Volume 642 Week 55 - Tuesday 11 September 2007 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 642 Week 55 - Tuesday 11 September 2007 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11699. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 11 September 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2.50 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Terrorist Attack—11 September 2001 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That on the occasion of the sixth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York this House reaffirms its previous expressions of sympathy for those who lost their lives and for their families and reaffirms its determination to combat terrorism. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Ministers—Confidence 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in all her Ministers and are they all hard-working and conscientious? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes and yes. 
John Key 
: Did the Prime Minister refuse Damien O’Connor’s resignation “at this time” because she has full confidence in his performance as a Minister or for reasons of pure political expediency—that removing him prior to her reshuffle just did not quite suit her at the moment? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister indicated that she thought Mr O’Connor had shown poor judgment over the matter but that it was not a hanging offence. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that Mr O’Connor was fully briefed and therefore had an opportunity to consider the merits or otherwise of Mr Morgan travelling with the parliamentary rugby team? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not understand the purport of the question. In relation to Mr Morgan’s position in terms of being suspended those matters have been delegated to Mr Cosgrove. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that Mr O’Connor was fully briefed about the issues merits or otherwise of Mr Morgan—a suspended Department of Corrections officer—travelling with the parliamentary team of which Mr O’Connor was the co-captain on a rugby trip when Mr O’Connor is the Minister of Corrections? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr O’Connor was not fully briefed in relation to Mr Morgan. All matters in relation to those suspensions were delegated to Mr Cosgrove because of Mr O’Connor’s connection to Mr Morgan’s wife. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr O’Connor was briefed in his office by Marie Morgan Mr Morgan’s wife that during that discussion and briefing the full ramifications of Mr Morgan’s inclusion in the team were discussed and that despite this Mr O’Connor continued with the proposed trip without seeking to exclude either himself or Mr Morgan? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that Mrs Morgan asked Mr O’Connor whether he thought it was appropriate for Mr Morgan to go on the trip. Mrs Morgan was the manager of the team of which Mr McCully was the co-captain. I further understand that the National MPs when they became fully aware of the facts while overseas discussed them and resolved to come back home and tell Mr Key to shut up about them. 
Heather Roy 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of the nature of the allegations against Rimutaka Prison manager Jim Morgan that have seen him suspended and was it the seriousness of these allegations that led her to conclude that it was “a bad call” for the Minister of Corrections to take him on a parliamentary rugby trip? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that there has been only the most general of briefings in regard to that particular matter. The issue of course was that Mr Morgan was suspended because of inquiries being made and therefore it was the judgment of the Prime Minister that it was a bad call that he was taken at all whatever the nature of the investigations. 
John Key 
: What does it say about the judgment of Mr O’Connor that having received a briefing and with time to consider the issues he still went ahead and included Mr Morgan in the team or took no action to exclude himself? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member continues to make an assertion in that question; I am not quite sure what he means by a briefing. My understanding is that Mrs Morgan asked Mr O’Connor whether he thought it was appropriate for Mr Morgan to go on the trip in light of the fact that he was suspended. As far as I am aware no other person was present in the room so it is difficult to understand what the basis of Mr Key’s assertion is. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Prime Minister find it bizarre that the Leader of the Opposition is gunning for the head of Damien O’Connor over whom he selected for a rugby team? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that Mr Morgan had been a member of the rugby team for 3 years and Mr O’Connor held the view that as anybody is innocent until proven guilty unless of course he or she is associated with a Labour Government as far as the National Party is concerned there was nothing wrong. That clearly was not a good call given the fact that the person was suspended and because of the close connection to Mr O’Connor. 
John Key 
: Why was her Government prepared to act by sacking Madeleine Setchell for a perceived conflict of interest yet tolerated the inclusion of a suspended corrections officer who is under investigation and when there is an actual conflict of interest? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I know that the member has repeated this many many times but the Government did not sack Madeleine Setchell. 
Schools—Funding 
2.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on possible changes to school funding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen one report advocating the reintroduction of bulk funding and another arguing “it could be the most divisive and possibly the most destructive change in our education system.” The first comment was made by a man who wants to be the Minister of Education if there ever is a future National Government Mr Allan Peachey and the second comment was made by a former National Party MP Tony Steel. Tony Steel knows that bulk funding was a failure but the National Government has learnt nothing during its 8 years in Opposition. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other reports has he received about possible changes to school funding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen further reports arguing that low-decile schools are “awash with cash” and that “the chequebook won’t solve the problem.” Those comments came from Bill English. In contrast I am told that Katherine Rich was on radio in Dunedin this week arguing that schools need more money—yet another example of how National tells one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Has the Minister received any reports or suggestions that the bulk funding of salaries should be compulsory has he any indication that such a policy would not be resisted as bitterly by the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Post Primary Teachers Association as it was during the late 1980s and the whole of the 1990s and does he believe constructive educational development can occur in such an antagonistic environment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen that proposal which was put forward by Mr Key. I note that Mr Key has also argued that New Zealand’s education funding is already amongst the top within Western nations and that no more money is required for education. So if a National Government were ever elected the education sector could get ready for bulk funding to be rammed down its throat at a cheap rate without consultation exactly as National did last time it was in office. 
Katherine Rich 
: As the Minister is so interested in the history of bulk funding will he confirm that bulk funding first appeared on the horizon in the Picot report  
Administering for Excellence  
before being made part of Labour’s Tomorrow’s Schools policy in 1989 a policy that was overseen by his colleague sitting beside him Phil Goff? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is an excellent question because it demonstrates that the Labour Patty can learn and that the National Party cannot. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has the Minister seen any reports that suggest the private sector could play a bigger role in the provision of schooling and new schools should be built by the private sector; if so does he intend to adopt such policies? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I just happen to have seen those reports. I have seen a report arguing that “there’s plenty of opportunities to have the private sector playing a bigger role” and that there should be a greater “orientation towards privatisation” in the education system. Those arguments were put forward by none other than Mr John Key no doubt meaning that apart from bulk funding we also have privatisation back on National’s agenda. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Labour Party bulk-funding policy advocated by the Hon Phil Goff was in fact based on the average teacher salary scale which meant that teachers would have had to have been sacked in order to keep within the limits and that the system of top-of-the-scale funding that New Zealand First agreed to was voluntary and also required a commitment to a national collective contract? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can confirm that that was the policy advocated by Mr Phil Goff. The point the member raises is why of course the policy in the end was not advanced: because we can learn from consultation—we are an excellent Government. I say to the member on this side of the House that if one funds at the top of the scale even in those dollars we are talking about another $350 million. The National Party has never promised a single cent. It has promised only to cut education spending. Bulk funding slashed funding—is that what this country wants? Of course New Zealand First would never support that. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a schedule of comments on education funding by the Hon Arthur Kinsella National’s Minister of Education in the— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
3.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he stand by his statement with regard to following up allegations of corruption against prison staff that “I will not tolerate any behaviour that undermines the credibility of the department.”; if so does he apply this same standard to his own actions as Minister and to all actions of Department of Corrections staff? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where’s he hiding? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Corrections 
: He is not. The answer is yes. 
Simon Power 
: Did the Minister offer to resign over the Graeme Burton debacle the death of Liam Ashley or any of the other scandals that have happened in his department under his watch prior to offering to resign last night because he ruined the Prime Minister’s APEC trip; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The Minister took full responsibility for addressing the system failures that led to those matters. The last named matter of course in terms of what happened with the rugby tour was a purely personal matter and not a systems issue at all. 
Simon Power 
: What message does it send to those conducting the inquiry into corruption at Rimutaka Prison when someone who has been suspended because of allegations against him accompanies the Minister of Corrections on an overseas rugby tour and do his actions not undermine the credibility of his department in conducting this very inquiry? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It should send no message at all. The inquiry is independent. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove has ministerial responsibility in relation to those allegations and inquiries not the Hon Damien O’Connor. 
Simon Power 
: How can any moves the Minister makes to deal with corruption or shortcomings in his department now be taken as serious or credible when he has completely undermined his objectivity and neutrality in carrying out such tasks by allowing a suspended corrections officer to accompany him on a parliamentary trip? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister has quite clearly said that he believes he made a bad call in that regard. He certainly had no intention of indicating any view in any shape or form about the nature of the inquiries other than of course the fact that Mr Morgan like anybody else is innocent until found guilty—unlike of course Dr Smith who was found guilty. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that interjections do get responses. 
Simon Power 
: How can the Minister offer his resignation for a lack of judgment and then when it is rejected turn round and tell the public they should have confidence in his competence as a Minister? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is a large list of achievements in the corrections area notably: a massive reduction in prison escapes a massive reduction in serious prisoner assaults on staff a massive reduction in serious prisoner assaults on others a restructuring of the head office of the department and of the prison service and a massive increase in the capacity of the prison service. So for all the failures which have occurred over a very long period of time—and I do not know of a single corrections system anywhere in the world that does not have failures from time to time—many achievements have occurred. 
Simon Power 
: What does he say to the many decent hard-working staff in the corrections system who have been told by the Prime Minister that the Minister of Corrections will stay on as their Minister as punishment for his mistake when they deserve a Minister who is competent and actually wants the job? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That of course is not what the Prime Minister actually said—the ability of the National Party to misquote is quite remarkable. What the Prime Minister said of course was that this was one of the more difficult portfolios because of the fact that from time to time things do go wrong in corrections. 
Simon Power 
: Why did he delegate responsibility for Mr Morgan’s investigation to the Associate Minister of Justice Clayton Cosgrove when he actually has an Associate Minister of Corrections called Mita Ririnui; or has he conceded defeat and started handing over his job prior to the reshuffle? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Following the notification of the fact that Mr Morgan had been suspended proceedings began within a matter of days as to the best Minister to which in these circumstances to delegate any matters in relation to Mr Morgan. It was considered best in fact to have a Minister who is inside Cabinet and not connected with the corrections portfolio at that point at all. 
Treaty of Waitangi Claims—Negotiation Milestones 
4.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What significant milestone was reached as part of a recent Treaty negotiation? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Last Friday on behalf of the Crown I signed an agreement in principle with Te Runanga o Te Rarawa to settle Te Rarawa’s historical Treaty claims. The settlement includes financial and commercial redress comprising quantum of $20 million the opportunity to purchase 29 percent of Opouri Forest and other Crown properties and commitment by the Crown to negotiate for the purchase of two Landcorp farms that Te Rarawa will have the opportunity to acquire over time. This milestone is particularly significant in that many New Zealanders will remember the hikoi of 1975 led by the late Dame Whina Cooper which brought wide public awareness of Maori grievances. This settlement was with her people at her marae Waipuna. 
Dave Hereora 
: Does the agreement in principle with Te Rarawa contain any significant initiatives? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: A key feature of the agreement in principle redress is a unique whenua ngahere package that provides for Te Rarawa’s increased involvement in the management of conservation land at all levels reflecting Te Rarawa’s and the Crown’s joint commitment to conservation outcomes for the benefit of all New Zealanders. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker tena tatou katoa. Does the Minister agree that the recent decision to delay the controversial affiliate Te Arawa settlement is a significant milestone in the Treaty policy process demonstrating that the Crown is finally owning up to the policy failure identified by the chief executive of the Federation of Maori Authorities as “The Government has been deceitful and acted in bad faith over the settlement.”; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No; I think it marks a milestone in the fact that despite a good-faith negotiation both parties have agreed to put aside for the time being the advancement of that legislative matter to enable and to support the efforts of other iwi in the area to engage and to consider the central North Island collectively. 
Dave Hereora 
: Is this the first important Treaty settlement milestone reached this year? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No the signing of the agreement in principle with Te Rarawa follows the release in May of a draft agreement in principle to settle Waikato-Tainui’s claims to the Waikato River the signing of terms of negotiation with Turanga-nui-a-Kiwa iwi later that month and the signing of an agreement in principle with North Island Ngati Apa in July. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does the agreement in principle signed last Friday for the settlement of Te Rarawa’s historical Treaty claims provide Te Rarawa with the ability to control their mineral resources and access to the benefits for mineral exploitation—an opportunity that will be of great significance to their people and their communities; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The mineral resources were not within the scope of the agreement in principle. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Regulated Period 
5.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What reasons if any does he have for proposing a regulated period of up to 11 months in the Electoral Finance Bill apart from his statement in reply to my question last week that this period “is longer than the Canadian but briefer than the United Kingdom’s”? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 As I have already explained to the member this strikes a balance between the shorter Canadian regulated period but lower relative-spending limit and the United Kingdom’s longer period and higher relative-spending limit. This would position New Zealand’s electoral system credibly between the two comparable jurisdictions. Commencing the regulated period on 1 January when an election takes place in the third year of the parliamentary cycle will provide clarity and certainty for all those intending to participate in the electoral process about when the qualifying period for election expenditure begins. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister realise that the 3-month period which New Zealand currently has is longer than almost all other developed countries—for instance Ireland has a 2-month period; Canada has a 6-week regulated period; and Norway Sweden Denmark Finland Iceland the Netherlands Germany Austria Switzerland and Australia have no regulated election period at all—so in that context why did he pick the UK which has by far the longest regulated election period in the world except for Zimbabwe? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As always the member chooses to look at one aspect of a framework. As I indicated in my primary answer by way of example another factor to take into account—as we did in concluding that this was an appropriate regulated period—is the limitations on expenditure combined with the regulated period. Taking those matters into account I say that this is a fair reasonable and realistic period. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister envisage a way that a party could circumvent the proposed legislation and succeed in spending a $4 million budget in spite of having a $2.5 million cap for the 11-month regulatory period? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am sure that even as we discuss this matter in the House today there are members opposite busily with their calculators attempting to think of such loopholes. But I have to say to members that the experience of the 2005 general election is that it is simply not tolerable to leave the loopholes as big as they are through which the National Party and its financial backers sought to rort the system. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that the incidents he refers to in the 2005 election such as that of the pledge card occurred within the 3-month election period as did the Exclusive Brethren campaign; and given that information what evidence does he have of any activity outside of the 3-month period that he believes warrants New Zealand picking an 11-month regulated period—the longest in the developed world apart from that of the United Kingdom? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The period from 1 January—which of course in the experience of New Zealand has not been an 11-month period; since the advent of MMP it has varied obviously from close to 11 months to as little as 6 months so the member again misleads Parliament in that regard—is part of a total package. On balance the purpose of the package before the House is quite clearly and openly intended to ensure that New Zealand’s electoral system is based on a contest of ideas not of bank balances. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister is trying to use up supplementary questions by simply not answering the direct question. My direct question asked what evidence of activity that had occurred outside the 3-month period warrants New Zealand having a regulated period of 11 months. I asked the Minister a direct question which began “what evidence …”. It has nothing to do with the Government’s intention or the Minister’s own meanderings around the UK. The Minister by not addressing the question at all is forcing us to use up supplementary questions in order to get the answer to the question of what evidence there is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows one cannot require a specific or particular answer to a question. The Minister is just required to address the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: What evidence is there to demonstrate that New Zealand needs a regulated election period of up to 11 months? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I have sought leave previously to table one really good example and that is a letter of 24 May 2005 that quite openly sets out an intention for a very extensive election campaign costing $1 million with the sole goal of getting a particular party elected and with the stated intention of getting around New Zealand’s electoral law. That example certainly took place before a 3-month regulated period but more important there are other examples. I have to say to the member that this same process could run over a longer period of time. The intent of this legislation is to provide certainty and protection to the integrity of the New Zealand electoral system— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s a rort! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
:—which is clearly needed after the rort I say to Dr Smith that was perpetrated by the National Party and its supporters in 2005. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can I take it from the Minister’s answer that a letter or a document setting out an intention to campaign by any group of New Zealanders or individuals will now be caught by the legislation that he has proposed and will be counted as a political advertisement and will therefore require the person writing the letter to meet all the statutory restrictions that he is imposing; and does he realise that it would be new policy if such a document were to constitute an election advertisement—and what other documents does the Government intend to catch if it catches that one? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Of course not and that is not what I said. The member asked for evidence of intent and I gave him that. This letter is not a theoretical document; it is a letter that outlined an intent that was followed through with $1 million worth of material that had the sole intention of getting around the law of New Zealand to try to get the National Party into Government by undermining New Zealand’s electoral law. 
Ron Mark 
: Is not the example that the Hon—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is asking a question. 
Ron Mark 
: Is not the example that the Hon Bill English is seeking from the Minister the most obvious example—that is the red and blue billboard campaign run by the National Party using either parliamentary funds or private funds—and the public has a right to know whether they were parliamentary funds or private funds and how they impacted on the election and why they were not included in the total overall costings? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the member raises a good example of what most reasonable New Zealanders would regard as being electioneering in an election year. This Government is not embarrassed to suggest that it is reasonable that 1 January of an election year marks the beginning of an election year. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Government embarrassed to realise that under the law changes it is proposing the National Party’s 2005 billboards would not be able to be privately funded because they would be illegal but would be able under its law to be publicly funded without any limit on the expenditure? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am not convinced of the accuracy of the member’s assertion. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table in the House a letter from Heather Simpson to all chiefs of staff outlining exactly that proposition so that Mr Burton can know what is going on behind the scenes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Government believes it is vital for a vibrant and small democracy such as New Zealand to have a regulated period for political opinion that amounts to one-third of the term of a Government is Labour planning to change the  
Cabinet Manual 
 to apply the same restraint to Government advertising from 1 January as now applies for the regulated period of 3 months? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Although I do not have personal jurisdiction over the rewriting of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 I can say to the member that there are strict guidelines for every day of the 3-year cycle governing what Government and Government-agency funding can be used for in terms of the promotion or the advertising of Government activities. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister not aware that a combination of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 and convention means that in the 3-month’ run-up to an election all but the most necessary and basic Government advertising traditionally stops and that the Government does not make any important appointments during that time; and why has he not considered that if everyone else will be subject to tight anti-democratic restrictions from 1 January then the Government should be subject to exactly the same restrictions for exactly the same length of time? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Again the member used an assertion that I absolutely disagree with; I do not think there is anything anti-democratic at all in the proposition. However I repeat for the member that there is a 3-year requirement that only impartial accurate and factual information can be provided for informing the public. Government funding cannot be used at all to promote party political information. 
Finance Companies—Securities Commission 
6.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Has the Minister received a response from the Securities Commission in relation to her request that they meet with trustee companies to find ways of improving the current regulatory environment for finance companies; if so what was that response? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 On Thursday last week the Securities Commission provided me with proposals to ensure that all trust deeds provide trustees with robust powers to get the information they need to carry out their duties in the interests of investors. The proposed changes focus on requiring best-practice reporting by issuers to trustees including monthly reports on liquidity asset quality reinvestment rates and any breaches of financing arrangements with third parties; enabling the trustee to engage at the finance company’s expense an expert to report on the company’s true financial position; and thirdly empowering the trustee to appoint an additional auditor if it is not satisfied that the auditor appointed by the company has sufficient experience or capacity. 
Maryan Street 
: Has the Government considered the Securities Commission’s proposals; if so what steps does it propose to take in response? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes. Cabinet noted the Securities Commission’s proposals at its meeting yesterday and it has decided to implement the recommended changes by facilitating the making of the regulations which are currently being drafted. The amended requirements will automatically become part of every existing trust deed and every new trust deed and will therefore apply to all finance companies operating in New Zealand. I am pleased the Securities Commission has acted so promptly within existing frameworks to promote best practice across the sector. 
Simon Power 
: What assurances can the Minister give the House that the Securities Commission is aware of all finance company activity as a report released late last week indicated that the Securities Commission had not known of the existence of Finance and Investments; and can we be assured that the commission is on its game as far as any other businesses operating below its radar may be concerned? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: An investigation is going on into that matter and I will not comment on it in the meantime. 
Timber—Sustainably Produced Imports 
7.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does her Government agree with Labour’s 2002 election promise to “Work towards ensuring that only sustainably produced timber is imported into New Zealand”; if so on what date will this goal be achieved? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes. We are making good progress. A work programme under way at the moment will culminate in a full-scale review in February next year of the actions taken so far. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that the massive increase in imports of wooden furniture and furniture parts from $90 million worth to $236 million worth in just 2 years much of it from unsustainable sources is evidence that we are clearly moving further away from rather than closer to Labour’s 2002 election goal? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is difficult to know as I think the member realises just exactly where some of that timber is coming from and the nature of the logging practices surrounding it. That is why a lot of work is going on at the moment working with the private sector in relation to things like the practicality of regulatory and voluntary supply-chain requirements for legality and from next month a major programme around international strategy working with other countries to seek ways to prevent illegally sourced timber from coming into New Zealand. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why does the Government’s sustainable procurement policy still allow the use of tropical timber like kwila for Government buildings when Norway has recently banned the use of all tropical timber in Government projects because it cannot be sure of whether it is sustainable and legal? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the member’s question almost answers itself in the sense that there is a difference between being illegal and being unsustainable. The difficulty is telling the difference between the two which is why Norway has taken that action. At this stage we have not taken that action because at the end of the day it is not in our view necessary to ban sustainable logging in other countries that wish to engage in it. It may be advantageous economically from their perspective. Of course from the perspective of Kyoto Protocol obligations there is nothing wrong with sustainable logging. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Prime Minister credibly call on other countries to reduce emissions when New Zealand’s emissions are growing at the fastest rate ever in our history when we have a trebling in the amount of unsustainable timber being imported and when over the last 3 years we have seen the clearing of 20 million trees—the first time we have seen a net loss of forestry in 50 years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There are many different questions there; I will take one of those. There has been a sustained reduction in plantings in New Zealand since about 1993-94 and the high levels— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It went negative just 2 years ago. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: —oh shut up just for a moment—and the high levels— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just tell the truth. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: He does not want to hear. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether achievement of Labour’s 2002 goal has been stalled due to free-trade talks with China bearing in mind that over $100 million worth of furniture was imported from China into New Zealand last year and that the Government’s own reports show that between a quarter and a third of all Chinese wood exports are derived from illegally logged timber? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No not in the least! To believe that would be the same as to believe that pyjamas were 2 percent formaldehyde in content which was shown to be a complete lie by the TV programme that put it out. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Was the Minister saying in his last reply that the Government’s own reports are a complete lie when they say that between a quarter and a third of all Chinese wood exports are derived from illegally logged timber—information we were relying on in good faith? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I was saying that the trade talks with China are not held up by any consideration of illegal logging of timber in China. What I was saying was a complete lie was the matter that the Green Party did pick up and run with which was the extraordinary claim that imported pyjamas from China were 2 percent formaldehyde in content. That was about as realistic as Ms Kedgley attacking the dreaded dihydrogen oxide content as she did once famously in the past. 
