Volume 679 Week 9 - Thursday 3 May 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 679 Week 9 - Thursday 3 May 2012 
[Sitting date: 03 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1935. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 3 May 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 8 May the Government will look to progress a number of first readings on the Order Paper including the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill and the Child Support Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I thank the Acting Leader of the House for that indication. Does that mean that the Government has decided not to proceed with the bills in the name of Mr Banks next week? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 As advised to the Opposition parties when we put out the draft programme the Government always reserves the right to determine its own legislative priorities.  
Questions to Ministers 
Economy Rebalancing—Progress 
1. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with National Bank Chief Economist Cameron Bagrie that we are not seeing an export-led recovery and increased activity in “spending centric” sectors such as housing is “not the stuff of a durable long-term sustainable upswing”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No not exactly. I think it is a bit soon to jump to conclusions about how far the New Zealand economy can rebalance. It took a long time to become too much dominated by consumption and debt and it is going to take a while to turn into a more strongly export-driven economy. I would certainly share with the chief economist the concern that a continued high exchange rate makes it harder for our exporters to grow at the speed that will successfully rebalance the economy. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he believe that he has taken sufficient measures to rebalance the economy given that New Zealand has been running current account deficits at a time of record export prices meaning that despite earning more than ever for what we are selling offshore we are still not paying our way in the world? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We think we have taken considered and balanced measures to push the economy in the right direction. We could of course have taken much more dramatic measures—say for instance balancing the Government’s Budget a couple of years ago by making widespread cuts. But we proceeded to borrow and increase Government spending in a way that makes it a bit harder to rebalance the economy but that is what was required in the middle of a deep recession.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the Minister but this question was asked by the leader of the Green Party and we are getting unacceptable interjection from members of the Labour Party who are making it hard to hear the Minister’s answer. He is not being particularly provocative. He appeared to me to be giving a thoughtful answer to the question asked. I ask members to be more reasonable please. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has he seen Treasury’s forecasts for the current account deficit deteriorating over the next 3 years to 6.9 percent of GDP by 2015 and does he think that if these projections come to fruition that will be successful management of the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think that Governments for the last 30 years have found it difficult to manage the current account deficit because if you could manage it directly then you would make it much smaller than it is. That is one of the challenges in New Zealand. We believe we have been making decisions and will continue to do so that will improve our savings and export performance over time and that are likely but not guaranteed to improve the current account deficit. I happen to be a bit more optimistic than Treasury forecasts about where we will get to because I see significant changes in New Zealanders’ behaviour around their understanding of what the economy needs for growth—which is exports not debt—and their own personal decisions around savings. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What has the Government done to shift spending into the tradable sector? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Among a number of things we have changed the balance of the tax system so that there are higher taxes on consumption and property speculation and less tax on work and saving. We are working hard on the productivity of government which uses a lot of resources—more than it should for the output that it achieves. We have curbed spending increases in government and we have also focused strongly on the competitiveness of our export businesses trying to help them manage their costs down and help invest in their innovation so they can perform better. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is he not concerned that this economic recovery looks disturbingly similar to previous economic recoveries which are focused on retail housing and consumer spending rather than exports and import substitution and that after 4 years we still are seeing a recovery that looks disturbingly like the previous 10 years of the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I am not overly concerned about that. I think things that would be of concern would be for instance if credit growth and borrowing took off and there is no sign of that. But I am pleased the member is concerned about that balance because a lot of our discussion around his policy proposals and others is focused on the fact that they want the Government to spend more and they want to stop meaningful export activities such as the oil and gas sector or dairy farming which are critical—both of them—to New Zealand’s future export success. If the member wants to support a rebalanced economy he should support those things not oppose them. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree with the Governor of the Reserve Bank that the high exchange rate is stopping the rebalancing of the New Zealand economy and what kind of measures will he take in order to lower the level and the volatility of the New Zealand exchange rate? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do agree with the Governor of the Reserve Bank on that point. The measures the Government is taking are to influence those things we can influence. We cannot actually set the level of the exchange rate. If we could then we would just drop it 10c tomorrow. But we are focusing on the competitiveness of our exporters making sure they have got the benefit of good infrastructure a skilled workforce and sensible regulation and cost from central and local government. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has he read the Statistics New Zealand latest business operations survey which shows that 46 percent of export businesses surveyed rate the high and highly volatile exchange rate as the single biggest impediment to export growth and should that not be the central focus of Government economic policy ahead of those other matters? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am surprised that it is only 46 percent; I would have thought it would be more actually. The Government focuses on those things it can influence. To actually have a direct impact on the exchange rate you need to have a couple of hundred billion US dollars in the bank—and we do not; we actually owe hundreds of billions—and it helps if you are not a democracy. That is a feature of those countries that do directly manage their exchange rates but that is not where we are. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has the Minister of Finance seen the measures taken by the United States and the United Kingdom in terms of quantitative easing which have had a significant downward pressure on their currencies and even the quite unorthodox measures taken by the Swiss National Bank which have all had downward pressure on their currencies and have helped their tradable sector? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think you would describe the measures taken by the UK and US central banks as emergency measures. If they were fortunate enough to be in the situation of the New Zealand economy they would not be doing quantitative easing or money printing because although that solves some shorter-term problems it is storing up longer-term problems for those economies which will require further difficult adjustments that might well take 10 years to get through. We do not have to do that. We are able to get moderate growth in this economy without resorting to those emergency measures. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister of Finance not saying that we will continue with orthodox economic policies that according to Treasury’s projections will result in a 6.9 percent current account deficit in 2015? If we go down that path we will have no option but to borrow more and to sell more assets in order to meet that current account deficit. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We will continue with policies that are focused on improving performance where it matters and that is in terms of savings both household savings and Government savings—and both of those are going to continue to improve quite significantly over the next few years—and improving export performance. I look forward to the member’s support particularly on the export side where I would hope that he could get behind measures that will help the competitiveness and the sustainability of our biological production industries and of our oil and gas industry because more jobs more growth and more investment will come from the success of those industries. The member and his party are known for opposing not only their expansion but the existence of those industries. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Minister agree that one of the most important measures that could be taken would be to drive more capital into the productive sector—and that is why we have been proposing a capital gains tax amongst other measures—and that in fact what we have seen over recent years is that lending into the housing sector has increased while lending into the business sector has actually declined? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As has been discussed a number of times in the House before the Government considered the option of a capital gains tax and both the Tax Working Group—in fact every tax working-group that has looked at it—and this Government decided that on balance although there are some merits in the idea it was not the best policy decision. We believe that the measures we took in the 2010 Budget regarding taxation of property will lead to collecting around $2.5 billion more tax from that sector and that is going to have a longer-term effect in reallocating capital into the export sector. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In light of Treasury’s projections that under current policy settings the current account deficit will deteriorate to 6.9 percent of GDP by 2015 is he not concerned that his Government is simply repeating the same mistakes of the previous Labour Government where we allowed a high and growing current account deficit doing nothing as our external debt grew and standing by while another housing asset bubble formed; and is it not time that we changed direction or will we just have to keep building up debt and selling off assets to finance the current account deficit? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well we are certainly making progress in that respect because a current account deficit even at 6 percent would be considerably lower than what it was 3 or 4 years ago when it was 8 percent for a number of years and that certainly was an imbalance in the economy. In the shorter term there will be pressure on the current account because of the rebuild of Canterbury which has an extensive imported component and because business investment intentions are now the highest they have been for 5 years so our businesses are gearing up to import more machinery and services and to improve their productivity and output. But in the long run we believe that the change of behaviour of New Zealanders and their attitudes to savings and a more competitive export sector—a much more competitive export sector—will assist in closing that current account deficit to sustainable levels which are probably somewhere around 3 to 4 percent. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister not realise that a near zero Budget projections of decreasing export earnings and rising net international liabilities to the end of the projection period are proof of his Government’s failure to properly rebalance the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As we have been discussing we certainly agree with the view that the economy has not yet successfully rebalanced and that there are some headwinds to achieving that as we move away from being a debt-funded consumption-driven economy to being a savings-driven export-driven economy. That is going to take some time particularly when we have had a recession and a major earthquake along the way. We believe that we are making progress and the fact that we are likely to grow faster than the UK the US Canada and all of Europe and at about the same speed as Australia is an indication we are probably on the right track. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the biggest problem our exporters face is as the IMF has said a grossly inflated dollar—by about 20 percent the IMF has said—does he intend to go on just making sympathetic noises and doing nothing? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The question with the exchange rate is what measures the Government could take to have an impact. We could swap to a whole bunch of disastrous policies and that would collapse the exchange rate. We do not intend to do that.  
