in the Fisheries Act of Maori customary fishing rights. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is the Prime Minister able to say that no private title to beaches will be given but has been unable to say who will own those beaches—whether it is the Crown or someone else? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I suggest that the member do some more work investigating other jurisdictions. He may discover some interesting answers to that question. 
Local Government—Advocacy 
3.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he continue to stand by his statement that “As Minister of Local Government it is my responsibility and indeed my privilege to act as an advocate for local government.”? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Yes. 
Larry Baldock 
: In his role as advocate for local government has he had his officials undertake any research into the likely costs that will be imposed on local councils—and therefore passed on to ratepayers—as a result of the proposals in the dog control amendment bill such as new fencing requirements; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: My officials are examining the whole range of issues that come up in that particular legislation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: As the Minister considers himself to be an advocate for local government will he also concede that he should be an advocate for ratepayers; if so can he tell us what he has done for the ratepayers who come in the Auckland Regional Council area and who are facing rate increases of 34-plus percent? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Firstly I remind that member that I meet very regularly with ratepayer groups mayors and councillors but finally I will repeat what I said last week in answer to a related question: local authorities set their own rates and they are accountable for them. 
David Parker 
: What recent steps has the Minister taken in order to engage with local government? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: As I said just a few seconds ago I regularly meet with mayors and councillors. Yesterday I met with over 25 local authority representatives on infrastructure issues. This Friday I will meet with a large number of South Island mayors. Next week I will meet with mayors from the central North Island in Waipukurau and in 2 weeks’ time I will meet with mayors from the Manawatu area in Feilding. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Further to an earlier question will the Minister tell the House why his self-proclaimed enthusiastic advocacy for local government does not extend to the interests of ratepayers who are compelled to pay for it all? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I stand by what I said a few minutes ago. I am very happy to meet with ratepayer groups councillors and people who work in local government and I do so very regularly. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Aside from attending all those meetings does the Minister believe he is acting as a strong advocate for local government in proposing as he did in his reply to question No. 7 on 29 July that local government bodies should have no greater rights than any individual in New Zealand in the decision on whether genetically engineered organisms should be released in their areas; and will he reconsider this position as they have asked? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I would be the first to concede that I could do better and I will try harder. 
Larry Baldock 
: In his role as advocate for local government can he give this House an assurance that he will seek to minimise any additional consultation requirements for local councils that arise from proposals in the dog control amendment bill; and does he have any plans to secure central government funding to prevent additional costs from adding to the burden of ratepayers as may have been indicated this morning on  
Morning Report 
? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I could never be an advocate for minimal consultation. I believe that the people of New Zealand the ratepayers deserve as much consultation as possible and a chance to have their voices heard by their local authorities. 
Larry Baldock 
: In his role as advocate for local government has he had any discussions with the Minister for ACC regarding a nationwide education campaign for dog owners to improve on the 8677 reported dog-bite incidents that cost the Accident Compensation Corporation $967000 last year thereby saving the Accident Compensation Corporation and local authorities money and the additional burden of more regulation? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Government recognises that a public education campaign about dog safety is very important and we are doing just that. 
Larry Baldock 
: Therefore in his role as advocate for local government does he intend to take this matter up with the Minister for ACC; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The whole Cabinet has been involved in the discussion on the public campaign for dog safety. The Minister for ACC was a powerful voice in that discussion. 
New Zealand On Air— 
Edwards at Large 
4.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Did his predecessor the Hon Marian Hobbs receive any representation from Dr Brian Edwards advocating that New Zealand On Air fund a  
Larry King Live 
 meets  
Top of the Morning  
style television programme for himself and what funding did New Zealand On Air eventually provide to his programme  
Edwards At Large 
? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 There is no record of any such representation in either ministerial or departmental files. It has been brought to my attention this morning that Dr Edwards drafted a letter on 24 January 2000 to the Hon Marian Hobbs about a programme proposal he had put to Prime Television noting that Prime was not eligible for New Zealand On Air funding and his own view that this was an anomaly. There is no indication that the letter was ever signed or sent to the Hon Marian Hobbs. In 2003 New Zealand On Air allocated $190000 for 12 1-hour episodes of  
Edwards at Large. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand On Air originally turned down funding for Dr Edwards’ show only subsequently to fund his show after the Hon Marian Hobbs had appointed Dr Edwards’ wife Judy Callingham to the New Zealand On Air board; and how are the public supposed to escape the inevitable conclusion that Judy Callingham’s New Zealand On Air board position— 
Hon Bill English 
: It gets worse and worse every day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Leader of the Opposition is not immune from what every other member must go through. I want him to stand withdraw and apologise for interjecting. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Whilst the Leader of the Opposition did interject there were also several Labour members who interjected on the question whilst it was being asked—I see Mr Hide nodding—and I wonder why we have a different set of rules for those Ministers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have not—I did not hear any interjection. I heard a specific loud interjection from the Leader of the Opposition but I give a stricture to any member from now on that that is the final warning for the day. Perhaps Mr Hide could start his question again. 
Rodney Hide 
: Did New Zealand On Air originally turn down funding for Dr Edwards’ show only subsequently to fund his show after the Hon Marian Hobbs had appointed Dr Edwards’ wife Judy Callingham to the New Zealand On Air board; and how are the public supposed to escape the inevitable conclusion that Judy Callingham’s New Zealand On Air board position and New Zealand On Air funding for her and her husband’s Dr Brian Edwards’ new show is just payback for this Prime Minister’s and other Ministers’ media trainers? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In February 2000 New Zealand On Air declined an application for a Brian Edwards programme on Prime on the basis that Prime was not a national broadcaster. I am informed that Judy Callingham’s conflict of interest in this matter when the application was made in June 2003 was recorded at the start of the meeting in June 2003 she absented herself received no documentation took no part in the decision and the decision was made in a proper reviewable fashion. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What role if any does the Minister have in funding decisions by NZ On Air and in programming decisions by Television New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: None. Section 42(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 prevents the Minister from giving NZ On Air a direction in respect of funding a particular programme or gathering or presentation of news and current affairs while section 28(1) of the Television New Zealand Act 2003 forbids Ministers from giving a direction to Television New Zealand in respect of a particular programme or programmes or the gathering or presentation of news and current affairs. In summary that is why people can have confidence and that is why that scumbag comment should be treated in the way it has been treated. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that last sentence. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Katherine Rich 
: So is the Minister absolutely sure that former Minister of Broadcasting Marian Hobbs did not receive a letter from Dr Brian Edwards seeking NZ On Air funding for his show from an “enlightened Government and Minister of Broadcasting” or is this just another case of another document going missing as we have seen in the immigration portfolio? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The office of Marian Hobbs has no record of that letter. There is no evidence of a reply. There is no evidence of action taken because of that letter. There is nothing that shows that the Minister received that letter at all. In fact I understand that the letter Mr Duncan Garner has for example is an unsigned letter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Minister whether he understands that Larry King is someone who is intellectually competent capable and internationally respected whereas Dr Brian Edwards is a very nasty failed Labour Party candidate from 1972—when every other marginal seat had been won he lost in Miramar—and that he has spent his time slagging off Opposition MPs; and surely this is not appropriate in an outfit that is meant to be independently politically operated and run in the interests of the New Zealand taxpayers. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Who was the person who interjected at that point? The member will leave the Chamber. 
Hon John Tamihere withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that the Hon John Tamihere is quite pleased to have been kicked out and not have to answer any questions but we do have a question set down for that Minister. It is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. I once before made the observation as to whether a Minister who interjected when he should not have should be sent from the Chamber because I ordered him to do so and I was told quite specifically that one rule applied for everybody—and it does. The Minister should not have interjected and he copped the penalty. That is it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have an interesting dilemma. If you look through the Order Paper you will see that the toughest question set down today is question No. 6. It is to Mr Tamihere. It is about actual remarks that he made. The easiest way now for a Minister to say: “I was happy to answer questions in the House but I was sent out by the Speaker” is to interject. The proper penalty for Mr Tamihere might be to ask him to withdraw and apologise and maybe suspend him later. For you to decide to let him out of answering question No. 6 will mean that that Minister can go around the country and say to everybody that a third of the nation’s beaches are in private ownership and when he is asked a tough question about it all he has to do is interject and the Speaker will throw him out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think on reflection there is an important issue here. I will ask Mr Tamihere to return for his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will refresh the Minister’s mind and ask him this: does he not understand that Larry King is an internationally respected and capable interviewer whereas Dr Brian Edwards is a very nasty biased Labour-oriented media commentator who loses no time in slagging off Opposition members despite the fact that he was a miserable failure in 1972—when the Labour Party won every other marginal seat in that landslide he lost? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I share the member’s admiration for Larry King but I give the following report of Brian Edwards’ programme: “I think that there have been some good things done like Brian Edwards whose politics I am diametrically opposed to but none the less he remains one of the best interviewers New Zealand has ever had.” So said Deborah Coddington and I agree. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not interested in Deborah Coddington’s comments. I am interested in his comments as a Minister. The day he can put up some sort of wishy-washy evidence from a very new “barely been here 5 seconds” member is simply not adequate. We want an answer from the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member addressed the question perfectly adequately. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am unclear. Is Mr Tamihere allowed in the Chamber until his question comes up? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have allowed Mr Tamihere back because people want him to answer his question. As soon as he has finished his question he will go again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will see that questions Nos 6 and 10 are for Mr Tamihere. If he comes back for those two questions then that will be appropriate. In the meantime because he was a naughty boy he should be asked to go. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask members to be reasonable about this. Mr Tamihere had better not say a word between now and his two questions. We will keep him here for now. 
Rodney Hide 
: How does the Minister reply to complaints from within TVNZ that he and Marian Hobbs have turned State television into Labour Party television and that the only way—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can carry on. 
Rodney Hide 
: I will start again. When I get interrupted I lose my place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear an interruption. 
Rodney Hide 
: Then you should come and sit down the back where we sit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have had enough today and I mean that. There will be silence when questions are asked and that goes for every single person in this House. The member will repeat his question. 
Rodney Hide 
: How does the Minister reply to complaints from within TVNZ that he and Marian Hobbs have turned State television into Labour Party television and that the only way now for New Zealanders to get unbiased news is to switch to John Campbell and TV3 who are prepared to put the tough questions to Government and to get fined by the Governor-General’s husband—who chairs the Broadcasting Standards Authority and is another Labour Government appointment—fordoing so? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: With contempt as the question deserves. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are the person who gets to decide whether a question is appropriate. You did not demur about the subject of that question. What gives this Minister the right to take an arrogant view and not answer and bring into question your ruling of this House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He addressed the question. He gave a description of how he regarded the question. That was what he was asked to do. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I bring this matter up now because it is the end of a question to which my point of order relates. During an earlier question the Leader of the Opposition certainly interjected somewhat loudly with the words: “It gets worse and worse.” and he was required to stand withdraw and apologise. That is fair enough. However during the course of that last question we heard a Minister who is given the courtesy of the floor of the House to answer accuse another member of being a scumbag in the accusation that was made yet gets only the same penalty applied to him. I want to restate that we are getting increasingly concerned that people on this side of the House cop it when you want to stamp authority on the House but there seems to be a much lesser standard for that side. A direct attack on a member has to be far worse than someone simply pointing out that a situation was getting into an appalling state. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It is actually an Opposition tactic all the time to accuse you of bias in question time and elsewhere. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now stand and leave the Chamber for interjecting on a point of order. He knows that that is out of order. He will please leave. 
Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That claim was certainly one of bias on your point and was factually incorrect. The Minister was ruled out of order and had to withdraw and apologise for the comment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly correct. 
Employment—Growth 
5.  
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What recent reports has he seen on employment growth? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Last Friday Statistics New Zealand released the household labour force survey results for the June 2003 quarter. Employment growth of 15000 was stronger than expected driving unemployment down to a 16-year low of 4.7 percent. A total of 148000 more people have been employed since the Labour-led Government has been in office. Our unemployment rate is now considerably below the OECD average of 7.2 percent. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What difficulties have employers reported in finding labour and how is the Government responding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The latest quarterly survey of business opinion indicated that a third of employers report difficulty in finding skilled labour an historically high one-seventh of all firms report labour as one of their main constraints and particular industries such as construction report labour as a constraint for 37 percent of firms. In response the Government has built on other policies to announce the Jobs Jolt employment policy to assist more people into employment and to address labour and skill shortages. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does he agree that the unemployment rate would have increased had there not been 10000 people in the last quarter leaving the labour force altogether and that by adding another 16000 people to the invalids benefit and sickness benefit since 1999 the problem of unemployment is further hidden? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. I think the two main reasons for unemployment falling from 5 percent to 4.7 percent is that there are a number of young people between the ages of 20 and 29 who have chosen educational opportunities at this time to lift their skills and a surge in employment in what might be called population areas such as construction the service industry and hospitality. I think that is the main reason for it. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Private Ownership 
6.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: Why did he say “I stand by those statements” in response to my question last Wednesday “Does the Minister stand by his statement to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that: ‘significant chunks of the foreshore’—not the Queen’s chain the foreshore—‘has private ownership title’ and that we are talking thousands and not hundreds of kilometres of private title to the foreshore?” when the Department of Conservation office solicitor told the Planning and Development Committee in respect of the foreshore “the proportion of private title is probably very small (less than 1 percent of the coastline)” and the Prime Minister is reported today as saying foreshore ownership was a “very small amount”? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I refer the member to my answer to question No. 6 last Wednesday. Given the preliminary work done and given the fact that it was a hugely complex issue I stand by those statements. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why does the Minister maintain the facade of those statements that large amounts of foreshore are in private ownership when the Prime Minister says that it is a very small amount when official Department of Conservation papers say that it is less than 1 percent when Public Access New Zealand says he is misleading the public and the Parliament when Otago University surveying lecturer and expert on seaward boundaries says that in 25 years of experience he can think of only one title that went to the low-water mark including foreshore and when numerous surveyors all over the country say that no titles they have seen include the low-water mark and the foreshore; why does the Minister not just concede he got it wrong? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Notwithstanding the list of people just mentioned by the Hon Dr Nick Smith none of them can be correct because in the history of this country nobody has ever sized this issue. At this particular point in time Land Information New Zealand is working assiduously to size it. Once it is sized the information will be made available. 
Moana Mackey 
: Would the Minister consider it prudent to base Government policy in such a complex area on a 10-year-old nine-line legal opinion? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Definitely not. I tend to agree with the Department of Conservation chief legal adviser Jonty Somers who reportedthat “a great deal of weight could not be given to the 1993 assertions” and “It is impossible to know what was the basis of Mrs Mansfield’s 1 per cent figure. Land Information is the only agency that would have that information.” For the edification of Dr Nick Smith even if it were 1 percent of 18700 kilometres this is 1870 kilometres and most Kiwis would suggest that is quite a sizeable chunk. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know we do have a problem with numeracy standards but if the Minister reflects on 10 percent of 18000 kilometres I think he will find it is 1800 and not the figure he used. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Dail Jones 
: As the Prime Minister appears to be more in favour of the 1993 report than of the Minister’s view—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Jones but comments are being made from a number of places. I cannot quite hear what the member is saying. Would he please repeat his question. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The comments are being made because of the degree of frustration. The Minister clearly knows he has given a wrong answer. His colleagues are telling him that his answer was wrong. It would be easier perhaps if the Minister gave the right answer now and then we could move on. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I would move the decimal point one place. 
Dail Jones 
: As the Prime Minister appears to be more in favour of the 1993 report what advice has the Minister received from the Prime Minister that his views are inaccurate by more than a small amount are inflammatory and are causing as much damage to the attitudes of New Zealanders as those of the leader of the National Opposition? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: None. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can the Minister of Statistics tell the House how we can believe anything he says—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is the Minister of Statistics but this question is to the Minister for Land Information. The member cannot swap portfolios halfway through a question. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: A decimal point tripped me up! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please restate the question. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How can we believe anything the Minister says after when challenged he stood by his untrue statements—which the Prime Minister now confirms were untrue—and in the light of the fact that he pleaded guilty in February 1995 to two charges of forgery and two charges of uttering forged documents? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Because I am a good bloke and I can be trusted. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the course of Mr Shirley’s question there were some utterances from three or four members from the Government benches. They should be asked to leave the Chamber in the same way as Mr Brownlee was asked to leave because he interjected during a point of order. I heard them. There were three or four members who muttered about the fact that Mr Shirley had commented on the issue of fraud that Mr Tamihere had been involved in. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; I did not hear those comments. I will listen very carefully. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that even the Prime Minister conceded that the level of private foreshore ownership is very small and further confirmed that it was probably about 1 percent can the Minister confirm to the House that his official public relations adviser is the former Iraqi Information Minister? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the problem had not been sized and has still not been sized why did the Minister make a comment to the extent he has then revert to saying he was talking about potential private ownership and then go on the  
Holmes  
programme and make a prize idiot of himself? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: There is no doubt that there are 18700 kilometres of New Zealand coastline excluding the Chatham Islands. There is no doubt that as at 1 August from official information from Land Information New Zealand there is potentially up to 6600 kilometres of the coastline—and for the edification of the member for Tauranga that is not the foreshore. The foreshore is the wet bit that gets wet now and then. Seabed is the stuff that gets wet most of the time but not all the time. Above the high-water mark are the beaches or the coastline. Up to potentially 6600 kilometres of the coastline might be in private ownership. As I said at the moment those are being researched by Land Information New Zealand. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why on the  
Holmes 
 show in front of the New Zealand public did he say that one-third of the beach is potentially privately owned and noting that the  
Oxford Dictionary 
 definition of “beach” is: “Seashore or lakeshore covered with water-worn pebbles or sand between the high and low water mark” on what possible basis did he make that claim on New Zealand television? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 defines the word “foreshore” as “part of the shore between high and low water marks or between water and land cultivated or built on”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question was not about a comparative reading of dictionaries but about his answering beyond that having had an explanation of what the foreshore would be. Frankly I am disturbed as I am sure a lot of Maori members of this Parliament are at the level of straight-out second-class paternalism that has been bestowed on some Maori members who are not fit to be in Cabinet but who are there or who are Ministers of the Crown who should not be there. That is not an adequate answer for anybody and to tolerate it really is a case of inverse racism. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is not. I thought answer given was an answer. The Minister is perfectly entitled to doubt a definition and to quote an authority and he did so. 
Recreational Areas—Walking Access 
7.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Rural Affairs 
: What reports has he received on walking access to rivers lakes the coastline and other parts of New Zealand’s countryside? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 Yesterday the land access reference group chairman John Acland and I issued the group’s report  
Walking Access in the New Zealand Outdoors 
. It is an excellent report and I recommend that members read it carefully. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What is the Government doing with that report? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The report is now available for people to read and make their views known. The Government is consulting people for the next 4 months. We are not pre-judging that consultation. No decisions have been made on this issue. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Minister for Land Information in foreshadowing the release of this report said that significant chunks of foreshore were in private ownership amounting to hundreds of kilometres and that one-third of our beaches were privately owned where might I find that particular fact in those 111 pages? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: This report is not about ownership. I understand that Mr Tamihere’s department is still carrying out work on ownership. 
Dail Jones 
: Bearing in mind that chapter 9 on page 72 of the report indicates that the Acland group has not identified a demand for “as of right” access what is the point in continuing with any further discussion on the matter if there is no demand for it? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The group also found that there is a very strong commitment by the New Zealand public to the principle and practice of the Queen’s Chain. I suggest that the member read the report carefully. He will find much that is worth pursuing in it. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister seen the case of the Pakeha multimillionaire toilet paper magnate John Spencer who has blocked walking access to beautiful Cactus Bay on Waiheke Island and what steps will the Government take to ensure that all New Zealanders both Pakeha and tangata whenua can have legal access to the brilliant white sand and azure waters of this national taonga? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: As I have just mentioned the Government has not made decisions. We will not presume the outcome of the next 4 months of consultation with the public. 
Prosecutions—Religious and Spiritual Factors 
8.  
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Do the police ever take into account any alleged religious or spiritual values when deciding whether to prosecute for any crimes; if so why? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Police 
: Religious or spiritual values are not relevant to decisions on whether a prosecution should commence or continue. 
Craig McNair 
: Are there any plans or measures in place that would prevent people from breaking the law by claiming that it is part of their religion—for example has he investigated whether smoking marijuana is an essential part of being Rastafarian? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Not that I am aware of. Whether someone is Rastafarian has absolutely nothing to do with whether a prosecution would continue. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: What factors then are important to police in making decisions to prosecute? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Solicitor-General’s guidelines outline the critical factors. Police must first consider whether there is admissible and reliable evidence that an offence has been committed by an identifiable person. The evidence needs to be sufficiently strong to establish a prima facie case. If there is an evidential basis for a prosecution police need to determine whether the public interest requires the prosecution to proceed. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Given his answer to the primary question can the Minister tell the House what the basis is for discriminatory policing that leaves Maori more likely to be arrested and convicted for cannabis use than middle-class Pakeha smokers like Peter Dunne used to be in his youth? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that the member might on reflection care to be very careful before bringing members of this Parliament into comments such as that. I would prefer that he asked the question without reference to that. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that it is on the public record that Peter Dunne has admitted to having used cannabis in his youth. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was not relevant to making the question intelligible. Perhaps the member could restate the question. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister tell the House what the basis is for discriminatory policing that leaves Maori more likely to be arrested and convicted for cannabis use than the general public and that after taking account of rates of use and prior convictions as has been highlighted in the Christchurch health and development study and by the Health Committee inquiry into cannabis? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am advised that decisions on prosecution are made without fear or favour. 
Craig McNair 
: Does the Minister agree with other members’ use of Bible quotations and claiming adherence to alleged Christian values to justify hiding past crimes; if so how do police view those actions? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As I said before the police are required to take into account the Solicitor-General’s guidelines. Someone’s religious or spiritual beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with whether a decision is made to prosecute. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister concerned at the admission by the president of the New Zealand Police Association Mr Greg O’Connor as reported by the Health Committee in its inquiry into cannabis that “police have targeted people on the basis of their dress” and what does he intend to do about it? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. The fact of the matter is that the advice I have received is that decisions on whether police proceed are made without fear or favour. I hope I have made that clear. 
Curriculum—Information Technology 
9.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What initiatives has the Government put in place to promote the development of new approaches to information and communications technologies in teaching? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am happy to announce that 10 new e-learning scholarships will be made available to help teachers expand teaching and learning through information and communications technology. Over $4 million has been earmarked for those year-long scholarships over the next 4 years which will greatly contribute to national and international research as new approaches to learning through information and communications technology are developed and shared. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Why are information and communications technologies viewed as such an important issue in modern teaching? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Information and communications technology has become an essential life skill. It is vitally important that we give teachers greater opportunities to enhance their expertise in this area and that we encourage them to pass that expertise on to others. Freeing up 10 teachers to lead this work is very exciting but I do want to deny rumours that Maurice Williamson is one of them. 