Television New Zealand—Revenue 
8.  
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Does he agree with yesterday’s statement by Rick Ellis Chief Executive Officer of Television New Zealand Limited that “TVNZ will not return to the revenue levels of recent years any time soon”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Like all free-to-air broadcasters Television New Zealand is facing such changes as fragmentation of audience and changes in technology. As a result it does face some revenue challenges going forward. To address those challenges Television New Zealand has begun to move into digital it has moved to lower its costs it is looking for new ways to source revenue and it has launched its plan to reach New Zealanders on every screen as it calls it. The board assures me that it believes that the plan is sound. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: How does the Minister explain the fact that since he took over the broadcasting portfolio the operating revenue of Television New Zealand has plummeted from $492 million in 2003 to $375 million in 2007—which is a decrease of $117 million or 24 percent—and why would he think that things will start to improve? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It would help if the member actually did follow trends in broadcasting. For example if he looked at any market anywhere in the world he would understand that all broadcasters are facing a shaving down of their audiences—a fragmentation of their audiences. Of course if the audience is watching 17 channels rather than a traditional two the broadcaster’s revenue is going to change. It would help if the member actually understood broadcasting. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Along with other significant publicly owned broadcasters such as the BBC the RTÉ and the ABC etc. why is Television New Zealand having to change; and what are the core components of its strategy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I will answer that excellently insightful question by saying that Television New Zealand like all broadcasters is moving from analog to digital. That is happening all around the world. It is having to change because of the change in viewing habits—many people now watch their television on a computer or on some hand-held device. It is having to look at changes therefore in its advertising revenue because of course its traditional source of revenues from ads is beginning to change. Those kinds of changes mean that Television New Zealand now has a plan called Inspiring New Zealanders on Every Screen which means that in practice it is trying to put its programmes on every screen for New Zealanders to watch. Some of those things have already begun to happen. For example Television New Zealand has launched TVNZ ondemand; completed agreements with Google YouTube and Fairfax for the use of content; has invested $100 million on top of Government funding in local content; and will soon launch two new advertising-free channels which will give New Zealanders a whole new era of watching. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Does the Minister support Television New Zealand’s commercially driven decision to shift the flagship Maori news programme  
Te Karere 
; if so how will he explain to the disappointed Maori viewers who were not consulted on the time shift that Television New Zealand’s charter obligations for a significant Maori voice are able to be met through relegating its key Maori programme to the hours of dawn midnight and mid-afternoon? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the House knows of course any Minister of Broadcasting is not allowed to interfere with programming decisions—which I know many members would say is a problem because they would like their own best programmes put on. But Television New Zealand advises me that moving  
Te Karere  
is part of an overall strategy that could see the substantial increase in Maori content on Television One nearly double and on channels overall nearly triple. One of the things I would point out is that although it is being put on at a different time on traditional channels Television New Zealand will be showing it at 6.15 on TVNZ 7. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does the Minister who really does understand broadcasting realise that since he took over the portfolio he has managed to slash the value of Television New Zealand from $381 million in 2003 to $194 million in 2007—that is he has halved the value—and what is his explanation? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: One of the other people who will understand this will be Mr Maurice Williamson. At the end of the 1990s—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell Dr Nick Smith that Television New Zealand was being prepared for sale by the National Government. As a result it drove down its cost structure by running programmes like  
Mork and Mindy 
 which cost about $50 an episode to run while it raised some advertising revenue. In other words it was prepared for sale by having very low cost structure but high resale value. Mr Jonathan Coleman who is a rocket scientist on these issues of course will understand this but we do not run the thing that way because we are not selling it. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: When the Minister said in the House in November 2005 that Television New Zealand is going through a transition towards becoming a company that will be commercially strong did he understand that over a period of 4 years his broadcasting policy would end up delivering the loss of 160 jobs and a revenue drop of over $100 million and that he would have cut the value of the company by 50 percent; and is he confident he will be able to deliver the same sorts of results in his new job at Massey University? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member knows that Television New Zealand has traded extremely well over the last 7 years or so. In fact it has had very high levels of revenue off the back of extraordinary levels of advertising which I think we will claim full responsibility for since the member wants to apportion blame. As the member knows as I have already outlined every public broadcaster now is going through a major transition from analogue to digital. That means major cost restructuring in organisations like this. As the board tells us it has faith that the new plan will give the organisation a good positive future. 
E-lodgment Programme—Milestones 
9.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: What milestones have been achieved relating to the 100 percent e-lodgment programme over the past 12 months? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 New Zealand is the first country in the world to achieve a comprehensive electronic land transfer and survey system. This is economic transformation. It means the fees for people buying and selling homes are significantly less than they would have been under a paper-based system. There is a faster more efficient service for businesses. It is truly world-leading infrastructure. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Was this major project achieved within budget and how does that compare with predictions of doom and gloom from some quarters? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am very happy to confirm to the House that this very substantial information technology project was achieved well within budget. A senior member of this House claimed previously that the project had “all the hallmarks of being an Incis mark two.” Who was claiming that this project had the hallmarks of that earlier National Government disaster? It was the Hon Dr Smith. It was not Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith but the Hon Dr Nick Smith. He was wrong again—INCIS under National; progress under Labour. I seek leave to table the  
Dominion  
article that had Nick Smith quoting that it had “all the hallmarks of being an Incis mark two.” 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the statement from the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors saying exactly those problems— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Land Transport—Rules and Logbooks 
10.  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister for Transport Safety 
: Is he confident that the new land transport rules for work time and logbooks due to take effect next month are flexible enough to support New Zealand’s agricultural sector? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 Yes. Overall there was wide consultation on these rules. They continue existing agricultural exemptions for logbooks and the ability for the Director of Land Transport to grant variations that allow for short-term work-time extensions to meet urgent agricultural requirements when these are deemed to be safe. 
David Bennett 
: Does the Minister understand that agricultural contractors need to make hay while the sun shines and how can he expect contractors to stop work and comply with the compulsory work rates in the regulations? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: An issue has apparently evolved— I was told about it today—in regard particularly to the very large— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: A bit slow. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Well maybe. It has evolved in regard to the very large tractors of 4½ tonnes or greater that some of the larger contracting organisations use. These tractors when operated by a contractor on a road or further than 50 kilometres from a farm will be subject to logbooks under the new rules whereas currently they are not. However I am told that that does not affect the work-time programme or the requirement to comply with the rules covering driving-hours. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What other industry feedback has the Minister received on the new work-time and logbook rules? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The New Zealand Road Transport Forum which represents the vast majority of the commercial road industry including rural operators has publicly stated that it welcomes the new provisions and believes that they will make compliance easier and more practical for the industry while at the same time making trucking safer. 
David Bennett 
: Does the Minister understand that agricultural contractors have to harvest a crop when it is ready and how can he expect them to stop work in order to comply with the regulations thereby putting crops in this country at risk of ruin? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I am sorry that the member did not seem to understand the importance of my answer to his first question. He actually missed the critical point which is that contractors until now have had an exemption from logbook rules. Currently they do not have that. We are looking at that issue. I have been advised that it was not specifically raised by the contractors or anyone else during the public consultation phase of the development of the rules. We are working to fix it. We will find a solution. Had the member raised the issue with me instead of trying to grandstand we could well have done it. I would like to— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Has the Minister finished? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I would like to make one more comment. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Very quickly. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Another Harry botch-up. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I would just like to tell Dr Nick Smith that this issue came about due to a legislative change. It was not picked up in the rules translation following that legislative change. The moment I heard about it I set about trying to fix it and that was this morning. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister clarify the situation: is it correct that every vehicle owned by the owner or manager of a farm and used within 50 kilometres of that farm for agricultural purposes related directly to the management of that farm including a vehicle used on a road to transport farm products farm implements stock or farm requisites of any kind within such a distance is exempt from the driving-hours logbook legislation; if it is true is that not fair and reasonable for the agricultural sector? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Yes. The member has summed it up very neatly. It has always been the case that those vehicles when driven by employees are exempt from logbook rules. 
David Bennett 
: Does the Minister have safety and quality concerns over agricultural contractors having to employ relief drivers and drivers speeding to finish jobs within the regulations and when will the Minister rewrite these regulations to reflect the practicalities of the contracting industry? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: First for the third time I tell the member quite clearly that this minor and very small group of vehicles—it is a small group of vehicles—has been exempt until now. A change in legislation has unfortunately resulted in the rules—not regulations—having an unintended consequence. We will fix it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I know we are out of our normal routine with question time but members should reflect just occasionally on how they sound. If we could keep interjections relevant and rare. 
David Bennett 
: I seek leave to table the land transport rule Work Time and Logbooks 2007 which do not grant any exemptions— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I seek leave to table a statement from the Road Transport Forum praising the introduction of the new— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that statement. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Monetary Policy Framework—Inquiry 
11.  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Will he consider implementing changes to New Zealand’s monetary policy framework if such changes are recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s inquiry into the future monetary policy framework? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Any recommendations will be fully considered not just by me but by the whole Cabinet in conformity with Standing Order 253(1). 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that a large number of the submitters share New Zealand First’s view that we should move from our single focus on price stability and make the Governor of the Reserve Bank take the dollar and export and economic growth into consideration when adjusting interest rates; and would he consider making such changes if the select committee returns with such recommendations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As far as I am aware so far the hearings have been a bit like a tennis match—at deuce with about seven advantages so far to one side or the other. Therefore I think it is unwise to draw any conclusions about the outcome of this select committee inquiry until it is complete. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister aware that support for changing our monetary policy has even come from those traditionally seen as Bill English’s mates and does he find it odd that Mr English’s party continues to stonewall any attempts to change New Zealand’s monetary policy for the better? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree. The Minister can address the question as it relates to ministerial responsibility but not to comments about other parties. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. What part of that question could possibly relate to ministerial responsibility? The member asked him about the views of Bill English’s mates. Now¸ the Minister just does not have the time to go through giving this House the views of Bill’s many many mates. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you; I understand the member. Would the member like to rephrase his question to bring it within ministerial responsibility. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Madam Speaker I take your suggestion and ask the Minister why he thinks that the National Party is continuing to stonewall any attempts to change New Zealand— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is not acceptable. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Has the Minister seen any reports at all on how fiscal policy can be used to support monetary policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen one report that simultaneously calls for larger surpluses to take heat out of the economy and tax cuts to reduce the size of the surplus. Now although I am used to Mr Key and Mr English contradicting each other it is quite impressive for Mr English to contradict himself so glaringly in the one press statement. 
Spectrum Care Trust—Standard of Care 
12.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: Is she satisfied with the quality of care provided by Spectrum Care Trust to Guy Tuffin? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 No. I agree with the spokesperson for the Ministry of Health who has described his care as deplorable and abhorrent. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: When did she first become aware of allegations regarding the abuse of Guy Tuffin and what action did she take at that time to ensure he received adequate care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As the member knows—because he has used that line of questioning many times in both written and oral questions—I do not have any ministerial portfolio for the operational matters within the Ministry of Health. Therefore those questions should appropriately be directed to the Minister of Health. I am happy to answer any question for which I have a ministerial portfolio but I have no responsibility for any operational issues within the Ministry of Health. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Why have successive Governments pursued deinstitutionalisation and in general has the policy worked? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Deinstitutionalisation is about ensuring that disabled people can live in their own communities and do the day-to-day things that most of us take for granted which is a key aim of the New Zealand Disability Strategy. As to whether it has worked I have yet to meet any New Zealander who wants to be returned to live in an institution. They do not want to go back. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How could she possibly not accept any responsibility in her role as Minister for Disability Issues where she is supposed to be an advocate for disabled people when an intellectually disabled blind man was allegedly kicked and dragged across a rugby field by those employed to care for him in 2005; and why was the same man a year later subjected to cold showers and isolation and forced to sleep on a faeces-covered mattress for 3 weeks? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member actually knows the answers to his questions because they have been the subject of an inquiry by the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner which is the appropriate organisation to investigate those complaints and make recommendations—recommendations that the provider and the Ministry of Health are then obliged under the Health and Disability Commissioner’s legislation to implement. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider very carefully whether it is reasonable for a Minister to answer by saying that member knows the answer. Surely there is a reason for questions being answered. It is found under Standing Order 371. Ministers should give an answer consistent with the public good—one would assume the public interest. Therefore perhaps the Minister should be invited to elaborate a little bit and give the House the answer that she believes Dr Hutchison may already have. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that is exactly what the Minister did and having said that she then went on to address the question. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Is the quality of care provided to Guy Tuffin what people can expect under this Government or is this just an isolated case? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I was delighted to read at the conclusion of David Fisher’s article on the gentleman to whom the member refers—and whom I actually prefer not to have publicly named because he did not have a choice over Dr Hutchison putting his name out into the public—that his current living arrangements are more than satisfactory to the point that he was described as happy and laughing. That is the level of support he is entitled to receive. It is not what he received from the previous provider which I described in my answer to the primary question as abhorrent. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table a report by the deputy Health and Disability Commissioner released on 9 September that describes breaches of the consumer code of rights— 
Document not tabled. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table an article by David Fisher on 2 September from  
Herald on Sunday 
— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Corrections Minister—Possible Resignation 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the resignation of the Minister of Corrections. As the member’s authenticating material acknowledges at this time there has not been a resignation. There is no particular case of recent occurrence that could give grounds for an urgent debate today. The application is declined. 
Driving-related Deaths—Potential Government Reaction 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from the Hon Peter Dunne seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the implications of and potential Government reaction to the deaths of three teenage girls in Canterbury over the weekend. The actual event is a particular case of recent occurrence but there is no ministerial responsibility for the event. Implications of potential Government reaction cannot give rise to a debate under Standing Order 380. The application is also declined. 
Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Health Committee and that the committee presents its report to the House on or before 15 November 2007. 
Benzylpiperazine (BZP) and related party pills were first introduced to New Zealand under the guise of dietary supplements and were marketed as herbal suggesting not only that they were safe but also that they were in some way or another good for one. We now know that BZP has adverse side effects and the potential for severe toxicity in some individuals. BZP is a synthetic stimulant similar in its action to amphetamine and about a tenth as potent. Other psychoactive phenylpiperazines such as trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine—otherwise known as TFMPP—are also used in party pills. 
In 2005 we knew enough to exercise some caution over these drugs. This House passed an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act then that made it an offence to supply BZP to anyone under 18. It also banned give-aways and advertising of the drug. That amendment helped to put in place some control while we found out more about the potential harm. We have a strong process in this country for looking at the harm caused by drugs. We have an Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. It is not the Minister alone nor any other layperson who looks at the research and assesses the facts. 
In November last year the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs advised me that the research on BZP and related drugs which this Government had commissioned at its request was now in. They pose a moderate risk of harm. The committee’s advice was straightforward—the drug should be classified as C1. A Minister in charge of the Government’s drug policy would have to have extraordinarily good reasons not to accept a recommendation from this committee. 
When the research tells us that this drug poses a moderate risk of harm what do we do with that information? We could sit around and do nothing in which case when the inevitable happens and someone taking them becomes seriously ill or dies we have the responsibility for that on our hands. We could decide that our own judgement about the safety of drugs or this particular drug is better than that of the expert committee in which case we might as well get rid of the committee altogether and make law by prejudice or knee-jerk reaction. Or we could take the information seriously in which case if we are told something is harmful we can act to reduce the harm. 
So when I received the advice from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs that this drug should be classified C1 I initiated as I was required to do under the law a 3-month period of public consultation. I looked carefully at the submissions that came in after that period of consultation and at further advice from health and other officials. That process confirmed my belief that the advice from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs was correct. These drugs should be classified C1—that is the same classification as cannabis. The penalties for importing manufacturing and supplying the drug are tough—up to 8 years in jail. Anyone caught possessing class C1 drugs can go to jail for 3 months or be fined up to $500. 
This bill proposes that if someone is caught with more than 5 grams which is the equivalent of 100 BZP pills that person can be presumed to be possessing for supply. This presumption level was advised by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs after an assessment of other drug presumption levels in the Act and it is this issue that has lead the Attorney-General to warn the House that this bill “appears to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act and that inconsistency cannot be justified under section 5 of that Act.” Such a warning requires the House to think carefully which I am sure it will do on all sides. 
In my view the entire purpose of this bill is to better protect the rights of people particularly young New Zealanders. As a House of Representatives we must weigh up the presumption of innocence against the right to protection from illegal drugs and the practicalities of law enforcement. There are many many examples where that balance is weighed and different results are reached and every single example is based on careful consideration. So it will be for this proposal by this Parliament. In putting forward this bill I have asked for and am acting on expert advice from respected scientists and clinicians and I expect the House to consider their views very carefully indeed. That advice includes the exact amount in respect of which one would be demonstrably justified to quote the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in assuming was for supply rather than for personal use. The argument simply is that law enforcement is impractical without such assumptions. On that precise limit as on all aspects of the bill I look forward to the select committee process and its advice back to the House. 
I think that we can work through any concerns about the burden of proof about personal use and supply and the presumptions of innocence so that we do not in spirit or letter breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protections. On the contrary as indicated I believe we will be enhancing human rights and indeed it is our responsibility to do so for young people in this country in particular. But in protecting the young from drugs of this kind there is a need to be judicious when making an offence out of possessing something that was previously lawful. 
Good lawmaking requires time for users to find out about the change in legal status so this bill includes a 6-month amnesty before penalties for possession for personal use will be applied. Once this amnesty expires those found in possession of under 5 grams of BZP or under 100 tablets containing BZP for personal use will be liable to a penalty of up to 3 months’ imprisonment a $500 fine or both. There will however be no such amnesty for those who manufacture supply or sell BZP-based products. 
The bill as drafted has a commencement date of 18 December. This means the amnesty for personal possession will be up to 17 June 2008 if the bill is passed by 18 December this year. This Parliament should in my submission to it vote in favour of classifying these psychoactive substances because the potential for serious side effects and even fatalities is associated with their use. Public safety must always be of prime importance in considering these matters. I have heard critics claim that BZP is no worse than caffeine and I have heard them claim that I am some kind of killjoy who simply wants to end their fun. But the expert advice is very clear. BZP is at the very least a moderate threat to the health and well-being of those using it. 
Hone Harawira 
: But cigarettes aren’t? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Seizures have been reported—the member over there might be having one now. There is a potential for severe toxicity in some individuals which has been reported via research after relatively low doses and that does not sound much like joy to me. Sooner or later while BZP is still supplied to the public we will not be talking about killing joy; we will be talking about the drug killing a young person. We must take a precautionary approach. We have enough harmful legal drugs to control by regulation already. Tobacco and alcohol cause far more harm than any other drugs in New Zealand of course. They cost billions of dollars a year in economic damage and the social costs are incalculable—and they are legal. They are legal substances. Why add another one? If we make harmful stuff lawful harm will result. That is the hard lesson of history. 
Hone Harawira 
: Get rid of the other two then! 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I say to that member if he wants to promote bills in this House to ban alcohol and ban tobacco he can be my guest. On my wall I have a little saying that says: “Impossible things we do daily. Miracles take a bit longer.” But if the member is after miracles let him have a go. This bill will remove at least one potential source of harm and for that reason I commend the bill to the House. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. I am happy to also be known as a killjoy if that is what it takes. 
The regulation or banning of benzylpiperazine (BZP) or party pills has been a huge issue in New Zealand over the past few years with heated debate much of it driven by self-interest. The party pill industry is after all an industry worth approximately $35 million in the previous year. To me there are two major aspects to this debate and why I support the classification of BZP and related substances from a class D restricted drug to a class C1. The two major aspects of this debate are the medical effects of BZP and the social consequences of continuing to allow BZP to be sold legally in New Zealand. 
Arguments around the medical effects of BZP include: “Well nobody has ever died so they’re OK.” That type of argument comes from some quarters—mostly from those who have made millions of dollars supplying promoting manufacturing and selling BZP. Other arguments market BZP as being herbal and therefore good for people. I fail to understand how BZP which was used in the 1970s as the major component in cattle drench can be regarded as being herbal or safe when veterinarians discovered that BZP formed lesions on cattle when it was used as cattle drench and was therefore withdrawn from use. 
In support of a ban on BZP I offer the following evidence: BZP and trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine (TFMPP) and related substances are mixed specifically to mimic the effects of P. The most common symptoms of those scared young people turning up at emergency rooms around New Zealand hospitals over the last few years are anxiety palpitations nausea vomiting and confusion. Interestingly the National Poisons Centre reports that a number of young children—some as young as 18 months; as in babies—have got into trouble taking BZP. A number of young people have suffered toxic convulsions which have resulted in several young people being put on life-support—one of them suffering multiple organ failure. A young man died recently in Nelson as a result of a vehicle accident last month. Alcohol and BZP were found in his blood.  
The side effects of taking BZP are variable and unpredictable particularly when those party pills are taken together with alcohol which is very common. Interestingly when I was in Nelson recently I visited several shops selling party pills. Neither of the shop assistants working in those party pill shops touched BZP. They could not understand why people would want to buy them. The medical effects of long-term use of BZP are unknown. We just do not know yet. Maybe we will know in 20 years’ time. We do not know yet what medical consequences there may or may not be through the use of BZP. We just do not know. 
I turn to the social effects of BZP. Arguments for deregulation and for BZP to be freely available include: “I can put what I like in my own body.” Yes that is fine. But what happens when things go wrong? Who picks up the pieces? I know; it is the medical system that picks up the pieces for people’s so-called choices over their own body. Or there is the argument that BZP provides a safer alternative to P. What a joke! No one has actually established BZP to be safe. There is no evidence to show that the millions of BZP pills taken have reduced the use of P. In fact the opposite is true with the use of pure amphetamine growing in New Zealand. We know that because of the huge increase in P laboratory busts by the police. The argument that the use of P has reduced is totally ridiculous and untrue.  