Hon David Parker 
: How can the Minister say that his plan is working when all the projections show exports dropping and the current account deficit and net international liabilities getting worse; and is it his intention or the Prime Minister’s intention to give another pre-Budget speech next week this time entitled “Sticking to a Plan that is not Working”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No but I will be giving speeches saying there is no way we will adopt the Labour Party’s silly plans. 
Job Creation and Unemployment—Comparison of February 2012 and  December 2008 Numbers 
2. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment 
: Does the most recent National Employment Indicator show that there are more or fewer jobs now than when his Government came into office in 2008? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment) 
: 
 The National Employment Indicator indicates there were 12000 fewer jobs in February 2012 than there were in December 2008. I would point out to the member though that the National Employment Indicator is an experimental series and it does have a number of shortcomings including the fact that it ignores self-employed workers in the results. A better measure of the number of people in jobs is the household labour force survey which was released just this morning. That showed an increase of 36000 jobs compared with the September 2008 quarter. If you consider the impact of the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes this is actually a very considerable achievement and reinforces the Government’s aim of creating the right environment for competitive businesses to establish and grow in creating more jobs and higher wages. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Is he aware that there are 55000 more unemployed since his Government took office when the Prime Minister promised to do something about it— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How many? 
Su’a William Sio 
: —55000 thousand—and given that unemployment now is the highest in 18 months when can the New Zealand public expect to see the so-called brighter future? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: In fact the number of people who are obtaining an unemployment benefit has been reducing over the last 12 months and in fact the number of young people on an unemployment benefit has now dropped to around 15000. So that is good progress. But the member omits from his question the context of the challenges that the Government has been facing economically. Of course we have had the Canterbury earthquakes which have been very damaging to Canterbury. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well people in Canterbury are still concerned about them. We have also had the global financial crisis and the interesting thing about the global financial crisis is that it has hit most countries considerably harder than it has hit New Zealand. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Is he aware that the number of unemployed has gone up by 9000 in the last 3 months alone and when will his Government admit that its failed policies of merging departments selling assets and clamping down on beneficiaries are not creating growth or employment? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The household labour force survey shows that the number of jobs in the New Zealand economy has gone up 9000 in the last 3 months. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: That is correct and Winston you should read the bit of paper. It has gone up 9000 in the last 3 months. The number of people available for work has also increased by 18000 which has given us the highest labour force participation rate since late 2008 which is very encouraging. The member needs to look across the seas and look at what is happening in the rest of the world where we have massive unemployment. The current Euro-level unemployment rate is now nearly 11 percent and across the whole of the European Union it is 10 percent. So New Zealand’s unemployment rate is actually pretty reasonable by comparison. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Given today’s announcement that the number of young people not in training education or employment has increased to 87000 will he review his Government’s policy to cut Youth Transition Services for anyone over the age of 17? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I do not think the member’s assertion is remotely correct in the second half of her question. But I would point out that there are some interesting numbers within those “neets” figures. The encouraging part of the “neets” figures is that the number of 15 to 19-year-olds who are “neets” has dropped down to 8.9 percent. I think that is very very encouraging from the point of view of everybody who is working— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: From where? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: From nearly 10 percent Mr Mallard. For the 20 to 24-year-olds the number has gone up. I have checked that with the Department of Labour and Statistics New Zealand and they said that has flown through from the previous numbers for 15 to 19-year-olds. So what that shows is that our policies are having some good impacts on the 15 to 19-year-olds but the high levels we inherited prior to that are still moving through the system. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Do he and the Government now acknowledge that his job growth predictions are wrong his predictions that unemployment would decrease are wrong and his assumption in the welfare reforms that Kiwis do not want to work has been proven wrong; and when will he apologise to the people of New Zealand for the reduction in the number of jobs and opportunities available to them? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member is wrong. The reality is that the number of jobs in the New Zealand economy has lifted by 9000 in the last quarter. This is actually now according to the household labour force survey the highest number of jobs this country has ever had. We also have an unusually high participation rate and that has resulted in a lift in the measured unemployment rate. But actually there has been some good success. There is always more to do but I would note in regard to the member’s concern about “neets” that during the last 5 years of the Labour Government when unemployment was lower because of the stronger world economy the “neets” figure never went far below 10 or 12 percent. 
Budget 2012—Monitoring of Government Expenditure 
3. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What will be the Government’s approach in the Budget to ensure it remains on track to fiscal surplus in 2014/15? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Consistent with previous Budgets the Government’s approach will be balanced and considered but in particular the measure of achievement will be whether the funding is working and getting results rather than whether Ministers or departments get more funding. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What progress is the Government making in controlling its spending? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: What is important to the Government is that the spending is effective and that is just as important as how much spending there is. But one measure of the change in spending is this: in the four Budgets between 2005 and 2008 the permanent increase in total Government spending was $15 billion across those four Budgets. In the four Budgets up to the one that will be delivered in a couple of weeks the deliberate and permanent increase in spending will be $750 million. So in the four Budgets to 2008 the increase was $15 billion. In the next four Budgets it is $750 million. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What decisions will the Government take in the Budget to ensure it continues to keep spending under control? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The most important decisions will be those that are focused on getting better value for the considerable spending the Government already makes in the areas of law and order health and education. The next important decisions will be containing the amount of spending and as has been already discussed publicly there will be little net new Government spending in Budget 2012. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How will the Government be able to deliver better results from public services while keeping firm control on its spending? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Probably the most important thing is to understand how Government spending actually contributes to the outcomes that New Zealanders are expecting from Government action. So in the area of education we need a good understanding of how spending $13 billion in education does contribute to young New Zealanders achieving level 2 of National Certificate of Educational Achievement which is regarded as the entry-level qualification for any further skills or training or how our extensive spending on the police and courts and corrections contributes to reducing reoffending and therefore prisoner numbers at the same time as maintaining a safe community. 
Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry—Job Cuts Proposed in Cabinet Paper 
4. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What is the percentage reduction in foreign policy or diplomatic staff he has set out in his paper to the Cabinet Committee on State Sector Reform and Expenditure Control dated 26 April 2012? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 As a former Minister the member should know that it is normal for Cabinet committee and Cabinet discussions to take place confidentially. For that reason if such a paper existed it would not be in the public interest for me to provide the information that he seeks. I understand that yesterday the member released what he asserted to be material from Cabinet committee papers. If his question refers to those he will already have the answer he seeks. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Since I already have the answer why is he slashing 53 foreign policy positions—that is the people who do the diplomatic work nearly 10 percent of his diplomatic staff—from the ministry when his friend former senior ministry diplomat Charles Finny said last year that there were already “huge staffing gaps” in the ministry which required core ministry work to be farmed out to expensive private consultants? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The original ministry proposal was that 64 foreign policy positions would be disestablished. More recent discussions have centred around a number in the mid-50s although that is still a matter being discussed between the Government and the ministry. Were that to be the position where things settled about half of those positions would be represented by current staff and around half by current vacancies.  