Recreational Areas—Crown Pastoral Leases 
10.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: Does the current system of tenure review of Crown pastoral lease land include any requirement to ensure public access to public land and waterways that are adjacent to any freeholded pastoral lease land; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 Crown land including public land and waterways may be included in a review in which case access would be able to be provided. I respectfully refer the member to section 36(3) of the Crown Pastoral Land Act in that regard. In any case access will need to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Government be directing the Commissioner of Crown Lands who has stated to public access interest groups that he is not obliged by the tenure review system to provide for access to conservation areas to do so now; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The Government is presently reviewing the total policy in regard to the Crown Pastoral Land Act. I would like to think that within the next couple of weeks we will be able to come back to the House with clear directions in that regard. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What reports has the Minister received on the progress of the Crown pastoral tenure review process? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Over 160 leaseholders are participating in the review at the moment. Out of 16 tenure reviews that were substantially completed as at 30 June 2003 over 45 percent of the leased land had been permanently returned to the Crown estate in terms of its conservation values and access has been provided to all but one. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister agree with the statement by the Prime Minister reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that the amount of foreshore ownership was “a very small amount”? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: That has nothing to do with the primary question or with any supplementary questions. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The original question is in respect of access around public waterways which makes the issue I raised of considerable public interest. I think it is reasonable for me to expect an answer from the Minister for Land Information as to whether he agrees with the Prime Minister’s point. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I suggest that the member read the question again. The question is about the current system of tenure review of Crown pastoral lease land which has nothing to do with the foreshore. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is up to the Minister whether he wishes to provide an answer in this area. He said that it is not part of this particular question and that is his answer. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Government consider amending the Property Law Act which enables landowners to extinguish easements across their land through the courts without any public process; if not how will the Minister ensure that access negotiated during tenure review is secure? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: We will factor section 129B of the Property Law Act—which is what I suspect the member is talking about—into our review processes. 
Television New Zealand—Kaihautu Appointment 
11.  
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Can he confirm as reported in the media that the appointment of a kaihautu by Television New Zealand Limited is related to its charter responsibilities and can he advise the House what specific functions will be carried out by the person recently appointed to that position? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Under the Television New Zealand Act staff appointments are the responsibility of the chief executive. I am advised that as part of filling its charter requirements TVNZ’s senior management board felt it appropriate to appoint a person with the appropriate background in both the local television industry and Maori culture. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why was the position not advertised in the normal way and why was there no job description for the position until the successful applicant was chosen? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: For this operational matter—which of course is a matter for TVNZ’s management—it was felt that the traditional process of using a recruiter or advertising in print was not an effective way of reaching the right candidates. After consultation with a number of prominent Maori figures who were consulted separately a number of appropriate candidates were identified with a short list invited for interviews in front of a panel of three people. 
Darren Hughes 
: Has he seen any recent reports supporting public service television? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am pleased to note that after many years of opposition Katherine Rich on  
Media Watch 
 on Sunday supported public television and the high level of local content it brings. I welcome the National Party’s— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That really has nothing to do with the original question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If this so-called appointment of a kaihautu has any merit what on earth are we doing spending hundreds of millions on the Maori Television Service which is being set up right now; if the Maori Television Service has any merit why on earth are we putting up this sort of tokenistic appointment as some sort of sop to the Maori people; did the Minister consult with the “TWs” of his caucus on this matter? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were three questions there. Two can be commented on. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The matter of course is one for the management of TVNZ but TVNZ believes that because it is a national broadcaster it has an obligation to provide mainstream programming in English that reflects Maori interests and values for all New Zealanders. That is why it made the appointment. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How can New Zealand have any confidence in his answers when journalists within TVNZ see the appointment of Hone Edwards to the top management table as Ross Armstrong in disguise and a return to that chairman’s censoring of journalists who cover contentious Maori issues like Tariana Turia’s Holocaust comments John Tamihere embarrassing his caucus and Ella Henry’s bullying of traffic cops? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Putting aside all the extraneous material and addressing the question of why Mr Edwards is the person to hold this position I say to the House that Mr Edwards has held positions in Maori television broadcasting TVNZ and the independent production community over the last 19 years as producer director editor and reporter. He is currently head of programme commissioning for the Maori Television Service. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Maori and linguistics and a postgraduate diploma in journalism. He will now be one of the 10 people reporting directly to Ian Fraser as the chief executive officer of TVNZ. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can he see the contradiction in appointing a kaihautu when at the same time TVNZ is cutting costs cutting the news budget making staff redundant and cancelling high-quality current affairs and drama programmes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Minister again: has he consulted the “TWs” in his caucus on the merits of having a Maori Television Service that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and alongside it having an appointment of this type in Television New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the member is referring to the Maori Television Service. I am not the Minister responsible for that service. He might like to put a question to either of the two Ministers responsible. Mr Edwards’ job is the responsibility of Television New Zealand’s management. I do not consult with anybody on it—they make their own decisions. 
Katherine Rich 
: Did the agreement worked out between TVNZ and unsuccessful applicant Ripeka Evans involve any commitment undertaking or promise from TVNZ to engage or commission Ms Evans to undertake any form of consultancy contract or programme production? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am aware of the person the member is speaking about but because that is a matter for TVNZ’s management the details she raises would not properly be in my hands anyway. 
Recreational Areas—Landowners' Rights 
12.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister for Rural Affairs 
: With regard to the Acland report will he give an unqualified and a clear assurance that the Government will not in any way diminish private landowners’ rights to control access to their land; if not can he assure property owners that they will be fully compensated for any restrictions imposed on their property rights for public access? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 The member seems to have confused the land access reference group’s report with Government policy. It is not. It is out for public consultation which landowners can be involved in and no decisions have been made. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Given that the Acland report observes: “The property rights ethos predominates in New Zealand. It cannot realistically be expected that this will change quickly to accommodate access pressures” and also in the light of the recommendation in the executive summary to provide mechanisms for its promotion and enhancement can the Minister tell the House what sorts of mechanisms he has in mind? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The member should read the report with both eyes. The group also found overwhelming support for the retention extension and completion of the Queen’s Chain. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Notwithstanding the answers to previous questions could the Minister reiterate what the Government is doing with this report? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The report is now available for people to read and make their views known on. The Government is consulting with people until the end of November. We are not prejudging the result of that consultation. No decisions have yet been made on this issue. 
Dail Jones 
: In the light of the Minister’s earlier answer is he now denying that this report arose out of the Labour Party’s manifesto which contained promises to clarify public rights of access to rivers lakes the seashore and public land? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The Labour Party manifesto certainly undertook that work would be done on this issue and that is exactly what we are doing. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Will the landowner in the Tekapo area of the South Island high country who refused access to the Prime Minister—after which the access issue suddenly became important—still be able to refuse the Prime Minister access in the future if he chooses not to negotiate access or indeed to receive compensation for that access? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I am not aware of any such incident. I note that the member is the same member who last night likened me to Robert Mugabe. When he gets his head on straight I will be prepared to engage seriously with him on these issues. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on the answers we are successively hearing to questions in this House. We have seen three Ministers today and Ministers on a number of other occasions abuse the questioner and consider that to be an answer. The question is in order. To tell an MP to get his head screwed on before the Minister may bother to answer the question certainly cannot be accepted in this House by you as addressing the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that the very last comment made by the Minister—about a member and his head—should be withdrawn and apologised for. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is it the Government’s current view that the public does have a right of access over private land; if it is not what is the Government’s current view on these matters? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: If I heard the question correctly I can confirm to the member that yes there are numerous situations in New Zealand where the public does have a legal right of access to private land. If he is asking me the Government’s view on that matter the view is that that is correct but that the tradition in New Zealand of free and open access along all the water’s edge—as embodied in the concept of the Queen’s Chain—is under threat and we have increasing numbers of occasions when private landowners block access to public land and public waters. That is unacceptable to a great body of New Zealand public opinion. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Land Access Report 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Ken Shirley seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the report of the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group. The release of the report is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I cannot agree that a report that has been issued for consultation over the next few months requires attention by way of urgent debate. The application is declined. 
Privilege 
Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee 
Electoral Act—Hon Harry Duynhoven 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege referred on 23 July 2003 
. I am pleased to report to the House as chair of the Privileges Committee on the matter referred by Mr Speaker to that committee and about which of course a large amount of debate occurred last week resulting in legislation to amend the Electoral Act. The question was referred to the committee because a matter of privilege as Mr Speaker ruled was raised by the fact that the Hon Harry Duynhoven was possibly in breach of section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act. The matter concerned his Dutch citizenship and the effect that its restoration had on his right to sit in this House.  
First of all I assure members that the Privileges Committee acting on behalf of the House in this matter took the issue extremely seriously. Of course as is shown in the report that has been tabled a number of views came out of the committee’s deliberation. But those views—first of all on the question of whether the seat of Mr Duynhoven was vacant and then on the question of a recommendation to the House on what action should or should not be taken—reflected the complex matters before the committee. It was not necessarily the case that there was a right or wrong answer to each and every question that we considered but it was a matter of ensuring that when coming to particular conclusions members paid attention to the evidence before them—the sets of facts that were agreed to—and then drew their conclusions. 
The Privileges Committee is not a judicial body in the sense that a court is but it is charged with paying accord to the law and also with acting in terms of natural justice. Natural justice in particular is important when any member of the House or the public is requested to appear before the committee requests to appear before the committee or in some cases—which was not the case here—is summonsed to appear before the committee. 
The background to the case is set out in the report. I want to say at this point that the question of breaking the law which has been alleged and spoken of many times in this House in relation to this matter was not an issue. Mr Duynhoven applied for the restoration of his Dutch citizenship and that was a legal right. He breached no law in doing that and no member of the committee said that he did. It is a fact that he did not breach the law. The question of whether the action that he took then made the seat vacant is also not a question of a breach of the law. The question for the committee for the House and of course for Mr Speaker who makes the final determination under the law was whether that action of Mr Duynhoven’s once established made the seat vacant. That in particular was the major question of interpretation before us in relation to the Act. 
 The committee spent some time in debating that. We heard evidence directly from Mr Duynhoven and that was extremely useful in the sense of establishing a chain of events. We also heard from his counsel Sir Geoffrey Palmer on his interpretation of the law in relation to the taking of Dutch citizenship. We ourselves as a committee had the benefit of the evidence of the Solicitor-General and also of advice from the Clerk of the House. Added to that was other material that came to the committee—for example the views of Professor Joseph of Canterbury University. [ 
Interruption 
] The point I make is that we had written comment by Professor Joseph; I give that by way of an example. So the committee drew on a number of sources plus direct evidence from Mr Duynhoven. 
Then the committee deliberated on whether a vacancy existed. On that question as members will know from the report there was a division within the committee over the question of interpretation. In my view as the chair of the committee the seven members who decided there was a vacancy because of the actions taken by Mr Duynhoven interpreted the law much along the lines of the advice of the Solicitor-General. But the right to make a decision means one does not necessarily have to follow the advice of one person or another but one has to listen carefully to the advice that people put forward. Three members of the committee quite properly used their right to say they had arrived at another interpretation. 
For the record I say to the House this law is ambiguous in terms of its interpretation. As with the interpretation of any Act there is a right—in fact a legal duty—to consider whether it requires a fair large or liberal interpretation. The majority view was that the Act triggered a vacancy in the seat and a minority said that they disagreed with that. From those positions that members had come to—which were still only advice to the Speaker of the House—the committee then looked at its recommendations. A majority was in favour of some legislation. Members can read the committee’s report and understand from it the basis of the views of those who favoured passing legislation. 
Within the majority of the committee that favoured passing legislation there was a majority and a minority position. The majority position within that majority was that the legislation should be for the term of this Parliament and should cover all members who were either dual citizens or faced actions flowing from having dual citizenship so that they would not make their seats vacant or in the case of lists member they would not have to resign and the next person on the list come in. A minority within that position Winston Peters and Peter Dunne held that while there should be legislation it should be much narrower and take account only of the position of Mr Duynhoven. If I can summarise their position fairly they accepted his position was one where the consequences flowing from his action—which I stress was not a breach of the law; it was not an illegal act—were out of proportion to what was fair and right. 
The minority on the committee took the view that there should not be any legislation and that the seat was vacant. They made it quite clear that they attributed no ill will to Harry Duynhoven in relation to the act he had taken but they believed that the law should follow its course and the seat should be declared vacant. In summary the findings of the committee on that point of recommendation to the House was a split one with the majority being in favour of some form of legislative action and a minority saying that no we should not enact legislation. 
In conclusion the Privileges Committee took the issue very seriously and went through its deliberations carefully. There was pressure from outside to reach a decision earlier than we did. The reason that we could not do so was that every member was going through the issues in a painstaking way in order to arrive in my opinion at a conclusion that they felt comfortable with in terms of both the facts of the case and the law. Lastly I believe that a service has been done to this House because the debate on this case has opened up an area of law to public discussion with regard to what our policy should be on dual citizenship what that means in terms of sitting in this House and what we consider to be allegiance to New Zealand or to a foreign power. In my opinion the Privileges Committee did a good job in advising the House. It is up to the House or rather to the Speaker of course to make the decision. But the Privileges Committee in terms of the reform of the Act has now left that in the hands of a select committee which now will be able to look closely at the Act and to consider what is good law in relation to election to the Parliament of New Zealand. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 That chairman of the Privileges Committee will find himself quoted for decades to come as overseeing a charade. The Privileges Committee has gone to great efforts to give a cloak of credibility to the most obscene obstruction of the privileges of this House that I have come across since I have been in Parliament and I believe that it is without precedent. 
Mr Speaker you will be listening very carefully to this debate because it is the one you wanted to have before you executed your statutory duty. This is the debate we were meant to have before the Speaker made the decision about whether there was a vacancy. Of course he knows that this debate is a total waste of time. He knows that the time he took to make the decision about the vacancy allowed the Government to pass legislation that made the Speaker look irrelevant and made this Speaker whose job is to defend the privileges of this House look like he has less credibility than any Speaker before him. 
Everybody knew that the Government was proposing legislation so I have gone back and looked at the legislation. The Privileges Committee report stated: “it is still appropriate for the Speaker to refer a question to the Privileges Committee and for the House to consider the committee’s report”. So far so good—apparently but I will come back to that point. If there is real doubt as to whether a vacancy has occurred Mr Speaker you owe this Parliament an explanation as to the source of your doubt about the vacancy. That is the explanation members want to hear from you today because the facts of the matter are plain. On 11 June Harry Duynhoven disqualified himself from this Parliament—on 11 June. On 12 June you knew. Within days you knew the Government would bring in legislation if it had time to do it before a vacancy was declared. 
So I went back and looked at what the law states. Well section 129(1) does not state what the Privileges Committee implies—that the matter has to go to the Privileges Committee—it just states this: “If the Speaker is satisfied that the seat of a member elected to represent an electoral district has become vacant the Speaker must without delay publish a notice of the vacancy”. What do members think Parliament meant by this piece of legislation? Did it mean that the Speaker should take a month? Did it mean that the Privileges Committee has to sit? No it meant that if the Speaker is satisfied that the seat is vacant he must without delay publish a notice of the vacancy. 
Well Mr Speaker what advice did you have from anyone apart from the lawyer acting for Harry Duynhoven that there was any doubt at all about the vacancy? You had no such advice. You owe this Parliament an explanation as to why you did not declare a vacancy because there is one privilege that the members of this House do have that no other New Zealand citizen has and it is not the privilege to be absolved from the consequences of breaking the law; the one privilege members have is to sit in this House. It is a privilege because it matters to the course of the law and the Government of New Zealand. It is the job of the Speaker to defend that privilege before any other. 
 Our constitution depends on voluntary self-restraint. There is nothing to prevent Helen Clark from doing what she has done. The person who can command a parliamentary majority in this Parliament can do whatever he or she likes and in that respect we are almost unique in world democracy. She can do whatever she likes including what we have just done last week—pass a piece of legislation to elect a person to Parliament. That is what we did. We passed a piece of legislation to elect someone to this Parliament. That is why voluntary self-restraint is so important. It is why the conventions and integrity of this House are so important. 
I have no doubt at all that Helen Clark got on the phone to Geoffrey Palmer and they jacked up some half-cooked half-baked ideas to try to get a delay to try to get this matter to the Privileges Committee which of course would take some time to consider it. That would mean that the Speaker was not in a position where he absolutely had to declare a vacancy even though he should have declared a vacancy. I have no doubt that is what happened because Helen Clark feared a by-election in New Plymouth. It was not because she thought she would lose Harry Duynhoven—who knows—but because New Plymouth is a town on the beach built on an industry that takes energy out of the seabed. Who would want to go up there and spend 3 weeks defending the Government position on who owns the beaches and the foreshore? Not Helen Clark because she will not even do it in here. She certainly does not want to do it in the public eye under media scrutiny with the whole country listening to the trail of dishonesty and confusion she has tried to sow around that issue. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have had almost consistent uninterrupted interjection throughout my speech and I now ask to be heard in silence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has asked to be heard in silence. He can do that. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Mr Speaker we want an explanation. I suppose we will go through the charade of your declaring there is no vacancy I suppose that is what will happen but I believe that you owe Parliament more than that because decisions were made where timing was absolutely crucial. Decisions have been made that determine whether someone is qualified to sit in this House a privilege that I as the Leader of the Opposition and as a parliamentarian regard with deep respect. I have seen that privilege subordinated to partisan interests. That is what I have seen. 
I would like to hope that the office of the Speaker was no part of it. That is why I want to hear the explanation. So here are the questions. Why did you not without delay declare the vacancy? Share with the House what advice you had from the Clerk and the Solicitor-General that gave you any reason to believe that Harry Duynhoven might not be disqualified. If that was not the case then this matter should not have gone to the Privileges Committee. It was quite clear that Harry Duynhoven was disqualified. We want to know about that. Parliament wants to know whether there were any conversations phone calls notes or meetings with senior members of the Government with regard to the timing of the decisions. There is absolutely nothing in the law or this report that dispels my understanding that the Speaker could have rolled out of bed the day after he knew about this situation and declared a vacancy. He could have done that. In the interests of the honour of this institution and the constitutional self-restraint that is so important to New Zealand in my view that is what he should have done. 
The report of the Privileges Committee is nothing more than an attempt to give a cloak of credibility to disgraceful episodes such as Margaret Wilson the Attorney-General taking a completely opposite view to that of her main legal adviser the Solicitor-General. What does that say about the trust and confidence between New Zealand’s two senior legal officers? I will tell the House the truth: she knew he was right but she had been told by the Prime Minister that the Privileges Committee had better deliver a confused report if not a majority against any action that would lead to a by-election. That is what she did—the Attorney-General the senior legal officer of New Zealand who is there to defend the law and to make sure that no New Zealand citizen is put above it. But this Parliament put Harry Duynhoven above it and the Speaker has to answer the questions. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I want to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Privileges Committee report relating to the application of section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act to the Hon Harry Duynhoven. I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the Speaker of this House cannot be called into a debate to answer questions from him or anyone else. 
I refer the member to the Privileges Committee report. His party was represented by very good members who made very good contributions to the debate. The report states: “Traditionally the House has as an aspect of its privileges determined whether a person has incurred a disqualification from remaining as a member. Where a serious question of disqualification or of a member otherwise losing his or her seat has arisen the matter has been referred to the Privileges Committee for consideration.” We have heard the most incredible amount of sophistry from somebody who has not bothered to read the report and who has not bothered to be briefed by anyone who knows anything about the subject. 
A significant point that I want to make is that Harry Duynhoven did not break any law. The act of his seeking to have his Dutch nationality restored is not a crime and it is not a breach of any law in this country. It does not offend a single law in this country. It is no wonder that some people wanted to put in an apologetic response to the Dutch community in case they were outed for showing that all they really cared about was making political points out of something that is a serious matter. The majority of the Privileges Committee of which I am a member determined that Harry Duynhoven’s action led to his seat becoming vacant by operation of the law. That is not breaking the law or committing a crime; it is simply the operation of the law on a certain action taking place. There are other actions that MPs can take whereby their seats become vacant. Being absent from this place for a significant period of time is not breaking the law but it certainly does vacate the seat. 
That advice was supported by the Solicitor-General. I did not agree with that advice and I do not agree with the majority position in the report. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Under whose direction? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That member is calling across the House asking me whose direction I was operating under. I take incredible offence that that member should suggest that I have taken any direction from anyone on this matter. The Privileges Committee is unlike other select committees; it operates on the basis of individuals sitting round the table to try to reach the best possible result. My track record on the Privileges Committee which is a heck of a lot longer than that member’s will show that I have not always supported my colleagues on my side of that table when matters have gone to consideration of a position. 
I preferred an interpretation of section 55(1)(c) that did not produce an absurd result. That is the key point here. The operation of section 55(1)(c) chosen by some people in respect of their interpretation produced an absurd result. The absurdity is that someone who can stand for Parliament three times with Dutch nationality and twice without without even knowing that he had had it and had lost it has somehow offended the democratic traditions of this Parliament. This Parliament states that people can stand for Parliament if they have dual nationality. If people carry two passports they can stand for Parliament. People need only have New Zealand citizenship. 
Bill English said that Parliament elected Harry Duynhoven to the seat by passing the law that suspended the operation of two paragraphs of section 55(1) of the Electoral Act. That is absolute nonsense. We have given ourselves some time to do some real work on the legislation so that we can make it mean what it should mean and what we intend it to mean. I do not believe that any Parliament intended someone like Harry Duynhoven to lose his seat in this House because he sought to have his Dutch citizenship restored. Harry Duynhoven was born with dual nationality. He was born a New Zealander and he was born Dutch. That is his status today. Nothing has changed. The only thing that happened in the interim is that he lost his Dutch nationality in 1995 when a law change in Holland took effect and he then regained it after seeking to have it restored. It was restored to the position he has always held. 
Harry Duynhoven gave evidence in the committee and I believed him. He has never applied for a Dutch passport. I have read media reports stating that he has applied for a Dutch passport. He never has! He is a proud Kiwi with a Dutch tradition that he is equally proud of. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to that member who is interjecting from across there that the point is that I have heard Opposition members make statements that are simply incorrect. 
It is ironic that the law apparently does not treat Richard Worth the same way. This is a man who has agreed to represent Monaco’s interests in New Zealand as an honorary consul. National Party members say it is OK for him to do that. How on earth can Harry Duynhoven’s action in restoring something he held from birth attract a more serious consequence than the action of someone who represents another country’s interests inside New Zealand? Even when he is here in Parliament he is thinking of the interests of Monaco. Members opposite are engaging in what I could only describe as sophistry in saying that Harry Duynhoven is entitled to suffer a more serious consequence than Richard Worth who has not even bothered to put his particular matter before the Speaker for a judgment call on whether he has vacated his seat. He has never done it. 
Finally what of the absurdities! If I had dual citizenship I could repudiate New Zealand citizenship after an election and not vacate my seat. We questioned the Solicitor-General on that and he confirmed that that was the absurdity of the current law. The law states that if I had dual citizenship and I repudiated my New Zealand citizenship after the election then that would not mean I had vacated my seat. How on earth could Parliament have intended that? If I applied for British citizenship—I have a Scottish grandad and my husband has dual nationality—even though the Queen of England is the Queen of New Zealand and it is to her that we swear allegiance in this House and even if my application were declined I would have vacated my seat under section 55(1)(c). That is the nonsense of the current law. The law the way it stands is a nonsense and it must be reviewed not in haste but properly by the select committee looking at the Electoral Act. 
I note that this section has been amended three times twice to cover absences and both of those during wartime. The law was first amended in 1914 so that soldiers could leave Parliament and not offend against the absence rules. It was amended again later on in the Second World War so that Walter Nash could be absent from New Zealand and not offend the absence rules which would have determined that he had vacated his seat. It was done again in 1981 and who was that for? I wonder who it was. Who got nationality from his wife? I wonder who it was. Maybe Mr Prebble could enlighten us. 
My view is that section 55(1)(c) should not be interpreted in a narrow technical way. The general public does not buy the sophistry we have heard from the desperate and dateless Leader of the Opposition. I believe we should now put this matter to one side. The Speaker will make his ruling on the advice of the Privileges Committee and on the debate we have had in this House. I stand by my view that section 55(1)(c) was never intended to produce the result that it had in this particular case. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Bill English 
: The member is a lawyer. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: They say she is a lawyer but there was no evidence of that in her speech. Richard Worth is an honorary consul to facilitate— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: At least I pay my taxi fares. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The member would but she would not know what the law of specific performance is about. If someone does not get a service he or she does not pay—not in my book. But then again that member was pretty rough on the law and that is why she was a trade union lawyer. 