The evidence shows that the use of BZP pills has a gateway effect into the use of other drugs. BZP pills are also known as starter drugs or trainer drugs with their colourful cartoon marketing designed specifically to target an audience younger than 18 years. I suggest that the marketing around BZP pills is targeted to appeal to those kids of 11 to 12 years of age. That is the real danger of party pills. That is why party pills should be banned. We currently have a legal drug culture in New Zealand where any 10-year-old 8-year-old or 5-year-old can walk into the corner dairy and see party pills displayed on the shelf next to jelly beans.  
I received a phone call from a drug counsellor about an 11-year-old kid in troubled circumstances—a kid in trouble—who was taking BZP. Why? He wanted to “get out of his life”. We have a culture where a patient with a mental illness goes off his or her prescribed pills and self-medicates with BZP. Why? Those people say BZP makes them feel good—much better than their normal pills do. That is a danger. We have a culture where a secondary school teacher in a small town in New Zealand says that he sometimes does not bother teaching National Certificate of Educational Achievement subjects on a Monday morning because some of his senior students are sitting there with a blank stare 48 hours after taking BZP on the Saturday night. We have a culture where the manager of a party pill shop has been convicted of the possession of cannabis. And we have a culture where paraphernalia like pipes for smoking P is sold in cabinets alongside party pills. Please do not tell me there is not a connection between party pill shops and the illicit drug culture.  
I was standing outside a Queenstown supermarket early last year collecting signatures for my party pills petition. A young American guy who was a visitor to New Zealand—a hip skiing character—came up to me and said that he could not believe what we are doing in New Zealand. He could not believe that we can buy these pills legally. He could not believe that we have a legal drug culture in New Zealand. When a substance is legal we are saying that it is safe and that it is OK. That is a very dangerous message. It is argued that if we ban BZP pills then kids will source them from illegal operations. The truth is that yes there are some kids who will. And there will always be people willing to sell them. But by having party pill shops in major shopping malls or on the main streets of small towns we are in effect placing a candy shop in front of young kids and expecting them to make good decisions.  
This bill should have been before the House 2 years ago. The research commissioned by the Minister Jim Anderton is useful but confirms what the medical practitioners social workers police clergy youth workers and parents could see for themselves: that the sale of party pills in New Zealand towns and cities has normalised drug taking. The longer the Minister has held out waiting for an evidence base the more firmly this pill-popping drug culture has become established in New Zealand. I regret that. Thank you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I rise to support the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. I will make one comment about the speech made by the member who has just resumed her seat. Up until the last couple of paragraphs of political posturing I agreed with many of Jacqui Dean’s sentiments but she somehow decried Mr Anderton for engaging in an approach that is logical and has been around for many years. 
I am a member of the Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy along with Mr Anderton and as I said the approach is logical and has been around for many years. The process is to engage medical practitioners and scientists and put the issue before them. The approach is not to put one’s finger in the air—even though we might all agree that the stuff should be banned; I certainly do—and say that this is what we should do but we are not basing it on logical scientific fact or anything. There are one or two medical practitioners on the other side of the aisle who I suspect—although they may not get up and say so—may well agree with me because of course they have medical qualifications. They have studied medicine based on scientific fact and evidenced-based medicine. But to put forward in this House the point that Mr Anderton and the Government have somehow sat on their hands for 2 years and done nothing about this is grotesque. It is about as grotesque as Matt Bowden the so-called head of Social Tonics Association of New Zealand who parades around with credibility akin to that member’s saying that he is socially responsible. The facts are that this is a serious issue. 
Mr Anderton did exactly the right thing. We have an Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs and he put this matter before the committee. He asked the medical experts—which Mr Anderton is not and which I am not and which the member who has just spoken is not. He asked the medical experts to verify what indeed most of us apart from one or two of us in the House thought already—that this stuff is bad and should be banned. But it is appropriate that we go through a logical process so that we can go out with confidence to communities and say that those professionals—those medical practitioners those who are qualified in science and medicine—agree with us that these substances should be banned. So apart from the political posturing and the point scoring this is a serious issue and I congratulate Mr Anderton. 
I want to point to a very community-based example of courageousness. I congratulate the woman unnamed in my electorate of Waimakariri who came to me before the election when the Herbal Heaven shop was set up in Kaiapoi. Before Jacqui Dean was a twinkle in the eye of this Parliament that courageous woman set up her own petition. She would not be named. Why? Because she knew people who were selling these substances she knew people who were on these substances and she feared retribution from some of the people involved in this industry. She came to me she gave us that petition and she showed a ton of guts. 
Today the thanks for those examples of courageousness should go not to politicians posturing and making themselves into heroes but to members of the community—the mums dads and grandparents in Kaiapoi for instance. Within days of that shop being set up they convened a meeting with police drug experts and the principal of the local high school because they were so concerned about what it would do to their kids. These people were not prudes or killjoys; they were parents—ordinary folk—who feared what this would do to their kids. They worked out the marketing principles of Mr Matt Bowden’s Social Tonics Association in about 1 minute and that was the development of a pill targeted at kids—not a pill for young adults acting illegally and popping an Ecstasy tablet or whatever in the pub in their 20s but a pill for kids. 
I want to pay tribute to an eminent physician in my patch Dr Paul Gee. He does not posture and he does not score political points. He works in the emergency department of Christchurch Hospital. He is not here to speak for himself but he spoke for himself when he did a number of studies and conducted some research. This is a chap who sees the gurneys and the stretchers come in and out. He has to deal with the issues. He has to deal with the kids and the mums and dads. The research that he has done into the effects of benzylpiperazine (BZP) is based on first-hand experience. 
Dr Gee’s research showed that between 1 April 2005 and 1 September 2005—a 5-month period—61 patients presented on 80 occasions at the accident and emergency department in Christchurch. Those patients were experiencing a number of the symptoms the member alluded to but interestingly 15 toxic seizures were recorded and two patients suffered life-threatening toxicity. His findings state: “The results of this study indicate that BZP can cause unpredictable and serious toxicity in some individuals. BZP is currently a legal stimulant in New Zealand and this status makes it available and attractive to a far wider market of users than if it were illicit.” I quote again: “Moreover it has propagated a culture of accepting pill use as normal behaviour at parties. These factors should be carefully weighed up in any consideration of the legal status of BZP.” 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is he a doctor? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I say to Mr Tanczos that yes he is a doctor unlike that member who condones cannabis use and who I believe held shares in some of these shops or a shop or whatever. That member sits there and grins intently because his logic around drugs is: “Hey let her go. Anything goes; she’ll be right.” Well yes Dr Gee is a doctor. He is qualified unlike that member and unlike Matt Bowden the chairman of the Social Tonics Association. It was found out in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that Mr Bowden had been trialling another version of the party pill to mimic Ecstasy. What a wonderful objective that is—get a synthetic party pill that mimics Ecstasy with all the tragedies and ramifications around that! Is Mr Bowden a doctor? Is Mr Bowden the godfather of the industry—an industry worth 35 million bucks a year—motivated by social responsibility? Not when he is making 35 million bucks a year. So I ask that member when he was last in an accident and emergency department watching the stretchers come in. When was the last time he spoke to parents as their children suffered a toxic shock? When was the last time he witnessed that? Oh no! Anything goes with that member. 
A Massey University study on legal party pill use in New Zealand showed that contrary to popular belief party pill users are much more likely to be using illicit drugs than the general population. One in seven of those surveyed who had a history of party pill and illegal drug use admitted they moved on to mainly illegal drugs after starting out with party pills. But of course the supporters of the party pill industry have the macabre view that if pills mimicking Ecstasy—that is illicit drugs or BZP which was used as a cattle drench until they found out it was too tough for cattle—are put on the market that in some way will stop young people from moving on to harder drug substances. Well I have to say that I have not used illicit drugs. People may call me a prude—I know one or two people do—but where is the logic in that? I cannot see it. Maybe I am wrong. But I know that the mums and dads around the show and around the communities instinctively knew before any of the pontificating came out of the industry that this was wrong—fundamentally wrong. 
I commend Mr Anderton as well. I commend him for his proposal which is logical that if one wants to produce it then it should be incumbent on the producer to prove that it is safe and it should not be incumbent upon the Crown to prove that it is a dangerous substance. I just say that it is one of those line-in-the-sand issues and it will be an interesting debate because the previous member was right in saying that the medical community is stacked up on the side of this debate that says “Get rid of it.” The communities are stacked up on the side of the debate that says “Get rid of it.” The only argument against that is that we already have bad drugs on the market—booze and cigarettes. We are guilty; I agree with that. But that does not mean that we open the door and say: “Anything goes.” which is the modus operandi of that member over there. 
I say to Mr Harawira that he knows about the carnage and destruction that current alcohol abuse and substance abuse has caused within Maoridom and within Pakeha communities. If that is the case surely logic will prevail and we will stop another substance from coming on to the market. Or have we learnt nothing? One has to look at Mr Bowden and the objective he portrays—he is a very slick guy wears a suit good haircut—which is social responsibility and regulation. Well that objective is about $35 million and that is about commerce and that is where Mr Bowden’s moral fibre sits. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I intend to take a brief call on the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill as well. To respond to the comments of the previous speaker much of what he said I agree with but I say having read this bill—which is having its first reading today—that there is not one clause or element of it that would have taken 2 years to compile. This is an issue that needed to be dealt with before the use of benzylpiperazine (BZP) became as endemic as it is. So I say as Jacqui Dean said that this bill has been too long coming. 
Firstly I want to say a little bit about the culture of New Zealand and drug taking. I lament the fact that we have a generation of young people today who actually need these stimulants and means of escapism before they can enjoy themselves. Never in the history of entertainment has so much been available apart from drugs yet we have an increasing use of drugs and a hedonistic society. At some stage this Parliament needs to look at the root cause of why so many of our young people have become hedonistic and have become so much in need of the means of escapism that are out there. 
That raises a second point. Quite often when we get into these debates about drug use the argument is raised that drugs are not as bad as alcohol or nicotine. That is not the question that we need to face. The question is: how many means of escapism how many stimulants do we need to sanction for use in New Zealand? I say that there comes a time when we put a line in the sand and say: “We’ve got enough stimulants out there now. Let’s look at some of the reasons why our young people need to lapse into these.” 
The third point is simply that the question then arises as to what the impact is when we ban a substance that currently has a legal status. Well there are plenty of examples where that has happened. There are a number of examples around the world where other countries have already banned BZP and a number of other drugs that are legal in New Zealand. There is the example in the United States where 13 states after decriminalising marijuana recriminalised it again—13 states did that. It is not new territory to say to the community out there: “We’ve had a look at this. It’s not appropriate. We’re now going to make illegal a substance that was legal.” That has happened in other places in the world and we need not be fearful if we take a step to put some classifications around a drug like BZP which I would say really has no place in New Zealand society or at least needs to be severely regulated. 
I guess that having this first reading will take this bill to the select committee where we will find out the best way forward to deal with this drug. We have a drug out there now that is legalised but that has no regulations around its strength. There are no regulations recommendations or limitations on how much individuals may consume. We have no real testing process to say how much is in anybody’s system. Those things are significantly important. In my office in Invercargill I have within 50 metres either side of me two outlets that sell energy pills or party pills—or whatever one wants to call them. At any time of the day I see a stream of young people going in to purchase these drugs. I have watched them. They are in work clothes. They are actually consuming these pills as soon as they get in their car as they drive around in their lunchtime—and head back to their workplaces I presume. So we do have an issue and we need to deal with it. 
I recommend that Parliament supports this bill through to the select committee so we can hear what the community at large says. At least—at the very minimum—we need to do some serious regulating of the use of BZP. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. We are very pleased in New Zealand First to see this bill appear. This is a serious issue for young people and it is a very serious issue for their parents particularly when we hear that some of the adverse effects of benzylpiperazine (BZP) can continue for up to 24 hours after the pills have been consumed. In New Zealand First we have had concerns and we believe that a precautionary approach should be taken rather than to jump in and test the water with both feet. We know that BZP was developed as a cattle drench during the 1950s. It was not even considered effective then as the side effects were not positive for cattle and its use was discontinued. 
I remind the House that the last time a bill amending the Misuse of Drugs Act came before Parliament New Zealand First put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to ban BZP. We believed that there was a total lack of research on the long-term effects of this particular substance and we do not like to test the water with both feet. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs was at this time reviewing the guidelines for the use of BZP but every party in this House voted against New Zealand First’s Supplementary Order Paper to ban it. We believed at the time that this was a very liberal stance for Parliament to take considering that we were reading many newspaper reports about cases being looked at in Christchurch Hospital of bad reactions from exposure to this particular drug. So we are very pleased to see this matter back before the House. 
We have concerns about the proliferation of party pills here in New Zealand. We have concerns about the safety of party pills. We need to be aware that they are not guaranteed to be absolutely harmless. They have not been around long enough to have the research carried out to guarantee that. We do not like to see these experiments taking place on the young people of New Zealand who are very willing to be experimented upon. Young people should not be treated like rats in a laboratory. We saw the bad effects of what happened over in Britain recently when young people had drugs tested on them. In reality we have to acknowledge the efforts of the Social Tonics Association to regulate aspects of the manufacture of BZP to try to limit the amount of BZP in each tablet to place some additional warnings on these highly coloured packets and to restrict the sales to those aged over 18. I note that these controls too were put in place partially with the Misuse of Drugs Act. 
I think we have to be very aware that people—manufacturers of these party pills and young people—are very willing to experiment. They are not risk-averse. They drink alcohol and they pop the party pills and it becomes a very serious issue when these two substances are used together. We know that it is very difficult for people to follow the instructions of their doctors and their pharmacists when they are taking prescription drugs so it is no wonder that our young people do not take any notice of the instructions that are on the packets of these party pills. 
We need to be mindful too that BZP has been outlawed in Australia the US and parts of Europe. It is very obvious that this issue has been very carefully considered in these particular countries so we believe that it is very timely to reconsider our stance here in New Zealand. We are only too aware that the research is not available on the effects of long-term use of BZP. We have heard from many other speakers how unpredictable the effects from party pills are. We believe that really a precautionary approach should always be taken on these particular matters. We know from Matt Bowden that other drugs are currently being manufactured to mimic the effects of party pills— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: By him! 
BARBARA STEWART 
: They are being manufactured by him—Matt Bowden. We will be very interested to ensure that the legislation is flexible enough to take account of some of these other substances that Matt Bowden wants to make available to our young people. Unfortunately young people are very willing to consume these pills. 
New Zealand First will be very interested to hear from submitters and to work on this legislation during the select committee process. We are very happy to support this legislation to the select committee. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. I had better start off by saying that the Maori Party will support this Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill going forward to a select committee but I have to say that I am just absolutely amazed at the hypocrisy of the people in this place the alcoholics and the— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No I am sorry the member cannot use that term in relation to members. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Which term can I not use? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that he cannot use— 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Cannot use what? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Cannot use “hypocrisy”? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The member knows very well that he cannot use that term. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
:I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I struggle to understand how this House can talk about the problems of benzylpiperazine (BZP) when there is clearly no research on the long-term effects of BZP on the population but there is truckloads of research on the long-term adverse effects of alcohol and cigarettes. Here we are pontificating and prattling on about BZP and we do not have the courage to do anything about alcohol. I know how many people die every year from cigarettes—more than 4000 New Zealanders—and here we are talking about the possibility that at some point in the future somebody may die from BZP. We know for a fact how many New Zealanders die every single year from cigarettes—we know that for a fact; it is 4500—and what is the difference? Is it because we are getting a billion dollars in tax? Is that the reason why we are not going to do anything about cigarettes? 
We know that alcohol probably kills more and we do nothing about that. We sit in here and say “We’ve got a couple of legal drugs. We’ve got cigarettes and alcohol and we know what damage they are doing to our society but we are going to crush BZP” I struggle to understand where on earth we get the ethics that enable us to go bang bang bang on BZP. I apologise I am not quite like everybody else: I do not drink alcohol I do not do drugs and I do not smoke cigarettes so I am obviously not like a whole lot of the others in this House. One of the reasons I do not do a lot of that stuff is that I cannot go around talking to rangatahi about problems that are caused by these kinds of substances and be an alcoholic on the side. Kids pick up on that pretty quickly. 
That is why I admire the stance that Nandor takes because at least when he is talking to people about drugs he believes in what he is talking about. I do not personally believe in them but that is my position. My position is that if we are going to do it to one substance let us do it to the lot. Let us have the courage to say to one another “Yes BZP may be a problem”—in fact there is no research to prove that there is certainly no long-term research because it has not been around long enough—“but there is long-term research to prove that cigarettes and alcohol are killing people.” 
I heard one of the previous speakers talk about how we do not want to use our kids as experimental rats in a laboratory. Yet we allow the alcohol companies to sell these little bottles of alcopop. I heard another speaker talk about all of these colourful and cartoon-type wrappings. That is exactly what alcopop is all about—those little six-packs that can be bought of that slightly pop soda kind of alcohol; it is just alcohol in disguise for kids. What do we do about that? We jump up and down and we huff and we puff and we splutter and carry on and do nothing about it. Along comes BZP and all of a sudden out comes the big hammer. I am amazed at the “mmm”—is there a better word than that that I can use Madam Assistant Speaker? 
The House has problems in separating out something that has just popped up. Yes I heard the Minister prattling on and asking if he was a killjoy. Hell yes he is a killjoy. Of course he is a killjoy. It is OK for older people—people of our age—to drink alcohol and kill people on the roads but we dare young people to take BZP when we do not even know if it is going to hurt them. How do we know it is going to hurt them? How do we know? No research has been done on the long-term use of BZP—I heard the Minister say so and I have heard other speakers say so. The research is only short term because BZP has been around only a little while. But here we are happily banging the kids on the head and trying to tell them they cannot have it but heck we can. 
What is this when we can speak in such terms about drugs of any nature? I am really amazed. I heard the Minister talking about a moderate risk of harm—that it had been determined that BZP has a moderate risk of harm. We happen to know that alcohol has a high risk of harm and that cigarettes have a high risk of harm and what do we do to make them illegal apart from nothing? Yet here we are we are banging on BZP because it has a moderate risk of harm. Of course this is killjoy legislation. 
In this House we are happy to allow the high-risk-of-harm products to continue to be sold legally in this country and then we are going to come along and go smash on a product with a moderate risk of harm. No those products are not all the same because we know that alcohol and cigarettes have a high risk of harm to any New Zealander who consumes them. We know from the Social Tonics Association which has done the research that BZP has a moderate risk of harm. The product we are banging on is the one with the moderate risk; the high-risk stuff gets away with everything. Everything is all lined up: fines periodic detention jail and everything else. The result is that people are going to get smacked over if they do BZP but they can keep on drinking as much alcohol as they bloody like. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: They make you a “sir”! 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: People become knighted if they become a baron in the liquor industry. But if someone tries to do something that might introduce a moderate risk of harm he or she will go to jail. I am sorry for getting my speech probably all back to front but I could not just stand here and listen to all that kind of stuff that has been said. I have to say at the end of the day that if BZP had a high risk of harm I would say yes let us do something about it. But we are talking about banging on a moderate-risk substance and allowing two absolutely clearly high-risk-of-harm products to continue to be sold legally in this country. There is something seriously wrong with this House. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 First of all I want to thank Mr Harawira for that excellent speech. This bill as the libertarians have said is about putting the “P” into benzylpiperazine (BZP). Despite the Hon Jim Anderton’s intentions his legacy from his years as would-be drug tsar will be the criminalisation of a huge range of New Zealanders and the boosting of the illegal drug market as a result. 
About 20 percent of New Zealanders surveyed said that they have used party pills—20 percent. It is estimated that BZP has been used by over 400000 New Zealanders. They have consumed 26 million pills with no deaths or lasting injuries. All the available research shows that banning BZP will send many thousands of young people to the more dangerous illegal drug market of counterfeit street Ecstasy and methamphetamine. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: It’s not what the research says. It’s not what the universities say. It’s not what the doctors say. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I ask the member to wait—I will give him the answer. 
People have spoken about the dangers of BZP in this debate. Interestingly with an estimated 200000 pills used a month 21 patients going to the emergency departments in a year is actually a relatively small number. That will not be the case when prohibition is enacted under this bill because many people will continue to use party pills—this Parliament seems to have difficulty understanding that people do not obey unjust or unreasonable laws—and those people will no longer be assured about what they are actually taking. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: So we should legalise everything? 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I will give Mr Cosgrove the answer. He keeps interrupting and I will give him the answer in a second. I ask him to be patient. 
There will be no consumer protection and no consumer information and consumers will be pushed into the hands of organised criminal organisations that will certainly fill the gap. Today the Government announced that it is setting up a specialised organised crime agency at the same time as it is writing a blank cheque for organised crime with this bill. 
What is the heinous evil that the Government is intending to remedy by this bill? The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs has described BZP as a moderate risk. It said there is no evidence of aggressive behaviour sexual assault or date rape - type behaviours and there have been no reported deaths solely as a result of BZP use. 
 The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs said that should BZP be made illegal people who continue to use it may be discouraged from seeking medical attention if they experience adverse effects. Moreover the committee said there was no guarantee that scheduling a substance as a controlled substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act reduces the availability or potential risk from a drug. I want to emphasise that last point. There is no guarantee that doing this will either reduce the availability of the drug or the harm from using it. That is what the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs said. 
The point is that the legislation that empowers the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs does not despite the attempts made by the Green Party include as a criterion for making these kinds of recommendations whether the harm from using a drug will be increased or decreased by the scheduling. That is the basic flaw. When the committee made this recommendation it did not take into account whether scheduling the drug would increase or decrease harm. So what kind of recommendation will it make? It is just bizarre. [ 
Interruption 
] Mrs Turner will remember that the Green Party tried to make that amendment in the Health Committee in 2005 and we were opposed by that member herself and by other members of the committee. 