Hon Phil Goff 
: Notwithstanding his denial on  
Morning Report 
 this morning will he acknowledge there is a major morale problem in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade when his ministry’s own survey which I have got in my hand shows that more and more people are disillusioned and disengaged “significantly more” than any other State sector organisation and when last week his important trade negotiation division said that confidence was shot and they cannot retain talented people? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The member claimed to be deeply concerned about staff morale within the ministry and about damage to New Zealand’s foreign policy interests from this process. If he wishes to identify the persons responsible then he just needs to find himself a mirror.  
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A point of order has been called.  
Hon Phil Goff 
: I asked the Minister whether he would acknowledge that there was a significant morale problem within the ministry. He went on then to say that I was responsible for everything. It used to be the chief executive officer. Now it is me apparently. But he has not answered the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is an interesting point the member raises because the question asked whether the Minister would acknowledge that there was a significant morale problem. The Minister tended to indicate in his answer that he does not think there is but if there is then he blamed the previous Minister. That is an answer. Whether it is a good answer or not is another matter. The member does have further supplementary questions. He is a very experienced member and I am sure he is capable of pursing that further.  
Hon Phil Goff 
: An answer but not as we know it! My supplementary question to the Minister is why is he recommending the closure of the embassy in Stockholm when he said to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee just months ago: “we put a high value on those Scandinavian relationships which is why we did not take a step of closing that post”—a decision not to close the embassy which he said was “the result of careful reflection and consideration”; and why has he flip-flopped in a matter of months? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: As I have said on a number of occasions publicly the question of closure or opening of missions overseas is a matter for Cabinet. The discussion that took place in the original change document did raise the prospect of changes in Europe. In the letter of 22 March I canvassed a range of options for the ministry to advise further on. Those matters are still to come before Cabinet for a final decision. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister admit that he inherited a ministry that was being properly funded and that foreign aid was heading towards 0.35 percent of GDP and that these cuts simply indicate that he has no influence at Cabinet which begs the question of him why did he seek the position in the first place? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I would have used the word “lavish” to describe the funding when the Government came into office. What I can say is that in 2008 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade sought from the then Minister of Finance an extra $212 million a year in 2011-12 terms. In the first year in office as Minister I took $115 million off the table and in the subsequent year a further $20 million. Now we are looking at a further reduction of $24 million to $25 million this year which would still leave over $50 million of the funding advanced by that member as Minister in 2008. I think I will stop there because the Minister of Finance is starting to ask himself whether maybe we should do more.  
Hon Phil Goff 
: In addition to the $9.2 million that he has spent on the change process so far this year is the additional $3.296 million that he has admitted to me will be spent next year on change consultants the total financial cost of the change process that he estimates for next year including internal staffing costs and redundancy costs; if not what will be the total cost of this botched process? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The member has been told before that the figure of $9.2 million is a budget not an expenditure level to date. What I can say to him is that the manner in which we have tried to assist the ministry in making some final decisions at an early time is designed to ensure that we can move on to business as usual as quickly as possible and save as much from the change budget as possible. The specific answer to his question can only be given once all of the decisions have been made. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: As the result of the latest changes that he has in his paper has the ministry changed the contracts of any of those consultancy firms which he is aware will require compensatory payments to them; if so what will be the cost of that? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I am not aware of any arrangements of that sort. 