Richard Worth is a consul facilitating connections between two countries and that is seen to be in New Zealand’s interests. This is the first time I have ever heard of that being a question of allegiance. 
I go back to the facts here. The facts are that New Zealand First as a party is pleased for Harry Duynhoven and his family. We are pleased because an inadvertent act led to consequences that would be in my view a very very harsh result for any member of Parliament. It had consequences well above the issue of whether there be a by-election; it simply meant that any right of payment of salary and future earnings was going to be affected and in the case of superannuation be dramatically affected. I know that because I actually resigned from Parliament and my seat went to a by-election and those were the consequences. Of course these people who rush to help now did not rush to help me then. 
Hon Annette King 
: You didn’t ask. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No I am not in the business of asking the help of people who are breaking every law in the book and who are on the Privileges Committee yet did not have the decency or the integrity to defend their rights let alone mine. But they rushed off to London to defend the rights of someone who was not a member of Parliament. Do members remember that? Do not tell me who it was; I remember Mr Caygill and these people of the most dubious legal background in terms of integrity and ethics who would know nothing about the issue and it is not a matter to be laughing at now. 
But I want to say that in the case of Harry Duynhoven it was clear in my party’s view having heard the evidence that there had been a breach of section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act and that that was an inadvertent act the consequence of which would be very very hard for a member of Parliament to have to live with. That is why we said we would support legislation to correct his position. 
Let us follow the chronological sequence of events. It is said that on 11 June the seat became vacant—if the evidence stood up of course. That is a good question. How would one come to that decision before hearing the evidence? It is possible that Harry Duynhoven could have come along to the committee and said: “Well actually I had a gun to my head at the time and that’s why I signed the documents.” At that point everything would have been satisfied for a breach save intent. So that matter of evidence had to be heard. 
But I say this to the National Party: when the Speaker made his decision in the Speaker’s ruling on 23 July that was the time to protest. That was the time to say: “No no we’re not having this. This matter is not going to the Privileges Committee and it is not coming back to the House. We want the decision made now.” Our position was that because of who it was and our understanding of and respect for him we would like to hear the evidence. I will say this right now: if some members of Parliament had been involved the answer would have been: “Forget about the Privileges Committee; let’s have a decision right now. If anybody has any doubt send it off to the Electoral Court get a case stated in respect of the outcome as has happened before and have the matter decided.” But one cannot surely accept on 23 July that the proceedings would go to the Privileges Committee and then to the House for its conclusions yet make a decision before that event happened. To those who are seeking to attack the Speaker—Mr Speaker I am sure you do not need me to defend you—I say that my simple facts are that members cannot have it both ways. If they accepted the resolution of 23 July which came without demur then they cannot say now that the Speaker was wrong. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: We don’t. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: We did not—National and those who would contest it. Then was the time to speak up or in this sense for ever hold their peace. 
But I want to say exactly what happened. We agreed to regularise Harry Duynhoven’s position because there was a breach but it was the most innocent one I have ever seen where the electoral law is concerned. We agreed that the law be exclusively changed for him. But what happened is far more serious. What happened is we had two lawyers and a historian on the Privileges Committee and their body language spoke volumes. They knew full well that what they had heard meant there had to have been a breach but they preferred to ignore that—just plain ignore it. There is a person on that committee called Margaret Wilson the former dean of the Waikato University law school—that icon of academia in the minds of the people who attend there and no one else. This person the former dean of a law school cannot see what everyone else can see including the Solicitor-General the Clerk of the House and everybody else on the committee. 
Then we had something far worse. We had a totally shameful abuse in that the Act was taken beyond Harry Duynhoven to include every member of Parliament and to suspend its operations for the whole of this parliamentary term. We had a shameful abuse of Harry Duynhoven a shameful abuse of his circumstances a shameful abuse of the Speaker in my view and a shameful abuse of Parliament. That is where we have got ourselves now. Whilst every other leader is prepared to say that there is no one in his or her caucus who seeks the sanctuary of this legislation Helen Clark would not. This person who front-foots issues who spin doctors who speaks about her leadership potential and puts herself alongside people like Fraser and Holyoake this person who has more speechwriters and advisers than anybody else in the history of New Zealand’s Parliament cannot tell the House what every other leader can say about his or her party and that is that not one member of her caucus other than Harry Duynhoven is affected by this legislation and therefore the blanket coverage is not necessary. That is an abuse of Parliament. 
I am here today to ask Helen Clark who is the member or members other than Harry Duynhoven who were caught by this legislation. Name them! Have the integrity to place the facts before Parliament rather than seek general sanctuary for every member of Parliament although every other political party does not want it and disowns it! Until she can do that then let us have the media stop this humbug which Colin James is beloved of of their reporting what a genius Helen Clark is. She is not. There has never been a leader so weak when she is going backwards. There has never been a leader so weak at parliamentary time—so much so that she avoids it day after day. She treats Parliament with contempt. There has never been a leader who cannot front-foot it in debate after debate on television when the leaders debates ever happen. She has never won once and she never will. It is all hype public relations and spin—so much so that even her photograph is unrecognisable from the real thing. Imagine if I tried that! Would I get away with it? No I would not. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: They couldn’t improve it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Imagine if Mr Prebble tried that! He would be laughed out of town. Imagine if Mr English tried that! He would be laughed out of town. If Mr Jim Anderton tried it he would be laughed out of town. But suddenly for Helen Clark anything can be done and the media excuse it. Do members remember when she went up to Brunei? She got off the plane and started going across the tarmac. Those people were waiting for her to get off the plane because they had been a sent a photograph and the person who got off the plane was not the person in the photograph. 
Do members remember the 1999 election campaign? She was putting up hoardings with her husband—a public relations stunt—and a little Maori boy was standing there. He looked at the picture and said to Helen Clark “Who’s that?”—out of the mouths of babes! [ 
Interruption 
] What is it about? It is about someone who claims to be a leader but on a fundamental question of integrity honesty and owning up will not tell this Parliament whether anyone other than Harry Duynhoven is affected by this legislation. She has massively abused Mr Duynhoven his family the Speaker and all of Parliament. Why will she not own up? When will some journalist do his or her duty and ask her? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Let me make some positive statements about the report before I am critical because I think this whole matter has not reflected well on Parliament. 
But let me also reply to an absurd charge. The reason I do that is that an absurd charge made last week has been repeated by the media as if it were a fact so I thought I had better reply to that charge. No I am not the member who had the law changed in 1981. The idea that Sir Robert Muldoon would have changed the Electoral Act in my favour is an extraordinary stretch of the imagination. I certainly have never received citizenship via my wife. 
The other claim I want to correct is the absurd claim that the ACT party has said that it is wrong that anybody have dual citizenship. We have not said that. Indeed I have come out of examining the Electoral Act believing that those who have gone before us and who have re-examined this section eight times are not silly. What the law states is that one is not forbidden from standing for Parliament if one has dual citizenship; what one is forbidden from doing is once one is an MP doing any act of allegiance. If one has dual citizenship and one does not use it then it has always been that one is in the clear. When one thinks about it one realises it is a sensible rule. There are many members of Parliament who have dual citizenship through no act of their own. 
Mr Duynhoven originally had dual citizenship. He did not even know that he had it. I would be the first to defend him in that circumstance. Mr Duynhoven told the committee that he did it for his benefit and that of his children—not for his constituents and not for New Zealand—to enable them to travel around Europe. I guess he did it because he looked at this Government’s policies and realised that his children may need to live in another country. 
John Key 
: An insurance policy. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: An insurance policy! He did not get up and say he did it for the benefit of the people of New Plymouth. 
Let us say some constructive things about this report. The first thing I have to say about the report which reflects very well on the Clerk is that it is a very well-written report. I advocate that those people who are interested in the matter get a copy of it and read it. It is well set out and the committee was able to agree unanimously to large parts of it. So I give credit there. 
The second issue is that I want to give credit to the chairman of the committee. The House will not know this but I was opposed to Mr Matt Robson being made chairman. I thought it was a political gift from the Government which was trying to find him a job—and maybe it was. But I thought he chaired the committee well or tried to. He also did something that was courageous. As chairman when asked the question of whether Mr Duyhnoven’s actions meant that the seat of New Plymouth was vacant he was prepared to say that they did even though he knew that answer would not be popular with our Prime Minister. 
In that respect I also want to give credit to the Government’s other two partners. The Green MP turned up and so did Mr Dunne. Both members started off by saying that it was all nonsense. In fact at earlier meetings they had said that Mr Duynhoven was not caught. But when the Solicitor-General gave us very clear advice and took us through the section to show that it was not confusing but was very clear those two members had enough I think duty towards this House to come to the correct decision. I thank them for that. 
I also thank Mr Peters. Mr Peters was in the position where he had publicly said he would defend Mr Duynhoven but when he with the help of I think Mr Dail Jones actually looked at the law and at what Mr Duynhoven had done both of them said it was quite clear that he was caught. 
That is the duty of members of the Privileges Committee. Members of that committee do not go back to caucuses and ask for advice. The tradition of that committee is that it is here not just to uphold the privileges of this House but to uphold Parliament; to make sure that our rights that we have as a House are being followed and that if MPs break those rights regardless of their party they will be applied. That requires a commitment by MPs. Either we believe in Westminster democracy or we do not—and I do—and if we do we have a duty to uphold it. I praise all those members who reached that conclusion. 
Now I am afraid to have to get to the bits where I think we have as a Parliament been let down. But I want to give one bit of praise to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General has the right to decide whether the committee can hear from the Solicitor-General. I asked her and we did hear from the Solicitor-General. So we had private counsel. People would argue about it but the Solicitor-General is the country’s top law officer and I thank the Attorney-General Margaret Wilson for allowing us to hear from the Solicitor-General. 
I am afraid that is about where the good things finish. There is a duty from the Attorney-General to this House and the Privileges Committee. No one believes that the Attorney-General actually thinks this section is confused. I do not believe for 1 minute that Margaret Wilson thinks that Harry Duynhoven did not fall under that section and that the seat was not vacant. I say the same thing of Dr Cullen. Dr Cullen likes to tell us how clever he is yet he is now telling us—clever as he is—that he could not understand a section of the Act that the Green MP could understand. It is not credible is it? 
Rod Donald 
: She has a law degree! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am not trying to be tough on her; I am just saying that if the Green MP can see it surely Dr Cullen could. 
Then we have Lianne Dalziel. I say to those worried about immigration that she claims to have a law degree yet she said the section was confusing! I do not believe those members. To say that about members of the Privileges Committee is from a parliamentary point of view a devastating criticism. I think it goes to the heart of whether this Government has the moral authority to govern. 
I do say to Mr Speaker and I have said it before that in my view he had no choice but to send the matter to the Privileges Committee because Mr Duynhoven had said he did not break the law and I think he still thinks that he did not break the Act. Well this is a devastating comment but why is he a Minister if he thinks that? I believe that once we reported back to the House Mr Speaker should have acted. It does not reflect well on us that we are now holding this debate. 
The final criticism I have is for the Prime Minister. In our system of Government a Prime Minister is Prime Minister because he or she is elected by the whole House and has the support of this House. The Prime Minister has a duty to report to us. This is not a minor matter. This is an important matter and the Prime Minister’s silence has been deafening. She has a duty to come down and speak. Her spin doctors told her to send down lesser minions to argue the case and that it does not look good for the Prime Minister to argue for something that clearly is wrong. Well if that is what the Prime Minister thinks then she should not have done it. 
 The Prime Minister treats this House with contempt partly for the reasons put forward by Mr Peter: because she cannot foot it in this House she cannot actually reply to debate and she has to hide behind a barrage of spin doctors. If that is so then Dr Cullen ought to be Prime Minister. At least he was prepared to come down here to put a case which is something we cannot say about our Prime Minister. That is something I have not heard said against any Prime Minister in my time in the House. Can any member imagine Norman Kirk not coming down to defend anything or David Lange or Geoffrey Palmer? Even on the Great Western Railway issue he still would have come down and spoken. But Helen Clark treats this Parliament democracy and the country with contempt. This Government comes out of this report shamefully. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 As a member of the Privileges Committee I had the advantage of hearing all the evidence that was put before the committee Mr Duynhoven’s submissions on exactly what actions he took in respect of reaffirming his Dutch citizenship and the legal submissions of Sir Geoffrey Palmer on the application of the Electoral Act and section 55(1)(c). The committee was also presented with advice from the Solicitor-General and the Clerk of the House. The Greens joined the majority of the committee who agreed that Mr Duynhoven’s action did lead to the vacancy of his seat. We were persuaded by the submissions of the Solicitor-General that section 55(1)(c) on its face was clear and that Mr Duynhoven’s actions did trigger the automatic legislative consequence and that is that the seat was vacated. We were not persuaded by the arguments that because Dutch law would regard Mr Duynhoven’s citizenship as unbroken therefore New Zealand law should also. 
But equally the Greens joined a different majority in the committee that agreed that the law needed to be changed because the public policy behind it was in our view flawed the law did not cure the mischief it was designed to cure and because the consequences were disproportionate to the action. The Greens are strong advocates of changes to other legislation for exactly those reasons. 
The primary principle for us in this case was that dual citizenship is an acceptable and legitimate personal state of affairs. It is absolutely essential that those who hold that right are able to exercise it otherwise it becomes a nullity. For many thousands of New Zealanders entitled to dual citizenship this is a very serious issue about the affirmation of a person’s heritage and genealogy and the obligation to protect that heritage for that person’s descendants. The Greens support the exercise of dual citizenship and do not agree to the denial of that fundamental right. That is why we support for example the Western Samoan petition. We do not agree with the arbitrary deprivation of a person’s citizenship those persons including MPs and that is why in our view forcing Mr Duynhoven out of Parliament would have been an act of injustice. 
Arguments from other parties in effect do challenge the commitment of MPs who hold dual citizenship and their commitment to our country. Surely they do not mean to do that because such an argument is a logical fallacy. It is an implication that simple affirmation of citizenship or nationality to another country that does not require the abrogation of New Zealand citizenship presumes that a person is untrustworthy or suspicious simply because of that nationality. Those members would accept that if an MP became a citizen of another country during a term of Parliament as a result of marrying a foreign national that is OK but they argue that the mere act of affirming one’s dual citizenship is an inherently treasonous act and that by taking on a second citizenship an MP automatically renounces his or her commitment to New Zealand. There has been no logical or reasoned argument why that should be in this case. That claim is completely unfounded and without any evidence. 
We live in an increasingly ethnically diverse society. All New Zealand citizens are entitled to representation and to stand for Parliament as a representative. Any New Zealand citizen is entitled to stand for election to this House including those who hold dual citizenship but we fear that the logical consequence of the opponents’ arguments was that only New Zealand citizens who do not have other citizenship could be a parliamentary representative. In our view that is xenophobic and completely undemocratic. 
One of the obscurities that arose out of the Privileges Committee consideration was the fact that while an MP could not technically take on an additional citizenship he or she could none the less renounce his or her New Zealand citizenship and remain an MP for the entirety of the term. Such a renouncement would not trigger the Electoral Act and would not require a by-election to allow the electorate to review the MP’s mandate to represent him or her. In our view that was farcical. The Greens are very pleased that the Government accepted our amendment to the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Act that an MP is required to remain a New Zealand citizen for the duration of his or her tenure as an MP. 
One of the other anomalies that arose out of our consideration was that where section 55(1)(c) applies an electorate MP whose seat has been deemed vacant can immediately stand again to seek another mandate from the electorate. The fact that the unseated MP can seek further mandate shows that the MP has not done anything illegal but in an MMP environment list MPs who are caught by section 55(1)(c) will lose their seats permanently and be replaced by the next person on the list. 
While the position of list MPs is different from electorate MPs and the list process does have its own peculiarities we must remember that we are talking about a very serious consequence. After a general election every 3 years the New Zealand community is asked to make some very serious decisions about who will represent them and their interests in the House of Representatives—a fundamental position of power in list democracy. The consequence of that section for a list MP is to be stripped of that responsibility with no recourse to resume his or her seat nor any recourse to the constituency that supported that representative in the general election. 
We believe that a party’s list vote is indicative of both support for the party policy and support for the list candidates as representatives of a community of interest. In our view a community of interest should not be accorded a lesser status. Section 55(1)(c) does not take into account the specific needs of an MMP environment and therefore unjustifiably treats MPs differently. 
There was some argument in the committee reflected in the recommendations in the report that legislation to remedy those anomalies should apply only to the disability incurred by Mr Duynhoven. We disagreed and we support the majority decision that recommended that section 55(1)(c) be suspended for all MPs for the whole term of the Parliament. Legislation that is retrospective only and which makes an exception for only one MP undermines the very principle that we support. 
Because the principle we advocate for is that dual citizenship is valid and acceptable and that a member’s allegiance to New Zealand cannot be questioned simply because he or she is a citizen of another country we could not support legislation that affects only one individual nor could we support legislation that denies the right and opportunity in the case of dual citizenship of all other members of this House who are entitled to that citizenship to renew their passport or take up that citizenship during the period from now until the next election. That is because we do not consider that dual citizenship holds an inherent threat to this country. So we felt that those recommendations were not helpful and we did not support them. 
Finally in the end it is our view that the report accurately reflects the submissions that were made to the committee and the discussion of the committee. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I was a member of the Privileges Committee as well that considered the Duynhoven case and I would like to make some observations this afternoon about it and subsequent events. I do not believe that this was a case that in the end turned on whether Mr Duynhoven had taken out Dutch citizenship or Dutch nationality or the status of that. However for me it turned on a very narrow point. We received evidence about the way in which citizenship or nationality—call it what one likes—is conferred by the Dutch Government upon those people whom it deems to be eligible. The argument mounted by some during the hearing that because of change in the law in Holland earlier this year Mr Duynhoven was always deemed to be Dutch even though it had not been his understanding that he had been so is somewhat irrelevant. 
 I was prepared as the evidence unfolded to give him the benefit of the doubt but the sticking point for me came with the indication by him during his evidence that following discussions initiated not by him but by the Dutch Embassy he had formally applied to reactivate a status that he previously was not aware he had enjoyed. That was the point at which he rendered himself ineligible to remain a member of this House. Whatever other arguments could be raised about the rights and wrongs of the issue the application of section 55 (1)(c)—or (b) or whatever paragraph under section 55 one wanted to quote—became irrelevant at that point because Mr Duynhoven in terms of the statute had taken the action. I suspect had the Dutch Government conferred upon him a status akin to citizenship or nationality we may have found ourselves in a different position. He would have been the recipient of a decision not the active seeker of a decision and I think that the moment he actively sought to trigger that status he then registered himself as ineligible. I am simply for the benefit of the member who interjected making the point that this turns in the end on a very fine distinction. 
Having said that I point out that the next issue that arose for me was the relevance of section 55(1)(c) and I made the point during the debate the other night that this section was passed originally in 1852 at a time when the world was a very different place. Mr Prebble scoffed at my analysis that it was a time when the United Kingdom—the British Empire as it then was—stood alone against a hostile Europe and interjected that my view of history was flawed because there had been no wars in continental Europe between the end of the Napoleonic era—the Battle of Waterloo in 1815—and World War I. I gently sought to remind him—and I have checked the history again since—of events such as the Crimean War in the 1850s which was going on at the time this legislation was passed. The member opposite remembers it well. 
There was the Austro-Prussian War the Franco-Prussian War the wars of Italian unification the wars within the German states right through to the advent of World War I. So my point was valid; this was taking place in a very different time from now—which has no bearing at all on the status of Mr Duynhoven but does have a bearing on the relevance of these provisions to remain in our law. 
The next issue that arose for me was to quote from Gilbert and Sullivan that famous line in  
The Mikado 
: “My object all sublime I shall achieve in time to make the punishment fit the crime.” My concern was as to whether the punishment being inflicted upon Mr Duynhoven at this time was indeed fitting to the crime that he was deemed to have committed. In other words he had rendered himself ineligible to remain a member of Parliament because he had initiated actions regarding his Dutch nationality but did those actions of themselves then warrant the decision that he be deprived of his membership of this House? Upon reflection it became clear that whilst that was a point for some musing it was one that was allowed a great deal of latitude by the legislation as it now stood. He was deemed to be ineligible and therefore his seat ought to be deemed to have been vacated. 
It was at that point as the chairman of the committee said earlier that the “majority within the majority” argument came to pass at the committee regarding the action that should have been taken with regard to this situation. As was reported a minority simply said that the law should take its course and the seat should be declared vacant and a by-election held. A majority held that some amendment to the law was required to deal with this situation. I was part of the actual minority within the majority which held that the amendment that was passed should simply deal with Mr Duynhoven’s position retrospectively; in other words from the period between the actions that he took at the commencement of this Parliament through until the date that the bill was passed by Parliament—I think from 14 August 2002 to 6 August 2003 from memory. 
I was interested to hear the Green member’s comment which I found somewhat unconvincing. The majority took the view that the Act should be amended not just retrospectively to deal with past events but also prospectively to deal with future occurrences through until the time of the next general election. That causes huge problems and it was the reason in the end that United Future found that it could not support the legislation that was being passed. What we were doing was creating a contradictory situation. On the one hand we were saying to Mr Duynhoven: “We understand your predicament. We understand that unwittingly you have placed yourself in the position where your membership of the House is nullified and we are legislating to correct that action because we don’t think that the penalty that you are being inflicted with is merited by the crime that you are alleged to have committed.” 
But at the same time—and here is the really strange contradiction—we were also saying: “But anyone else from this point on until the next election who wants to do precisely the same thing with impunity is protected herewith.” Despite many attempts to find a rationale for that prospective decision we were all unsuccessful. We are still none the wiser as to why legislation had to be passed saying not just that Mr Duynhoven’s retrospective position was dealt with but everyone’s prospective situation in this Parliament right through to the next election is dealt with. So poor old Mr Duynhoven suffers the ignominy of this whole saga suffers the indignity of appearing before the Privileges Committee literally to fight for his political life while every other member of Parliament now can sit back relax go out and apply for joint nationality citizenship or whatever and be protected by the law. 
That is frankly absurd. The sour taste in the mouth for me arising from this Privileges Committee report is not the way we have dealt with Mr Duynhoven—because we certainly have drawn to the attention of the House the anomaly of his position and the need for the law to be reviewed and amended perhaps in the future—but we have the curious situation which is as far as I am aware still unresolved by this debate this afternoon where no one knows why the law applies right through to the time of the next general election. 
Dr Mapp would agree with me. I see him nodding. I do not know what his nationality aims or objectives might be but he and I could walk down to a foreign embassy tomorrow and inquire about citizenship or nationality or appointments and we would be utterly protected despite the fact of the very restrictive provisions of section 55(1)(b) and (c). And no one is any the wiser as to what is being protected here. 
So the suspicion immediately arises and has not been knocked away that this actually is not about Harry Duynhoven. He in some senses was the innocent fall guy who came along and has triggered a situation that is far wider in its context and that Parliament has given a blanket protection to; and we as members of Parliament who passed that law by a narrow majority are stillnone the wiser as to the true intent and reason of it. 
When the presiding officer referred this matter to the Privileges Committee—and I will leave aside the argument about his actions—he did so seeking some clarity from that committee. What he has got now and what the country has got is a small decision in one sense in favour of Mr Duynhoven clear and resolved rightly or wrongly but a much bigger unclear picture in respect of everyone else in this House. It is the worst of all possible outcomes. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is beyond doubt and this is for the benefit of Labour members of Parliament that Mr Duynhoven was in breach of section 55 of the Electoral Act—that is he transgressed the Electoral Act. No one suggested it was a crime to apply for another passport. But what is absolutely clear beyond doubt is that Mr Duynhoven broke the law and that law is the Electoral Act. The consequence should have been that the seat was vacant—the Privileges Committee found that that occurred on 11 June at the time of Mr Duynhoven’s application—and the next consequence should have been a by-election. 