The New Zealand Drug Foundation one of our most impartial and independent bodies with expertise in this area has said that clear patterns of adverse effects are starting to emerge from the research: seizures uncontrollable twitching inability to sleep—of course that is why people take it; they do not want to sleep—nausea and vomiting. Across the population-based research and the clinical trials adverse effects appear to be reasonably common but generally mild and short-lasting. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Rubbish! 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Oh he is the expert! A study by the Auckland City Hospital Emergency Department Overdose Database which was published in the  
New Zealand Medical Journal 
 compared party pills with ecstasy gamma-hydroxybutyrate amphetamines cocaine and alcohol. It was found that most patients who presented with multidrug ingestions were discharged home after receiving reassurance intravenous fluids and diazepam—reassurance intravenous fluids and diazepam! I guess that is what the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs meant when it said the drug posed moderate harm. 
Maybe the bill is needed in order to do something about the sellers. Well no—the Attorney-General’s advice was that in relation to supply the bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That means that the reverse onus provisions in this bill breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act guarantee that a person charged with an offence should be presumed innocent until proven guilty—a basic tenet of our law. That advice says that limitation cannot be justified in a free and democratic society which makes one start to wonder how the Government justifies it in this country. This advice of course follows the Supreme Court finding in  
Hansen v R 
 which was around this very issue of the reverse onus of proof in section 6(6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. It breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Well what should we do? Clearly what is happening at the moment is not acceptable. The Green policy on this issue has been consistent for a number of years. Our policy is about reducing harm. We believe that a drug-free lifestyle is the healthiest although I would say to Mr Cosgrove that not many members of this House enjoy a drug-free lifestyle. All drug use regardless of legal status can cause harm but it is also a fact that not all drug use is problematic and many of the Government’s policies in this area exacerbate harm rather than reduce it and this bill is a classic example of that. 
The Greens favour strict regulation of party pills not prohibition. We favour regulations such as heavily enforced age restrictions restrictions on where outlets can be mandatory health information quality and quantity controls severe restrictions on advertising and severe penalties for breaching such regulations. That approach would be more effective at addressing the problems raised by members in the House today than criminalising users and putting control into the hands of organised crime. 
The Drug Foundation noted from the Massey University study that 26.7 percent of users under 20 had never been asked for age ID when attempting to buy pills 80 percent of those under 20 had never been refused when trying to buy pills and most users could get pills within 20 minutes. The 2005 Act provided for regulations on where restricted drugs under the new class D category such as BZP currently is could be sold and restrictions on the dosage the packaging and the marketing. This is something that the Greens strongly support. In fact we recommend it and we proposed it at the time. 
The amazing thing is that those regulations have never been made and to the best of our knowledge no enforcement officers have ever been appointed to police the regulations around BZP. No formal monitoring of the industry or enforcement has ever been carried out by this Government. No licensing or training is required before selling the product so many dairies off-licence premises and garages are selling it right now. This is a major concern to public health and health sector workers and it is a concern to us as well. There is extensive point-of-sale advertising but the point is that the Government having failed to make use of any of the regulatory provisions provided to it in the 2005 Act is now saying—surprise surprise—that the status quo is not working and people are selling it to all and sundry under dangerous conditions. Well that is because the Government put no regulations in place. It does not take rocket science to work this stuff out. 
So instead of actually putting regulations in place what will the Government do about party pills? It will ban them. It will criminalise 400000 New Zealanders because it is too lazy to put regulations in place. As I said party pills are being sold in dairies young people are not being asked for ID there is no enforcement and there is no regulation to even stop this. So instead of passing a sledgehammer law that will crack not just the nut we are trying to address but break the whole table as well why would the Government not put in place the regulations that the 2005 legislation provides for—the regulations that the industry is crying out for because it is trying to clean up the cowboys operating in the industry? 
Why would the Government not do that when the evidence suggests that this kind of approach is much more likely to reduce harm from party pills as opposed to criminalising people and giving control to the black market and the organised criminal gangs? Those gangs will not be worried about age restrictions. In fact they will not even be worried about what they put in the party pills. I say to Mr Cosgrove that when we start to see people turning up in emergency departments having taken Ajax because they thought it was a party pill then we will start to talk about harm. This bill is not even about reducing harm is it? It is about another agenda entirely. The Green Party opposes the bill. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. We will support this bill going to the Health Committee but we are hugely disappointed in the process that has led us to this point today. We take an approach in New Zealand to social stimulants that is absolutely loopy: rather than presuming risk and requiring those who wish to market new designer substances to prove their safety before allowing them loose on the market we let the horse bolt. We have allowed millions of these party pills to be aggressively marketed for years with our supposed experts constantly reassuring us that the risks were minimal. Now literally years later we see an about-face from our official experts and a proposed legislative tightening around benzylpiperazine (BZP) and its legal status. So we have allowed a demand to grow we have allowed a social reliance and a social expectation to be fostered and we have allowed new social norms to be based on those products despite the fact that anyone with half a brain could figure out that this substance would be ingested as part of a cocktail of alcohol and other social stimulants and mood enhancers. 
The late introduction of this bill is a disgrace to all of those who are responsible for law and regulations on these sorts of matters. I disagree with what the member from Labour was saying: that this bill could not have happened any quicker. We should have had laws written in such a way that we started from a cautious position then liberalised it as the facts were made known to the appropriate authorities. The fact is that those who have designed and made a veritable mint from these products were never required to submit their products for prior approval and that is absolutely outrageous. They postured about having a voluntary code of self-regulation but that made no impact on the quantity or quality of what was being sold and on their website they invited young people to participate in human experimentation on product development removing the advertisement only after public outrage was expressed. We have had doctors parents young people themselves politicians and veterinarians all asking for parliamentary action for literally years. 
 So what about future developments? Will new social stimulants new mood enhancers be allowed to flood the market while we take years to figure out that maybe they should be somewhere on a schedule? One of the previous speakers referred to alcohol and tobacco and suggested that we are being very inconsistent in scheduling BZP. I actually agree with that and I believe that if we had known back then what we know now about both alcohol and tobacco then we would have an extremely different approach to regulating them. [ 
Interruption 
] As the member says that was way back. Instead we have a situation where the horse has bolted and knowing that politics is the art of the achievable I do not believe that we can ever fully rein in the use of those things in the very near future. But when new products appear let us at least have provisions in place that take a cautious response to them initially. 
The Green member said that putting a substance on a schedule does not reduce its toxicity; I totally agree with that. We do not reduce the toxicity of any substance—arsenic and the like—just by listing it on a schedule. But by listing it we can send a strong signal in law that we recognise there is a degree of risk associated with it that we consider unacceptable for New Zealand citizens to take. One of the big risks that the Green Party likes to put out there regarding the control of substances like this is that people may be arrested. In fact that is the biggest risk that those members see. But we do not use that same principle with regard to any other law. We do not say that the risk of violent offending is that people may be arrested. Well it is the same in this case I say to Mr Tanczos. Yes there is a risk that people will get chafed wrists as a result of supplying young people with a substance that this society deems to be unsuitable for their consumption. 
United Future is very happy to see the bill go to the select committee and to consider what submitters will have to say about it. I think there are some things to be discussed around the issue of enforcement about the kinds of penalties that we want to see and about the types of legal interventions we want to see taken particularly with regard to young people where it is a first offence. I do not think there is a need for us to be heavy-handed but rather we should take more of a diversionary approach where we start to put people through education courses. United Future would support investigating those types of things. But finally after all the calls that have been made on this matter we are certainly very glad to see this bill before the House and going to a select committee. We will be supporting that. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is very interesting to follow first of all Nandor Tanczos from the Green Party and then Judy Turner from the United Future party. It is interesting to compare the approaches because within the two approaches I think we see the two extremes on this bill. I have to say that the ACT party stands firmly beside the Green Party’s position. Let me just explain what Judy Turner’s position is. She and her party declared themselves here today to be prohibitionists because she said that if we had known then what we know now we would have banned alcohol and tobacco. What I like about Judy Turner and United Future’s position is that they are at least consistent. She says that what we should do is ban all new things that could hurt us and once it is assumed by the State that they are OK and Judy Turner says they are OK then people would be allowed to use them. So in Judy Turner’s conception there would be no alcohol there would be no tobacco there would probably be no sugar there would probably be no ice cream— 
Hone Harawira 
: No rugby. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: —certainly no rugby and probably not a lot of fun because we would have the “fun police” banning anything that might have some element of risk. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What a load of rubbish this is! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I could not agree with Doug Woolerton more that this bill is a load of rubbish. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Tell that to the mums and dads. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well it is very instructive that Mr Cosgrove came down to this House and was going to solve the problem of boy racers with legislation. So we got ourselves all into a fury and I think it was the ACT party and the Green Party that voted against that too. We warned the Minister then that passing legislation would not deal with the problem. Let me tell Mr Cosgrove Mr Woolerton and the mums and dads who are listening that we in this Parliament will not solve the drug problem. We will not solve the problem through prohibition. We will not solve the problem by passing laws. 
Mr Woolerton well knows I think that more harm is done by alcohol and tobacco than by party pills. More harm is done and they are sitting there banning something because of a perceived problem and because Judy Turner says that the horse has already bolted on alcohol and tobacco. 
But here is the real problem. Judy Turner went on to say that the Green Party goes on about people getting arrested and she asked whether that was the reason we should not have laws against violence. Actually we have laws against violence because that is an infringement of other people’s rights. But for people who are taking BZP or who are having a cigarette or drinking some alcohol the damage they are doing is in the main to themselves and not to another human being and there is a fundamental difference between the two. 
Hon Member 
: Have a look at road deaths. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well road deaths are the same. That is why we have road rules and that is why the ACT party supports road rules. 
Here is the next point. This Government—and indeed the previous National Government was worse—could not keep drugs out of our jails. We have people locked up 24 hours a day 7 days a week under heavy surveillance and we cannot keep the drugs out. Yet we are sitting here in Parliament passing a law as though we can somehow keep drugs out of our streets out of our pubs and out of our communal places. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Live and let live. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I think that that is not a bad place to start I say to Mr Cosgrove. It is better than having a policy of saying we do not like it so let us ban it and lock up anyone who disagrees with us. In fact let us go further I say to Mr Cosgrove and say that if anyone even has a political disagreement with us we should ban that person as well. We could say we will ban the party pills and we will ban political debate because they do not suit us. We could say that any people who disagree who say that people might have some rights and responsibilities and who say that they would rather live in a society where people had some choices apart from what the Government chooses including the choice to make mistakes should be banned. I am looking at Mr Woolerton. He has made a few. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why have laws then—why have any laws? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Is it not a surprising thing that I hear a Minister of the Crown calling across the House: “Why have rules?”. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Because many rules don’t stop people doing wrong do they? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Let me explain to Mr Cosgrove why we have rules and why we do not legislate for everything. We have rules in order to protect people’s rights and to uphold the rights of citizens in a free State. That is why we have rules that is why we have a State that is why we have a court system and that is why we have police. We do not have rules to stop people expressing their political views to stop people taking risks or to stop people making terribly stupid mistakes because that is part of being an adult and a responsible human being. We cannot sit here in this House and legislate away all harm as this Government thinks it can. We cannot actually legislate for good behaviour but we can legislate in a way that protects people’s basic rights. I have to say that when we go beyond that then I think this Parliament overreaches itself. It suggests somehow that the Government and this Parliament are the solution to problems we cannot solve. 
 Are we going to live in a society that says that this Parliament will decide all risk that this Parliament will decide what is right and wrong and that if Parliament has not banned it it is OK to use—which is exactly what Judy Turner’s position was? 
I abhor drugs actually. I do not understand why anyone would want to take any as I think that the most wonderful thing in the universe is the human mind because of what it can grasp comprehend and conceive. I do not know why anyone would want to be taking drugs and playing with it. But my mind also says to me that we are barking up the wrong tree in thinking somehow that we can pass a law and ban party pills and that prohibition will somehow work. I find it astonishing that in the year 2007 we have with Judy Turner a serious political party that is saying: “Oh well you know if we had our time again we would ban alcohol and cigarettes and we would ban a whole number of things; it is just that at the time we didn’t think of it.” 
I have to say that that is not the sort of society I think New Zealanders want to live in. I think New Zealanders want to live in a society where they do have some freedom that coming along with that freedom is some responsibility and that it is not Parliament or the Government that decides how they should live what they should take and what risks are acceptable to them. 
I look around this House and from what I know of members I know that we all went through a stage of being young once of experimenting with things and of taking risks. It is actually called growing up. But do we in this House somehow think that we can pass a law that will stop young people from experimenting and trying different things? What I truly despise about this law is that it wraps up all drugs as being the same and I think that that is the terrible message this law is sending our young people. But the message I have for the mums and dads of New Zealand I tell Mr Cosgrove is that all drugs are not the same and I fear for young people; I am afraid I know people who have had the experience where they have tried drugs this Parliament has banned and have said: “Well that wasn’t so bad. That didn’t kill me. What Parliament and the Government said about that drug isn’t true.” and they have gone on to try other drugs. So I believe that we are doing a harm with this legislation—we are not doing good. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Doctors disagree with you. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well it is all right I tell Mr Cosgrove. This is Parliament and you are allowed to disagree. It is also the case that we are also allowed to explain our view—to explain why the ACT party is opposing this bill and voting against it. Thank you. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill and I support it because benzylpiperazine (BZP) can be a dangerous substance and it can cause real harm particularly when used indiscriminately. But I want to make it very clear that I do not think the banning of BZP will curtail party pill use in New Zealand. 
One of the things I have noticed since I came into Parliament is that we as politicians who care about New Zealanders and who want to make a difference are very keen to legislate. But we often seem to pass legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem that has been identified. I first discovered that when we were working on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Everyone agreed that New Zealand had an appalling record of child abuse and everybody wanted to protect children. Through research we identified the causes of child abuse: poverty stress family breakdown and drug and alcohol abuse. But then what did Parliament do? We passed legislation—a whole lot of rules none of which addressed any of the identified causes of child abuse. Similarly when Parliament identified the problem of young children being savaged by dogs the Government passed legislation to microchip dogs. Can anyone tell me how microchipping can stop a dog biting a child. Would a muzzle not have been simpler? I feel that this legislation is in the same league as those laws. 
As the National Party’s spokesperson on youth I have spoken to many schools many youth workers and many parents and they are united in their condemnation of party pills. They see them as just another hazard for young people to deal with on top of tobacco on top of alcohol and on top of other drugs. They make the same point that Mr Harawira made. They want to get rid of party pills but this legislation will not do that. It will do very little to inhibit the party pill trade. The makers—and they have told us this—will just introduce new and as yet unregulated alternative ingredients. Those new ingredients potentially have even higher risk profiles. Party pills are well established in New Zealand as Mr Tanczos has told us. One in five New Zealanders have used party pills and over 15 percent of them have used them in the last year. Two-thirds of the users are between 18 and 24 years of age and though party pills are supposedly unavailable to young people under 18 years of age 6.3 percent of 15 to 17-year-olds have used them. Three percent of 13 to 14-year-olds have used party pills. 
So the real issue that concerns those who care about young people is that after this legislation comes into force party pills will still be readily available—readily available in attractive-looking specialist stores and even in dairies so that people can buy them along with their bread and milk. Mr Cosgrove can note that this bill will not stop the use of party pills in our community or party pill shops. The 18 years and older purchasing age will still continue to be infrequently enforced because we know that the purchases of under-18s are rarely challenged and that dairies are recognised as one of the easiest places in which to make a purchase. There will still be no control over the standard of packaging over the number and dosage of pills per pack or over recommended dosages— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Because they’ll be banned. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: Only BZP will be banned not party pills as such. So although BZP will be banned that will still do nothing to solve the problem of party pills and it will do nothing to address the issues regarding the supply and control of party pills that have been raised by schools youth workers and parents. 
Just as in the cases of the amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act and the dog microchipping bill we have legislation on BZP but it offers no long-term solution to the problem regarding party pills. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
 on behalf of the  
Hon Jim Anderton (Associate Minister of Health) 
: I move  
That the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill be considered by the Health Committee and that the committee present its report finally to the House on or before 15 November 2007. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Motion agreed to. 
International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 6 September. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I will take only a short call on this bill. The reason is that this bill is I think supported by most parties if not all parties in the House. It is worth drawing members’ attention to the fact that 170 countries are party to this convention. They include all of the OECD countries and that probably means some parties are therefore automatically against it. 
It is noteworthy that there is an allocation of shares. For the OECD countries it is 59000 shares and New Zealand’s share of that is 513 shares—very small. We have a small role to play in the agency but it is essentially part of New Zealand’s responsibilities to facilitate international investment particularly in places of political risk which is what this agreement provides for. It provides for the protection of that kind of investment. There is a small risk potential I guess in these situations and New Zealand will have an obligation in relation to that. We calculated in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that probably in the region of about $100000 is at risk per year. We felt that was not a major issue. 
I can say to members that this bill excited the attention of the nation to such an extent that I have an unparalleled announcement to make: there were no submissions on it whatsoever. I do not think much more needs to be said about the bill other than to say it is part of the framework of New Zealand being a responsible country and being part of the family of nations. As National has been making quite clear in recent years in foreign affairs issues in particular there is very much a bipartisan approach to these matters. I suggest that this is precisely one of the areas where we would expect that approach to be reflected in the votes in this House. Thank you. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I have always thought that the best speeches Wayne Mapp makes are the short ones. I thought that that was one of his best actually. 
Of course the Labour-led Government supports this legislation. As the previous speaker mentioned it allows us to become a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. A number of steps have to be taken. We have already signed the convention in September 2005 and after that we were required to pass legislation which hopefully is what we are doing today and we then lodge this with the World Bank. What was not mentioned before is that this Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency is one of the five agencies of the World Bank. It is an important body. The core reason for setting it up was to try to enhance the flow of capital in technology-developing countries for productive purposes by providing investment insurance against what is called sovereign and political risk. In other words it is allowing the private sector to invest in countries with often high political risk and having the opportunity if there is a default to be able to have a sizable world body to negotiate that default on behalf of the individual donor or investor. It is an important agency and it does fit in with New Zealand’s essential goals which are to try to help and promote investment and development in developing nations. 
There is not much more to be said except that it is important to note that although this particular agency is concerned primarily with alleviating poverty it complements New Zealand’s other current provisions for export insurance by providing guarantees for equity payments for New Zealand companies investing in developing countries. In our view it hits a number of targets. It plays our part in trying to ensure that investment is going into developing countries to ensure that they progress and grow and provide jobs and long-term sustainable growth for those economies but recognises risk. It makes sure there is an ability to deal with that if something goes wrong given the political risk of some of these investments although at the same time it is supporting our export sector by providing some form of insurance and giving them some comfort when they make these investments. I wholeheartedly support this bill and recommend that it be passed without too much delay. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa i te Whare. I understand that this bill is intended to amend the International Finance Agreements Act of 1961 so that New Zealand can become a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency and to ratify the convention establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency signed by this Labour Government in Seoul on 6 September 2005 linking that agency to others referred to in that Act including the World Bank the IMF and the International Finance Corporation. 
The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency is one of just five agencies that make up the World Bank Group. There are 170 members including New Zealand. The stated mission of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency is to enhance the flow of foreign investment to developing countries by providing insurance for member countries against both sovereign and political risk. It provides protection against an inability to transfer local currency outside the country caused by the host Government’s actions protection against the loss of an insured investment as a result of acts by the host Government—it may reduce or eliminate ownership—protection against the host Government breaching a contract and protection against the loss or destruction of assets caused by politically motivated acts of war or civil disturbance in the host country. The risk insurance is provided for terms of up to 20 years for investments investment loans and deals where the investor’s return comes from the revenues or production of the investment. 
 That is the official spin but the history of foreign investment paints a much different and far darker picture in this country. Foreign capital has always played a big role in the New Zealand economy from right back in the colonial days when the settler Government first attracted British investment by promising land to settlers that had been stolen from Maori then called for further investment to bankroll the war against Maori whose lands had been stolen. But despite all that up until 1950 foreign investment was still only about 11 percent of the total investment. 
Then in 1984 the Government lifted restrictions on New Zealand companies investing overseas and taking advantage of cheap overseas labour which of course led to the loss of thousands of New Zealand jobs to offshore manufacturing. Unfortunately for New Zealand the Government’s response was not to protect jobs but to start reducing the restrictions on foreign investment into Aotearoa. That led to the privatisation and sale of some of the country’s largest companies beginning in 1988 and giving foreign investment a real boost. Indeed sales at the time were structured to make overseas participation inevitable. Many companies were sold cheaply in a depressed market and by the mid-1990s most of New Zealand’s top companies were between 30 and 100 percent foreign-owned. Yet the reality of all that investment is that rather than investing in New Zealand extending production and creating jobs foreign investors basically took over existing companies stripped them of their assets laid off thousands of workers and took their massive profits back offshore with them. 
Then if that were not enough in 1995 the Government amended the Overseas Investment Act to make it even easier for foreign investment in the New Zealand economy. That included the lifting of restrictions on the purchase of New Zealand land even though a  
National Business Review 
 poll in 1995 clearly showed that more than half of all Kiwis did not want land to be sold to foreigners and in fact said they would support a law to ban the foreign ownership of New Zealand land. 
Maori have been particularly hard hit by much of the privatisation and sale of New Zealand’s assets through the selling of huge Maori workplaces such as forests the railroad and Telecom and through the break-up and sale of many of the country’s freezing works. The Government was also selling off resources that were subject to Treaty claims—resources that were hard enough to recover when held by the Crown but that would become nigh on impossible to get back once ownership had moved offshore. It all culminated in 1997 when the Government wanted to sign up to the OECD’s Multilateral Agreement on Investment which aimed to remove virtually all restrictions on foreign investment giving multibillion-dollar foreign raiders an open season on assets in Aotearoa. A massive campaign against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment brought together Maori activists unions students anti free-trade groups local mayors Grey Power the Alliance and even New Zealand First—Labour sat on the fence during this one—which eventually forced the Government to abandon negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in late 1998. 