Middlemore Hospital—Redevelopment 
5. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What decisions has the Government made in relation to providing better services at Counties Manukau District Health Board? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce that the Government has given Counties Manukau District Health Board the official go-ahead for the design phase of the new clinical services block at Middlemore Hospital. This clinical services block will include three new theatres as well as replacement of the existing 11 aged theatres a 40-bed assessment and planning unit and an 18-bed high-dependency unit. This whole project began under the National Government in 2009. The Government is contributing $100 million towards the $208 million total cost of the project which when completed will provide better health services for the people of one of the fastest-growing and most important parts of the country. 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: Can he tell the House what other improvements are being made to Middlemore Hospital as part of this development? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: This $208 million redevelopment also includes the refurbishment of the Edmund Hillary Block with 31 extra beds and an addition of 33 beds and an upgrading of services in the adult medical centre for assessment treatment and rehabilitation in-patient wards. Over the last 3 years the Government has increased spending at the Counties Manukau District Health Board by over $180 million with 180 more doctors and over 300 more nurses. Despite the tight financial times the Government is providing better care for people in the Counties Manukau area. 
Moerewa School—Ministry of Education’s Actions 
6. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What support did her Ministry offer to Moerewa School before the decision was made to close the satellite senior class and send in a Commissioner Mike Eru and what is the purpose of his appointment? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Because of the complexity of this situation this answer might be just slightly longer for the detail. In 2008 Moerewa School applied for and was granted a change of class to become a year 1 to year 10 school. It has had the same support from the Ministry of Education as any other school with this range of classes. Since 2010 Moerewa School without Ministry of Education approval has decided to retain the year 11 to year 13 students. It formally applied to retain these students in September 2011 and was declined and was instructed to end its informal arrangement with Kia Aroha College. It continued to receive the same support from the Ministry of Education as any other year 1 to year 10 school including offers of professional learning and development and student achievement function support. As part of normal New Zealand Qualifications Authority processes the authority visited Kia Aroha College where serious concerns about the quality assurance practices were raised especially for the school’s informal satellite class in Moerewa. This led to a full audit which highlighted very serious deficiencies. When the very poor results for these senior students were reported by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and with the board’s explicit refusal to cease the informal arrangement and transition these students I lost confidence in the board. When Moerewa School reopened at the beginning of term 2 with senior students still illegally enrolled a commissioner was appointed to undertake governance roles. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Have New Zealand Qualifications Authority audits of any other schools reviewed a sample as big as 85 percent of student results as was done at Moerewa; if so what were the results? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The process followed by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority in relation to Kia Aroha College’s unsanctioned satellite class at Moerewa is a response to a unique situation. The satellite class at Moerewa has been acting illegally and the results that it claimed it was achieving were dramatically different on the evidence of the audit. When normal processes identify specific concerns the New Zealand Qualifications Authority formulates a response that best fits the circumstances whether it be for a school a particular department or a year group. On occasions there has been intensive sampling of results of a class or a department within a school when there have been serious concerns. Fortunately this is rather rare. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Will the Minister take the same action against every other school where Maori children are underachieving; if not why not? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Our Government is focused on raising achievement for all students and I want to work with every school where there is underachievement. 
Schools Charter—Advice Received 
7. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Has he read or received the Ministry of Education advice provided to the previous Minister of Education which states charter schools “have not consistently led to significant increases in achievement”? 
Hon JOHN BANKS (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 No I have not received that specific piece of advice. As the member said it was sent to the previous Minister. No one is claiming that any initiative in education policy works all the time every time everywhere. If there is such an initiative I wonder why that member’s party did not introduce it over the 9 years that it was in Government. What we do know is that the New Zealand model of charter schools will benefit from knowledge of successes and failures overseas. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: In light of that answer would he consider charter schools a success if 37 percent of their students do worse than those in public schools and 50 percent do no better; and if so is he aware that those were the outcomes of the US charter schools according to Stanford University in its report referenced in 2009 by the Ministry of Education? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear the answer. 
Hon JOHN BANKS 
: This is what we do know. We do know that the new Minister—[ 
Interruption 
]—we do know that the new— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Look I took it that the honourable member’s question was a serious question and so I would ask her colleagues to make sure they do not make so much noise that they interrupt the Minister and distract him. But the Minister should answer the question. The question was very specific as to whether the Minister would consider it a success were 37 percent of the students considered to have done less well and 50 percent to have done approximately the same—whether the Minister would consider that was a successful outcome. 