I have been listening to United Future and New Zealand First which have both argued for narrow legislation for Mr Duynhoven on the basis that his actions were inadvertent and that the consequences would be excessive. But in Australia whenever there is a breach of the Electoral Act that leads to a vacancy there is only ever one result which is a by-election. 
Why is it that in New Zealand we now effectively have two standards of law with one for Labour MPs so that if they break the electoral law and if they are in breach of their privilege to sit in this House they can go to the Government and get a law passed in their favour? What kind of message does that send to those New Zealanders who will be appearing in court tomorrow? Will they now be able to say: “Your Honour I may be in breach of the law but I have written to my local Labour member of Parliament and the Government will shortly pass a law that will absolve me of responsibility.”? 
I can see that Mr Damien O’Connor sees that that proposition is absurd—and of course it is absurd but that is exactly what the Government has done. It has established one set of laws for its recalcitrant members—and I say “members” deliberately because the situation is as Mr Dunne has said it is: someone in that Government is being protected. Someone has never owned up. Someone has done something since the last election that rendered his or her seat vacant. The reason I say that is that as a result of a discussion in the Privileges Committee each and every whip was asked whether his or party had any members who were in breach of the law and with the exception of the Labour Party each party was able to answer no it did not. But when that question was put to Labour members on the committee they refused to answer. 
Then the Government introduced legislation that referred to “vacancies”—being more than one; plural. It was disgraceful that this Parliament was forced to pass legislation last week that on the face of it protected a dishonest member an unknown person. That brings everyone in the Labour Party into disrepute. I am sure that if Labour members thought about it they could not possibly want that to be the outcome but that is the outcome they have brought on themselves. 
There is another point and it involves the officer of the Speaker. Section 129 makes it plain and clear that the duty of the Speaker when a seat is vacant is to declare the vacancy leading to a by-election. Last Wednesday at 1 o’clock this report was tabled in the House. One would assume that it is almost certain that the Clerk had given the Speaker advice of the report at 1 o’clock or shortly thereafter. The contents of the report are plain the view of the Clerk of the House is plain and the view of the Solicitor-General that was given to the committee was plain: the seat was vacant. 
We on this side of the House have yet to be satisfied as to why it was that the seat was not declared vacant no later than Wednesday last week. Yes a by-election would have been the result but that is how our constitution works and there is nothing wrong with that. That gives public confidence that the same laws that this Parliament passes apply to every single person in this country. But what we have is 52 members of the Labour Party who seek special legislation for themselves. I remind the House that every other party—with the possible exception of the Greens—asked to be exempted from the legislation and that did not happen. The Government voted against that. 
I will turn to the issue of the advice of the Solicitor-General and the Clerk of the House. The Clerk is widely recognised as the leading expert in this field in the Commonwealth. He has written extensively and has written one of the major books on this. The advice of the Clerk of the House and the Solicitor-General could not have been more clear to members of the committee yet we have an Attorney-General who has specifically rejected the advice of her senior legal adviser. It was not as if it was one of those cases where the Solicitor-General was saying: “Well on the one hand the law could be this and on the other hand it could be that.” In that situation it would be reasonable for the Attorney-General to say: “I choose this advice as opposed to that advice.” But the decision of the Solicitor-General was absolutely clear and emphatic and I believe that beyond all other members of Parliament the Attorney-General had a duty to accept that advice. 
There is something of a tradition whereby the Attorney-General sits slightly apart from other members of Cabinet so that he or she can give independent robust advice to Cabinet but this Minister has failed in that duty. 
I made an interjection to Ms Dalziel: “Whose direction?”. She can take exception to that but she cannot be surprised by that interjection when we have the spectacle of three senior Labour Cabinet Ministers—two of whom are lawyers—specifically rejecting the unambiguous advice of the Solicitor-General and the Clerk and for reasons that are totally obscure saying that the law is ambiguous. Their actions bring this House into disrepute. 
It is actions like this—with members debating this report days after the seat was vacant and days after the report was tabled—that cause New Zealanders to say that the Government has one set of laws for itself and another set for every other New Zealander who has no choice. If we want to build our democracy and build respect for the institution of Parliament then it behoves all members to observe the law and it is right that the consequences of the Electoral Act and the constitution should flow through and if that means a by-election well so be it. The consequences would then be carried out in accordance with the law. Constitutions are about observing the law; they are not about the sort of jiggery-pokery we saw in this House last week which brings our democracy into disrepute. 
Motion agreed to. 
Responsible Gambling Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Responsible Gambling Bill be now read a second time 
. I am pleased to present this bill to the House. 
Gambling is a complex area that has strong and competing interests. The bill addresses these interests in a fair and transparent manner. May I say at this stage that I am grateful to the United Future party for the constructive approach its members have taken to the bill. The gambling sector is currently governed by more than one piece of legislation. Each has different objectives and treats gambling providers in different ways. This bill is the result of a review conducted in 2001. It repeals the Gaming and Lotteries Act and the Casino Control Act and creates a single framework. Aspects of racing are also included within the framework. The bill has four main objectives: to control the growth of gambling; to minimise the harm caused by gambling; to ensure that gambling is primarily used to raise funds for the community; and to ensure community involvement in decisions about the availability of gambling. 
The bill was introduced in February 2002. It was read a first time and referred to the Government Administration Committee on 26 February 2002. The committee considered over 1400 submissions. This clearly illustrates the high level of public interest in this area. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee including past members for their hard work and dedication in considering those submissions debating the issues and making many improvements to the bill. The bill is the result of many months of hard work and dozens of Cabinet papers. These papers are available on the Internal Affairs website so that people can see what Ministers considered and what decisions they made. Putting this material on the website is one aspect of our efforts to make sure the review was as open and transparent as possible. Despite this access and the provision of a large volume of plain English information a number of members of this House have continued to give out inaccurate information. I can tell the House that sitting opposite is Judith Collins who told people that the Government would take all the money and have it distributed by the Lottery Grants Board. Nothing could be further from the truth. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh yes the member did. People got upset when members went around feeding misinformation when the review material was on the website for everyone to see. All those secretaries who wrote the letters know the truth. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: They made it up. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: They made it up again. In particular those members told community and sports groups that the bill will centralise the distribution of profits from non-casino gaming machines. I have made a number of statements about this in the House in the media and publicly to reassure people of that. Of course the National Party will say that it was responsible. National Party members have never had responsibility on this bill and Judith Collins as a junior back-bench member has a lot to learn. 
I will now talk about what the bill does do. The bill sets out a risk-based approach to gambling. It classifies each type of gambling according to potential harm. Gaming machines are very high risk. The bill imposes a more strict and stringent licensing regime and is harder on gaming-machine operators. The committee has proposed many amendments to the bill. Some of these are new initiatives to support its key objectives and some of them are minor technical issues. I am pleased that the committee has endorsed the basic framework of the bill. I am also pleased that the committee adopted the key principle from the Gaming and Lotteries Act which is that non-commercial gaming is permitted only to raise funds for community purposes. This is very important when it comes to gaming machines. 
The bill introduces an enhanced system of distributing gaming-machine profits to the community. Many people and organisations that made submissions on the gaming review were concerned that gaming-machine profits could be used for inappropriate purposes. Many submissions called for greater accountability. The bill incorporates a variety of new measures to address some of these concerns. For example all gaming machines must be connected to an electronic monitoring system and there are powers to specify maximum costs and minimum returns to community purposes. I would like to draw members’ attention to key amendments proposed by the committee to increase the public accountability of the distribution process. For example societies will be required to publish how they distribute profits from gaming machines where to obtain application forms the process for dealing with complaints and details of both successful and unsuccessful applications. 
The committee also strengthened the provisions to keep people associated with commercial venues out of the grant distribution process. The provisions that ensure greater accountability may not sit comfortably with all non-casino gaming-machine operators. However in my view the need to limit the potential for abuse is paramount. We as a society will all benefit from a gaming-machine regime that is seen to have integrity and that is transparent and fair. 
Consultation on the bill also left me in no doubt that local communities want a greater say on the location and scale of gambling opportunities in their area. The bill supports the view that communities should be able to weigh up the benefits to their community funding against the harm associated with gambling. The bill does this by requiring territorial authorities to develop gaming-machine venue policy in consultation with their community. This policy must specify whether gaming-machine venues can be established in the district and if so where. The policy may also restrict the number of gaming machines that may be operating at a single venue. The committee has strengthened this section of the bill. 
The committee has also proposed amendments to enhance the bill’s harm minimisation initiatives. The bill establishes a Gambling Commission. Some of its functions include considering appeals against certain decisions of the Secretary for Internal Affairs and dealing with casino licensing conditions. The committee expanded its role to include providing advice to me as Minister of Internal Affairs. It will advise me on the performance of its functions and the administration of the Act. The committee also proposes that the Gambling Commission should report annually to me as Minister of Internal Affairs. I will present that report to Parliament. These are sensible amendments which the Government is pleased to support. 
The committee also recommended prohibiting new gaming machines with banknote acceptors. This includes both casino and non-casino machines. The Government appreciates the reasoning behind this proposal but we have decided that we will permit those machines to incorporate banknote acceptor devices with a maximum denomination of $20. 
I have concentrated on gaming machines in this speech because that is the greatest area of public concern and interest. However the bill simplifies smaller low-risk community fund-raising like raffles and housie. Most of the fund-raising may be conducted without a licence provided the relevant rules are followed. Members will be please to note that for next year’s Melbourne Cup—and I am sure the Speaker will be interested in this—sweepstake prize limits will have increased to a total of $500. I would like to advise the House that I intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to the bill at the Committee stage. In addition to the banknote acceptor issue I raised earlier the Supplementary Order Paper will cover issues that arose from the committee’s consideration of the bill as well as a number of technical issues. I am pleased with the broad shape of the bill as amended. I believe it represents a giant leap forward in addressing the competing interests involved in the sector and creates a pathway to work together for the benefit of the whole community. I commend this bill to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 It seems that the Minister is a little bit upset with me. That probably has to do with the fact that he is no longer in charge of the Responsible Gambling Bill. Although he is here today in the House to talk to us about the bill the fact is that it has gone way past him. Other Ministers in Cabinet are dealing with this bill. It has gone to people like Trevor Mallard and even further up than that. That is because this “Minister in charge of Internal Affairs Leaky Buildings and Agent Orange” is so completely out of his depth that he has to stand here today and make out as though he is in charge. 
 This bill was actually delayed by an awfully long time—by 4 years. Part of that delay was caused by the fact that Labour was trying to cook up a deal. At first the deal was with the Greens and I would like to thank Sue Bradford for putting out a press release and letting people know what the Greens wanted in relation to their deal. I see that she is nodding in acknowledgment. She has a brand new press release out today which I have in front of me. So she let us know what Labour was doing with the Greens and we were able to let sports clubs charities schools and arts groups know exactly what was being planned. So if there has been a delay this year—and there has—it has been because of the great work of the National Party in Opposition letting people know what was being cooked up. 
What happened? First Sue Bradford let the cat out of the bag. Once we had told the people Labour then had to go cap in hand around Parliament around all the parties to try to get someone to do a deal with. I understand that Labour is still doing its deal with United Future and that one day this bill might get through to the Committee stage. Of course it has to because the moratorium on the establishment of new casinos finishes very soon—in fact in just a couple of months. As the Government has come out and said it does not want any more licensed casinos because of the evils of gambling we have to get this bill passed or else the Minister will be going. 
Jim Peters 
: Is that right? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: That is absolutely right. One of the issues with problem gambling—and we can all be concerned about problem gambling—is that it is not restricted to pokie machines or to casinos. If this Government had any thought at all for problem gambling then in the last 4 years it would not have allowed the number of gaming machines out in the community outside of casinos to grow from 12000 to 25000. That is a disgrace from a Government that came into power back in 1999 bleating on about the evils of casinos. All the licensed casinos in this country have fewer than 4000 machines in total but this Minister has sat there doing nothing. He has allowed another 13000 machines to be installed out there in the community while he sits here telling this Parliament that he thinks about problem gambling. Well if that is what he knows about problem gambling he does not know a lot. Problem gambling does not affect just people who use gaming machines. It affects people in the racing industry and people in the sharebroking industry. Certainly I have noted the Greens’ comments—and I agree with them—that the Hon Michael Cullen is always wanting to gamble our superannuation funds in offshore interests. If that is not gambling what is? 
The two biggest problem gamblers that this country has ever seen apart from the Hon Michael Cullen are the lawyers Renshaw and Edwards who between them gambled away a total of $33 million on speculative deals and on horses as well. It was all paid back by the lawyers of this country. They gambled $33 million and not a pokie machine in sight yet who is being punished? It is pokie-machine operators charities sports clubs and schools. This Government in the last 12 months has increased the gaming levy that it has got from the machines. The hospitality industry tells me that it has had a huge increase from $30 million to $90 million. That is a $60 million increase. What has the Government done with it? There is all this talk in the bill about problem-gambling levies but what has the Government been doing with the $60 million? Under this bill problem gambling is now a disease—and that is a nonsense. No gambler any longer has any personal responsibility because under this bill gambling is always someone else’s fault. It is probably to do with genetics or a disease. 
When I first went into the Casino Control Authority as its chairman I was very anti-gambling. I really cannot understand anyone who wants to gamble at all because I think it is a complete waste of time. But having said that I also learnt that between 2 and 6 percent of people who gamble are problem gamblers and even the 6 percent of gamblers talked about are being talked about by the people who get all their money from casinos and gaming machines because they are paid from them and provide services based on them. So they have an interest to find a large percentage of profit. The numbers of problem gamblers are in an extreme minority. I personally find it a disgrace that a Government that likes to rave on and on about problem gambling and its evils is quite happy to have its members go around supporting prostitution and its evils as if somehow or other the sin of gambling is more depraved than the sin of prostitution. Personally I find that view a disgrace. It shows that the Government is really about money. It is about wanting to grab money from pokie-machine operators charities schools sports clubs and art centres because this Government does not trust people to be able to arrange their own affairs. It does not trust people to be able to organise their own funding—it does not trust its people. The fact is that most people can get along very well without the Government and they enjoy doing so. That is why so many of the submissions to the select committee were about leaving the money locally—leaving it where it is—and letting people make their own arrangements. 
I am pleased to be able to say that before I came into Parliament and since the time I first brought up the issue of frauds and pokie machines in the  
National Business Review— 
a matter that has previously been brought into this House again by the Green member my friend Sue Bradford—I said that the Department of Internal Affairs had to get on to the matter and start using its powers to get rid of the fraud and the rorts in the gaming-machine industry. Thankfully that problem did not affect all the machine operators or even anything other than a tiny minority but those people ruined a lot of the business of pokie machines. The Department of Internal Affairs thankfully got its act together and got itself a very competent compliance director Keith Manch—I must say that I was on the panel that appointed him—who got tough on the problem and started to do the job that the department had unfortunately not done for years and years. It is really great to see the industry cleaned up able to come out with its codes of conduct and very satisfied that the work is being done.  
One of the final points I would like to make today is about the Gaming Commission which is a great idea and it should definitely be approved. The problem is that it has no teeth and no staff and it will absolutely be a puppet of the Department of Internal Affairs. That is wrong because there needs to be a distance between the department and the commission. Without that distance the department with its taxing abilities its ability to take away licences and its ability to control everything that is going on will become an empire that will kill the gaming industry in this country—to the extent that it will impose all sorts of costs. That is not a good thing.  
I have a final point about this moratorium. The moratorium on casinos will not stop problem gambling and such moratoriums never have. But what it does do is give Sky City in Auckland a monopoly. That company must be laughing all the way to the bank as must be its shareholders. It means that there will be no competition in Auckland. In many ways the Sky City operation is a great operation but it does not deserve to be a monopoly.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 This is the first opportunity that I have had to comment on this bill. I want to make a few preliminary comments about the bill before I get into some of the changes that the select committee made to it and some of the changes that United Future would still like to see. No one would dispute that there is a need for an overhaul of the legislation. The present regime is not only confusing and spread thinly amongst too many Acts but also it has become obsolete and is no longer relevant. The law has become the business end of a donkey and fails to deal with the technological innovations and forms of gambling that now dominate the sector. 
 United Future is now pleased to see the consolidation of gaming statutes into a single integrated piece of legislation that entails a coordinated complementary industry-wide approach. Under this bill all forms of gambling are now consolidated into five classes to cover casinos gaming machines lotteries housie nights organised raffles and so on. As far as class 1 and class 2 gambling are concerned I have to say it is pleasing to see that we can now hold an office sweepstake on Melbourne Cup Day without the politically correct brigade preventing us from having the simple pleasure of placing a bet and enjoying ourselves at least once a year. 
The bill seeks to limit opportunities for crime and gambling and to ensure fairness and integrity in gaming. The bill also intends to maximise profits of gaming to the community as well as for the first time introduce an element of community involvement in the location of new gaming venues. Possibly the most contentious issue in the bill has been the future of the non-casino gaming industry. Concerns relating to the casino moratorium have been sidelined compared to the amount of interest and passion that the pokies seem to have generated. I suspect like most of my colleagues that we have been bombarded by lobby groups and representatives from associated sectors that rely on pokie money local government representatives sports groups pro-gaming lobbyists anti-gaming lobbyists people who want less pokie regulation and people who want fewer pokies. 
My colleague Judy Turner recently received a letter from a local organisation in her area expressing concern at the proposed tax increases on gaming profits—in this case from the local neighbourhood support group. This is hardly an isolated incident. Members of this House will no doubt have been flooded with letters from all sorts of community organisations that are now funded in part from gaming-machine profits. Let us be clear: United Future is in no way opposed to this. Money should go to such organisations. But is it not more than a bit disconcerting that organisations that provide some of the most basic services that one would expect in any First World society—emergency services like St John Ambulance emergency helicopters and air ambulances or research into lung disease and cancer—must now rely on profits from the gaming sector? The non-casino gaming-machine sector has grown rapidly over the last decade. Gaming machines have increased from 7700 in 1994 to 25221 as of this June. Today there are 129 societies and 579 clubs that together raised about $770 million last year. That figure represents approximately a 30 percent increase in only a year on the amount of money lost by gamblers and raised for the community. This increase has had an unfortunate social cost. 
The Committee on Problem Gambling Management a cross-sector body representative of all industry interests reports that in 2001 5000 new clients sought help for problem gambling the bulk of whom were addicted to pokie machines. More recently the problem gambling helpline has reported a 21 percent increase just in the number of callers prompting an extension to its services so as to be available 24 hours a day. We are pleased to see that counterbalancing that the bill does promote harm minimisation and ways of addressing problem gambling. It is all too easy for some just to condemn the machine operators and condemn society’s trusts and clubs as money-hungry operators known only for their uncaring infliction of gambling problems and dodgy financial practices. The industry is far from perfect—it admits as much itself. But several developments have reshaped the industry in major ways. There have been licensing changes by the Department of Internal Affairs. There has been the impact of foreknowledge of the upcoming provisions of this bill. There has been the provision of the voluntary code of practice by the Charity Gaming Association. Its members can account for about two-thirds of all machines and it has already meant a more accountable and transparent process than the doomsayers suggest. 
This bill is intended to ensure that these standards are enhanced and adhered to right across the sector. So instead of condemning the operators it might pay to keep in mind all those sporting community emergency service and cultural groups that benefit from the proceeds of the industry as we might otherwise suffer a lacuna in the fabric of our civil society. Certainly no Government could fill the void. It is my view that we must strike a reasonable balance between these two competing interests. We cannot ban gaming machines yet we must maintain a sensible and responsible approach to some of its more harmful effects. United Future has worked hard and will continue to work hard with the Government to that end. 
The Government Administration Committee made a number of changes to the bill some of them good and some that could have been a little better. We are pleased to see that the provisions of accountability and transparency between societies and pub operators have been reinforced. We applaud the extension of guidelines for territorial authorities to define the scope they and their communities have to play in determining the location of future gaming sites. I also note the work the committee did on ensuring accountability in the grants process as well as the new requirement for charities to publish how their grants are allocated. If a charity frivolously funds the local league club’s trips to play in Aussie it will soon become apparent. 
In summary United Future supports the second reading of this bill but further support will be conditional on changes brought in during the Committee stage. We definitely flag our concerns with regard to a fair and open process for determining the problem gambling levy; no centralisation of profits—money spent locally should be returned locally—and greater independence of the gaming commission. United Future considers that the committee acted unconstructively with regard to banknote acceptors without any opportunity for submissions at all. As a consequence we would like to see a common-sense approach to banknote acceptors and therefore push for its inclusion. There are a number of issues that we would still like to progress with the Government and we will be progressing them with the Government. We will have a look at the bill during the Committee stage to see what can be done and that will basically determine our future support for this bill. When the chips are down members can always bank on United Future to bring in common sense. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill has many very good aspects that clear up a number of issues relating to methods of gambling across a wide spectrum of gambling in New Zealand. The main purpose of the bill is to tackle the proliferation of gaming machines or as we like to refer to them pokie machines and also the growth in problem gambling. 
However clubs nationwide and particularly sports groups and trusts are convinced that the new law will cut funding to their bodies. Although the Government may be trumpeting other objectives the reality is that this bill involves the centralisation of the distribution of gaming-machine funds and will have serious consequences for sports cultural and service organisations. Centralised distribution systems tangled in red tape will siphon money away. Funds involving such large amounts ought to be distributed by independent community representatives and the process of distribution needs to be open fair and accountable to the community. The bill in its present form does not meet those normal standards of transparency and accountability. The granting allocation process remains non-transparent and unclear with different and sometimes unknown criteria used to make grants decisions. 
New Zealand First cannot support any attempt by this Government to divert funding traditionally used to support local community activities into quasi-political causes sympathetic to the Government cause. The potential for political patronage is a real concern. Distribution to community projects via a centralised quasi-governmental agency subject to political appointments and pressures will not meet community needs. The chances of money raised in provincial New Zealand being returned from the centralised fund back to provincial New Zealand are virtually zero. 
I refer to an example: my next-door neighbour’s little boy plays in a soccer team and the team needs new clothes. It is only a small group and is unknown to the central bodies so it will not receive any funding. It will be put into a huge pool and will end up missing out. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: That’s absolute rubbish. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: The Minister is screaming out “Rubbish”. I ask the Minister to think about the way he has laid this bill out. It is set out so that individuals and small community groups will not receive the funding they deserve. The funds will be siphoned off into bigger projects—ones that are sympathetic to the Government’s cause. We have had plenty of examples of that already. This Government has proved itself to be that way inclined. The real cost of gambling is hidden because the effects are often manifested in other ways. 
Community groups and social services are finding it increasingly difficult to access community funding other than that derived from gambling. Successive Governments have given greater emphasis to the role of the community in providing social services yet they have failed to provide the funding which forces local communities to rely on gambling profits. We only have to look at one very classic example—the rescue helicopter. It is not funded by the Government therefore it relies heavily on donations and it is increasingly being required to rely on gambling profits. To provide the funds that are really needed they had to go to extremes and unfortunately it all came unstuck. These are not optional services; they are essential services and they should be funded directly by the Government and not have to rely on gambling profits taken straight out of pubs and clubs. That is not the way to fund those essential services. 
The bill effectively creates two tiers of pokie-machine licences. The Government has capped the numbers of machines in certain areas and reduced the number of pokie machines that can go into new venues. Although the bill caps individual machines it does not cap the overall number in an area covered by a particular local authority because local authorities are expected to put guidelines of their own into place. Those guidelines and the public input into those guidelines can take place only at the time councils and the local authorities formulate them. Once those guidelines are in place this bill prevents public input from that point on. The public cannot provide any further input into decisions to reduce the number of machines in a particular location. The bill provides no time limit on pokie-machine licences so a licence cannot be revoked by the community or local council even when there is a change of ownership or there is evidence that the machines are causing problems in the community. Those machines cannot be removed once they have been issued with a licence. 