So the history of foreign investment in this country has never been particularly pleasant for Maori. There is no reason to believe that much has changed with the advent of the new more powerful World Bank - IMF rape and pillage brigade. Today the Labour Government continues to negotiate and sign an increasing number of trade agreements that give rights to large corporations over the very resources that Maori lay claim to. Now it wants us to amend the International Finance Agreements Act in order to lock New Zealand into the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. 
Well no way will the Maori Party support any plans to continue the rape and pillage of this nation’s assets. Nor will we support the stupidity of our having to put up insurance so that the rapists get compensation if they cannot have their dastardly way. Here is where we see the hyp—oh there is that word again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is right. You cannot use it. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Here is where we see the two-facedness— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: The differing standards. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Thank you very much—the differing standards in all of this. Although this Labour Government is planning to ensure the rape of our land by foreigners it does not even have the decency to support a watered-down Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which is due to go before the United Nations General Assembly for ratification in a few days’ time. In fact not only will New Zealand fail to support the declaration but it has been internationally credited with leading the charge against it backed up by Canada Australia and again the good old USA. 
I draw the House’s attention to the recommendation of Professor Roldofo Stavenhagen the United Nations special rapporteur on the Human Rights Council on the situation of human rights and the fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples who said: “One of the new trends that has been reinforced in recent years is the continuous loss of indigenous lands and territories including their loss of control over natural resources … intensified as a result of economic globalisation especially with increased exploitation of energy and water resources”. And here we are being asked to support a bill to ensure foreign investment in Aotearoa when the rules have been determined not by us but by international financial institutions whose sole purpose is to break down trade barriers in order to enable transnationals to dominate not only economic development but also political development by using international trade agreements that overrule national decision-making and national sovereignty all in the interests of globalisation. 
Yet the evidence already clearly shows the failings of that philosophy. Poor countries and poor people in rich countries simply do not get the promised gains from globalisation. In fact the World Bank itself concedes that predictions of substantial poverty reduction from the Doha round were based on a “fanciful scenario” and suggests that even big cuts in tariffs and subsidies would benefit less than 1 percent of the people who live below the poverty line. So-called trade agreements extend far beyond trade in goods and in fact restrict the choice of laws and policies available to Governments to regulate international investment the provision of services and intellectual property. They restrict the choices the ability and the right of Governments to regulate in their national interests. Indeed it is their stated function to do so. The point is that the world’s major economic powers do not even adhere to those policies themselves. In fact they unashamedly promote their corporations’ interests above all else and our being dragged into these international agreements leaves us more and more vulnerable in a grossly unequal global economy while giving away the very sovereignty that protects our interests. 
I am aghast at the lengths to which this Government will stoop in order to keep onside with the World Bank and the IMF. This scenario—this bill—is almost like a rapist flying into the country and coming into one’s home carrying an international agreement that states he can rape one’s sisters. Now we have to assure the guy that if one sister should say “No”—heaven forbid—then we will give him our other sister. Maori rights are under constant threat but these international financial agreements threaten the sovereignty of every New Zealander and our fundamental right to determine our future is being compromised by the Labour Government’s actions. In the interests of Maori sovereignty—indeed in the interests of New Zealand’s sovereignty—the Maori Party will be opposing this bill. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 If this International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill were to be in any way compromising our sovereignty we in New Zealand First would be opposed to it. By and large we do tend to examine “world this” and “world that” things very very closely indeed to make sure they are not doing that. But New Zealand must play its part in the world and I think this bill is completely consistent with the view we have in New Zealand which is that we will not participate in acts of anger or aggression. This bill certainly does not do that but certainly we have a record of punching above our weight when it comes to being listened to internationally. I believe that our respect internationally is high thanks to people—some of whom are in this House—who have participated internationally. 
John Hayes 
: The rugby team. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I do not know about the rugby team. I think the rugby team might have had a bit of a set-back recently but let us hope not. I think this bill enhances that respect because essentially it is some guarantee for people in terms of helping them to put money into countries that have been through the ravages of war or have been disadvantaged in some way or another. So I think it is completely consistent for us to play a part in that way. Indeed if it were a bill that was locking us into some sort of huge obligation that was open-ended and it was locking us into a raping and pillaging - type regime that was going on—it was just about making money— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What! 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I mean in a financial sense just so that Mr Cosgrove does not get too excited. It should make sure that we participate as a good citizen of the world. I believe that this bill does that and for that reason New Zealand First is happy to support it. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill on behalf of the National Party and to say that we will have no amendments to make. To be really fair and straightforward to my colleague from the Maori Party I think this is actually a very minor piece of legislation reflected in the fact that the convention was established in April of 1988 and already 170 countries have signed up to it. One wonders why it has taken us so long. 
What the bill does is provide 20 years of insurance cover thereby reducing the risk for people engaged in investment projects where there is going to be a cash flow depending on a revenue stream or some sort of productive process. The sorts of things it protects against are the inability to transfer local currency into foreign currency the expropriation of assets by the host Government the host Government breaching a contract and also against a war or civil disturbance. 
I have checked around on the Internet and I can report to the House that there is only one project in our area of greatest interest the South Pacific that is covered at the moment by this scheme. That is the Lihir gold mine in Papua New Guinea. I would also report to the House that there are about eight other gold mines in Papua New Guinea that do not seem to need this cover. 
We support this bill because it supports the flow of foreign direct investment into developing countries and it is low cost. New Zealand’s participation in this would cost about US$5.5 million but we have to front up with only 10 percent in cash and 10 percent in promissory notes so the remaining US$4.4 million would be subject to call and we were given an assurance by Treasury in the select committee that that happening is most unlikely. 
I would like to take issue with Dr Cullen’s comments recorded in  
Hansard 
 when he introduced the bill. He said that this bill was going to contribute to: “poverty elimination and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.” Well I would like to say that I do not agree with the Minister. The Minister and his leader and their United Nations friends are much better at making slogans mantras and goals than actually meeting them. I would just like to remind the House of Prime Minister Kirk who in 1974 managed to get our aid contribution up to 0.55 percent of gross national income. This Government’s sorry record is 0.27 percent. Successive Labour Governments have had an opportunity to make a serious contribution if they had wanted to but they have not delivered on Mr Kirk’s achievement. If the Labour Government really believes the mantra of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals then I think that it has got to look at this in the context that these mantras are supposed to turn slogans into bankable pledges complete with a number and date. 
The United Nations Millennium Development Goals resolve to cut the rate at which mothers die in childbirth by three-quarters by the year 2015; they are going to make the number of people without safe water drop by half; they are going to cut infant mortality by a third. These goals sound really good but there is no data in most countries on which to make any sort of reasonable or measurable comparison to measure progress in this context. 
I noticed that the World Bank used the goals in June this year when it was pitching for an infusion of $32 billion from richer member countries. Pascal Lamy head of the World Trade Organization invoked them in early July this year when he was making a plea to save the Doha round. 
When we look at these goals we see they aim to generate a buzz about the duties the Government might otherwise overlook. After all Ministers in our immediate neighbourhood have a lot on their plate. They have to fend off rivals they have to put down insurgencies and they have to distribute the baubles of office. To me they seem to be much less focused on saving mothers from eclampsia or young children dying from malaria or their own citizens from catching HIV/AIDS . 
I would just like to say to Mr Cullen that poor and developing countries collect no reliable numbers on deaths from malaria or deaths in childbirth. The goals are supposed to be everybody’s responsibility which invariably means they become nobody’s responsibility. I say to Mr Cullen that I think the poor are going to blame the rich for not coming up with enough money and the rich are going to blame the poor for not deserving more money. The United Nations Millennium Development Goals envisage some kind of nationwide nannying—well known to this Government—that only an accountable domestic Government can deliver upon not distant donors. Distant donors cannot sustain them. 
In supporting this bill I want to make the point that National members do it on the grounds of support for encouraging foreign direct investment particularly in the developing world. We do it on the grounds of supporting the World Bank and we do it on the grounds of supporting the 170 countries that have already signed up to support the convention. We also do it because a very small amount of taxpayer money is required—about US$1 million. However we do not support this bill on the grounds of its contribution to poverty eradication. Developing countries have to make their own way out of poverty by their own efforts which is the only way any country—including our own—can ever do it. To Minister Cullen I would say that the only way to make poverty history is to understand how history is made. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party opposed this bill at first reading and we will continue to oppose the bill. It seems to us that a number of concerns that we raised at the first reading have not been addressed by the select committee in any way. Mr Hayes presented the bill as a modest and benign measure and one that was well overdue. The Green Party thinks we should have another look at what it is actually about. As has been said the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency exists to protect foreign investors from the risks associated with investing in developing countries. So the idea is that New Zealand and other countries put up capital to cover the insurance for those corporations. It seems they do not have to buy their own insurance; we buy it for them. It costs us around $9 million to belong to the agency and it is not the only agency of the World Bank that provides this kind of guarantee; there are other examples of a similar kind of operation. 
What interests the Greens is that the agency does have a set of guidelines for the projects where it will guarantee investment and it is supposed to cover things like human rights environmental issues and social issues. But a recent investigation by the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman of the World Bank—the agency’s parent body—strongly criticised the agency for its involvement in projects where it had guaranteed the investor but had been completely negligent about addressing the other issues that it is supposed to give regard to such as human rights issues the environmental record and the social effects on the host community. The Green Party is very strongly of the view that our aid money should not be going to support an agency that performs as negligently as that. 
 My co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons spoke in the first reading about a number of examples in order to highlight the issue. She mentioned that the agency insured investment in a copper and silver mining project in Katanga in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The audit of that project concluded that the risks to the local communities in terms of the human rights impacts were not adequately considered. It appears that the mining company that the agency insured apparently provided logistical support to the Congolese army during a violent counter-offensive to suppress a small-scale uprising. According to the United Nations as many as 100 civilians were killed during the military offensive which was supported by that multinational company. That incident was investigated by the World Bank. 
There does not seem to be any process whereby the guaranteeing agency investigates the effects of the investment projects it is insuring and guaranteeing. It seems pretty clear that those effects were negative in terms of human rights and the safety and well-being of those local people. 
Essentially we have an organisation that doles out our money to foreign investment companies to guarantee them against the local risks of investing in countries where they hope to make a great deal of money. That agency does not even bother to investigate—as it is supposed to—whether the projects it is supporting will be good for the local community at all. 
Let me reiterate that the audit of the agency was not done by some radical Third World non-governmental organisation but by an official of the World Bank. The World Bank found that the agency was not living up to its responsibilities not taking due care and not giving due diligence to projects. The conclusion we have to reach is that the agency is there simply to facilitate profit making regardless of the effects and impacts on the local community. The Green Party will vote against this bill once again. We cannot support a bill that claims to be about benefiting developing countries but that offers us no surety at all in that regard. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time. 
Statutes Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Animal Products Act 1999 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the Statutes Amendment Bill. I want to draw people’s attention to the submission put forward by Chapman Tripp which opposed the amendments to clauses 32 and 33 of the Statutes Amendment Bill. The reason for the opposition is that Chapman Tripp felt that the proposed amendments to the Companies Act were unnecessary and would result in onerous additional compliance costs for amalgamating companies in terms of both time and money. Perhaps the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove might like to take a call and give us his views on the concerns Chapman Tripp raised about the proposals to change the Companies Act. The Chapman Tripp submission goes on to state that in the Act’s current form a company that is amalgamating with another company must give secured credit or a copy of an amalgamation proposal— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Clauses 3 and 4 only please. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: OK clauses 3 and 4 only. Right I shall go to clauses 3 and 4 only—I am not quite sure where we are up to on this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] The Animal Products Act! Well do we know a lot about the Animal Products Act! What is happening with the Animal Products Act? There are huge changes there: “Section 167(1)(ja) is amended by omitting “section 59A” and substituting “section 60”.” That is a hugely significant change to the legislation. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What is it? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Well that is a good question from the member. Perhaps she might like to take a call and answer that very question. Perhaps the Minister might like to answer the question and enlighten the House and the New Zealand public about what those particular clauses actually mean. We have some briefing papers from the officials about all these different clauses. I am sure the Minister has those to hand and can give us a very enlightened précis of the changes to those particular clauses. 
There are of course a number of Acts that are being changed by this legislation and the Animal Products Act is just one of the Acts that is being amended in the Statutes Amendment Bill. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 With regard to the Statutes Amendment Bill one could give either an 8-hour speech or a 3-minute speech. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Three minutes. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have opted indeed—as my friend Harry Duynhoven said—for the 3-minute speech. In the second reading I addressed some of the provisions that dealt particularly with the question of the appointment of environment commissioners and with various other minor amendments—for example Part 18 which concerns the Family Courts Act. 
The purpose of the Statutes Amendment Bill—as is well known—is to introduce provisions of a very minor nature that tidy up legislation in order to bring various pieces of legislation into line with other legislation and so it is here. This legislation need not detain the Committee at all. It is all fairly sensible stuff. The National Party has no problem with the various parts of the bill with the exception of the particular parts that are referred to in the report from the Government Administration Committee. National supports the legislation. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Parts 2 to 4 agreed to.  
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Parts 5 to 35 agreed to.  
Part 36 objected to and struck out of the bill.  
Parts 37 to 38 agreed to.  
Part 39 objected to and struck out of the bill.  
Parts 40 to 50 agreed to.  
Schedules 1 to 10 agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
The Committee divided the bill into the Animal Products Amendment Bill the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2) the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) the Building Societies Amendment Bill the Care of Children Amendment Bill the Charitable Trusts Amendment Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 5) the Civil Union Amendment Bill the Companies Amendment Bill (No 3) the Cook Islands Amendment Bill the Corporations (Investigation and Management) Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill (No 2) the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) the Electricity Amendment Bill (No 2) the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill the Engineering Associates Amendment Bill the Family Courts Amendment Bill the Fencing of Swimming Pools Amendment Bill the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill (No 2) the Gas Amendment Bill (No 2) the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill the Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Amendment Bill the Human Rights Amendment Bill the Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment Bill the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 3) the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 3) the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill (No 2) the Niue Amendment Bill the Personal Property Securities Amendment Bill (No 2) the Privacy Amendment Bill (No 2) the Racing Amendment Bill (No 2) the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 3) the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 2) the Resource Management Amendment Bill the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill (No 2) the Securities Amendment Bill (No 2) the Securities Transfer Amendment Bill the Social Welfare (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill the State Sector Amendment Bill the Status of Children Amendment Bill the Tokelau Amendment Bill the Trade in Endangered Species Amendment Bill and the Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper142. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Readings 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Animal Products Amendment Bill the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2) the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) the Building Societies Amendment Bill the Care of Children Amendment Bill the Charitable Trusts Amendment Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 5) the Civil Union Amendment Bill the Companies Amendment Bill (No 3) the Cook Islands Amendment Bill the Corporations (Investigation and Management) Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill (No 2) the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) the Electricity Amendment Bill (No 2) the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill the Engineering Associates Amendment Bill the Family Courts Amendment Bill the Fencing of Swimming Pools Amendment Bill the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill (No 2) the Gas Amendment Bill (No 2) the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill the Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Amendment Bill the Human Rights Amendment Bill the Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment Bill the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 3) the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 3) the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill (No 2) the Niue Amendment Bill the Personal Property Securities Amendment Bill (No 2) the Privacy Amendment Bill (No 2) the Racing Amendment Bill (No 2) the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 3) the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 2) the Resource Management Amendment Bill the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill (No 2) the Securities Amendment Bill (No 2) the Securities Transfer Amendment Bill the Social Welfare (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill the State Sector Amendment Bill the Status of Children Amendment Bill the Tokelau Amendment Bill the Trade in Endangered Species Amendment Bill and the Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I am advised that technically the bill that was formerly the Statutes Amendment Bill no longer exists and that it is now divided into its component parts and becomes 48 separate bills. Thankfully—and I am sure to the House’s relief—I am further advised that the traditional practice is that I am not required to read the whole motion. 
I take this opportunity to thank the members of the Government Administration Committee who have been instrumental in the passage of the Statutes Amendment bills. Statutes Amendment bills cover a wide range of subject matters and this involves some unique challenges. This particular bill contained amendments to originally some 50 Acts covering subject areas as diverse as health and disability securities law and company law. Amendments contained in Statutes Amendment bills do not by their nature address significant policy issues. Rather these bills provide a vehicle for minor non-controversial and technical amendments to Acts so that legislation works effectively and can be responsive to necessary change. Some of the improvements brought about by these bills include the following: modernising the language used in the Defence Act 1990 to keep pace with terminology currently in use streamlining procedural requirements for those seeking relief from the court under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 to make the court process more straightforward and accessible and streamlining the nomination advisory panel meetings under the Racing Act 2003 to achieve greater efficiencies. Some small cross-referencing errors—for example in the Land Transport Act 1998—have also been corrected. 
Since the bill was introduced to the House some changes have been made to it. An amendment to the Real Estate Agents Act 1976 initially proposed in this bill has now been removed from it and will be considered as part of the wider review of that Act that is currently under way. As I foreshadowed in the second reading another proposed amendment to the Public Audit Act 2001 in relation to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament has been removed from the bill. This is because some parties no longer support the amendment to the Public Audit Act 2001. The nature of a Statutes Amendment Bill is that all included amendments must be supported by all members of the House. Where this is not the case the amendment drops out. This is proper and the normal way of things for Statutes Amendment bills. 
The bill was added to by inclusion of a further amendment to the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to Watercare Services Ltd which provides that parties wishing to carry out works on or in relation to Watercare Services Ltd water-supply assets must meet the same requirements as if they were carrying out works on water-supply assets of local authorities. 
These few examples demonstrate the value of Statutes Amendment bills as a vehicle for making minor technical and non-controversial changes to statutes where required. Few of the amendments referred to above would have received the necessary priority in the House if they were stand-alone amendments. However gathered together in a Statutes Amendment Bill they assist in achieving an aim of all members present to keep the law up to date accurate and user-friendly. 
My thanks go to the many officials who worked on the various amendments to the bill. Again I thank the members of the Government Administration Committee and its very able chair for their speedy and helpful deliberations on the bill. I thank all members of the House for the dispassionate manner in which this bill and all such Statutes Amendment bills are considered. Comment is often made about the adversarial nature of this House but these bills are a good reminder that this House regularly works in a more considered and cooperative way to get the business of the House completed. I commend the bill to the House. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the third readings of the bills coming out of the Statutes Amendment Bill. I acknowledge Clayton Cosgrove’s very kind remarks about the chair of the Government Administration Committee and the way in which all parties worked together to assist the process of this legislation. As he said Statutes Amendment bills are omnibus bills and are designed to provide minor technical and non-controversial amendments to legislation. The original bill has been divided into 48 bills. 
We had one or two queries over some aspects of the legislation because with one or two parts in the original bill we were concerned that the amendments were not minor or technical in nature and of course we sought guidance from the officials on that. That is the process that needs to be undertaken and it is the role of the select committee in monitoring the process of Statutes Amendment bills to do that. The Ministry of Justice actually has a role to play in that and it is charged with the responsibility of coordinating the amendments. It cannot give any advice. That is left up to the ministry officials who will seek the committee’s guidance on any queries that it has. 
All in all the legislation went through quite smoothly and National is happy to support it. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 A week ago we were debating this latest omnibus bill to come before the House bringing together issues as wide ranging as endangered species real estate agents lawyers and conveyancers and volunteers all in one heap of amendments. It is always difficult when we are faced with omnibus efforts to identify the absolute critical points apparent—or perhaps hidden—in the legislation. Is it all for the best that section 253 of the Resource Management Act is amended to enable the Attorney-General and not the Minister of Justice to appoint environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners? What is the compliance cost of the change? It sort of reminds me of the dilemma over whether the glass is half full or half empty. Perhaps the only alternative is to drink the water and remove all doubt. The problem would be gone. 
 Taking that analogy speaking of water is of course highly appropriate today when we consider the new definition that the Crown has created—just yesterday in fact—of water: that “Taupo waters” does not include water itself. I do not know whether you heard that Mr Deputy Speaker so I will say it again for you: the definition of “Taupo waters” does not include water itself. In this definition “water” means beds soil space above space below and space in which the water exists but “Taupo waters” does not mean the water itself. 
Sadly it reminds me of the introduction of the notion of Crown stratum first mooted in the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act. If the House recalls this was the first time the Crown had overtly claimed in legislation that the lake water was vested in the Crown. The peculiar formula applied was that the Crown owned the stratum or the space within which the water exists not the water itself. 
What the hang is going to be next if that is the way we define things in legislation? Will Maunga Ruapehu be defined as everything but the maunga? I get it: is “Maori land” going to mean everything except Maori land? Is “Tane Mahuta” the largest remaining kauri tree in all of Aotearoa going to be defined as everything but a tree? If this is to make any sense to anyone in the House and if we follow this sort of thinking then “sense” here will be defined as everything but sense—“nonsense” if you like. 
My attention was drawn to the complexity of water matters because of the amendment in the Statutes Amendment Bill to provide Watercare Services with the same protection currently afforded to local authorities. In itself this amendment seems to fit the bill of being fairly non-controversial. In essence if through the process of excavation of drainage or of cabling a water pipe ends up getting wrecked then the same protection will be afforded to Watercare Services as is currently available to any local authority. This technical change is something the Maori Party is happy to support. 
But we come back to the question of whether if we follow the river through it will eventually find the sea. The sea change that is not being talked about in this legislation is the matter of multinational water incorporation like Metro Water in Auckland City or United Water in Papakura. The council might own the pipes but the operation and the management of water services becomes contracted out. They are contracted out to corporations that accrue private profit from public infrastructure without actually owning it and without making any form of payment back to the public who do. 
It is of course interesting that we are discussing this issue tonight in the context of the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill which was debated earlier this evening because the debate cannot be complete without acknowledging the impact and influence of global commercial interests that are looking to control water and sell it for profit. 
Part 31 of the original bill the Statutes Amendment Bill amends the Local Government Act 2002 by various amendments that confer on Watercare Services the same protections concurrently afforded to local authorities. Watercare Services is the water wholesaler for the Auckland region and is owned by various city councils that are water retailers. The water mains are owned by Watercare and the local pipes are owned by each council. Where it becomes of interest to Parliament is the fact that Watercare’s intention is to create one super water company in Auckland that brings together individual retailing councils and private water companies such as Metro Water in Auckland City and United Water in Papakura and set up a single infrastructure. 