Hon JOHN BANKS 
: What we do know is that there is a long tail of people failing in the education system in this country— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you asked the Minister to address the question. He is a little way into an answer that has to do with the New Zealand situation and is not a response at all to the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No no. I think we have to allow the Minister the opportunity to answer the question. He started by addressing the current situation and I hope he will move on to the research figures that were included in the member’s question. 
Hon JOHN BANKS 
: We hear the research figures. If we were to rely on those research figures then we would give up on the long tail of underachievement in the education system. What we do know is that the new Secretary for Education understands charter schools as they exist in the United Kingdom very very well and is supportive. What we do know is that we spend $7 billion per year on education for students up and down the country and it is the students’ right to get a world-class education— 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Minister have the faintest idea what he’s talking about?  
Hon JOHN BANKS 
: I say to the interjector that of the students who were entering the system when the member for Hutt South was the Minister of Education one in five will leave school with no education. This Government is saying we cannot have one in five leaving school with no education. We are not going to take up the worst aspects of any overseas charter schools. We are going to adapt them to a New Zealand model that works for New Zealand kids whom the front-bench member of the Opposition wants to see succeeding and achieving in education so that when they leave school they have the dignity of work. That is what we are going to do. It is going to work. Give it a go. Do not give up on it before we have tried it.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Nanaia Mahuta. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I want to hear the question. The Hon Nanaia Mahuta. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Is he aware that an independent study by the University of Michigan into the Knowledge is Power Program charter school model found that the Knowledge is Power Program’s improved performance was a result of cherry-picking the students most likely to succeed?  
Hon JOHN BANKS 
: What we do know is that— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I ask members not to interject before the Minister has even started his answer. But I say to the Minister that when a Minister starts with “What we do know” it usually indicates that he or she has no intention of answering the question whatsoever and it is not good enough. The question asked about a specific piece of research. The Minister may wish to acknowledge that he is not familiar with that piece of research. That is fine but he should not go on to talk about something totally different. Usually saying “What we do know” is an indication that it is going to be something totally different. Because time is passing I invite the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to repeat her question.  
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Is he aware that an independent study by the University of Michigan into the Knowledge is Power Program charter school model found that the Knowledge is Power Program’s improved performance was a result of cherry-picking the students most likely to succeed?  
Hon JOHN BANKS 
: I have not seen that piece of advice that talks about cherry-picking students. But what we want to do is we want to provide access to different ways of educating the 20 percent of young people who fall through the cracks do not make it and end up as statistics. What we do know also is that we have appointed a very able working-group to recommend the precise policy settings and learning from research that the member talks about so that we do not make the same mistakes as have been made overseas. We will take the best of the research and we will build on the information that we can gather together here because we want this to succeed for the 20 percent of young people who fall through the cracks and end up as statistics. We are not going to give up on those young people.  
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Will charter schools be able to raise revenue in addition to public funds from individuals and corporates and be accountable to their sponsors; if so it is possible that Skycity could sponsor one of his charter schools and how will this transform the long tail of underachievement?  
Hon JOHN BANKS 
: As at Onehunga High School in Auckland we want to make sure that for our charter schools the local community is involved iwi are involved church groups are involved everyone interested is involved families are involved industry is involved and commerce is involved. We have all got to take ownership of the fact of the matter which is that 20 percent of our young people fail in the education system that that former Minister was associated with when she was in Government and the member for Hutt South was the Minister and did nothing about it. We care about people who fall through the cracks. We are not worried about the 80 percent of people who achieve— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: In light of the Minister’s answers I seek leave to table two documents. The first document is the research report from Stanford University which clearly shows that 37 percent of students do worse and 50 percent no better than students in public schools.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.  