Many submitters argued that local authorities will lack the teeth to have a genuine say in the level of gambling in their communities and unfortunately that is a major hole in this bill. If the bill progresses in its current form local communities are the ones that will suffer because they will no longer have any say. They will miss out on funding because of the way that the centralised funding process will take place and they will miss out on having their say on how many pokie machines will be allowed in their communities. 
As the country has seen an increase in gambling so gambling duties have increased but this Government is adding an additional charge in respect of problem gambling over and above those increased levies and duties. One of the methods by which it hopes to reduce problem gambling is to take out banknote machines. Restricting banknote machines is not going to reduce the volume of gambling. People will find other ways of circumventing the lack of banknote machines so there is absolutely no need to limit their numbers. 
 Another issue raised with us was the restriction on gambling via the Internet. There is no means by which gambling can be set up on the Internet but that will not stop people gambling on the Internet. They will just gamble off shore and any revenues gained from that will automatically go off shore. What is the point of that? The Government will not gain any revenue from offshore gambling; therefore it has restricted that form of gambling. 
I want to round up by saying that this bill has some very major flaws. I am disappointed that the Government is centralising the distribution of funds from pokie machines the revenue from which will then go to the people who support the Government. It will go into a central fund and be distributed to those who have the biggest arguments for funding but not to the local communities from which the money was withdrawn and gained from. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I have to answer some of the clear inaccuracies in the speech made by the previous speaker. This bill is designed to provide clearer accountability and to ensure that the money does go back into communities. If the member would make the effort to read the bill I am sure he would reach the same conclusion. 
I congratulate my colleague George Hawkins on bringing this bill back into the House and overseeing its development. The current gambling legislation is out of date and the Government is taking the necessary steps to address the rapid developments in gambling in recent years. I am confident that we have achieved the appropriate balance that is needed to ensure that we preserve the benefits of gambling while at the same time delivering comprehensive measures to reduce the harm from gambling. For many people gambling is an enjoyable recreational activity and we accept that. 
About one-third of the revenue from non-casino gaming machines is put back into the community in the form of community grants and the Government takes those factors into consideration when it looks at those issues. But problem gambling can be a destructive addiction that pulls families and communities apart. Lately it seems that we have only to pick up the occasional newspaper to see the evidence of the harm that problem gambling can cause society. On a daily basis counsellors are seeing individuals who have defrauded their employers lied and carried out a lot of other unfortunate actions to feed their gambling habits. 
Gambling opportunities have increased hugely in New Zealand over the past decade which has meant that this Government has had to do something about the growing problems. We have six casinos in which to gamble and poker machines can now be found from Kaitaia to Bluff and even so far afield as the Chatham Islands. We have seen the number of machines go up from 8000 in 1994 to more than 25000 this year. That is a significant increase that we have to accept. The number of people seeking help through the telephone helpline has increased markedly as well. In the same period the number of people receiving personal counselling has tripled to almost 3000 clients. Today almost 80 percent of problem gamblers admit that gaming machines have been the primary source of their problem. 
The Responsible Gambling Bill is legislation that for the first time is designed to ensure that the benefits of gambling to the community are balanced against the growing issue of problem gambling in New Zealand. Furthermore by taking a public health approach New Zealand will be a world leader in that field. The Ministry of Health’s integrated problem-gambling strategy will incorporate three main elements to help problem gamblers and their families. As I said they are a public health approach funding problem-gambling services and building up knowledge of problem gambling and what we can do to help people in need. The public health approach focuses on prevention. It aims to prevent gamblers becoming problem gamblers in the first place and to raise public awareness of the risks associated with gambling. The funding of problem-gambling services will assist gamblers and their families who have been harmed by gambling. The ministry will take on a coordinated approach across all those services linking them nationally regionally and on a local basis as well. 
Problem gambling can affect rural areas as well as urban areas and it is important that people right throughout the country have access to assistance wherever they need it. The ministry is currently undertaking a needs assessment of problem gambling that can work in with its strategy. We have some strategies in place. Currently we have a population survey programme including the New Zealand health survey the health behaviours survey and the Pacific drug and alcohol survey which are all designed to assist people in need. That work builds on the extensive consultation carried out in 2002 on the draft national plan for minimising gambling harm. As part of that consultation we held meetings up and down the country to find out the best way of assisting people in need. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: How many meetings did New Zealand First hold? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Not too many given the lack of understanding of the bill currently before the House. I hope that members will make the effort—it is quite a big bill—to read through it and see that we have reached a good point of balance between ensuring that the benefits of gambling come back to the communities—as Mr Catchpole was seeking—and that we move ahead to address the growing problems associated with gambling in this country. 
Problem-gambling services will be funded through the problem-gambling levy which is a levy on the profits of the gambling industry. The levy for each gambling sector will take account of the harm caused by that sector according to data from those seeking help for their gambling problems. It has been scientifically assessed that some forms of gaming with a shorter cycle time like poker machines have a greater tendency unfortunately to tie people to addiction. That is the reality and we must address that. 
I would like to thank the Committee on Problem Gambling Management for the fine work it has done over past years in addressing the issue of problem gambling. Its work will be surpassed by the commission but it has done an invaluable amount of work in building up programmes to assist people who need help. That committee’s positive and helpful approach in dealing with the Ministry of Health will ensure that a seamless transition takes place when we shift responsibility to the Ministry of Health and the new commission. 
It is heartening to see that gambling problems are now being recognised both in this bill and by industry groups themselves. Many industry organisations have taken significant steps to address the problem. The Charity Gaming Association’s code of practice and the TAB itself which has a host-responsibility programme are just two examples of how the gambling industry is moving to address the issue of problem gambling. The comprehensive approach of this bill to maximising the benefit and minimising the harm caused by gambling is something that both this Government and the New Zealand people can be proud of. 
Before I conclude I would like to make a few comments in reference to my responsibilities as Minister for Racing. The bill formally recognises racing club activities as authorised purposes. That means that racing clubs will be able to apply gaming proceeds to promoting controlling and conducting race meetings. The bill also allows the TAB and racing clubs to operate gaming machines in TAB agencies and on course in their own right—provided of course that they satisfy the overall licensing regime. 
I would like to put on record that it is a privilege for the racing industry to be allowed this opportunity to expand but it must use that privilege responsibly. I am sure it will be part of the measures we have put in place through this bill to reduce the harm of problem gambling. Alongside other measures in the bill that provision demonstrates our commitment to the racing industry. As Minister for Racing I am happy to say that it will be a very positive move for the industry. We want to see it thrive but again we want to minimise the harm caused by problem gambling. 
I would like to thank United Future for its cooperation. There are still issues that we disagree on but we have managed to work through some of them with that party. I also thank the Green Party. This bill has been promoted by my colleague George Hawkins and I am sure that its passage through the House will give us good legislation that will both promote the benefits of gambling and address the issues around problem gambling. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of ACT New Zealand to oppose this bill. I found the previous speaker’s speech very interesting. He described the bill as a good balance. I notice that the first reading was on 26 February 2002 which is quite some time ago—in fact well before I came to this House—and the fact we are only now having the second reading debate would indicate I think that there are some fundamental difficulties with this bill. We heard from the National member that the bill has been passed from Cabinet member to Cabinet member and that does not seem to have done much good. The previous speaker the Hon Damien O’Connor thanked United Future members. He will have to thank them a lot more because it would seem that having not given the bill their unconditional support they still have great concerns with it. He also thanked the Greens which is quite surprising. I do not think he realises that the Greens are proposing to oppose this bill too. But anyway he will find that out in due course. 
This bill has been introduced by an authoritarian Government that does not trust the citizens of this country. It wants to control the activities undertaken by New Zealanders especially in areas where it thinks that people might be enjoying themselves or having some fun. The bill is aimed at giving far too much power to the State. ACT believes that New Zealanders should be free to spend their money as they choose. We know that a small number of people do have difficulty with gambling addiction but the majority of New Zealanders should not be put at a disadvantage as a result of a small few and I will come to how those people should be treated soon. This bill proposes to create a whole new structure of unaccountable bureaucrats in the Department of Internal Affairs. The current system is by no means perfect but we believe that it is infinitely superior to what is proposed. 
At the moment the Casino Control Authority is responsible for licensing and regulations and underneath it sits the Department of Internal Affairs. The proposed structure has a gaming commission at the top and we have heard from the National member who knows a thing or two about gaming that that is a good thing. However it has no teeth very few staff—and what will it achieve? Also this gaming commission will be controlled by the Department of Internal Affairs and the Minister and ACT is certainly opposed to that. Any commission must be independent. There must be a reasonable amount of distance between the gaming commission and the Department of Internal Affairs. The commission would have a limited licensing function and it would deal with appeals. Underneath the commission is a huge horizontal layer of bureaucracy—the Department of Internal Affairs responsible for everything involved with gaming; from gaming policy through to enforcement licensing regulation and the servicing of the gaming commission and the servicing of the Lottery Grants Board. This structure is a great cause for worry. It will result in a lack of transparency and like so many other Government departments that we have seen of late a lack of accountability. 
The distribution of funds from gaming machines is one of the major problems arising from the bill and one that has had a lot of time devoted to it in the speeches we have heard so far. ACT is in favour of the status quo. The current system provides good checks and balances that ensure distribution is transparent and fair. That is very important and it is paramount when we talk about money that is being distributed to the community. Trusts and charities are accountable to the department and also to the public. The State either in the form of central government or local government should not have a role in distributing these funds we believe. The temptation is always to grab these extra funds in the form of taxation and there is certainly plenty of evidence of this Labour Government doing that to date. We have had 16 new levies or taxes since Labour has come to power and here is the opportunity for this to happen yet again. Charitable trusts by and large distribute money efficiently and fairly and this is the most important point of all: pub charities and the other organisations that are responsible for distributing these funds know their communities best. They certainly know them much better than the bureaucrats in Wellington ever will. 
The Minister George Hawkins said recently that the Government is determined to control the growth of gambling minimise the harm it causes involve New Zealanders in decision making about gambling and ensure that gaming profits benefit the community. He has said that the Responsible Gambling Bill aims to achieve those objectives. Well I think he is reading a different bill from the one I was reading. Certainly the bill I was reading did not talk about that. But I wonder whether his motivation comes from looking out of his own electorate office in Manurewa. I paid a visit to Manurewa recently and parked across the road from George Hawkins’ electorate office. Do members know how many gaming outlets there are within a 1.5 kilometre radius of his office? There are 18. I visited at 3 o’clock in the afternoon and had a wander around. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: How much did you spend? 
HEATHER ROY 
: I did not spend anything because I value my money. We wandered around had a look and virtually none of the machines were free. At 3 o’clock in the afternoon they were virtually all full. Also interestingly two more gaming outlets were being built or furnished. They were being set up. There was some urgency for this because they thought the bill was about to have its second reading. It is some time down the track now and we know about the fundamental problems that exist but they thought they had to get their outlets outfitted very quickly so that they could install 18 machines as opposed to nine. [ 
Interruption 
] It is obvious that the Minister is worried about his own electorate and the problems that exist there. 
Most of us have had letters—I certainly have—from small sporting groups cultural groups soccer clubs tennis clubs and the like. They are worried about their financial viability with this bill going through. They rely heavily on the proceeds they receive from the funds that are distributed locally. It is interesting to look at the smaller sporting clubs such as soccer clubs and tennis clubs. We are constantly told by this Government that there is an obesity epidemic and a diabetes epidemic particularly among children in this country. Children are not exercising enough. We all know this—but what is this Government doing? It is now going to deprive the small sporting clubs that provide sporting opportunities and exercise for our children on Saturday mornings and other days by curtailing the funding available to them through gaming machines. 
I have also had a lot of correspondence from groups like the Returned Services Association. I have a very interesting letter from the Mount Maunganui branch of the association. It sums up beautifully the concerns that many such organisations have. It is a larger Returned Services Association one of the largest in the country I believe with a membership in excess of 5000. The letter says: “We and all other clubs have always acted responsibly in our gaming-machine operation.” They claim to be meticulous in that regard and they say they have been regularly audited by the Department of Internal Affairs and have received a clean report on every occasion and even praise for their systems. They go on to say that their methods have been used by the department as an example for other clubs and they point out that gaming revenue is an essential component of income for their club and for others that they know of. They also provide welfare assistance to their members as a result of the funding they receive from gaming machines thus relieving the burden that would otherwise fall on local authorities or on the Government. 
Of real concern about the proposed legislation are the compliance costs and of course there are many. There is the threat of increased duty. The Minister refuses to rule out in answers to questions I have asked him the possibility that the duty may go up from 20 to 25 percent. Also there is talk of electronic monitoring which is going to cost the clubs dearly. The changing of banknote acceptors is also a concern to them. Anybody who thinks that allowing the machines to take less money will make any difference at all is just not living in this world. People will just change their money and have smaller notes which they will continue to use in exactly the same way. At the moment the Department of Internal Affairs has adequate powers to discipline the bad boys or the cowboys which the Returned Services Association explained to me. But this is only a minority of those operators and by and large the system that operates at the moment does provide transparency. 
I would like to wrap up by talking about problem gambling. It is interesting that the first person who even dared to mention the Ministry of Health and the changeover from the current problem gambling committee to the Ministry of Health being responsible was the last speaker. Nobody else has mentioned it because we all know what a terrible job it is going to make of it. The problem gambling committee currently responsible for problem gambling has representatives from the industry and also from groups that are responsible for treating those with addiction. There is some tension between the two but it works well. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 It is always interesting to hear ACT members on gambling. They are experts particularly when it comes to the economy and they have a leader who was able to gamble with the whole country’s economy for quite a period of time. Fortunately that period has gone. The Progressive party being a responsible party supports the Responsible Gambling Bill. We expect the law change will make a positive contribution to enhancing the safety of our communities. It will tackle one of the well-known contributions to the incidence of poverty afflicting some parts of our society. 
As a member of Parliament with dual citizenship I draw on my deep Australian roots to know something about gambling. Following in the tradition of dual citizens who are Australians and giving the benefit of their erudition to this Parliament and previous ones I can say that I like to take bets at the races and other sporting events. I even bet with my children on the All Blacks games and because of my dual citizenship I am able to change my bet at half-time depending on who is winning. But ever since arriving in Parliament 7 years ago I have been aware that for some families gambling is not a simple issue of personal choice or individual freedom. The ACT party—and increasingly the National Party since its adoption of ACT’s key values and policies—talks a lot about choice and freedom. But of course every party represented in Parliament is a descendant of the liberal tradition that deeply values individual freedom and liberty. 
As serious parliamentarians we on this side of the House in the Labour-Progressive coalition also take into account the liberty and freedom of the children of those afflicted by chronic gambling problems. Life is never as simple as ACT party rhetoric or ideology implies. Most people would agree with Progressive’s view that the role of a responsible Government is to protect and enhance the well-being of all citizens. That includes the most vulnerable amongst us. My colleague Jim Anderton and I campaigned in the 1990s to support policies to minimise harm arising from problem gambling. The election of a centre-left coalition in late 1999 allowed us to deliver on that commitment and the Responsible Gambling Bill was introduced to the House 2 years ago. 
In October 2001 2 years ago there were 2095 gaming-machine sites in New Zealand with 20597 machines. At 30 June this year there were 25221 gaming machines located in 2122 gaming-machine sites. I look forward to the Committee stage of this debate for consensus by Parliament to put in place measures to limit the explosion in pokies that New Zealand has experienced in recent years. 
The legislation is a good example of MMP working. To get anything done in the House we need 61 votes. In this case it has required the cooperation of three parties Labour Progressive and United Future to get us above that critical threshold of 61 votes. It could have been more but the Green Party sulked on this issue. The thing about MMP is that we negotiate; we try to get the most for the people we represent. This legislation is a progressive step in the right direction—in terms of where it goes not in terms of politics—and is enough of a step that we can give it our support. I make the point that the bill is going forward because it has the support of the Progressives with Labour and United Future. That gives us 62 votes. If we were to vote against it the House would be evenly divided 60-60 and the bill would be lost. But the thing about MMP is that we negotiate to get the most for the people we represent. This legislation is a progressive step in the right direction and is enough of a step that we give it our support. 
We know that pokies are the most addictive form of gambling responsible for perhaps 70 percent of problem gamblers. A quarter of regular gaming-machine users experience gambling problems. There is a link between the number of pokies the total losses on them and the level of problem gambling. The parties that do support this bill know that what they are doing is a positive response to what community groups and anti-poverty campaigners are telling us. The community groups have been telling us for years that there is no question that gambling is a harmful activity for some people. 
The purpose of the bill is to facilitate responsible gambling and ensure the integrity and fairness of games. Its intention is to limit opportunities for crime dishonesty and exploitation of the vulnerable by facilitating direct community involvement in decisions about the provisions of gambling. The bill introduces measures to enhance the accountability and transparency of the gambling system and improvements to the level of community input into determining the number and location of non-casino gaming machines. In short this bill is an important part of the wide-ranging campaign to tackle poverty and make our communities safer. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 When the Responsible Gambling Bill first appeared on the scene in October 2001 the Green Party was full of hope and enthusiasm about the progressive reforms we believed the Labour-Alliance coalition Government was introducing. Disturbed by the ever-growing numbers of non-casino gaming machines and rocketing rates of problem gambling we looked at things like the moratorium on new casinos and tighter regulation of pokies and pledged our goodwill and support for this bill. 
However we then entered the select committee process. I sat on the Government Administration Committee for the duration of its consideration of the bill and what an extensive and revealing experience that was. Although my background of working in the unemployed and beneficiaries movement had given me plenty of real life acquaintance with some of the problems associated with gambling especially among low-income people I had never before been so fully exposed to the realities of all sides of the gambling industry in Aotearoa - New Zealand. I think what shocked me above all else was one particular day that we spent listening to submissions in south Auckland. On the one hand we heard people from the pub charities telling us how wonderful and good for the country their work is and on the other people from problem gambling services showed us maps that pinpoint precisely how the proprietors of pokie machines absolutely and deliberately establish them in the poorest parts of our cities towns and suburbs. 
Many pokie parlours are deliberately situated and geared to attract mothers who have just walked their children to school and beneficiaries with time on their hands and too little cash in their pockets. These places are established with the express purpose of extracting what little cash is left whether a person is on $150 a week or $1000 a week. The damage that is being caused to individuals families workplaces and communities is a national disgrace. It has been made worse by the fact that we have had Governments that have deliberately allowed this situation to develop. We do not suddenly have over 27000 pokie machines in New Zealand just by chance. 
When the current Government took office at the end of 1999 and was advised of the major social and economic problems caused particularly by the pernicious nature of pokie-machine gambling there were around 16000 machines in place. As at April 2003 there were 27340 an increase of around 11000. There is now a ratio of one pokie machine to 146 men women and children in our country. We think of America as the home of the casino and the slot machine but even America has a ratio of 1:400 a figure that only one district in New Zealand Waitakere City can proudly beat. Even the previously untarnished Chatham Islands now has pokie machines—the mind boggles—and provincial areas like Taranaki and the Bay of Plenty continue to see significant increases. The prize for the highest ratio of machines to head of population goes surprisingly to the Kaikoura district at one pokie machine for every 61 residents with Queenstown and Thames-Coromandel chasing close behind. 
What does all this mean one might ask and why are pokies such an issue? Statistics from last year show a 24 percent increase in the number of people seeking help with gambling addictions directly caused by gaming machines. Over 80 percent of new clients looking for assistance from problem gambling services last year attributed their problem to the pokies. Worryingly enough though these figures are inside them lies another distressing trend; the fact that there has been a massive increase in the number of women seeking help for gambling addiction. In 1997 only 28.6 percent of problem gamblers receiving counselling were women. By 2002 they made up nearly 50 percent. The proportionately greater impact on children and families can easily be imagined even by those who are not directly engaged in our ever-burgeoning problem gambling industry. The fact that this is happening at a time when the number of machines has risen by 11000 leads any sane person to one conclusion only; that the proliferation of gaming machines in New Zealand has had a direct effect on the numbers of people afflicted by gambling addiction and all the subsequent social economic physical and psychological damage it causes. 
I know the Government will be quick to respond by saying that this so-called Responsible Gambling Bill is a fine and totally adequate answer to the problem. As I said earlier at first the Green Party too thought that this bill provided most of the answers and that perhaps a few amendments during the select committee process would fix up the rough edges. However this was not to be. As time went on it became increasingly clear that this bill marketed as the solution to the social ills created by the proliferation of pokie machines and casinos simply did not go far enough. By the end of 2002 the Green Party decided to withdraw its support for the bill. Since that time we have been working closely with a number of church organisations and community groups and with Local Government New Zealand in a bid first of all to ensure that all pokie machines and sites not just those licensed after 17 October 2001 are covered by the bill in terms of local body control. 
We believe that local councils and local people should be able to have the ultimate say over whether and where pokie parlours are established and maintained in their district and how many machines there should be in their district if any. The Green Party contends that it is simply not good enough to allow local councils and through them local people only some say over how many pokies there are in their neighbourhood and where they are placed. The bill makes progress in terms of requiring territorial local authorities to adopt a policy on gaming venues like casinos and pokie parlours but they will have control only over the approximately 5000 machines whose venues were licensed after October 2001. The up to 20000 machines at venues licensed before that date will not be subject to councils’ new gambling venue policies. We are calling on a Labour Government which supposedly supports principles of greater local control over local issues to consider revising its ambivalent position by the time this bill comes back to the House for its Committee stage. 
The second area where we are calling for a change of heart from Government is in relation to the distribution system for the proceeds of non-casino gaming machines. A report just out from the Lotteries Commission shows that Lotto sales are continuing to fall as a result of pressure from other forms of gambling. The drop in profits means that the payout to the worthy organisations that the Lotteries Commission supports will also continue to fall. The commission’s statement of corporate intent tabled in Parliament just last week estimates that its net profit for 2002-03 will be around $106 million. Last year the profit was $113 million. Only $103 million will be handed out to community groups this year. That is a big drop from the $140 million that the commission was able to make available to a myriad of worthy groups in 1999. 
Over the last two decades Governments have put higher and higher expectations on the community sector to carry out functions formerly provided by the State. Contracts are rarely enough to fully fund activities and hard-pressed organisations often rely on Lotteries Commission funding to help with even the requirements of bare survival. Meanwhile the pub charities that distribute the proceeds of non-casino gaming machines around the country are now doling out around $200 million a year and that amount is rising. 
A major research project carried out earlier this year looking at where the funds from commercial pokie bars are distributed showed that very few of these profits are reaching the community organisations working in communities whose needs are greatest. The study reported that sports groups predominantly traditional male sports got over 50 percent of the funding while all other types of organisations including arts and culture and all the different kinds of community activities got the rest between them. We would like to see all or even part of this $200 million-plus a year taken out of private hands and allocated by a mix of national regional and local distribution committees. We are not advocating as some have claimed some kind of totally centralised bureaucratic distribution system. Rather we would like to see equity between national and local allocation and fairness between types of activities funded. The Green Party is not against sports and recreation either. What we do seek is equity between these different types of activities. 
 We want a process that is fully and publicly accountable where applicants have a fair chance of being considered and where the choice of who gets funded is not dependent on the arbitrary whims of the administrators of pub charities who obviously will always give preference to the type of organisation with which they feel a natural empathy and all too often to those who come to drink in their bar. 