Maybe this is just the path of the future. Maybe Watercare is better able to contract out to water multinationals than any other retailers. We cannot deny the threat and consequences of yet more privatisation of water where private companies control water management and operations and draw off profits from the powerless public in excess of that required for infrastructure reinvestment. This is where we look carefully at the amendments like the consequential amendments to the Local Government Act to test whether the only damage that is being considered is damage costs for wrecked pipes. What the Maori Party asks is whether the new user-charges for water the water meters and the corporate concept of water as a commodity which are increasingly being accepted or considered by many councils are congruent with Maori customary rights to water. 
The Local Government Act—the object of the amendments in Part 31 of the original bill—along with provision in the Resource Management Act 1991 actually serves to facilitate public-private partnership that enables the management of a resource such as water to be passed over to a profit-making company. We say that this is outright privatisation opening the floodgates to multinational companies. 
So why does this matter so much? As tangata whenua we see water as a living entity with a mauri of its own. The very clear advice that consultation has revealed is that Maori customary rights to water still exist or at the very least are contestable in court. Any Crown presumption of ownership will therefore be challenged and will continue to be challenged by Maori. 
What this Government has done to date is this: it has refined the Resource Management Act 1991 to allow water permits to be traded by councils and it has asserted Crown ownership of water through introducing the term “Crown stratum” into Treaty settlement legislation. In short it has set up the conditions for water permits to be sold off to private profit-driven companies that then overcharge to supply water to New Zealand households. The implications for this are in the first instance that water metering and water privatisation will make a huge difference to poorer New Zealanders who require water for cleaning cooking washing and drinking. In short it is one of the basic commodities that we cannot do without. Water under such a scenario also becomes what Moana Jackson has described as the ultimate raupatu. 
We in the Maori Party appreciate the close connection between the well-being of the people and the environmental state of the land and the rivers. Infused throughout our language is the vital importance of our waters—ko wai; no wai; na wai. Whether we are referring to our tribal tributaries or our umbilical waters the significance of protecting water as our tribal taonga is upheld. Our waterways are historically tribal sources of major food supplies and they nurture our natural landscapes and biodiversity. Indeed they are cultural icons of prime importance. 
With privatisation of water well under way in Aotearoa the amendments in this legislation may well be water under the bridge. But the key issue for us in the Maori Party is to ensure that the questions are raised and the issues aired so that we can in all honesty ensure that the availability of clean free drinking water does not end up a mirage. 
The Maori Party will support the third reading of these bills and we will also continue to keep the debate high on the critical issues concerning water. 
Bills read a third time. 
Aviation Security Legislation Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Aviation Crimes Act 1972 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is supporting this bill but as members who listened to the first and second reading debates will remember we had a particular objection to the arming of inflight security officers. On the Table is an amendment from myself and the Green Party to omit new section 15B proposed to be inserted by clause 7. New section 15B states: “In-flight security officers may possess carry and use firearms weapons ammunition and other equipment on board certain aircraft in certain circumstances”. The provision goes on to explain under what circumstances those officers will be able to do this on board. Those circumstances are: “if—(a) the officer is on duty; and (b) the aircraft is in flight.” 
We are not objecting to inflight security officers as such—police often have to go on planes for some purpose—but they should not be able to carry guns. The airline pilots— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How about Tasers? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: There is a bit of interjection here. Mr Williamson should listen to the airline pilots. They are the people who will be affected if guns are used on planes. It was explained quite clearly that with all the hydraulics all the power and all the bits and pieces on planes that are quite vital for it to keep airborne several thousand feet in the air it would be dangerous for people to be operationally using guns on planes and that is what this new section achieves. 
The Green Party goes along with the pilots and other submitters to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee who would rather this provision were not there. Thank you. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 It has often been said in the history of speech-making that a good speech is a short speech so this will be one of the best speeches that has ever been made because it will be bloody short. All I can say is that the National Opposition supports this bill. We disagree with Mr Locke. Yes a gun being shot within a cabin may actually damage some hydraulics and it may put a hole in the fuselage. But let me tell members that a bomb from a terrorist does a hell of a lot more damage than a gun from an inflight service officer will ever do. We support this legislation. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I cannot promise to give a speech as short as that of the Hon Maurice Williamson and I say “Well done” to him. The issue on Part 1 that received a lot of attention was the ability for there to be foreign inflight security officers. New sections 15A to 15G are the operative provisions including new section 15B. 
It sounds pretty scary when we read out new section 15B which states: “In-flight security officers may possess carry and use firearms weapons ammunition …” etc. that have been approved by the Director of Civil Aviation. It goes on to state that new sections 15D to 15F provide powers for the in-flight security officers to arrest restrain and search a person whom they believe is attempting to hijack damage or destroy the aircraft. Most New Zealanders find the idea of armed anybodies anywhere to be pretty abhorrent. It is always a shock when we go around other countries to be greeted by armed police or security officers holding AK-47s or bearing other prominently displayed weapons. It is an idea that is quite difficult for us. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How does the member know all these things? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I say to Mr Williamson that it is anathema to our way of life. I am trying to agree with the member here. In the end if we as free and mobile citizens would like to travel to other countries that are much less safe than ours then we have to take these precautions. Because we need other countries’ planes coming to our country we have to accept some changes that may not sit very well with our day-to-day life in New Zealand. It is a balancing act between freedom and security. 
When it comes to our families’ lives and the lives of our countrymen and countrywomen we must do everything reasonable to ensure that they are safe. It is not pretty and it does not feel good but in the end I would far rather know that every possible step has been taken to ensure the safety of passengers than to have one of our planes spread out in pieces in some foreign country on a remote hill somewhere because we did not accept that we live in a changed word. 
I mention that we are debating the Committee stage of the bill on a very significant day. It is 9/11 or 11 September and none of us who woke up in the morning on that day and saw those terrible things happening will forget that. Although we have a choice as to whether we travel the workers on the planes do not and I am worried about them. What happens to them? They have to get on the planes every day and surely we want to ensure that their safety is protected as well of course as the safety of the passengers. 
So we hope the need will never arise and that we never see armed inflight security officers. I am glad that we have some protection in Government policy whereby there has to be a full Cabinet approval process and the current Government policy is that this cannot happen. We do not want to see it happen but if it ever should happen it has to have full Cabinet sign-off. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There is a lot of meat in Part 1 and I think it is worth outlining to somebody who might be listening to what it is all about. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: There’s no one listening Peter. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well there might be; one never knows one’s luck. Anyway we will give it a go just in case somebody is listening. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It must be a very sorry individual who is listening to this tonight. 
PETER BROWN 
: I think the member might have a point there but one never knows. Part 1 establishes a new breed of official who is being referred to as an inflight security officer. We should make it quite clear that inflight security officers are police officers who are appointed by the Commissioner of Police in consultation with the Director of Civil Aviation and further in consultation with the industry at large. So it is important that people understand that an inflight security officer is not just anybody who has come in off the street and got a job as a security officer. Security officers are well trained in all aspects of the operation. 
In respect of arming inflight security officers it is a sad day when we even have to consider arming them. As I recall Air New Zealand told us quite categorically that if it got to that situation it would probably cancel the flight. Air New Zealand certainly does not visualise flying around the skies of the Pacific or wherever with a lot of armed policemen on board if it can possibly avoid it. 
But there is another aspect to Part 1. It enlarges the area where it is prohibited to take firearms and explosives. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Bennett should listen because he was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and he clearly has not taken on board what that committee has been told. It enlarges that area by going further than the aircraft itself by going into sterile areas and security-enhanced areas. So it will be an offence to take a firearm an explosive or anything in that category into one of those areas—that is well before they get anywhere close to the aircraft or one would hope so. It also allows for the search of passengers. We were told that with modern technology passengers can be searched quite thoroughly by see-through X-ray systems— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I quite like the pat-down search. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is a bit more than that actually. There is equipment we are told that can go past the clothing and see the individual’s body. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Naked? 
PETER BROWN 
: Naked. In certain circumstances I tell Mr Williamson that would be a horrible thought. But I commend the Minister. He has taken this on board and he has put forward Supplementary Order Paper 140 which New Zealand First will support also to prohibit that. I will read from it although I am certain the Minister will take a call later on. The proposed subsection (5B) states: “Despite subsection (5A)”—which provides for technology to search people—“with respect to a person searched under subsection (1) a member of the police an aviation officer a Customs officer or an agent of the carrier authorised by the carrier for the purpose may not use an aid or device that produces an unclothed image of the person.” I tell the Committee that if the Minister had not produced that Supplementary Order Paper then that would be a very worrying concern to many people who travel—certainly to the many people who travel on a leisure-type basis. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Look round this House and imagine seeing it naked. 
PETER BROWN 
: The thought appals me. There are certain places I could go and if I look around the Chamber and look around other places one might have a more pleasant thought. But it is important that this Supplementary Order Paper is attached to this legislation and I commend the Minister for producing it. 
With regard to inflight security officers I must comment on what Keith Locke said because he has tended to put the wind up people somewhat. These guys are there to do a job. They have certain responsibilities; they can react to a situation on board an aircraft. If they see trouble they can fully restore the command of the aircraft to the pilot in charge the captain. 
Unfortunately we live in very volatile times. Not so long ago I saw a programme on Discovery Channel on TV and I would just like to relay this. The programme showed how many aviation road rage incidents there are. An average of one passenger a month is taken off an aircraft— 
David Bennett 
: Road rage? 
PETER BROWN 
: Well I do not know what we would call it. I understand road rage but I do not know what we would call this. Would it be aircraft rage or air rage? It is quite a serious problem in the UK. Indeed I think there are places in Canada that advertise they will allow airlines to land so they can take off passengers who misbehave become offensive use weapons assault flight attendants or what have you. So it is a serious problem. We might kid ourselves that it does not happen in New Zealand but I say to members that airline travel is becoming more and more the common mode of travel particularly overseas and sooner or later someone here will do something we do not approve of and there will be a need for us to have security officers on board. I regret having to say that but that is the way the world is heading. So New Zealand First supports this concept and certainly supports this part. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Well that was a very enlightening speech from New Zealand First the greatest tyre-kicking party we will ever see in this Parliament. There is not really very much debate about this legislation. As Darien Fenton mentioned today is a very significant day for us to be discussing this legislation this being the anniversary of the September 11 attacks. With that anniversary in mind I think it is a time when we need to reflect—to just take things slowly and to look at what has actually been happening and at the legislation going forward. I would like to thank members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the staff who helped in advising us and who are here today. They did a great job in putting this legislation together and we look forward to it working well in the future. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I thought that I had covered all the points but I became a bit worried about Peter Brown’s speech when he started to talk about road rage altitude rage or whatever it ended up being described as. I think it was altitude rage as Maurice Williamson said. The member sort of linked that with the Green Party’s objection to having inflight security officers armed. When the member linked that up I became pretty worried because I read all the tittle-tattle in the  
Woman’s Weekly 
 the Sunday papers and whatnot. As I recall matters—and I cannot bring all the names to mind—quite a few of our leading rugby stars and celebrities have been guilty of altitude rage. They have taken a few too many whiskies in first class and done things like that and I am worried about their lives now after listening to Peter Brown’s speech. I think that is an additional reason for the Committee to support my amendment: to make sure that we protect our celebrities and to make sure that we do not arm those police officers who are on aircraft as inflight security people. I think that the watchword of the airline pilots is the best thing. If there is a security problem then we should leave the plane on the ground until there is no security problem. We should not stick an armed inflight security officer on the plane. That is the solution. 
I certainly support the Minister’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 140 about making sure that there is no “unclothed image of the person” in the words of the explanatory note of that Supplementary Order Paper. We support the Supplementary Order Paper in that respect. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit new section 15B. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 140 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to clause 6 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 and schedule 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I do not believe I could do any better than my very first speech. The National Party totally supports this legislation. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Members will be pleased to know I have two further amendments to this part on behalf of the Green Party which also relate to armed inflight security officers except in this case we are talking about what are called foreign inflight security officers. It is a bit different in that these are people who are essentially from other nations on other airlines such as United Airlines or whatever—airlines on which America already has armed inflight security officers. The particular problem here in relation to clause 17 that inserts new section 77E “Foreign in-flight security officers” is that if we allow them on as this bill provides for they will then be able to get on to flights say in Los Angeles arrive in Auckland get off the plane with their firearms and go through the secure areas in the airport etc. which would normally be in violation of the other aspects of this bill which is a bill to improve security. 
So this section 77E which I wish through my amendment to eliminate states that those officers will pass through security-enhanced areas and sterile areas—while also carrying guns and weapons—when they are boarding aircraft and disembarking from aircraft. I think in some ways that this is an even more important amendment than the first one in relation to some of these American inflight security officers in that as we know from some incidents in America—and  
Time 
 magazine had a special article on the subject a year or two ago—there have been all kinds of problems with these armed people. Somebody was actually shot dead. I do not think they have ever attacked a terrorist but they have affected quite a few ordinary Americans. They will be more particularly riding under American rules of engagement which are much looser than ours. So they could be even more of a danger to passengers—New Zealanders coming back on an airline like United Airlines or some New Zealanders going out on such an American craft. So I think this amendment to chop that provision out is very valuable and I urge members to support it. Thank you. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I will be very brief. I thank the Committee for the strong support for the measures in this legislation and I especially thank the officials for doing a significant job in putting this together. Having actually watched events as they unfolded on September 11 2001 I think this is a very appropriate day to consider this. I happened to be working late that night and watched it all unfold live on CNN. I was amazed. So it is an appropriate day to be considering this legislation. It is purely by coincidence that we are debating this now because work has gone on slightly more quickly than we had imagined it might have. 
I want to speak very briefly about Keith Locke’s amendments and I understand and respect the genuineness with which Keith has put forward his amendments. But I have to say to members that I think those amendments would be impracticable. Foreign inflight security officers will be there at the discretion of their airlines following a request to us. Cabinet will have to approve such requests. And Mr Locke has said previously that foreign inflight security officers will be allowed on New Zealand aircraft. That will certainly never be the case. 
Keith Locke 
: I haven’t said that. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I am sorry I tell Mr Locke but he has actually said it previously—but not tonight. 
Yet I assure the member that inflight security officers are in the bill for the purposes of future-proofing the bill in case Cabinet should ever have to make that most difficult decision. They will not be there as a matter of course and if we cannot allow armed inflight security officers then that raises problems for air services agreements internationally with other countries and with New Zealand’s obligations to consider any request those countries may make under annex 17 of the International Civil Aviation Organization agreement. Therefore I am afraid that although Mr Locke’s ideas no doubt are motivated by goodwill it would simply be impracticable to put them into place. 
I turn also to the gentleman in blue who is among the officials sitting in the Chamber with us. I would have to ask him what we could expect his folk to do if he were in the position of having a threat in an aircraft but did not have the ability for the New Zealand Police armed offenders squad members—who may be brought into this service—to respond in a way that was equal to the threat they might be exposed to. 
All I can say is that this bill has been thought through very thoroughly and that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has considered it very thoroughly. I commend it to the Committee as is—without amendment other than those on the two Supplementary Order Papers dealing with matters that have arisen earlier. Thank you. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit subsection (1) of section 77D. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit from subsection (1) section 77E. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
The Committee divided the bill into the Aviation Crimes Amendment Bill and the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2)  pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper144. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Protection of Personal and Property Rights  Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 I move  
That the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill improves the protections for vulnerable people in Part 9 of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. Part 9 allows people to complete enduring powers of attorney so that in the event that they lose mental capacity from whatever cause someone can continue to make decisions on their behalf. There are two kinds of enduring power of attorney—a personal care and welfare enduring power of attorney and an enduring power of attorney for property affairs. 
I begin my contribution to this second reading debate by expressing my appreciation to the Social Services Committee for the thorough and comprehensive consideration it has given to the bill and the careful thought that members have given to changes that will improve it. 
Part 9 of the Act is a very important measure for New Zealand’s ageing population in particular. The use of an enduring power of attorney that it provides for is a voluntary self-help measure that enables people themselves to arrange for someone else to make decisions on their behalf should they at some point in their future lives be unable to make them. The alternative that is provided for in other parts of the Act is for the courts to appoint someone to make those decisions. It is best for people to nominate and appoint someone they know and trust as their attorney. 
It is an unfortunate fact of life that not all decisions made by attorneys under enduring powers of attorney are made in the best interests of the person who has given that attorney. It is an even more unfortunate fact of life that some of the worst cases of abuse of enduring powers of attorney involve family members who have sought to benefit themselves rather than the person who appointed them as the donor. Although Part 9 of the Act works very well for the majority of people it does not have sufficient protection against attorneys who have mischief on their minds and who manipulate situations to their advantage or make decisions without being held accountable. 
So the bill sets out to do several things. Firstly it sets out to enable people to draw up enduring powers of attorney in such a way as to prevent problems from arising if and when their enduring power of attorney is activated. A key change is to the process for establishing enduring powers of attorney which will prevent coercion misrepresentation or undue influence of the person concerned particularly when that person is frail or unwell. This will require that the person’s signature on the enduring power of attorney must be witnessed either by a lawyer retained independently from the attorney or by an authorised officer of a trustee corporation. The witness must certify that he or she has explained to the person the effects and implications of the enduring power of attorney and other matters including the person’s right to revoke or suspend the enduring power of attorney and to specify monitoring arrangements. The witness must also certify that there is no reason to believe that the donor is mentally incapable. 
I agree with the select committee that the advice and witnessing provisions should be extended to appropriately trained and experienced legal executives who actually undertake much of this work in legal practices. Our Government believes that these measures will give people making enduring powers of attorney much more control over the way they are managed. The measures will also make it more difficult for attorneys to get people to sign enduring powers of attorney for the benefit of the attorney’s interests rather than the interests of the donor. 
The second area addressed by the bill is to provide the process and procedural changes that address specific problem areas such as consistency in the practices of activating enduring powers of attorney decision making and gifting arrangements. Most of the provisions in the bill are dedicated to these changes. The bill provides a clear statement of the purpose of Part 9—an element missing from the original legislation. It also makes it explicit that the obligations of an attorney are to act in a way that promotes and protects the best interests of the donor. 
For people who are losing capacity and to a lesser extent for those who act for them the transition of responsibility from donor to attorney is a very important one. The bill addresses and strengthens this process through three measures. Firstly donors of enduring powers of attorney are presumed to be mentally competent until established otherwise. Secondly a clear and consistent threshold is provided for the activation of a personal care and welfare enduring power of attorney when the person loses capacity. The threshold is measured against the person’s capacity to make or understand individual decisions rather than being a once-and-for-all activation. This change recognises that some medical conditions do not mean that a person loses capacity to make all decisions relating to his or her personal care and welfare all of the time. 
Thirdly the bill provides a clear process for activating an attorney’s authority to act under an enduring power of attorney. For significant personal care and welfare matters and for enduring powers of attorney relating to property affairs activation is based on a certificate by an appropriate health professional stating that a person is mentally incapable. The bill recognises that in some cases a health professional other than a medical practitioner may be an appropriate person. 
The bill also promotes the empowerment of donors by requiring the attorney as far as is practicable to consult the donor and any persons specified by the donor in the enduring power of attorney. The attorney is also required to encourage the donor to act for himself or herself and otherwise to involve the donor in decision making to the maximum extent of his or her capability. 
I accept the select committee’s recommendations in respect of clarifying when a medical certificate of incapacity is required for an attorney to act on significant personal care and welfare matters. This will relieve an attorney from the need to produce further medical certificates where the donor is certified to have a health condition that will continue indefinitely or for a specified period. Where an attorney is acting on behalf of the donor he or she will be required to provide information on the exercise of his or her powers to any person or persons specified in the enduring power of attorney. This is an important measure not just for maintaining the integrity of the decision making by attorneys but also for reducing the opportunity for the management of an enduring power of attorney to become a matter of discord amongst family members. 
The extra step recommended by the select committee of requiring property attorneys to keep records of the financial transactions they have made on behalf of a donor will provide transparency of the attorney’s actions. The limitation the bill places on the powers that attorneys currently have to benefit themselves and others will reduce the opportunity for abuse. The extent to which attorneys should be able to benefit themselves and make gifts or loans to people other than the donor are matters that people should consider when they are drawing up an enduring power of attorney. They should not be left to the discretion of the attorney as is currently the case. The new provision in the bill that allows the donor to suspend an attorney’s power to act recognises situations where the person might have recovered the capacity to act on his or her own behalf—for example when he or she has recovered from a severe head injury. 
The remaining area the bill targets is that of improving the opportunities for redress when attorneys misuse their representation and responsibilities. This is done by extending the range of people who can apply as of right to the Family Court for the review of an attorney’s actions. At present any person other than the donor can do so only with the leave of the court. I agree with the select committee’s recommendation that this right be extended to Elder Abuse and Neglect Prevention services. This freeing up of access to the Family Court will be of considerable help to such services. Frequently they have difficulty dealing with abuse arising from enduring powers of attorneys involving family members as attorneys. 
The enduring powers of attorney provisions of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill represents a very important measure available to all New Zealanders not just older New Zealanders. The possibility that New Zealanders may lose capacity to make decisions for themselves either through disease or injury is a reality of life. This bill will give people and older people in particular greater confidence that enduring powers of attorney will work in their favour. It will provide more emphasis on drawing up enduring powers of attorney in a format that suits personal and family circumstances and provides processes that are sound and that back older people’s wishes. It also ensures if all else fails that the actions of the attorney can be more easily scrutinised by the Family Court. 
I expect that this bill will open up the way for many more people to draw up enduring powers of attorneys to safeguard themselves against future events. It is a very sensible and a prudent measure for New Zealanders to take not just for those in or approaching retirement. The changes that are outlined will when the bill is passed take 12 months to come into effect. In that 12-month period further work will be required to redraft the enduring powers of attorney forms and guidelines and other certificates to be set out in regulations. I look forward to the passing of this bill to the implementation of the changes and to the impetus the changes will give to enduring powers of attorney in New Zealand. This bill will allow for greater protection for the most vulnerable in our society. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 As deputy chair of the Social Services Committee it is my privilege to be able to speak in favour of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. I would like to thank the Minister Ruth Dyson for acknowledging the work the select committee has done because many Ministers acknowledge the work of the select committees only when it is in their favour. 