I make a last heartfelt plea to Labour MPs to consider changing their minds on this bill. Labour still prides itself at least sometimes on its support for low-income workers beneficiaries their families and the organisations that serve them. I just cannot fathom how Labour’s social justice principles can be lined up with its continuing heartless backing of the privatised distribution system of this enormous amount of money and its failure to give local government the power to control pokie numbers and venues in their own districts. I hope that Labour MPs will look at this bill again before it comes back to the House and consider amending it so that it goes beyond being a half-hearted attempt at responsibility. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill. I want to pick up from where my colleague Damien O’Connor left off and that is to correct some of the gross misinformation that has been put around by National Party colleagues and also by a colleague from New Zealand First. If he read clause 92—it is not in big print but it is there—he would know that his assertions about centralised funding are not true. National Party members have gone around the country as have other members scaring the living daylights out of good community and sporting groups saying that they will lose their money for the football boots the football jerseys and all the resources that those community and sporting groups rely on. That simply is not true. 
I am pleased that National Party members do that. They did the same with the charities’ proposals and when that was dealt with all those groups that they ran around scaremongering and stirring up realised that they were telling porkies. We know that when this legislation is put through again those groups like the Belfast Rugby Club in my electorate that I am privileged to be an honorary member of will know that Mr Brownlee and his kind told porkies again. They will know that. 
I want to make this very simple point. For the benefit of Mr Catchpole this is how the funding regime used to work in the old days. The applicant would apply through the pub. The pub would then pass on the application to the trust. The trust would then make the decision and in many cases the cheque would go from the trust back to the pub—the pub not having made the decision—and then be handed back to the applicant. There was not a lot of accountability in respect of how much went back to the applicant because many of us know the rorts that some publicans—not all—engaged in. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Name one. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Given Mr Brownlee’s funding sources in the last election he would probably know more about those sorts of things than I do. Under the new system the pub is cut out. The pub was never the decision maker at any time under the legislation. The trust was and it remains so. Therefore the Belfast Rugby Club would make an application directly to the trust. The trust as it did before makes the decision and sends the money straight back to the applicant. What we ask for is more accountability transparency and openness so that we know what applicants apply for and that they get it. I was told of an example where a publican said to an applicant: “I know you want $5000. Why don’t we just fill in the application for $10000.” and they got a backhander through the back door or so I am told by some reputable sporting clubs. 
We are saying that local nepotism has gone but to answer the charges of the Opposition the decision maker under the old legislation—the trust—will be the same decision maker today under the new legislation. With all the scaremongering of Mr Brownlee and all the bluff and bluster to try to scare the heck out of sporting and community groups their bluff has been called. 
I look forward to this legislation being passed. We will introduce things like electronic monitoring so that the so-called rorts cannot happen again. We will ask applicants to provide some evidence of how they spent the money so that if they did apply for money for footy jerseys we can see that it was spent on footy jerseys and not on political campaigns or on a few beers down at the local. Why are we going to clean up those rorts? I would have thought that every member on the opposite side would want that to happen because it means that the more rorts that are cleaned up the more money that can be saved and the more money that can be put back into the community and sporting groups that we as members of Parliament want to support and see enhanced. 
There are other provisions in the bill such as powers to check. I know that some members of the ACT party might object to this but there is a power to check the honesty of people associated with the operation of gaming machines. I would have thought that Mr Catchpole and Mr Brownlee would support a provision like that. Why are they not supporting the bill? The bill has a provision to increase audit powers significantly. I would have thought that this House would support that provision. The bill provides for new offences and stronger penalties. 
I conclude by saying that the erroneous assertion that has scared the living daylights out of many sporting and community groups that somehow the Government will grab the money and it will all go to Wellington is not true. If members read clause 92 concerning the structure of how and who will make the decision they will see that under the old legislation it was the trusts and it is the trusts under the new legislation. The difference is that the nepotism whereby the old publican used to become involved has gone. That means no more rorts. That means more money for community groups. I would have thought that anybody in this House with some community spirit would support that. I support the bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 That was an address from a sore loser. I make it very clear to this House and to anyone who wants to listen that if it had not been for the campaign of Opposition parties the Government would have proceeded with its proposal to centralise funding from pokie machines. We would have seen all sorts of Mickey Mouse projects dreamt up by Labour members of Parliament receiving a flow of funds that should rightfully be returned to the community. 
The previous speaker talked about the rorts he knew of. When he was challenged he said that he sort of heard from someone that there might be there could have been and maybe there were rorts. Would members not think that if he knew of rorts he would have used the privilege he has in Parliament to name the offenders so that everybody would know just how big that problem has been? The fact is that it has not been a problem. There are ratbags in any industry and this legislation will not stop them. Clever people will get around the electronic monitoring with a bit of clever computer higgery-jiggery. They will rort the machines and that is a fact. Unfortunately Mr Cosgrove says that that is the prime reason for putting this huge bureaucratic impost on an industry that is just about returning funding to the community. 
I want to take up the issues raised by Sue Bradford. One would swear that there was never a problem gambler in this country until we had pokie machines. That is wrong. I remember the days when this country used to close down at 10 o’clock at night. It is not that long ago. I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker remembers those days as well. Just about every weekend a couple of rugby clubs in my local district or other sports clubs league clubs cricket clubs swimming clubs or whatever ran illegal casino nights. They were huge. People would go along slap down the cash the dice would be rolled or the wheel would be spun and there would be winners and losers. It was quite illegal but it happened. People lost money and there were problem gamblers in those places. 
Card schools in New Zealand used to be big deals. Traditionally pay day was Thursday and on Thursday night anywhere in this country one could find numerous card schools where people bet their pay packets. Some years ago I even saw a dart game played for the weekly pay packet. To suggest that somehow all that was OK because there were no pokie machines that it was all simply just a bit of fun in the past but now we have this huge increase in problem gambling simply because of pokie machines is a nonsense. I do not want to hear Mr Cosgrove saying that it is the housewives in my district—because that is what he says about the housewives in his district—who spend the housekeeping money on the pokie machines. 
I say to Mr Cosgrove that years ago—and not too many I say again—housie used to be played in the cities and towns throughout this country and thousands of dollars were invested supposedly by those who played it. I can remember people sitting at our rugby club’s housie games with five or six cards in front of them. They would pay $3 a time and it was all over in 5 minutes. They stuck their hands up and would turn up with another $20 worth of cards. 
I say to Mr Cosgrove that that is all gone—and it has gone because of pokie machines; I accept that. But he should not come into this House trying to mount a case for there being more problem gamblers in this country now because of pokie machines. The reality is that we now have more people dependent for their livelihood on finding problem gamblers. I do not in any way suggest that if a family is affected by a problem gambler their case should not be treated with some sympathy. It can be a terrible addiction. There is no question about that. But people should be careful about where the blame for that lies. 
I make a prediction. I see in this bill that the annual amount that is taken by pokie machines and made available to problem gambling organisations goes from $5 million to $20 million—a fourfold increase. I will bet my bottom dollar that in a couple of years’ time with this $20 million taken off the sports fields and out of the cultural clubs of this country we will be able to say that problem gambling has gone up fourfold because there will be a whole raft of people out there depending on that statistic being presented. 
I am very concerned about the statements Mr Cosgrove made regarding the way in which the distribution of these funds has been handled in the past. I go down to sports grounds every Saturday and I see so many coaches out there giving of their time freely to allow the children in this country to have a good experience in a sports team or perhaps even in an individual sport. I am staggered at the number of times those sports coaches tell us that they are able to do so only because of the grants they get from the distribution from pokie machines. What Mr Cosgrove is saying is that somehow something has been wrong with the system that has allowed all this to happen. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Not with all those people—with the publicans. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: He is saying that because the local publican got to sign off a form or perhaps just hand it on somehow that fellow is a bad guy. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Some are. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I want to tell Mr Cosgrove that that is simply not the case. The hotels and other places where gambling machines are placed throughout this country particularly in rural areas end up being the anchor point in the community. That is where people go that is where they gather and that is largely where they get their community spirit from. For Mr Cosgrove to say that everything is simply going to come right with gambling in this country because we have changed the way in which the distribution is done is a nonsense. 
This bill is a bureaucratic disgrace. No one objects to electronic monitoring—that is simple. But I say to Mr Cosgrove that I can tell members the story of two ex-policemen who are employed by the Department of Internal Affairs as inspectors for these machines. They turned up at a local community down in Southland went to see the publican had a bit of a chat to him and then said: “Unfortunately we’re not going to get our flight back to Auckland unless we get to Invercargill by a particular time. So can we just say we’ve been here we’re satisfied with your operation and we have to go?”. 
This country does not need that sort of expense being imposed upon it. I want to know what community organisation missed out on funding because the Department of Internal Affairs employed two ex-detectives to drive about the countryside enjoying themselves and ride in a plane from Auckland to Invercargill and from Invercargill back to Auckland just so that the Minister would be able to say that a good audit process is in place. It is a load of rubbish. Certainly there should be electronic monitoring—that is easy—but members should not believe that there will not be those who try to get around it because there will. 
I ask another question. If this bill is so important and this has been such a cornerstone issue for the Greens United Future and Labour why have they allowed it to linger so long at a select committee and why have they allowed the numbers of pokie machines to rise from some 16000 to over 27000? That has been the effect of all the hysteria and paranoia exhibited by the Government and by Government supporters. This bill will not do anything to reduce problem gambling in this country. It will not do anything to stop people taking money they cannot afford and investing it—and I use that word somewhat ironically—in pokie machines. This bill will unfortunately make a significant difference to the local communities. They will miss out on the funding that will now go into the bureaucracy of administering the requirements of this bill and those requirements will not make a blind bit of difference to the way the industry operates. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I speak as the chairperson of the Government Administration Committee the select committee that looked at this bill. I am really sad that the previous speaker has not read the submissions as there were over 250 of them. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: And the member has! 
DIANNE YATES 
: I am glad the member is laughing. There is a huge variety of opinion. I am sure that member has listened to one or two people in his electorate but he has not had a considered review of the legislation. 
I will answer the member’s question about this legislation being a long time coming. An inquiry was held many years ago which Peter Dunne was in charge of. We had 9 years of a National Government during which time I sat on a committee that had one or two bits of legislation that as Mr Tisch will remember never even came back to the House. Then we had a very good Minister George Hawkins appointed and an inquiry was held relatively quickly. Next we had a comprehensive bill—and the Speaker will note that it is at least an inch thick. It deals with everything from racing to housie to pokie machines to lotteries. 
The legislation that came before the select committee was very comprehensive. We heard the submissions. We received many reasoned submissions ranging from people who agree with Mr Brownlee to those who have very strong religious convictions and very strong social opinions about what should happen not only in relation to gambling but also in terms of the distribution of profits. I say to Mr Brownlee that I think it would help if he were to read some of those submissions or even read the report of the select committee before sounding off too loudly in this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I’ve done that. Don’t be so offensive. 
DIANNE YATES 
: Well it was not evident from the member’s speech. That was all I could go on as the member did not refer to the report. 
There are a number of really controversial issues including those relating to the moratorium and casinos. The most controversial issue as we have heard from the speeches so far related to pokie machines which have proliferated in this country tremendously. Today I looked at a graph showing that the numbers have increased dramatically in New Zealand. That has been of concern to very many people. Lotto money is going down and there is an increase in gambling on pokie machines and that is of concern to those people and even to people who are receiving profits from those machines. 
The bill is about the number of pokie machines the control of pokie machines the advertising of pokie machines and the types of pokie machines—whether they take notes or coins. It is also about electronic monitoring so that we can tell where those machines are and what is going through them. If Mr Brownlee thinks there has been no problem in the past then he has been living in another world. Mr Tisch has done a good deal of research for the National Party which I am sure we will hear about when he speaks. He understands many of the problems and was supportive throughout the bill on a number of issues. The major issue that Mr Brownlee talks about is the distribution of the money from pokie machines. Many many submissions were received on that issue. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DIANNE YATES 
: The select committee recommended that we change the title of this bill to the “Gambling Bill” largely because it covers a wide range of gambling—everything from housie through to casinos. One or two people felt that not all gambling was responsible and thought it would perhaps be better if we called the bill the “Gambling Bill” to be sure. 
The bill is large and very comprehensive being at least 1 inch thick. As I said before the break for dinner it contains issues about the problem gambling levy that has been chosen. It abolishes the Casino Control Authority and sets up a Gambling Commission that has a degree of independence. However as many speakers have said so far the biggest issue is about the distribution of the profits from the pokie trusts. A number of issues around that were looked at. There were submissions that said the distribution from the trust should be done by the Lottery Board. Other submissions said it should be done by local government and territorial authorities while others said the Community Organisations Grants Scheme should do it. It does seem that nobody trusted any organisation absolutely to do the distribution. 
However in staying with the trusts the committee did recommend two major themes: that the trusts should be corporate societies and should be transparent in their structure; and that there be greater transparency around the distribution. That goes even from the filling in of the application forms because as Mr Brownlee has said the situation now is that people will go along to a publican and get a form to fill out. That form does not necessarily need to go any further; we heard rumours about the fact that some of those forms ended up in rubbish bins—they did not get sent to the trusts people were applying to. It was also felt that some organisations would not want to go into a pub. There are some women’s organisations under-age girls marching teams and so on that would not or could not go into a pub to pick up the application forms. So the committee suggested that the application forms should be available generally as with community trusts. 
The committee also recommended that when there is a requirement for the distribution to be published the trust should publish not only who gets it but also who does not. It would then be much more transparent as to what was happening to the money and to whom it was going so that if people missed out in any year they would be able to see whether they would be eligible the next year. There would also be community pressure on the trust because despite what Mr Brownlee said previously the select committee heard plenty of evidence that showed that rugby tended to get a higher proportion of the trust funding and that sports engaged in largely by men were more likely to get funding than sports engaged in by women. We heard that in the distribution process sports were likely to get more money than the arts education or social organisations such as women’s refuges and so on. Somebody said: “If you’re a Somali soccer team and you don’t drink you’re not likely to get a great deal of funding out of the present system.” So we have built greater transparency into the bill. Although we have stayed with the distribution process and we know that the division of the money remains the same—one-third going to Government one-third getting distributed and the other third being used for administration—we have built greater transparency into the bill. 
The other thing is that local government was very concerned about where pokie machines and gambling venues would be. Clause 91 requires local government to have a plan about where the machines will go and where the venues will be. We have also built into clause 91 the type of consultation there has to be around that plan and stated that there has to be public consultation. Some of the information that has been given already in this debate has been misinformation. Various sports clubs and so on will not miss out on money. The proportion of the money to be distributed remains the same. As I said a third will go to Government a third will get distributed and a third will be used for administration. What we will perhaps see is a wider range of distribution. Some of the organisations that were not getting funding before will now be eligible for funding and that funding will be more transparent. 
I thank those who were involved in the committee. The people who were involved when the bill was reported back to the House were Pansy Wong Steve Chadwick Russell Fairbrother and Sandra Goudie. I also thank people from the previous committee which included Grant Gillon Arthur Anae Tim Barnett Luamanuvao Winnie Laban the Hon John Luxton Tony Steele and Lindsay Tisch for the very good job they did. I am looking at Mr Tisch at the moment and I thank him because he did do a good deal of research. He bothered to go out of his way to find out exactly what was happening and who was involved which is more than Gerry Brownlee did. I know that Mr Tisch will have read the report and I know he read the submissions. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 Here we are 3 years later and we have a bit of a Bible here. The bill has 333 pages containing 333 clauses and six schedules making it great bedtime reading. 
Dianne Yates 
: Nine long years and you didn’t do anything. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I did sit in the Government Administration Committee and hear all the submissions; I was a party to that. But for all the good intentions that came forward National will not be supporting this bill. Everybody likes to have a flutter and I certainly like to have a flutter but this bill does not go anywhere. 
The bill is a contradiction in the sense that on the one hand it wants to limit gambling yet on the other hand it states to some organisations like the racing industry that they can have pokie machines and that the TAB can have pokie machines. It also states that in situations where there are some clubs that could join together for the sake of their long-term viability with the Minister’s discretion the number of machines could go out to 30. I am not opposed to the racing industry having its own pokie machines; I support that. I am not opposed to the TAB having machines. I took very close notice of what the Hon Damien O’Connor said when he talked about the racing industry because he said that he wanted to do what is best for the racing industry. But there is a view out there that because racing clubs will be able to have pokie machines they will not be able to source funds and money from other charities or groups that have machines. That is a major concern because not every racing club will go and put its own machines in. A club may meet only once a year so the economics of going out there and putting a machine in would be a nonsense. 
I will turn to harness racing because I want to quote from what the Minister said at Alexander Park on 18 July. If the situation should change his words will come back to haunt him. This is what the Minister said: “There are no certainties over the final content of the gambling bill until it has passed through all stages.” That is fine. He went on to say: “There are still ongoing discussions on a number of issues but I am optimistic that racing will get a fair deal.” The only deal that the racing industry is interested in in terms of pokie machines is one whereby it is able to retain the money from pokie machines for racing stakes and the industry is not limited in any way in going out and sourcing money. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Go and be happy. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The Minister should go back and watch some of those television programmes. It is important that racing clubs are able to source funds from other traditional areas. 
I have no problem in terms of the issues where there have been some discrepancies—and the discrepancies came through loudly and clearly. I applaud the measures where the Department of Internal Affairs has come in and looked to put in place some accountability transparency and monitoring measures. It was interesting to read the article in the  
Dominion Post  
on 31 July entitled “Clubs lose licences in pokies crackdown”. I have no difficulty with that if there are abuses of the system; that is the point that needs to be made. The Department of Internal Affairs needs to have the resources to go out there and monitor those things. We do not need to have an Act of Parliament to change the present legislation in order to do that policing. We should give the Department of Internal Affairs the resources it needs to make the policing of the law work. I have here an article from  
Gambit 
 in July that states: “Action taken against 34 gaming machine societies and sites plus 236 formal warnings.” That is great. If organisations societies and trusts are breaking the law they need to be held to account. I have no difficulty with that and National has no difficulty with that. 
What we object to is that this legislation which is supposedly to control gambling at the end of the day will not work. Our position is very clear indeed. We want transparency and some accountability but we think that this bill is a complete overreaction. We have seen such overreactions over the last 3 years. There is a premise that when one legislates one will fix problems but it does not work like that because one cannot legislate for human behaviour. It does not matter what sort of conditions one puts in place one cannot legislate for human behaviour. 
I want to bring forward some of the issues that we will debate at length during the Committee stage because they are very very important. The first one relates to bank note acceptors. The bill states that note acceptors will be removed. The Minister in his speech at the beginning of the second reading debate said that the Government will allow note acceptors to a maximum of $20. There is no international experience that shows that doing away with note acceptors will limit the amount of gaming that exists. Plenty of research shows that that does not work. It will not reduce gambling at all. Customers will simply change their notes for coins. There is no research or experience overseas that supports the idea that removing note acceptors will limit gambling. In addition there are e-bet cards that I would be able to use in a machine. Instead of putting a note in I could put my e-bet card in. In fact there are a few dollars left on it— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What’s the number? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It is a good number too. It might actually win—I am a betting man. So we still have the opportunity to do that. 
This bill does not stop Internet gambling. There are already over 1000 sites. I could sit in my lounge at home and log on to any gambling site on the Internet. This bill does not acknowledge that. It does absolutely nothing in terms of limiting that or trying to police it because it cannot be done. In fact in the United Kingdom the authorities tried to put controls on Internet gambling and found that after 12 months of those controls being in place they had to reverse their decisions. There is currently a new system operating in the United Kingdom. It is run by an organisation called Betfair UK. The same system is available here in New Zealand. It is known as “exchange betting”. It works by someone putting up $100 and the commission on that bet is 1 percent only which is a pretty good deal. However the experience overseas is that problem gamblers or people who have some information from insider trading are able to take up the bet. Already £75 million per week goes through that betting system. 
I want to highlight one area of concern which I have tabled Supplementary Order Paper 64 on. That is the formula for problem gambling. It has been mentioned in previous debates that the problem gambling levy rose from $5.8 million to $9.8 in October last year has risen to $12 million this year and will rise to $20 million within a couple of years. There is absolutely no justification for having an increase in the problem gambling levy of that magnitude. What happens now is that the providers and the people within the industry sit down around the table say how much they need and agree to share the money out and to make things work. That system has worked extremely well. 
But under this bill the Ministry of Health will have ownership of that levy. The Ministry of Health has not progressed the issue of problem gambling in any way and that is one of the major concerns. I tabled Supplementary Order Paper 64 some time ago and it looks at how we can refine the formula and have the flexibility in it that will allow a better distribution of and better accountability for the problem gambling levy. It is very important that we ring-fence the levy and make sure that the money that is going into the problem gambling area is used for that purpose and is not abused open-endedly which I am sure this bill will allow for. 
I do have another concern which relates to the setting up of the Gambling Commission. One area it does not include is the racing industry. The commission therefore has major shortcomings. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by majority by the Government Administration Committee be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Responsible Gambling Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time. 
Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Retirement Villages Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Retirement Villages Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Crown Minerals Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 5 August. 
Part 1 Amendments relating to Crown owned minerals ( 
continued 
)  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 Part 1 contains mostly technical amendments. Part 2 has most of the controversy surrounding this bill. However in Part 1 there is a clause that I addressed when we were debating Part 1 last time round and the Minister in the chair failed to explain what it meant. Now that we have Mr Duynhoven back in the chair—now that the Parliament has rescued Mr Duynhoven—I hope that we will get an explanation of exactly what is meant in clause 9. If we look at clause 9 “Unit development” we see that it amends section 46(1) of the principal Act. It amends it by inserting in paragraph (a) after the words “2 or more permits” the words “or existing privileges”. The reason this is important is that the question arises: what are those existing privileges? If we look back to the start of Part 1 to clause 3 “Interpretation” we see that there is no definition of “existing privileges”. If we look further back in this bill we see there is no definition of “existing privileges”. Maybe the existing privileges are defined in the principal Act. It is possible so I got the principal Act out to have a look. There is a whole list of definitions in the principal Act. Under the letter “e” in section 2 there are all sorts of things defined. “Enter” is defined as are “Exploration” “Exploration permit” and “Enforcement Officer” but there is no definition of “existing privileges”. The only place I can find those words mentioned is in Part 2 of this bill. I mention that only in passing because I am trying to find what “existing privileges” means. 
Clause 22 substitutes new section 111 “Rights to new permits”. That section states: “(1) If after … 5 pm on 19 September 2002 a holder of an existing privilege makes an application in respect of Crown owned minerals to which any of the enactments specified in subsection (2) would have applied if this Act or the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2001 had not been enacted”. That is the only reference I can find to existing privilege which would imply that existing privilege relates to the extinguishment of property rights in clause 22 of this bill. If it does a question then arises: OK—existing privileges may be protected for those who made applications prior to 5 pm on 19 September 2002—the date that Mr Duynhoven declared that property rights would be null and void. Now it is possible if that is what “existing privileges” refers to—matters that predated that date. Then it is unfair because some people were advised that in fact they could not apply for extensions or variations of existing licences under the Mining Act of 1971 the Coal Mines Act of 1979 or the Petroleum Act of 1937 and therefore some people did not make application prior to that date. They were led to believe they were advised that those rights may have been extinguished by the Crown Minerals Act—the principal Act this legislation amends—back in 1991. But the High Court has suggested that those rights were not extinguished. 