In this particular case having had the experience of being a lawyer for about 20 years and having drafted many powers of attorney—in particular enduring powers of attorney acting on estates and dealing with people who were in some cases in need of care—I found that these amendments were very appropriate especially those relating to persons who can witness an enduring power of attorney. I was pleased to note that after about 19 years of enduring powers of attorney being available experienced legal executives who are members of the New Zealand Institute of Legal Executives will be able to witness the documents. That is simply a sign of the times because in the days when enduring powers of attorney first came in I do not actually recall that legal executives—except for certain legal executives whom the Land Transfer Office as it was allowed—were able to witness an awful lot of documents. 
The provision relating to the independence of witnesses is a sensible one. The law will make sure that witnesses must be independent in terms of that witnessing. That is extremely important. 
The provisions for certification of medical incapacity and for decisions made by attorneys on reasonable grounds are sensible as is the requirement for attorneys to keep financial records. 
One of the interesting aspects of this whole concept of enduring power of attorney is that the system was brought in to deal with the reality that many people who had given powers of attorney back in the 1980s and earlier had actually lost the capacity to give powers of attorney and therefore to maintain their relationship with the person to whom they had given power of attorney. In other words they had lost mental capacity. 
What happened in the legal profession was that quite a lot of people were working under powers of attorney from their parents even though those parents had lost mental capacity. Effectively the only way around it was in many cases to go to court constantly to get permission to do things and to make decisions for the benefit of the parent. That was one of the situations that had to be remedied so it was. 
Since then we have had instances of children in particular who have abused their power of attorney. We have seen instances where people who have given an enduring power of attorney then want to change their minds. As the enduring power of attorney does not have quite the same flexibility as a normal power of attorney it is important that we recognise that difficulty and try to put it right. 
As the Minister correctly said some very disturbing instances of elder abuse can be perpetuated or certainly result from the misuse of an enduring power of attorney. Our elderly—in particular those who have lost mental capacity—are extremely vulnerable and extremely liable to abuse if we do not exercise these duties in a very very caring and responsible way. As a lawyer brought in to look at a particular situation I have seen this misuse at first hand. The situation was one whereby a lawyer actually allowed someone to misuse a power of attorney. 
I think that the way we are addressing these issues with this bill is sensible. No doubt in the next 20 years we will have to look at the matter again. 
In summary this bill is one that will have to be amended from time to time over the years. I hope we will be able to do that in the very sensible and sensitive way in which the committee has dealt with it this time. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to follow the previous speaker who was the deputy chair of the Social Services Committee. I assumed the chairmanship midway through the consideration of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill and I agree with Judith Collins when she said she did not doubt that this amendment would need to be looked at again in the next 20 years. The reason I agree with her is that this amendment bill is amazingly important legislation. It is a bill that people may pick up and when they see “enduring powers of attorney” and “protection of personal and property rights” tend to yawn. But in my view it is more important legislation than that relating to wills because when one sets a will the circumstances under which the will becomes operative are crystal clear: the person is dead and his or her wishes have to be carried out entirely by the administrators of the will. With an enduring power of attorney the situation is a lot more complex because the person is always alive and he or she may be in different states of capacity. To operate a power of attorney requires finesse and flexibility so that there is an even flow between the wishes of the donor and of the person who holds the power of attorney. For a lawyer or the holder of a power of attorney this is a difficult area to operate in just as it is a difficult area for a donor to operate in when making the decisions. 
There are many many parts of this bill that I would like to speak to tonight but in the time available to me I want to move to the provisions in new section 93B inserted by clause 6. Those are the presumption of competence provisions that build on the amendments to the principal Act set out in clause 7. The provisions inserted by clause 7 move away from the stage when all those who were unwell or incapacitated became institutionalised. In today’s world people are institutionalised only in very rare circumstances. The amendments in clause 7 bring the law up to date and deal with people in rest home care in hospital care and in facilities within the meaning of the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act 2001. 
I come back to the presumption of competence. The amendments proposed in this bill are based on the assumption that the donor’s wishes are the rational wishes of the donor even though those wishes may seem to be at odds with what the person who is operating the power of attorney would do. Of course that is probably the most significant difference between the administrator of a deceased’s estate and the administrator of a living person who has limited capacity. So we see that new section 93B(1) inserted by clause 6 states: “For the purposes of this Part every person is presumed until the contrary is shown—(a) to be competent to manage his or her own affairs in relation to his or her property: (b) to have the capacity—(i) to understand the nature of decisions about matters relating to his or her personal care and welfare; and (ii) to foresee the consequences of decisions about matters relating to his or her personal care and welfare or of any failure to make such decisions; and (iii) to communicate decisions about those matters.” New subsection (2) states: “A person must not be presumed to lack the competence described in subsection (1)(a) just because the person manages or intends to manage his or her own affairs in relation to his or her property in a manner that a person exercising ordinary prudence would not adopt in the same circumstances.” 
There are further developments of that thought in subsections (3) and (4) of new section 93B. Subsection (4) particularly deals with mental health patients and it makes it quite clear that “just because the person is subject to compulsory treatment or has special patient status under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992” that does not take away the presumption of competence. I am familiar with a number of people who are subject to mental health orders and who need interventions in their mental health but the interventions are limited to stabilising their health and they are otherwise capable of making rational and clear decisions. 
This is an amendment for the year 2007. It is in keeping with current thought in this area and it reflects the importance of the power of attorney. Powers of attorney are not matters to be taken for granted either when they are signed or when they are executed and they do reflect the wishes of a living person. I am delighted that in this amending legislation we have a very clear statement of the presumption of competence which allows people to do many things in different ways and in their own ways that are peculiar to those people even though an objective observer may disagree and may not think they are entirely prudent. That is the way of the world that is the way that people choose to live their lives and that is the way that should be reflected if people come under the ambit of the enduring power of attorney legislation. 
So I think this bill is enlightened legislation which brings the role of powers of attorney as I say into the 21st century. I look forward to the fact that it may be amended fairly regularly hereafter as we become more and more enlightened about the situation of older people and mentally disabled people in our community. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 As well as the people who have spoken before me it is my pleasure to support this Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill tonight. It went through the Social Services Committee which I am a member of and it had support all the way through by the whole committee. I must commend the officials for the great work they did and the support that they gave us through the process because they really were quite invaluable. At the same time I would also like to recognise the Law Commission which gave an absolutely fantastic submission on this legislation guided us through the process had a really good input into it and added a lot of value to this bill we are looking at tonight. 
This bill actually came about as a result of recommendations made by the Law Commission in 2001 in a report published on the misuse of enduring powers of attorney so once again I congratulate the Law Commission on ensuring that enduring powers of attorney have been updated with this legislation for those who are using it from now going forward. The purpose of this bill is to increase the safeguards against the abuse of elderly and disabled people. By law the enduring power of attorney allows people to be representatives on someone’s behalf because that person is no longer able to do so. 
Some of the key points coming out of this good legislation are about legal executives. Legal executives came to the select committee and gave a fantastic submission—it was very very articulate and well-written—saying that they feel they should be able to witness a donor’s signature to help reduce the cost of the enduring powers of attorney for those who were getting them. It was a very good submission that they gave. By the end of it the committee came out with the conclusion that yes legal executives should be recognised but on certain conditions—those who have 12 months’ experience who are registered as a legal executive and who are supervised by a lawyer will be able to witness a donor’s signature. So that is a good thing and it will help to keep the cost of the enduring powers of attorney down. These legal executives do a great job they are very much hands-on with their clients and they are in tune with what their clients need because they talk to them very regularly so this is a good step forward. 
One of the other changes that came about was that lawyers in the same firm can witness an enduring power of attorney signature. This was brought about to also ensure that the cost of enduring powers of attorneys were kept down and this will again add value to the process as they were not allowed to do so before. 
The other change is the need for medical certificates. Medical certificates are not needed to make decisions on matters of personal care and welfare that are not considered significant. This allows the holder of the enduring power of attorney or the lawyer to make insignificant decisions for an individual and not have to go back and get a medical certificate every time they go to do something they consider to be minor and insignificant for the client. The bill does require that an attorney be satisfied that the donor is mentally incapable when making decisions on significant matters and it was very important that we made the distinction between significant matters and insignificant matters in this point of law. 
The donor has to pay for medical examinations that are reasonably required for the purposes of certifying the donor’s mental incapacity. We put that provision in there to say that if one has an enduring power of attorney and the lawyer is hunting around for someone who can be the certifier of the donor’s incapability then he or she has to pay those medical expenses only once and after that the lawyer would have to pay for the rest. So it is to stop people from hunting around and trying to find someone to be the certifier. 
Another adjustment to this bill is that where a donor is unlikely to gain capacity a medical certificate can remain valid indefinitely. So for those people who are incapacitated who are not going to get better and have got deteriorating conditions a medical certificate can be valid for them ongoing as obviously this could be very very expensive for the client and this also ensures that the process works smoothly. 
The final thing I would like to raise is that attorneys must keep records of all financial transactions in relation to donors’ finances. It has been noted in the past that lawyers have done transactions on behalf of clients and not kept the records which I find a little hard to believe because lawyers are normally very good at keeping records and understand tax law very well. I would assume they would keep them for 7 years but this has not been happening and this legislation will change that as well. So now lawyers will be required to keep all financial transactions for their own clients. 
It is my pleasure to stand here tonight and endorse this good legislation that the select committee has worked on and I also congratulate the officials and the committee and all the submitters themselves on adding value to this process. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. I must say that New Zealand First has always acted very strongly in defence of the vulnerable within society. We have a great record of implementing policies and legislation that relate to the most vulnerable in society and particularly to the elderly. So we are very pleased with this bill 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Enthusiastic about the gold card? 
BARBARA STEWART 
: To Mr Mapp I say we have had very positive feedback about the SuperGold card. A lot of people are very happy with the SuperGold card and they know that as time goes on the card will actually increase in value. 
But I come back to the bill. This bill actually tightens the requirements for enduring powers of attorney in relation to property and in relation to personal care and welfare. It is very important legislation. It is absolutely essential for any society to ensure that vulnerable older people and disabled people have greater protections under the law in relation to establishing enduring powers of attorney and that the person’s wishes are carried out and his or her personal care and welfare are safeguarded. 
 This is an area that needs to be clarified in the law. On more than one occasion we have received some very concerning letters from senior citizens who have got themselves into some very awkward legal situations and have been quite unsure about their rights and about whom they should turn to. Abuse of powers of attorney should never ever be tolerated—whether it is by a family member or some other person. It is basically an infringement of human rights. A number of cases have gone before the courts. Age Concern Auckland believes that under our existing laws there is a lack of protection for the most vulnerable people in society. 
We are pleased that the amendments are in part a result of the recommendations made in the Law Commission’s 2001 report. Any bill that increases safeguards against the abuse of the elderly and disabled must be supported. We congratulate the Minister the Social Services Committee and the officials on the work that has been put into this legislation. It was needed and we understand that this area of the law has now been strengthened for today’s circumstances. 
We were pleased to see that legal executives are now able to witness a donor’s signature. We know that legal fees are always expensive and perhaps this change may assist in this particular area. We note that the requirements are fairly strict. Legal executives need to have had at least 12 months’ experience and be employed and supervised by a lawyer. Legal executives will now be among the witnesses permitted and that will also make drawing up enduring powers of attorney less expensive. 
We in New Zealand First approve of the limit on medical examinations so that the people have to go to only one doctor. They do not have to be sent to many doctors to be certified as being mentally incapable. We do not want to see multiple health practitioners approached in the search for one who will say a person can be deemed to be mentally incapable. We note too that the attorney can still get a second opinion. We were pleased to see that the medical certificate can actually remain valid indefinitely. We think that is a very positive change to this bill. 
We were also pleased to see that a new section has been proposed to require attorneys to keep records of financial transactions while the donor is mentally incapable. That will ensure greater transparency both for families and lawyers. This is an area that does not need to be clouded in any way. We are very happy with this change. 
We believe that this bill is a very important measure. Unfortunately incapacity is a fact of life. In New Zealand First we support the measures outlined in this bill. We want our seniors to have confidence that their wishes will be carried out. It is essential that we get this legislation absolutely right because we are dealing with the most vulnerable people in society. We in New Zealand First support this bill and look forward to its going through the Committee stage in the House. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill and we generally support the comments that other speakers have made. My colleague Sue Bradford was on the Social Services Committee and found the discussion very interesting. 
It is important to recognise that unless we make the sophisticated amendments proposed in the bill rights can be taken away from people because some of those seeking power of attorney might be a bit paternalistic or power-hungry in some respects. That can be a problem. Sometimes—as other speakers have alluded to—there can be eccentricities in a person and some might define that person as not being in full control of his or her faculties so they might wish to take the power off him or her for one reason or another. That is not a good course of action. The presumption of innocence and all the hoops that have to be gone through—medical retests and all the rest of it—are important in controlling that situation. 
The other factor that can sometimes come in is just straight-out greed. People often want to get control of other people’s affairs for their own pecuniary interests. It does not happen with great frequency in society but it is this sort of thing that we want good systems to control against. This bill helps to provide those systems so the Green Party will be supporting it. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa i tenei po. Few bills that come before the House reflect as perfectly our desire to live according to kaupapa handed down by our ancestors as the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. This bill is ultimately about enhancing the protection and promotion of the personal and property rights of people who find themselves in a vulnerable position. In its provisions to strengthen the legislation we see this bill as an awesome opportunity to apply kaupapa tuku iho—that is those values that provide for the well-being of all. Uppermost in the bill’s intentions is the capacity for manaakitanga—the opportunity to create an environment where the personal care and welfare of others is important. 
The bill makes explicit the obligation of the attorney to act in the donor’s best interests. By way of some sort of explanation manaakitanga is behaviour that acknowledges the mana of others as having equal or greater importance than one’s own. We know that an enduring power of attorney must be established before it is required before a person becomes incapacitated. We would expect from this requirement that people are able to choose someone they can implicitly trust to act in their interests. 
The opportunity to appoint someone with an enduring power of attorney to make decisions on one’s behalf is an expression of rangatiratanga. What is rangatiratanga? The concept of rangatiratanga equates to oversight responsibility authority control and sovereignty. The onus therefore in ensuring that this legislation has validity is to ensure that regardless of any provision to create an enduring power of attorney the attorney has an obligation to encourage the donor to exercise his or her own competence. This bill establishes that as a requirement. 
In the most basic of terms the idea of getting someone to sign cheques on our behalf to deal with all our accounts policies and possessions that have meaning in our life is I would think a pretty scary prospect. The responsibility of signing over one’s enduring power of attorney is therefore a massive milestone in one’s life. In the Maori Party we understand this best through making that ultimate connection to this concept of rangatiratanga—in other words to respect the capacity for self-determination by Maori which is in keeping with the rights defined by mana atua mana tupuna and mana whenua. Within Maori world views we believe that the concepts of cultural resilience of spiritual and ancestral dimensions and of genealogical importance—concepts such as these—are best addressed by the whanau. 
This issue is of very personal relevance to our whanau having recently lost my sister Hine about 2 weeks ago. Towards the end of my sister’s life her health was compromised as she battled with the effects of not one stroke but three of them. Over these last few years we cared for my sister at our home. My wife was placed with the responsibility of her day-to-day care and support while I was here in Wellington. Although my sister Hine never got to the point of signing over powers of attorney my wife did have the financial authority to be able to act on her behalf as the situation required. It was a responsibility that my wife took extremely seriously. She was conscious of the privileged position that my sister Hine had placed her under. It was also a responsibility that as a whanau we knew had to be protected and respected in order to protect and respect my sister. 
It was through that experience that we truly came to know that the exercise of authority on behalf of another must be safeguarded at all times that we must make sure never to lose sight of the person who entrusts that confidence in us. It is absolutely about the essence of being whanau and of honouring whanaungatanga—relationships—as the fundamental organisation of our community. By this we mean that the rights and reciprocal obligations consistent with being part of a whanau collective are paramount in determining and caring for the personal welfare and rights of its members. 
 As such there are two particular concerns that the legislation has raised. The first significant change is the need to go to a lawyer or a trustee incorporation before an enduring power of attorney is granted. The second change is the need in a number of situations to go to a doctor before being able to use those powers. We consider that both of these changes reduce the accessibility and versatility of the enduring power of attorney. 
This is where we face the greatest conflict for although we support the need for strengthening accountability through the new witnessing requirements we hope that the procedures are as the Law Commission put it “as swift inexpensive informal and lawyer free as possible”. We endorse the comments made by the National Council of Women which warned that the legislation must not make the process so cumbersome that whanau members—family members—avoid it and the benefits it provides. We agree with the council that a review of the provisions should take place in 5 years to really test its effectiveness. 
But in the trade-off between reducing bureaucracy and unnecessary paperwork we would be reluctant to act in any way to open up situations of misuse of enduring powers of attorney. Again the Law Commission described such misuse as including some of the following. There is outright embezzlement which is sometimes rationalised by the attorney as “borrowing”; it is something like “I am sure if mum understood she wouldn’t mind.”—that sort of stuff. Other incidents that the Law Commission talked about were the attorneys helping themselves to the donors’ belongings; failure to support the donors going to an appropriate residence when that is clearly necessary or conversely prematurely institutionalising the donors to suit the attorneys’ lifestyle; and in the worst-case scenario selling the donors’ home without their knowledge or consent. 
Such actions are an outright breach of the spiritual and cultural guardianship derived from whakapapa. Kaitiakitanga demands that attorneys would take on active exercise of responsibility in a manner beneficial to the welfare of the whanau. Yet tragically all of the evidence is telling us that men and women of all ages and of all ethnicities are experiencing elder abuse and neglect although it appears to be most common amongst those in their 70s and early 80s. And so we—reluctantly it must be said—accept that the legal professionals and authorised officers who are engaged independently of the attorney are a vital means of providing an extra safeguard against undue influence. 
I want to refer to the principle of kotahitanga as the expression of unity of purpose and direction. In the interests of kotahitanga I believe that it is incumbent upon the Government and the Minister to ensure that full and informed dialogue and information sharing takes place amongst our communities about the procedures for creating enduring powers of attorney. The House would be shocked by the  
New Zealand Medical Journal  
article entitled “Doctors elder abuse and enduring powers of attorney” which described widespread ignorance amongst doctors and other professionals dealing with incapacitated patients of the scope and nature of the powers granted when an enduring power of attorney is donated. I want to share with the House one of the warnings of the article and I quote: “The Enduring Powers of Attorney properly used should act as a shelter for the elderly from the vicissitudes of life”— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That’s easy for the member to say! 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: —yes and it is not even Maori—“not as a weapon in the hands of the unscrupulous attorney.” There is a strong message there—if members actually understood what I said—and it is that those who are not fully able to manage their own affairs must be protected and respected. This bill is the key way of doing that. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Say it again with feeling. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I will say it at the end. 
Finally I am aware of the report from Age Concern New Zealand in April 2004 that no Maori clients were recorded as having enduring powers of attorney for property and that in general Maori have been less likely to appoint someone to hold this role. And so the question for us the Maori Party is that given that the provision of enduring powers of attorney can if used responsibly be such a powerful means of supporting our whanau we would hope that every effort is put into ensuring that the policy is promoted throughout Maori communities. We are happy to support the second reading of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill and in the 2 minutes that I have left I will try to pronounce that word properly—“vicissitudes”. I rest my case. Kia ora tatou. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak on the second reading of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. The intention of this bill has been of course to reduce elder abuse as recommended by the New Zealand Law Commission. On one hand we want to encourage the use of an enduring power of attorney by keeping it simple straightforward and affordable—we want to make sure that it is easily understood by both the donor and his or her appointed attorney—while at the same time we want to ensure that donors are safe from the attorneys using the power vested in them for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of the donors. 
I want to add to the comments of other members of the Social Services Committee who said it had been a pleasant experience working on this bill. We had some fantastic submissions from a wide range of people who were well versed in these kinds of issues with some very very good recommendations. 
One thing that became clear was that for an enduring power of attorney to be safe it is important that both the way the enduring power of attorney is set up and the way it is implemented are enshrined in transparency. One of the things I had not considered prior to this bill was that people can have episodes in their lives where their capacity to act is impaired but can then return to good health and be able to control their own affairs again. There was a lot of talk about the use of appropriate health professionals to determine capacity—particularly mental capacity—and in particular Age Concern New Zealand had quite a bit to say about that in its submission. However this bill also talked about limiting the number of medical examinations that an attorney can request. That number needs to be reasonable to avoid rogue attorneys approaching multiple medical practitioners in search of a particular outcome. 
It is a good thing that we amended what was put to us to now allow experienced legal executives to witness enduring powers of attorney. This is a cost-saving mechanism and one that they are well capable of doing and handling responsibly. We considered a recommendation that attorneys be required to keep financial records of any transactions engaged in during a time when the donor may be incapable of making decisions so that they can be accountable to either the donor or to other family members who may request to see an account of expenditure. 
A number of issues raised by submitters showed how complex these enduring powers of attorney can be. I think the National member Judith Collins made some reference to that and to the fact that quite possibly this might not be the end of this issue. This is one of those matters that I think is well overdue for the amending that we are looking to put through at present. I imagine that it will need to bed down over time and then we will see what else may need to be done if other holes and gaps develop. 
But let me just tell members some of the interesting things that came out in submissions that this bill may not completely cover yet and we may need to consider in the future. One of the concerns was that particularly dementia sufferers could be signed on to participate in research by those who are attorneys on their behalf. There were questions as to whether they should have the right to enrol in research projects the people they were caring for. 
There were concerns about what would happen if there were a divorce or separation and the ex-partner had an enduring power of attorney; how would that be managed in a divorce or separation situation? How was competence decided and how does one differentiate between permanent loss of capacity and partial or temporary loss? What is the trigger for partial capacity? How does one determine when an attorney should then trigger the powers he or she has been given and when does the attorney need to pull back? How do we define a significant decision? There are a number of references in this amendment to the ability of an attorney to jump in and make decisions of a significant nature and of an insignificant nature. How do we determine what those two are defined as? 