What is unfair here is this: does the existing privilege referred to in clause 9 have anything to do with that date and the fact that some people made applications to vary existing licences prior to that date and some people did not because of advice they might have received? If in fact those existing privileges—and that is the only place I can find them mentioned in this bill and they are certainly not defined in the principal Act—do relate to that date and the fact that prior to that date matters are still to be decided by the Court of Appeal then clearly there is an unfairness. Some people may have existing privileges defined by the court and other people by this legislation will have those same rights denied them. That is clearly unfair if that is the case. So I think it is only reasonable for the Minister in the chair who specified that date of 5 p.m. on 19 September 2002 to explain to us exactly what in clause 9 those existing privileges are. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Like my colleagues before me I want to make it very clear that the National Party does not support the passage of this legislation primarily because it is simply not fair. It does not appeal to what Kiwis really believe is a sense of fair play—because we cannot do things retrospectively. Like my colleague before me I have had a look through Part 1 and I also conclude that it is fairly technical. I have had a look at clauses 7 8 and 9 which deal with the surrender of permits transfers and other dealings with permits and also with the issue of unit development. In particular I too will focus on existing privileges. I want to take up the challenge that my colleague Lockwood Smith has issued to the Minister in the Chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven and ask him to take a call and explain exactly what that deals with. I think that that is only fair and reasonable. 
 For the sake of clarity I remind members what the legislation is dealing with. The bill prevents mining licensees from renewing their mining licences under the now repealed Mining Act and Coal Mines Act. As a result of this amendment miners must now reapply under the Crown Minerals Act not the Mining Act or Coal Mines Act that originally applied. What sort of bureaucracy this will lead to and what sort of prohibitive cost I can only imagine. I do not see these types of costs picked up in Part 1 and that is why I was hoping that the Minister in the chair would take a call and explain whether under existing privileges this issue was going to be addressed. What I think this will do—there is no doubt at all in my mind—is undermine the confidence of people in this industry. An industry like this which is capital intensive relies on being able to attract capital. If an industry cannot attract capital it loses investment opportunities and the resulting loss in confidence will also have an impact on revenue. 
The bill has arisen out of a High Court case  
Glenharrow Holdings Ltd 
 v  
Attorney General 
 which held that the principal Act did not extinguish the rights of mining licensees. But the Government rather than accept this decision basically spat the dummy. It did not like the umpire’s decision so essentially it has done what any petulant child does in the playground—it picks up its bat and ball and goes home. Regardless of the time and money invested by large corporations in what was hitherto a highly respected industry the Government has decided to change the legislation retrospectively. Of course retrospective legislation is not new to the Minister in the chair. There is one rule for Harry Duynhoven MP and one rule for those in the mining industry. So again I ask the Minister in the chair to take a call and explain to members what existing privileges we are talking about. I think that this is probably the worst example of abuse of executive power that I have encountered. 
In the first reading debate Minister Swain said this legislation would not be enforced retrospectively. But it is happening. He said that any mining licensee variation application received before the amendment is enacted would be accepted and the process under the current regime. But we find when we get to Part 2 that clauses 22 and 23 contradict this statement. That is not fair and it is not reasonable. That is why the people of this country will oppose this bill when they understand the detail. I also picked up on a press release from one of my esteemed colleagues Pansy Wong. She argues very cogently that the people in the mining industry had not been consulted despite assurances from the Minister that consultation had been undertaken. This is the type of consultation that has gone on around the Kyoto Protocolthe flatulence tax and the seabed. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 As has been outlined by my colleague the Hon Lockwood Smith Part 1 contains largely technical amendments and I turn to some of the information we have with regard to that part. Some substantial matters have been raised by submitters. I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the definition of coal in particular and where the gases that are produced by coal come in in the definitions. The submitters want this definition clarified. That matter is not clarified in this bill even though it was raised by a number of submitters. 
In the principal Act “coal” is defined as meaning “anthracite bituminous coal sub-bituminous coal lignite peat and oil shale; and includes every other substance worked or normally worked with coal:”. However the gases that are produced are largely related to petroleum and should probably in that context be clarified in this bill to identify that they are not associated with coal but are associated with petroleum. It was asked that the definition of coal be included to ensure that itexcludes natural gas and oil occurring within a coal or a coal measure and clarify the definition of “petroleum” to explicitlystate that it includes hydrocarbons naturally occurring in association with coal. 
That issue has not been addressed in this bill. I believe that is a considerable oversight when this was a matter that was substantially raised by submitters. I ask the Minister to take a call and explain why it has not been clarified. Maybe he would like to consider an amendment at this late stage to give some certainty around where these definitions fall. I reiterate that it is necessary to clarify the definition of coal to ensure it excludes natural gas and oil occurring within a coal or coal measure and to clarify the definition of “petroleum” to explicitly state that it includes hydrocarbons naturally occurring in association with coal. 
This issue has arisen in other jurisdictions. The example of Queensland Australia was given. If consultation had been more extensive and perhaps more adequately done as identified by my learned colleagues it might have highlighted this issue and something may have been done about it. However it is not too late if the Minister so chooses to make a change. The provision in the Queensland legislation—the Petroleum Act of 1923—may have helped in that regard. Its section 150 did identify coal in that definition. So the Government has had substantive material available to give it the information necessary to make that type of amendment. It would have been a pretty simple sort of amendment. That is why I am raising it here in Part 1 because that is where the definitions are covered. The Government has managed to identify “occupier” and changed that but it has not managed to change the simple definition of “coal” or “petroleum”. 
I note my learned colleague has also brought forward another amendment that has not been addressed and that is the definition of “existing privilege”. Quite rightly he pointed out that existing privilege had not been identified in the Crown Minerals Act nor has it been addressed in this amendment bill. So there has been some failure on the part of the Minister in addressing these shortcomings in the bill. 
One of the other things I would like to address is section 36(1)(b) in clause 5. There is a change by inserting after the words “permit relates” because “permit relates” is not in section 36(1)(b) but in 36(1)(c) in the original Act the words: “or decrease the minerals to which the permit relates”. The Minister can extend the duration of a permit or restrict the minerals to which the permit relates. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to transitional provisions relating to minerals 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven could have got to his hind legs and explained the problem we were having a moment ago with what “existing privilege” meant because I finally did find it defined in Part 2 of the principal Act and it is exactly what I feared. It relates to privileges granted under the old Acts; the Mining Act of 1971 the Coal Mines Act of 1979 and the Petroleum Act of 1937. 
Why Part 2 of this bill is so important is that it is possible the courts of this land may rule that licences issued under those original Acts—the Mining Act of 1971 the Coal Mines Act of 1979 and the Petroleum Act of 1937—could be extended and could be varied. In fact the court in the case of  
Glenharrow Holdings Limited 
 v  
Attorney-General 
 ruled in Glenharrow’s favour originally and suggested that the 1991 Act did not extinguish those rights to vary licences or renew licences or at least the chance to apply to have those licences renewed. 
What is so objectionable about this legislation is that despite the court not having finally concluded on whether holders of those mining licences could seek to have them extended or could seek to have them renewed it is quite clear someone could not apply for a new licence altogether under those old Acts. But the issue is could someone with existing privileges or existing rights seek to have them renewed or extended? 
What is objectionable about this legislation in Part 2 is that the Government is moving against such licence holders and in clause 22 is going to legislate those possible rights away before the court has ruled on them. The Government is saying: “OK for those who have made applications up to the date Mr Duynhoven made this decision how the court rules on their applications will be left up to the court.” That is done in new section 111 in clause 22. 
But applications where people did not happen to apply prior to that date will be ruled out. Their property rights will be extinguished by clause 22 and we object to that. We object to property rights being legislated away without compensation. If members look at clause 24 there is no compensation. What is unfair about it is that some people got applications in against advice because the general advice was that the 1991 Act had extinguished their rights under the old Acts—the rights to renew licences under the old Acts. Some people thought that that was not right. They went to court and got an initial ruling in their favour—not from some beginner judge but from the Acting Chief Justice who ruled in their favour. 
The courts have not finally decided on this issue because a subsequent hearing questioned the judgment of Acting Chief Justice Heron. Justice Chisholm questioned Acting Chief Justice Heron’s decision although he did not rule totally against it if one looks at the fine details of that ruling. What Justice Chisholm said was that licences cannot be perpetually renewed. Acting Chief Justice Heron did not imply that. All he said was that people had a right to apply for renewal. He did not say they would automatically be granted renewal. 
What is objectionable about Part 2 is that the Government is not waiting for the courts to sort out that issue—to tease it through. The matter is still before the courts and the Government is saying that it will not wait for that that it will rule across that and make it that anyone who does not have an application in by Mr Duynhoven’s date of 5 p.m. on 19 September 2002 will be ruled out. It is a bit rich that the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven who had to rely on this Parliament to keep him in his job brings into this Parliament legislation that rules people out. If other citizens of this country did not have their applications for renewal in prior to Mr Duynhoven’s date they would have been ruled out. They do not have a Labour Party sympathetic to business to rule in their favour in the way that it did for Mr Duynhoven. It stinks. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I was right to wait until this part came up before addressing the issue of clause 9 for the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith because I am afraid that he seems to have some confusion. Clause 9 is about unitisation—that is between old system licences and new system permits. Existing privileges are on licences and other interests under the Mining Act the Coal Mines Act and the Petroleum Act. Those Acts were in effect taken over by the Crown Minerals Act passed by his Government in 1991 in which I assume he took a part. One of the reasons we are here doing this is that clearly there were problems. So there are some issues but no one is losing any rights here. 
I refer Dr Smith to new section 111(3) in clause 22. That provision is about ensuring that at a given date those who had put in their application had those rights protected. The whole purpose of this provision is to ensure that we do not have some open-ended claims system running. What we have here are the rights of those people who had actually put in their applications being protected under this legislation. This is nothing to do with Glenharrow. [ 
Interruption 
] I did not interrupt Dr Smith’s speech and I ask that he do me the decency of not interrupting mine. If he wants to talk about the role of Justice Heron in this in the first Glenharrow case Justice Heron ruled that there should be an extension. He said that the transitional provisions of the Crown Minerals Act stated that the licence should continue. However in the second Glenharrow case the ruling was that the Minister of Energy is not able to grant a new mining licence under section 77 of the Mining Act. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: A new one. What about a renewal? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Hang on and I will get there. The member should be patient. Then if we look at Justice Chisholm’s work he confirmed that the term of a licence is a condition of the licence that can be varied under section 103D of the Mining Act. Subsequently in the Court of Appeal before a full bench it was ruled that the Minister neither has the power to grant a new licence nor to consider an application to vary the term of the licence. Dr Smith has a very convenient selective memory. 
This bill cleans up and is designed to sort out a mess made by the previous Act which did not define clearly enough. I have to say that the mining industry in general has not kicked up a ruckus about this; only a few members of the industry have done so and of course its association has said that it will have to back their case. The thing that has been impressive to me is that the officials have worked this matter through with the mining industry. There has been consultation over this. It has not been a case of no consultation; there has been significant consultation since the year 2000. 
Finally I will just tidy up the issue of coal-bed methane which I think Sandra Goudie mentioned. I will leave Mr Connell’s puerile submission on this bill out of it. However to address Sandra Goudie’s intervention seriously I want to say that coal-bed methane was an issue that was considered but unfortunately it has been ruled by the Chair that the amendments required for that were outside the scope of this bill and will certainly have to be considered at a future stage as we get further down the track of coal-bed methane development. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I am encouraged that the Minister the Hon Harry Duynhoven has taken a call. I appeal to this Minister who would understand the consequences when people were not aware of the actual law or were misguided as he was in believing that certain actions were not available to them and therefore found themselves in the position where they were deprived of their property rights. 
The mining industry was informed by the Crown minerals division that its rights to reapply for mining licences were extinguished by the passage of the Crown Minerals Act in 1991. It was informed by the officials that the 1991 Act repealed their rights. A large number of people accepted that until Glenharrow Holdings challenged a case in court and won. The officials who represented the Government until then told them otherwise. Of course they thought they were listening to authority and accepted that decision and suddenly the Labour Government brought in legislation to legislate away those property rights. I inform the Minister the Hon Harry Duynhoven that I attended part of the Commerce Committee in the last term of Parliament and the mining industry was not consulted during the first phase of consultation. It was told by the Minister that it was only a technical amendment. In the Labour Government’s term if legislating away people’s property rights is called a technical amendment I would hate to see what a substantive amendment would be. 
The industry thought that the Government was bringing in legislation and the industry was promised that during the select committee process it would have a fair chance of being heard and consulted. In the middle of a Commerce Committee hearing and out of the blue Harry Duynhoven brought in another commencement date of 5 p.m. on 19 September 2002. He said that if people had not submitted their application then they could forget about it. Harry Duynhoven understood the pain of finding on 11 June that his membership of Parliament was technically lapsed. He should have understood the pain of those people being told suddenly out of the blue that their licences could not be reapplied for. 
It is an outrage. I think Harry Duynhoven should take a call to explain why people who acted in good faith and listened to the officials advice then waited for the due process of the Commerce Committee to complete its deliberations suddenly found that if they were law-abiding they were not rewarded. This particular clause is an outrage to the industry. The industry was never consulted in the first place and in the middle of the select committee process a new date was implemented to stop any person who failed to file an application because he or she was still waiting for the deliberation of the Commerce Committee. 
The Minister should explain to us why the mining industry should have confidence in the Government. Why should the mining industry have confidence in the due process of a select committee? Why should the mining industry continue to have confidence in a Minister the Hon Harry Duynhoven who above any other Labour member should understand the frustration of a law that in his words was outdated old or whatever? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 When listening to the previous speaker Pansy Wong I loved hearing the expression “technical amendment”. That sums up the way this particular Government works. Here is a bill that extinguishes people’s property rights yet it is described as just a technical amendment. That is astonishing. 
The select committee that I sat on to hear the latter part of this bill was not made aware of this technical amendment stage at all. However it was made very clear to us that Acting Chief Justice Heron had come out in favour of Glenharrow Holdings. That court case caused a flurry of activity around the Government which resulted in a press release by Harry Duynhoven dated 19 September 2002. He gave everybody until 5 p.m. on that day to put in his or her application. Up until that point the select committee was aware of just Glenharrow’s application and one other possible application. All of a sudden the panic set in and this press release came out to extinguish that one other application right on the spot and anybody else who had thought of applying for an extension of his or her rights. 
Acting Chief Justice Heron quite rightly stated that they had rights to apply under the earlier Acts—the Coal Mines Act and the Mining Act. It was also made clear in another Act—the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act which had a grandfather clause that stated that the Act would not extinguish the rights to continue under the original Mining Act. The original Crown Minerals Act also had a grandfather clause that stated that people’s rights were not extinguished. However on 19 September 2002 Harry Duynhoven extinguished those rights completely. They were extinguished so that we could continue to debate this bill. 
Harry Duynhoven’s press release made this bill worthless because he extinguished people’s rights right then. It was governing by press release. There was a precedent during the Muldoon era where he governed by press release and this Government has done the same—it has extinguished the rights of people. It was set out in previous Acts that people had the rights to continue with the licences. New section 111 inserted by clause 22 now extinguishes all other rights that people may have had. It extinguishes section 111 in the original Act and replaces it with Harry Duynhoven’s press release wording which is now encapsulated in this bill in new section 111 “Right to new permits”. New section 111A also encapsulates that and states that no application under section 103D of the Mining Act for an extension of the duration of a mining privilege may be granted. That is also extinguished by Harry Duynhoven’s press release. If this Government wants to continue to govern by press release then why bother bringing bills like this to the House? 
Peter Brown 
: Don’t give it any ideas! 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: I had better not give the Government any ideas. It might start to do everything by press release and forget about the legislation and also the select committee process. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 At this stage given that we are debating Part 2 and that everybody is expressing some serious concerns about the abrogation of property rights and about miners’ ability to apply for licences I would like to read from the commentary— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: That is the whole issue. It is not licences; it is permits. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: That was a terrible bone of contention. When the wording was changed from licence to permit it took with it as part of that licence what was considered to be an inalienable property right. So we now have this whole wording around permit and fee which takes away the property right that has been attached to the form of licence the right by which a lot of money is expended in establishing a business and in putting capital into an ongoing business function. The value of that is reduced by a permit because under a permit we do not have an inherent property right as we do have with a licence. 
I would like to refer members to clause 22 which repeals and replaces section 111 of the Act. This new section 111 removes the right of current mining licence holders to apply for new mining licences under the repealed provisions which include sections of the Mining Act and the Coal Mines Act etc. Clause 23 inserts new section 111A which removes the right to vary the term of a mining licence granted under the Mining Act. On 19 September the Government announced a policy decision to propose amendments to the bill so that the removal of the right to apply for a new licence or a variation to the term of an existing licence would take effect. So we have removed the right to apply and that is where we have abrogated people’s property rights. 
I would like to refer members to a New Zealand Law Society submission with regard to this bill which said that rights under the former mining legislation are a form of property. We are talking here about the New Zealand Law Society which is an independent body that can look at this type of legislation and treat it with some objectivity. If the society says that rights under the former mining legislation are a form of property I think we can take that as being pretty well correct. That was in conjunction with having a licence and there is more on that in many of the submissions made to this bill. 
In reforming legislation the existing rights of property are normally maintained without modification especially where there is no compensation paid. That was the case here. There has been no compensation paid for the abrogation of the private property rights that went with that licence and that have been summarily taken away by the proposal of clause 23. That has been one of the biggest bones of contention through this whole process with this bill and with this Part 2. A number of submitters have all made reference to Part 2 particularly to clauses 22 and 23 and have objected to them and asked for their deletion for this very reason—that it is an abrogation of their property rights. They are having a great deal of difficulty in applying for licences and in trying to re-establish some of their business undertakings. 
I would like to carry on with what the New Zealand Law Society said in relation to clauses 22 and 23 about this whole area of long-established rights. It said that the explanatory note contained no convincing argument for the revocation of those rights or the ability easily—if at all—to renew them so are we just creating a new injustice around property rights? Clearly my learned colleagues and the majority of submitters believe that to be the case. Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call and explain why there seems to be some variance in what all the submitters see as being the result of clauses 22 and 23 and what the Minister sees as being the result of clauses 22 and 23. It is also claimed that landowners and occupiers can exercise the right to restrict or control mining on their land. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to make a contribution to this debate. Part 2 is headed “Amendments to transitional provisions relating to minerals”. I look at the word “transitional” and I wonder what certainty it gives to an industry in this country that potentially could be worth $86 billion. That is worth reflecting on for a moment. This industry has been determined I believe by the geological people as being worth potentially $86 billion. Here we are in the Committee debating Part 2. The Government has used words like “transitional”. “Transitional” to me means temporary uncertain—a bridge. To provide uncertainty for this industry indeed any industry is just totally unsatisfactory. Probably the most debilitating impact one can have on any industry is to deny certainty to deny licences that have been granted and exercised in total good faith only to find a Government comes along and says that it wants to look after its friends that it will not exercise total control but that it will exercise control over the company Glenharrow Holdings and extinguish its property right. 
This Committee is discussing at this time a hugely important issue. It is not just about the mining industry; it is about the fundamental premise of property rights in this country and whether a company legitimately exercising that property right should expect the Crown to come in with something like Part 2 and exercise the total control that the Crown does have. There is no question about the ability of the Crown about the ability of Mr Duynhoven to exercise his right as Minister; whether it is justified and appropriate is an entirely different matter. 
There seems to be a certain irony in this whole process. Just recently we needed to validate the Minister’s warrant in this House and here we are discussing Part 2 and having to validate this bill in the Minister’s name. Both have been done with retrospectivity. That is absolutely wrong—certainly in this particular case it is totally and utterly wrong. 
The determination made by the Minister by press release is as I mentioned earlier a hugely debilitating exercise for the industry. I wonder what this word “transitional” really means. What does the Government really mean by “transitional provisions relating to minerals”? It has already been mentioned in this House that this industry requires huge amounts of capital. How can an industry survive if it has what is known as “transitional provisions”? Where in this bill is the certainty that should be given to the mining industry? I mentioned earlier that there has been a determination that the mining industry could be worth $86 billion to this country. We would not have to worry too much about funding hospitals and schools if we had that sort of industry contribute even a fraction of that money on an annual basis. 
We are never going to attract miners into this industry as long as we have phrases such as “transitional provisions relating to minerals” which are just so ambiguous. One could argue quite justifiably that even the concept of who owns the minerals and indeed what a land title actually means today are ambiguous in the context of the debate we are having over foreshore and seabed. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 First I think it is important to put this matter into scale. Before 19 September 2002 and before the press release that I sent out there had been five applications for new mining licences and three applications for new mining licences—there had been five applications under the Mining Act and three under the Coal Mines Act one of which has since been withdrawn—and 10 applications for variation out of the 171 licences under the old Mining Act. That puts it into scale. 
Second a number of comments have been made and Mr Eckhoff has continued down that track that this measure was grossly unfair because it cut off a whole lot of people. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: It cut off Glenharrow. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Yes and the member specifically talked about Glenharrow Holdings. Well first of all Ngai Tahu had the pounamu resource vested in it by an Act of Parliament passed in 1997 under the previous Government. That effectively prevented any further application by Glenharrow Holdings for example in that area. However its existing right to continue for the term of its licence was protected. What we have had since then of course is the work of the judges. 
I was very interested in the issue raised by Sandra Goudie who talked about injustices over property rights from the Mining Act etc. and the learned Law Society’s opinion. I am sure she would agree that the justices on the bench—the four judges of the Court of Appeal—were also relatively learned. They confirmed that when the Crown Minerals Act 1991—again passed by the National Government—repealed the Mining Act the right to apply for new mining licences under the Mining Act ceased. In other words the first five of the new licences applied for—the ones that Mr Eckhoff and others have talked about—were null and void under that ruling. The Minister could no longer issue mining licences under the Mining Act. The Minister’s powers were then governed by the Crown Minerals Act. The Court of Appeal held that the term of a licence is not a condition for the purposes of section 103D(3) of the Mining Act. 
Then we move on to the issue of compensation. “Why no compensation?” asked Sandra Goudie. She said this is awful; this is terrible. The bill that is currently before the Committee expressly removes the right to apply for a new mining licence or to vary the term of a mining licence as of the line drawn in the sand by myself on 19 September 2002. It also provides that no compensation will be paid for the removal of those rights. The right to be granted a new licence or to extend the term of a mining licence is a right created by statute. Prior to the High Court decision in the  
Glenharrow Holdings Ltd 
 v  
Attorney-General  
2001 case it was the Crown’s view that those rights had been extinguished in 1991 by the coming into force of the Crown Minerals Act. That is why the minerals industry has been quite straightforward about this issue. Sure it recognises that there are one or two aggrieved parties; of course it does. But it had been until that time convinced that the Crown Minerals Act did what it said it did. But we had a judge who said: “Sorry I don’t think it does.” 
No provision for compensation was given in 1991 by the National Government for the extinguishment of those rights. So let us not dance too much on the head of a pin folks; let us continue with the regime that was carefully thought through I presume by the previous National Government and make the technical amendments necessary to make it work. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I suppose we should be grateful that the Associate Minister of Energy did get to his feet and take a call—two calls. 
Brent Catchpole 
: That’s two calls more than anyone else has done. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It is a pity that he did not do it when we were dealing with Part 1 when we wanted him to. It might have saved a lot of time. It might have saved him from bursting a blood vessel because the truth got very close to Harry and it hurt. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot use a person’s Christian name. He might like to look at Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement). 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The truth got a bit close to Harry Duynhoven then he had the effrontery to tell my colleague Lockwood Smith that he had had a memory lapse—selective memory! He is the guy who when he applied for Dutch citizenship forgot that he was an MP. Do members believe that? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That has nothing to do with the bill. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: He has just had another memory lapse. If one breaks the law one’s mates will fix it up anyway so that is OK. That is what is happening with this bill. This Government does not have the confidence of the mining industry or any other business community because it breaks the law at a whim and it does not care. Well I tell Harry Duynhoven that we do care. I do not accept the proposition that there is one rule for you Harry Duynhoven MP and other rules for other people. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Do not bring me into the debate. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Clauses 22 and 23 in Part 2 go right to the heart of the matter where you put yourself above the law. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must not bring the Chair into the debate. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The Minister puts himself above the law. The fact is that Glenharrow Holdings went to court and won. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: It lost the appeal. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Oh no no. At the time that you made your announcements it had won. But it was not good enough for you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is bringing me into the debate again. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It was not good enough for the Minister. He came out with statements and drove the debate through the media because he knew he could not do it in the House with any conviction. Why is the Minister’s Government the one he is proud to be part of so anti-business? What is wrong with sustainable management? I tell the Minister that this tree-hugging nonsense has to stop. It is costing this country huge amounts of money. The member who spoke before me gave a figure of something like $86 billion; that is what we could get if we managed our resources in a sustainable way. These things are manageable. Please do not give me the old consultation “Trust us; you can talk to us.” minor amendment type of rhetoric because we know that you do not consult. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is again bringing the Chair into the debate. He shouldlook at Standing Order 104. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I apologise and thank the Chair for his direction. We know that this Government does not consult. If we ask people in the forestry industry whether they were consulted about the nationalisation of their carbon credits the answer we get is no. The Minister and his Government say they were consulted; the forestry industry says it was not. The forestry members say that they lost $1.5 billion. Were the farmers consulted over the flatulence tax? Oh no they were consulted on how they were going to pay the tax but not whether they should pay it. So we have no confidence at all. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: What’s this got to do with mining? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It goes right to the heart of your contradiction of the court. You knew better and you put yourself above it. Sustainable management of resources is something that is not at odds with those people who have conservation values. Why can we not do these things collectively? Irrigation in Canterbury is one good example. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Irrigation! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Irrigation is one good example—the use of water. I know it is a foreign concept— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is again bringing the Chair into the debate. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You are quite right in drawing the member’s attention to the fact that he is breaking Standing Orders and Speaker’s rulings. But if you are going to apply the Standing Orders and Speaker’s rulings then maybe we should have some consistency in as much as you know as well as I do that the Minister in the chair is not to interject at all because the microphone in front of him is live. It is quite incorrect and discourteous for him to do so. If you are going to apply the rules please apply them consistently to both sides of the Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I appreciate the Chair’s perseverance and I thank my colleague for his support. One thing that we cannot avoid in this debate is that the mining industry has lost confidence in this Government. It is an extremely capital-intensive industry and it relies on the ability to attract capital. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I would encourage the Associate Minister of Energy to continue to take calls in this debate on Part 2. Part 2 is the substantive part of the bill and quite a few principles are at stake. 
In my first contribution I talked about the process and that issue has continued to worry me and it should worry the public. I would like to share with the public the two new sections that have been introduced in Part 2. New section 111(3) in clause 22 states: “The rights of any person who has made an application referred to in this section before 5 pm on 19 September 2002 must be determined under the final judgment decision or order given or made (including any appeal) in the proceedings  
Glenharrow Holdings Limited 
” etc. We then find something very similar in new section 111A(2) in clause 23: “The rights of any person who has made an application for an extension of duration of a mining privilege under section 103D of the Mining Act 1971 before 5 pm on 19 September 2002 must be determined under the final judgment”. 
The question remains a puzzle to myself and I am sure the public. Right at the beginning the mining industry was told that some amendments would be made to some administrative technical matters. A bill was introduced to the House that made substantive changes. It extinguished property rights in that mining operators would not be able to renew their licences gained under the old Act. In the middle of a Commerce Committee hearing the Hon Harry Duynhoven introduced a deadline and said that any person who had not submitted an application at 5 p.m. on 19 September 2002 would not be able to apply under the ruling made in the court case won by Glenharrow Holdings. 
The Minister should take a call. We know that an appeal is ongoing; we do not know the decision. We know that by introducing a deadline in a press release the Minister has imposed a decision that no other mining operators would be able to renew their licences anyway. Why are we debating this legislation in this House when the decision has not gone through the whole judicial process? Glenharrow Holdings won its case but it is under appeal. The fact is that no other licence operators are able to renew their licences under the old Act so why does this bill suddenly have to be introduced and debated in this House when the whole judicial process is still ongoing? We still do not know what might be the final outcome of the appeal. Why the urgency? This Committee needs to know. Maybe there are some very good reasons that we need to finalise this bill. I understand that Part 1 is basically technical adjustments. 
The Minister should take a call to explain why given that all the decisions have already been made in terms of people not being allowed to apply for licence renewals and given that we are still waiting for the outcome of an appeal case this House is passing legislation that has two provisions that sort of say we actually do not know what the final outcome will be. The final outcome awaits the court decision. It seems to me very strange that this bill was rushed into the House at Christmas time 2001. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the consultation on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill showing no fewer than 12 occasions when such consultation occurred over the year 2002 and up to the present. 
Document not tabled. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 At first examination the title of the bill looks reasonable. Quite clearly this legislation amends the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act which is the principal Act. So at first sight the title looks reasonable. However this House has come to expect in terms of titles rather more than just that type of bland amendment title. We all know that legislation that amends one Act is called an amendment bill and that when it amends more than one Act it is usually referred to as a reform bill. The problem with those bland titles though is that they do not help anyone who is subsequently trying to find legislation in our statutes. 
This title does not give any guidance as to the issues covered in this legislation. It would be instructional to look at exactly what the bill covers to see whether the title gives any inkling of that. When we do that we note that Part 1 contains amendments to the composition of the board of directors of the Reserve Bank. In fact the governor will no longer be the chair of the board and the deputy governor will be removed from the board. That is quite a significant change to our Reserve Bank legislation. So it would have made sense to include in the title some reference to the fact that the bill amends the composition of the membership of the board of the Reserve Bank. It would have made some sense to do that. 
Another thing that this legislation does is to impose some constraints on the use of the words “bank” “banker” and “banking”. Yet the bland title of this bill gives no inkling that this is the legislation that people should look at if they are interested in the constraints around the words “bank” “banker” and “banking”. Members may say that that is being a bit pedantic and that we do not really need to mention those things in the title. But if we look at other legislation we see that the way that income tax amendment bills refer to the issues covered in a particular amendment has been very helpful. That has become a very helpful practice enabling members when they are interested in pursuing a particular issue to find the appropriate piece of legislation because its title covers the issues. 
So it would have made some sense if the Government had actually given the bill the title: “The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Membership of the Board and Restricted Banking Terms) Amendment Bill” because we would have had at a glance knowledge of what is in the bill. That does matter because when members of this Parliament go and look on the wall outside this debating chamber seeking to quickly find the statutes covering certain issues if the titles do not cover what is in the Acts it is very hard to find the right Act. I think the Government should give some thought to changing the title of this bill to make it clearer exactly what the bill covers. Those using our statutes would then be guided more accurately as to exactly what is covered. 
If there were only minor issues in the bill maybe it would not matter what the title is but I think that the membership of the board of the Reserve Bank is actually a really important issue and is one that is worthy of mention in the title. The bill covers some things that maybe are not as critically important and are more technical in nature. Maybe those things do not need to be covered in the title but I believe that a major change to the membership of the board of the Reserve Bank is worthy of mention. One does not remove the governor as chair and remove the deputy governor altogether from the board of directors of the bank without that being a major change. What is more if we are to put constraints around the use of terms like “bank” “banker” and “banking” that will have a major impact on our building societies and on a number of our financial services institutions and that should be mentioned in the title. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party rises to speak on this bill but then we are in favour of capitalism. Indeed we think this bill should be entitled the “Triumph of Capitalism Bill” or perhaps it could be called the “Unlimited Global Economy Bill”. We are thinking of moving such an amendment because the Green Party supports this bill—and does that not show that the bill should be called the “Triumph of Capitalism Bill”? When even the red Greens are in favour of an independent Reserve Bank— 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: There must be some mistake! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member calls out to me that there must be a mistake. No I am delighted to hear that the Green Party is now in favour of capitalism. I welcome them to that but I would hate it if they voted for capitalism by mistake. We would hate that would we not? That would upset us. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: I had better just check on it! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Green Party now tells me that it wants to check on this bill. Let me just refer the Greens—because I always thought they were opposed to global capitalism—to one measure in the bill for example. 
As the commentary on the bill states there are provisions “designed to cater for a variety of different payment systems including CLS (Continuous Linked Settlement) Bank International. In foreign exchange transactions a bank may pay out in the currency it has sold but not receive the currency it has purchased”. Anything more like global capitalism than that would be hard to find would it not? 
Rodney Hide 
: One couldn’t do that on a skateboard. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No most certainly not. But there would not be another Parliament in the OECD where capitalism is as rampant and as successful as it is in this one. As the leader of the party that has always been unabashedly in favour of capitalism and of the global economy I welcome the Greens to us. If they have carefully studied this bill there is hope for us yet. 
There is the New Zealand First Party which says it puts New Zealand ahead of everything but the New Zealand First members are to vote for this bill. I can remember when Mr Peters thought the Reserve Bank was a plot by Ruth Richardson. Clearly he has changed his mind. I have never known what Peter Dunne thought about the Reserve Bank because he talks in pompous platitudes. But it is delightful to know that he too is in favour of capitalism. 
Rodney Hide 
: Even the National Party. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is good! Even the National Party is in favour of it. That could be due to the influence of Mr Brash; he has joined National. Mr Brash has always been a capitalist and he has been a banker from way back. But it is nice to see that the Labour Party is in favour of capitalism too. Labour members used to say that having an independent Reserve Bank was a plot by Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson. There used to be a sort of Social Credit streak in the Labour Party—[ 
Interruption 
] yes let us talk about our loss of sovereignty—and it is nice to see that that has been removed. 
So I think we should change the title to the “Triumph of Capitalism Bill” just so that the Greens New Zealand First and— 
Jim Peters 
: Progressive capitalism. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am delighted to hear that because that is exactly what the ACT party says. Capitalism is progressive and the New Zealand First Party has grasped that. Is that not wonderful? But I do think we should change the name of the bill. I wonder whether the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Carter would be prepared to move that amendment to the title himself so that when he goes to the Labour Party conference people will realise there is no doubt about it—that Labour was warned by the ACT party that it was voting for capitalism and for a global economy and that it has managed to persuade the whole Committee to do so. 
I am trying to be as generous as I can because I think that is a wonderful achievement. I hope that the members of the Green Party—who until now have voted solidly for this bill—will recognise what this bill is about now that they have been told by the ACT party. We would recognise capitalism if we saw it would we not? If anybody knows a piece of capitalism it is the ACT party. There is no doubt about it; this bill is pure capitalism—an independent Reserve Bank that is set up to have international settlements and to promote global capitalism. The only thing that would be better than this bill would be to have no Reserve Bank at all—that is what the ACT party really wants. But this is a good good step towards that. I do not want the Greens to say later that they were tricked into voting for global capitalism and a global economy. There is no doubt aboutthe fact that that is what this bill is all about and the Greens are voting for it. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 I intend to take a short call on the title. We have just heard from the Hon Richard Prebble who said that this bill should be known as the “Triumph of Capitalism Bill”. I would argue that it should be known as the “Last Bastion of Capitalism Bill” and not necessarily as a triumph of capitalism. The Reserve Bank legislation is one of the few things introduced in the late 1980s and carried through the 1990s that has remained under the Labour Government. 
When we look at accident compensation we see that as soon as Labour members managed to get their little grubby hands on it it was changed. It was renationalised. Accident compensation was not left alone as the Reserve Bank has been—that would not have had its own title as the Reserve Bank has here. That was the first thing Labour did. Let us look at the labour markets. What do we hear now emanating out of the trade unions? A nasty little backroom deal has been done whereby the Government is to support a minimum of 4 weeks’ paid holiday. Because the Prime Minister went up and down the country and told everybody that she would not support 4 weeks’ paid holiday—and more important told business she would not support it—in this the forty-seventh Parliament she has thought of a crafty way of introducing it in the forty-eighth Parliament.That is what she is to do; that is what is happening in the labour market. I could go on about taxes for ever—so much so that it would bore Mr Cosgrove. I could talk about taxes because that is what is happening in the rest of the market. 
So with regard to the Reserve Bank I am not surprised that the title of this bill is very simply the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill. The Government does not want to frighten the horses. It does not want to frighten the business community because that is happening everywhere else. So the Government does not want to frighten the business community with the Reserve Bank bill. Therefore this bill should not really be seen as a triumph for capitalism. If it was a triumph then all the other things that are required to make a highly effective market operate—an efficient labour market insurance market and human and financial capital market—would be required and that is not taking place here. So I do not think that the title should be dressed up to make the bill appear to be smarter than it is. 
I do think it would be a nice touch if the title reflected the work of the past Governor of the Reserve Bank. He was appointed by none other than Margaret Wilson when she was on the board of the Reserve Bank back in 1987. She was part of a select group that selected Don Brash to be Governor of the Reserve Bank. He shepherded that organisation for 14 years through some very heady times and what a wonderful job he did. He was commended fully in the report that was undertaken on the Reserve Bank yet I do not see any mention of credit being given where credit is due. I would have thought that the words “The Labour Government Would Like to Thank Dr Donald Brash for Being a Wonderful Governor of the Reserve Bank” could be put in the title. New Zealanders would then be able to remember the great name of that fine New Zealander Don Brash for ever more without having to look at a $10 a $5 or a $20 bill because they would see his name in the title of this legislation as well. 
I do not want to take any more of the House’s time except to say that a far more inventive name for this bill could be thought of. We will be proposing something far more inventive and more reflective of the true history of our Reserve Bank by including the name of its former Governor Dr Donald Brash somewhere in the title. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I— 
Jill Pettis 
: ACT usually praises people before it shoots them. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: They know how to do it in the Labour Party do they not? The Government’s attitude is to shoot them all—shoot the farmers the producers and everyone who is successful. We have heard that tonight from—what is her name? It is Jill Pettis or something. 
I think it is a great thing for this Parliament that after the hard years spent in getting inflation down the Minister of Finance can bring an amendment to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act—which is a far-reaching and a very important Act in our financial structure—and have unanimous agreement. We have the Greens supporting global capitalism—[ 
Interruption 
] Dr Cullen says we should not tell them that. We have New Zealand First supporting inflation targeting. I think that is because Dr Michael Cullen has been largely sensible on monetary matters but it also reflects the impact of Dr Don Brash first as Governor of the Reserve Bank and now as a member of this Parliament. 
Dr Brash’s contribution in the Finance and Expenditure Committee is noticeable with regard to this bill. Let us just think about it. He has convinced Winston Peters and Rod Donald to support this bill. I know Clayton Cosgrove the chair of the committee may have gone back to the caucus and said it was him who did that. But the members of that committee all know that it was Dr Donald T Brash whose name is still on every bill in the country—and the Minister of Finance is checking that but Alan Bollard has not got around to signing bills yet—who convinced members of the sanity and the sensible nature of this bill. Is that right Minister? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Lots of people. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Lots of people. He has convinced this whole Parliament that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act—which was very controversial in its day—is not something that we should mess with but rather that we should amend in order to make it better. 
I think that is a huge achievement for this Parliament. It is a huge achievement for the political parties and for New Zealand. It is a huge plus for us in terms of our economic management. I too would like to congratulate the Greens on realising that global capitalism is a reality and that what we should do is facilitate the movement of money goods and services exactly as this bill does. 
We are debating the title and we could call the bill the “Donald Brash Comes to Parliament and Sorts Us All Out Bill”. We could call it the “Greens Embrace Global Capitalism Bill”. We could call it the “Winston Peters Calms Down Smells the Coffee and Understands a Little Bit About Monetary Policy Bill”. We could call it the “Michael Cullen Agrees With Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson Bill”. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I supported his Act in the first place. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I know. When Donald Brash was governor I remember Michael Cullen saying very warm and supportive things at every opportunity about the governor’s wise decisions at the time. He was never once critical of him. He never once said Mr Brash might be getting a bit tough. No Michael Cullen’s memory of that period is fading fast but I remember him being fully supportive of monetary policy. 
I think we can do better with this bill. I make a plea to the Minister of Finance to look around and say who should be chairing the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I say that it should be Don Brash not Clayton Cosgrove. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I briefly acknowledge Mr Hide’s comments and thank him for those. This is an area where great attempts have been made over the years to achieve a high level of first of all bipartisanship and then—at a somewhat lower level of human existence—multi-partisanship in support of this legislation. I want to pay particular tribute tonight to someone whom I do not think the member mentioned. David Caygill was the person who was really responsible for the passage of the original legislation rather than Roger Douglas and I think that needs to be put clearly on the record. 
Dr Brash was the inaugural governor under the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. By and large every effort has been made to maintain a bipartisan approach as far as possible. There were previously some instances where there were things I disagreed with particularly with regard to some rather strange creature called the monetary conditions index but Dr Brash saw the light on that eventually and we reverted to standard international practice. The reality is of course that however well monetary policy is managed we are not going to avoid some difficulties particularly in the exchange rate area. We are seeing that in New Zealand at the present time where circumstances outside our control are holding the exchange rate up above the level that the tradable sector would like but the strength of the domestic economy has actually reduced the amount of room for manoeuvre in terms of the operation of monetary policy. We saw that effect occurring at times in the mid-1990s as well and that makes life difficult in terms of the overall objectives. 
This bill is amending legislation. It is not insignificant; it does a number of quite important things. 
Rodney Hide 
: Uninsignificant? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No that would be a horrible word which I hope I did not use. It would be not insignificant—which is very much a historian’s way of phrasing life; it covers one’s tracks in terms of possible criticism further down. It is an area where I think we have been in advance of the world at times though I think we are probably pretty much up with the play at the present time in terms of monetary policy. 
I particularly recognise the work done by the Finance and Expenditure Committee which I think came to grips well with the issue of the vexed question of the use of terms “bank” and “banking” and so on. It is important not to get overly restrictive and to make life impossible for non-banking financial institutions but equally it is important to make sure that financial institutions which are not banks are not holding themselves out to be banks as far as the public perceptions are concerned. So I look forward to the passage of the legislation. 
It is possible that with an IMF visit coming up in terms of financial institutions and a related practices review we may want to discuss some of the results of that when it is completed with parties in the House. I suspect that the IMF will be raising some issues about some of our oversight mechanisms within New Zealand but we can certainly stand up in international company in terms of much of what goes in on those areas and of the history continuity and degree of consensus that we have achieved in New Zealand in those areas as opposed to some countries. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to thank the Hon Dr Michael Cullen for his words on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill and also for the history lesson. It is always nice for a young guy like myself—not the youngest in Parliament I say as I look at Darren Hughes but I like to consider myself young even at 28— 
Jim Peters 
: Sort of young. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: That is right. It is very good to get a little bit of a history lesson—[ 
Interruption 
] I thank Mr Hughes. It is always good to get a bit of a history lesson from a true historian about the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill that sets the record straight as far as David Caygill starting off the legislation. It is good that he can put Rodney Hide and other people right. 
I want to talk about the response to the recommendations in the 2001 independent review of the operation of monetary policy in New Zealand by Professor Lars Svensson regarding the management of the Reserve Bank but before I do that Richard Prebble and Rodney Hide were talking about renaming the bill. As everybody knows New Zealand First supports the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill in its current form so we would not support a change of name but one thing the Reserve Bank does need to take action on—an issue that is a passion of mine—is that New Zealanders increase their exports. I know that ensuring that exporters do better that our exports are increased and that we see more exporting and less importing is a passion for a lot of people. Obviously in New Zealand First we believe that that would put this country on track to true wealth. If the Reserve Bank were to refocus a little more—and I will stay on this for a very short moment only—and were to encourage exports and help exporters in a large way we could call this bill the “Encouraging of Exporters Bill”. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: “Encourage Exporters”. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: We could call it the “Encourage Exporters Bill”. Getting back to the bill Lars Svensson suggested that the governor should be removed from the position of the chairperson of the board of directors. He also suggested that the removal of the deputy governor from the board would be good. I can live with the argument that the balance between the board’s independence and its access to the information is necessary to enable effective monitoring which can be best achieved by retaining the governor on the board. He also suggested that the board chairperson be required to be a non-executive director. 
Another suggestion which I want to go through quickly was to require the board to report annually on the performance of the bank and the governor which would raise the visibility of the board and strengthen the accountability of the bank. I and New Zealand First say that that is all good and we support it. It is something that New Zealand First will be saying “Yes” to. We can do all of that but if we still do not look at the issues facing New Zealand and the Reserve Bank such as the one I was talking about when I was saying that we should change the name of the bill to the “Encouraging Exporters Bill” we miss the point. It is always good to come back— 
Rodney Hide 
: Who missed the point? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] No New Zealand First does not miss the point. We are trying to make a point. 
We can remove the governor from the position of the chairperson of the board of directors we can remove the deputy governor from the board—as we will do—we can require the chairperson of the board to be a non-executive director we can require the board to report annually etc. We can do all of that but we need to encourage our exporters and to look at other ways. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Dr DON BRASH (NZ National) 
: 
 The commencement date was originally scheduled for September last year and we are now being asked to amend that. We have no alternative other than to amend it because September last year has already passed. However it is a serious matter that this bill has taken as long as it has to get to the House. 
In a sense the bill had its origins in the 1999 Labour Party manifesto. In that policy manifesto the Labour Party promised to undertake a comprehensive review of the way monetary policy was conducted at that time and during the 1990s. In due course the newly elected Government appointed an internationally regarded expert Professor Lars Svensson to look at the Reserve Bank. That was done during the middle of the year 2000. Mr Svensson came to New Zealand in November 2000 and reported in February 2001. It is now August 2003. What is surprising about the gap of more than 2 years since February 2001 is that there was essentially no disagreement about how to react to Professor Svensson’s recommendations. The Reserve Bank made some recommendations Treasury made some recommendations and the Minister reached a judgment. The Minister discussed the conclusions with other parties in Parliament other parties in Parliament agreed with the Minister’s judgment and the matter was then agreed across the board. But even then we had longer to wait. 
The bill was I think introduced in April 2002—when a previous person was the incumbent governor. I was certainly happy to support it at that point and I am happy to support it now but it is a pity that a further 16 months have gone by since the bill was introduced. The only good thing about that is it has enabled the Reserve Bank to add into the bill further material that deals in particular with the Continuous Linked Settlement bank that Mr Prebble commented on in his speech. It has been fortunate indeed that that issue can be dealt with in the bill because it is important that the issue is dealt with. 
As I mentioned during the second reading debate the Continuous Linked Settlement bank was set up to deal with a very important risk involved in foreign exchange transactions across time zones. That risk first became evident in 1974 when a German bank Herrstatt Bank failed and for the last 29 years—nearly 29 years anyway—the world has wondered how to deal with Herrstatt risk. New Zealand clearly recognised the need to deal with Herrstatt risk some years back but until the Continuous Linked Settlement bank was up and running it was not possible for us to deal with it. But then alas we discovered we were not able to join the bank because of a deficiency in our law and we were bound to wait until the law was amended. 
I regret it has taken us as long as it has to get the amendment to this legislation into the Committee of the whole House. I very much hope that once the Committee stage is through we will have an opportunity of getting the bill to the third reading and having the royal assent just as quickly as possible. Quite frankly there is an urgent need to deal with the matters in this amendment and until they are dealt with the New Zealand banking system will be under greater risk than it need be. 
One of the other features of this bill is that as we have recognised previously it takes the governor out of the chair of the bank’s board. That is an unusual feature internationally. Internationally governors of central banks are I think universally also the chairpersons. Alan Greenspan is not the governor of the Federal Reserve Board; he is its chairman. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 99 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 New Parts VB and VC inserted in principal Act 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 99 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 agreed to.  
Schedules 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 99 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We have made excellent progress so I seek leave Madam Chairperson that you report progress. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is none. 
Progress reported. 
The House adjourned at 9.36 p.m.