There was also some very interesting work from the New Zealand Law Society. The society talked about the need to perhaps standardise the documentation and it made a recommendation to keep it simple. There were some concerns that if we allow this process to become too complicated it will become off-putting. People would be less inclined to set up an enduring power of attorney and would walk away from the process considering it too complex. So there was some discussion from certain submitters about how to keep the process safe but simple. 
One of the other issues that was talked about was the fact that many trusts—particularly family trusts—have in place gifting programmes. What is the role of a person with power of attorney to maintain those gifting programmes or to oversee those gifting programmes from a family trust when he or she has taken over being a spokesperson for the donor who is incapacitated? 
A huge number of issues are thrown up when we look at this type of situation. United Future is very happy to support the second reading and we think some good progress has been made around this issue but I signal that some very interesting issues were brought up by submitters that may not have been fully addressed in this bill and may need revisiting. I think however that it is a wise move to do what we are doing to date. We should let that settle down and see where we go from here. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 It is nice to take a call on the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. I was not on the Social Services Committee so this is an outsider’s view of the bill. 
People are saying that this bill has arisen from a Law Commission report. I want to give some acknowledgment to the Minister for Senior Citizens Ruth Dyson who is the one who decided that it was time to get things done for the population of older people. She rolled her sleeves up had a report from the Law Commission and got going. The reason why she got going is that this Labour-led Government decided that elder abuse and neglect is one of the key platform planks that we will take some notice of over the next 5 years and this fitted perfectly with what the Law Commission report found. This is a feel-good bill as I have noticed from all members speaking in the House tonight because we have been increasingly concerned about the abuse and neglect of older people and also about the misuse of the current enduring powers of attorney approach. 
I want to go back to the context of 1988 when the legislation was first introduced. Most old people then— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: 1988! 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: Yes 1988; it is only 20 years ago. Most older people then were either in rest homes or in hospital beds. Actually they lingered in geriatric wards in hospitals and they were considered to have not much of a brain or much ability to make decisions about their own well-being. The care sector at that time was very paternalistic and decided just what was best to do with these people as they aged. 
We now have the Ageing in Place strategy and the Health of Older People strategy to look at the context of people being able to be nursed in their own homes or in a family environment or in retirement villages. When these people make decisions about their future—when they feel they have a future—and are not being tucked away by the family it makes it even more important that they are given the protection of this bill. It was timely that this was put into the focus of this century. 
The most worrying thing is when the frail elderly get overwhelmed by feeling that they are a burden to their family. Age Concern has pointed out that elder abuse is largely from direct family members who decide that they can tuck mum or dad in the back of their house in a little bedroom and that that is OK—they will look after the old person and then they may be able to get their hands on the assets. That is actually one of the most common problems of elder abuse that we see particularly as electorate MPs. 
A very interesting point in the bill is about the ability to identify what we used to call a person’s testamentary capacity which is a person’s ability to make decisions as to his or her mental well-being. I like the new section 94(2) which makes it so much more simple to be able to identify a person’s ability merely to make a decision in his or her own interests. It is important to be able to put the older person in the centre of this whole legislation. I heard Te Ururoa Flavell talking about manaakitanga and kaitiakitanga. I am sure he is aware there has just been a Maori lawyers hui this weekend. I do not think that this bill was one that was high on their priority to discuss because one cannot legislate for manaakitanga and kaitiakitanga. Those concepts do not fit into this sort of framework of legislation. But of course it does come down to the principle of trust and the relationship between a lawyer and the donor—as we call the person granting an enduring power of attorney here—is absolutely central. 
There are many family lawyers who are called out at all times of day and night like the old general practitioner to change a will whether or not the donor has the mental capacity to really understand what is in his or her best interests. It is very good to see strengthened here the requirement that a donor have his or her mental capacity and competence tested out by a health professional quite independent from that relationship between the lawyer and the client. There are many cases with motor neuron disease where older people are trapped in bodies that no longer function well but their mental capacity is in no way diminished yet sometimes family members become rather dominating and patronising about their care when the older people are screaming out for what they really want for where they know that they would be better nursed and for what is required for them in their future care. 
We all know that older people worry terribly about the assets that they have accumulated over their lives and what it means to them to protect those assets not for themselves but for their future generations. I think this is a fantastic bill. Good on this Government for getting it going and congratulations to the Social Services Committee which obviously worked so well on it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. Her Majesty’s most loyal Opposition worked very well with the other members of the Social Services Committee to get the submissions on this bill heard and to progress it through to the second stage. 
As has been said this bill is a result of the recommendations made in the Law Commission’s 2001 report published as  
Misuse of Enduring Powers of Attorney 
. But one does wonder why it has taken 6 years under this Labour Government for the bill to finally reach the House. Yes it is worthy legislation but why has this tawdry Labour Government once again taken so long to get this sensible legislation here? It is good that we Her Majesty’s most loyal Opposition can support and add our— 
Darren Hughes 
: Her Majesty’s eternal Opposition! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I say to Mr Hughes that Labour has about 12 months and it is out. Never mind. We in National are happy to participate in and support constructive legislation and this bill indeed is constructive legislation. 
I just want to make a few comments about some of the submissions we received. One submission came from the Trustee Corporations Association of New Zealand. The submission stated that in the association’s experience abuse has come from family members and neighbours and that there is no record of lawyers or trustees in New Zealand being involved in abuse. I must say I was slightly surprised to hear that but the association states that the impetus behind the bill arises from a concern to prevent elder abuse. 
As my learned colleague Kate Wilkinson said in the first reading of this bill in actual fact the bill is really applicable to all ages—young and old—to the mentally incapacitated and to those with a variety of disabilities. The bill has a wide variety of uses and it is very important that we get it right. 
The second point I want to make is that the committee received a very good submission from the New Zealand Institute of Legal Executives. The submission stated that witnessing an enduring power of attorney should not become the exclusive work of lawyers alone because the costs could escalate. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: That’s rubbish! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: One of my learned colleagues says that is rubbish but never mind. The institute said that the right to take statutory declarations recognises good professional standing character values ethical conduct and a sound knowledge of law and that these standards apply equally to those granted rights under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. The New Zealand Institute of Legal Executives fellows meet the standards and are thereby worthy of being acknowledged under this bill as being qualified to advise clients and to witness signatures. 
I was a little surprised when I saw further on in the submission that the institute stated: “Senior legal executives have their own client base and are significant fee earners for their employers. The 2006 triennial survey indicated the average annual revenue target is $171000 with 20 percent of respondents expected to generate fees of more than $200000 per year.” This is certainly not an inexpensive process. 
Chapman Tripp went on to endorse the view of the legal executives by saying that in its view the legal executives fulfil the sort of expertise required for this form of witnessing. 
I also want to make a comment on the Mental Health Commission’s submission. One of the points it made was that one cannot assume that someone who is under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 is incompetent. That is absolutely right because undoubtedly that presumption is totally inappropriate given the fact that even if that person is under the Act he or she may well have considerable insights into both his or her property and personal care. That is one of the very important protections that has come out in this bill. 
Finally I just want to comment on Minister Dyson’s proposed amendment. That too relates to the new section 100A: “New section 100A enables a donor of an enduring power of attorney who has been but is no longer mentally incapable to suspend the attorney’s authority to act under the power. An attorney whose authority is suspended may not act under the power of attorney unless a relevant health practitioner has certified that the donor is mentally incapable again.” I believe that the Supplementary Order Paper is appropriate. 
This bill is worthy of going further through to the Committee stage. I am pleased that the National Opposition is supporting it. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time. 
Property Law Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation)  
on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice 
: 
 I move  
That the Property Law Bill be now read a second time 
. The Property Law Bill is significant legislation that rewrites in modern language the existing general rules for real and personal property. These rules underpin the property dealings of New Zealanders and the bill will make them easier to understand. The bill partly codifies some common law principles relating to mortgages leases and agreements for sale and purchase. The bill also makes a number of quite important changes to the law. 
The Law Commission recommended new property law legislation in its 1994 report after completing a major review. The bill is based on that report and also contains provisions to reflect subsequent case or statutory developments since the report was written. 
I would like to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its hard work on this rather large bill which contains many complex technical and—some might say—dry rules. These can be difficult rules to understand and the committee’s work on this bill will help to clarify them. I endorse the committee’s recommended amendments which are consistent with the purpose of the bill to modernise and simplify the current legislation to better meet people’s needs. Its amendments will improve the bill and the application of the rules in practice. 
The bill contains 365 clauses and seven schedules and the committee’s recommended changes will affect approximately 45 clauses. Many of these changes are of a technical nature and are intended to clarify the rules and make them consistent with other provisions. Some amendments however are more substantive. 
Some of the amendments are concerned with the provisions in the bill that apply to commercial leases. The bill re-enacts the current law that lessors cannot unreasonably close their consent to a request from the lessee to transfer assign or sublease the premises to someone else. The bill extends this protection to allow requests from lessees who want to change how the premises are used from what was agreed to at the start of the lease. For example a lessee might need to make this sort of request where a particular business use is no longer viable in that location. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee gave considerable thought to the provision in the bill that would have prevented lessors from including in a lease an absolute prohibition on changing the use of the leased premises from that permitted at the start of the lease. The committee recommended allowing lessors to include such an absolute prohibition. However if lessors do not do this and do not allow a change of use subject to their approval then they cannot withhold their consent unreasonably. The committee considered that this provision would strike the right balance between the interests of both lessors and lessees. 
Cabinet has recommended some changes so that when lessees ask lessors for their permission to do certain things lessors must decide on the matter without delay. Also the committee has recommended clarifying that lessors will be able to claim their legal costs and expenses relating to requests for transfers assignments subleases or changes of use only if the lease allows it. 
There is also a significant reform in the bill that will release lessees from liability for damage to leased premises where damage results from events such as fire or flood or from any danger for which the lessors are insured. Lessees will not however be exonerated where they have intentionally caused the damage or have caused the insurance moneys to be irrevocable. The committee has recommended adding to these provisions to ensure that lessees who cause damage through committing a serious criminal offence are not released from liability. For example anyone who is manufacturing P in leased premises will be liable for the damage if his or her activities cause an explosion and a fire. Further a new provision will provide that lessors can end a lease if a lessee’s negligence affects the insurance cover and they can recover any additional insurance costs from the lessee. 
The committee has also recommended a useful addition to the bill to clarify the rights of people who share the ownership of a piece of land that provides access to their respective properties. This is quite common and people can have disputes over who is responsible for repair and maintenance costs. The committee has recommended new provisions to address these problems. 
The powers of the court are extended to include a power to make an order for compensation when modifying or extinguishing an easement or covenant. An example might be where an owner wants to redevelop land by building several houses on it but the owner is prevented from doing this by a covenant in the original transfer of the land that restricts further building on the site. Although the owner could apply to the court to modify or extinguish the covenant other people who benefit from the covenant may have their property rights adversely affected. Compensation may be appropriate in such circumstances. The committee also recommended that the court be able to vary orders requiring the completion of work such as the removal or trimming of trees where circumstances change and the order is no longer appropriate. 
The mortgage provisions that make up the largest part of the bill are significant. It is important that their interface with the Personal Property Securities Act of 1999 is clear as there is a potential overlap relating to the enforcement of a mortgage over goods. The committee has recommended a new provision that confirms that in the event of an inconsistency the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 will prevail. 
The committee has also usefully recommended extending the application of the provision about the discharge of mortgages when mortgagees cannot be found to mortgages under other statutory regimes that do not have equivalent provisions—for example the Radiocommunications Act of 1989 the Fisheries Act of 1996 and the Life Insurance Act of 1908. This means for instance that when a mortgagee or lender is outside New Zealand cannot be found or is dead or it is uncertain who is entitled to receive the mortgage repayment moneys then the mortgagor or borrower can apply to the court for a discharge of the mortgage. 
Finally I note that the Government expects to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that makes some further small technical clarifying amendments to the bill. 
I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee again for its careful and thorough work on this sizable bill. I am confident that the committee’s recommendations which are entirely consistent with the overall policy of the bill will usefully promote clarity in the law and enhance certainty in property dealings. I commend this bill to the House. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As the Minister of Conservation said the Property Law Bill is based on work undertaken by the Law Commission many years ago. In 1994 it published a report called  
A New Property Law Act 
 and the Property Law Bill is the fruit of that hard work. The National Party is pleased to support the second reading of what is a major and very important piece of black-letter law reform. 
The Property Law Bill was derided by the Minister of Conservation as being dry and boring but it is in fact fundamentally important to the running of any 21st century society. We must have our property rules clear and accessible because they affect every citizen. I acknowledge that aspects of this legislation may appear to be dry and boring to the uninitiated and it may appear to be boring to a Minister who is used to concentrating his efforts on saving whales or snails on the West Coast but as I said it is of fundamental significance. 
The Law Commission and Justice Blanchard of the Supreme Court are to be congratulated on the great work they have done on this bill. Indeed the quality of the work undertaken by the Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice which built on the bill with the work it has done is reflected in the relatively short commentary on this legislation by the Justice and Electoral Committee when reporting back to the House. Indeed it is fair to say that many of the changes we suggested were in the “very technical” category. 
 For example clause 58(3) is deleted; subpart 7 of Part 2 deals with the abolition and modification of common law rules relating to property and clause 58 deals with the abolition of obsolete estates and rules. Strange things like estates tail and estates by wrong are abolished by this legislation. The doctrine of interesse termini referred to in clause 60 is abolished. That is the kind of law reform that one is dealing with here and the technical changes that we recommended were in fact few and far between. There was only one substantive issue that we needed to spend a bit of time on and that concerned an aspect of the law of leases. So it is a good piece of work. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee received very few submissions on the legislation and I want to record in this second reading that the committee was “disappointed at the paucity of submissions we received for the bill especially from the legal fraternity.” because it is such a fundamental piece of legislation for the legal fraternity. As noted in the report the bill represents the largest single change to property law in the past 55 years. I would have thought that some of the large law firms could take a bit of time and trouble to prepare submissions come before the select committee and talk about aspects of the legislation. 
The Minister of Conservation has accurately summarised the changes. It is good legislation and the sooner it is passed into law the better. So as I said National is pleased to support the second reading of the Property Law Bill. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 Like my colleague Mr Finlayson I too have found the Property Law Bill to be riveting legislation and indeed it must be one of the largest bills in the House. It is a very large one indeed. I rise to speak on the second reading of the bill which is the stage where the House is asked to adopt in principle the bill before it and as a National MP I am pleased to be part of National’s support for this bill. It is a pleasure to speak on it because as was mentioned by my colleague the honourable Richard Worth during the first reading it is one of the most important bills that the House will deal with. 
This bill replaces the Property Law Act of 1952 in reforming and codifying certain aspects of the law relating to real and personal property. The work behind this bill was done by Justice Peter Blanchard as was mentioned by my colleague Mr Finlayson. Justice Peter Blanchard is a commissioner with the Law Commission. He completed his work on this bill in 1994. It is significant legislation and it will touch many people’s lives. It restates and clarifies the existing Act and includes some rules currently found in general law and in other Acts. There are a large number of small reforms to the rules that collectively will improve the effectiveness of the law. Clarity accessibility and effectiveness are features of this new bill. It will provide certainty in property dealings and it protects people’s property rights. It codifies the law relating to property that was previously set out as rules of general law relating to the creation and control of property of all kinds including land. Those rules underpin a vast range of activities and transactions in the day-to-day life of New Zealanders. The bill is fundamental to the workings of our society. 
However it is sad that the bill has had to be subject to such delays by not being advanced earlier by this Government in a timely manner. Once it was introduced and it reached the Justice and Electoral Committee it benefited from the attention of my colleagues from this side of the House particularly and from others which enhanced the effectiveness of it. It was an interesting bill to have going through the select committee process. It was however a big disappointment that it did not include the joint ownership of land the Unit Titles Act and the Land Transfer Act in a comprehensive reform of property law overall. That would have been a good thing. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: That’s right. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I thank my colleague Kate Wilkinson. It was also a disappointment that we had such a paucity of submissions particularly from the legal fraternity. This bill is the largest single change to property law in the past 55 years and it was deserving of more attention from those who work within the confines of the law and indeed who profit from it. 
Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. Clause 8 of the Property Law Bill explicitly states that “This Act does not apply to Maori customary land…”. So one may be forgiven for thinking that the bill has general application only and may therefore escape the rigorous scrutiny of analysis that this House has come to associate with the Maori Party. We all know that the specific rules and regulations pertaining to Maori land are contained within Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1993. In effect those provisions prevail over provisions in the Property Law Bill. 
Of course as every good bush lawyer knows a fundamental protocol of statutory interpretation is that the specific overrides the general and as such any particular changes to better protect Maori land needs to be done through amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. But that is where we need to have another good look because of course the Maori Party is not here just to pursue the specific—or the general for that matter—provisions pertaining to Maori land. We are here to defend Maori rights and to uphold Maori aspirations and to do so for the benefit of all who live in this great land of Aotearoa. It is a logical outcome of our reason for being that we are as interested in the effective management of the law relating to real and personal property as we are in keeping with even the most basic application of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is this that gives us reason for great concern in relation to this bill and to many other bills. 
I remind the House of the rulings of Justice Chilwell in  
Huakina Development Trust v Waikato Valley Authority 
 some 20 years ago when he said: “the authorities … show that the Treaty was essential to the foundation of New Zealand and since then there has been considerable direct and indirect recognition by statute of the obligations of the Crown to the Maori people. … There can be no doubt that the Treaty is part of the fabric of New Zealand society.” Such a mandate having been established in the courts one would therefore have expected to see some recognition—whether direct or indirect—in this new bill which replaces the Property Law Act of 1952 and restates certain aspects. Yet hello it was hardly a great start to learn that there was no Maori involvement in the Law Commission report and no Maori involvement in the bill drafting process. So much for the principles of participation partnership and protection! 
It is of course fascinating to think that the 1952 Act being replaced by this bill is largely a compilation of provisions introduced many years before—some dating from one of this nation’s earliest pieces of legislation the Conveyancing Ordinance of 1842. That was the first legislation in this country and probably deserves mention tonight in looking at the context of this new bill. The Conveyancing Ordinance was to “facilitate the Transfer of Real Property” from Maori to settlers and missionaries by specifying protocols around the buying selling leasing and mortgaging of land. We cannot therefore look at the context of this bill without recognising and acknowledging the denial of Maori property rights and the systematic imposition of a private property rights—individual land title—regime that have occurred over subsequent centuries. 
Just for the record I tell members that some of the other background legislation that created the policy foundation for this bill are the Native Lands Act of 1862 which established the Native Land Court to individualise Maori land title and convert such lands into “transferable paper”; the Suppression of Rebellion Act of 1863 which crushed Maori resistance to colonisation and land-grabs permitted trial by court martial and suspended the right to be protected from illegal imprisonment or to be released from illegal restraint; the New Zealand Settlements Act of 1863 which authorised land confiscation; the Provincial Compulsory Land Taking Act of 1863 which authorised Provincial Councils to take any land for public works; the Thermal Springs Districts Act of 1881 which expressed the principle of the Crown auctioning land publicly as an agent for Maori; the Native Lands (Validation of Titles) Act of 1893 which was essentially the validation of invalid land sales—the “We Will Make Right the Land We Have Ripped Off Act”—and right through to the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. These Acts are but a taste of the huge range of Acts of Parliament that have the intent or the effect of taking Maori land—which as Parliament should be aware forms the broader context of any legislative proposals introduced in this House. 
The justification for the Property Law Bill is that the 1952 Act contains outdated piecemeal provisions is not user-friendly lacks clarity and does not interact well with other more modern Acts. But we felt it important to raise in this second reading debate that there is always a history to any law made in this land and that any law would benefit from both Maori involvement and the Maori world view. On the other hand we think it is important to note when making the law clearer and more accessible to a wider audience that laws talk to each other. 
So we want to raise some questions around the capacity of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1993 in relation to mortgages leases the needs of property owners and mortgagees and general property rights. Some of the questions we hope may permeate the remaining stages of debate on this bill—and perhaps further aspects of legislation. Firstly are the provisions in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act relating to mortgages leases etc. sufficient to protect Maori land and Maori landowners? Secondly are any changes needed to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to better protect Maori land and Maori landowners? Thirdly will the changes to the general property laws proposed in the Property Law Bill have an impact on how the law is interpreted in terms of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and Maori land and Maori landowners? Fourthly is there the possibility of repealing the current land title system? 
The Property Law Bill is described as providing a one-stop shop law setting out the general rules relating to property law. The whole thrust of the legislation is to bring together into one Act the 1952 Act and its 18 amendments; relevant property law rules from common law that have developed through case law; and some process-based reforms. We absolutely endorse the intention of clarifying and reforming the law relating to mortgagee sales leases sales of land purchaser agreements and deeds and other minor reforms of the law. 
That is all well and good but I bring the House back to the words of Justice Chilwell: “There can be no doubt that the Treaty is part of the fabric of New Zealand society.” We did expect to see the impact and contribution of Maori participation throughout this Property Law Bill and we did expect to see the relevance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to the statutory interpretation of this bill. They have not happened but there may still be an opportunity at both the Committee stage of the House and the third reading to remedy this appalling oversight and we look forward to seeing that happen. Tena koe e te Whare. Tena tatou katoa. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Property Law Bill. This bill replaces the Property Law Act which was first passed in 1952. It is well over 55 years since the Act has been reviewed and I think it is time that we did something to change it. It is interesting that such an important Act which controls property of all kinds—including land—and the rules that underpin most activities and transactions in the everyday lives of New Zealanders has still been sitting there for 55 years. 
The aim of this bill is to simplify and to explain some of the very many technical issues that control property in New Zealand. It is a very complex bill. For an ordinary layperson who deals with property every day and deals with these kinds of transactions it is important that he or she can understand what is in this law and I think it is time that we looked at it. Thank you Mr Speaker. 
Bill read a second time. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.