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I seek leave to table the University of Michigan report into the Knowledge is Power Program charter school model which shows that improved performance was linked to cherry-picking of students most likely to succeed.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
New Zealand Air Force—2010 Anzac Day Helicopter Accident 
8. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Is he satisfied that all issues arising from the 2010 Anzac Day helicopter accident have been properly dealt with by the Government and the RNZAF? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
on behalf of the Minister of Defence: The Government is satisfied that the Air Force has learnt the appropriate operational lessons from this crash as identified in the court of inquiry and is implementing those lessons. The New Zealand Defence Force is waiting to receive a report from a barrister Mr Matthew McClelland examining the Air Force’s treatment of the families of the victims. The Defence Force is still awaiting further legal advice on potential disciplinary options.  
Denis O’Rourke 
: As it is over 2 years since the crash why have RNZAF officers not been charged as a result of any current disciplinary inquiry considering Air Commodore Moore’s comments to the assembling authority of the court of inquiry that “There is now an obligation to investigate whether any offences have in fact been committed against the Armed Forces Discipline Act.” and what actions have been taken by the Government and the RNZAF to deal with the culture issue given the Air Commodore’s further comments: “The culture of No. 3 Squadron at Ohakea is one of the most concerning of all causes and negative aspects of this culture are present in all six causes.”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister the Hon Murray McCully may answer one of those questions.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The court of inquiry identified a number of factors related to Air Force orders instructions flying management supervision and work practices that were not satisfactory. I am advised that the Air Force has accepted these findings and made significant progress in implementing the changes. Additionally the New Zealand Defence Force is working on a programme to improve pilot training systems.  
Denis O’Rourke 
: Will the Government and the RNZAF apologise to the parents of Corporal Ben Carson for their incongruent treatment by the RNZAF especially in being excluded from meetings and briefings to which the next of kin of other personnel killed or injured in accidents were invited given the Carsons’ denial of the Minister’s claim that such an apology has already been given? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The RNZAF has already acknowledged that it made mistakes in the way in which families were treated. The Air Force has learnt lessons in this respect and has apologised. The previous Minister of Defence initiated an independent review—that is the review I referred to earlier by the barrister Mr McClelland—which was subsequently— 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The answer has stated that an apology was given whereas the question itself makes— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member cannot use a point of order to dispute an answer being given. The member may not like the answer that is being given but he cannot use a point of order to dispute it. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I would like to make a final point that the previous Minister of Defence Dr Mapp initiated an independent review by the barrister McClelland which was subsequently widened to include the interests of all four families. Once Mr McClelland has completed his review the Air Force can address any outstanding issues. I am advised that that review should be available in approximately 6 weeks’ time.  
Denis O’Rourke 
: I seek leave to table these documents: firstly a copy of a letter from the Minister of Defence to Mr and Mrs Carson dated 24 April 2012 stating that the RNZAF had apologised to them and— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We will deal with each document separately. Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I seek leave to table a copy of an email dated 1 May 2012 from Mr and Mrs Carson to me confirming that they have had no apology from the RNZAF. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Welfare Fraud—Information Sharing Between Government Agencies 
9. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development 
: What steps has the Government recently taken to combat welfare fraud? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 On Monday an Order in Council was signed expanding the range of information the Inland Revenue Department can send to the Ministry of Social Development and this will give the ministry a powerful new tool to make sure it has accurate information and that people on benefits are receiving their correct entitlement. It is another step forward in cracking down on welfare fraud. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Revenue the Hon Peter Dunne for his work in making this level of information sharing a reality. 
Mike Sabin 
: What would he say to a beneficiary who was concerned about the new information-sharing? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: That we are drawing a distinction between the vast majority of beneficiaries who are honest and upfront with the Ministry of Social Development and the small minority who think it is OK to rip off hard-working Kiwis. Honest beneficiaries have nothing to fear from these changes as it will only confirm information that the ministry already has. But fraud is fraud whether from an individual or from a taxpayer and those who rip the system off should come to us before we come and find them. 
Hon John Banks—Donations to Member’s Political Campaigns 
10. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did the assurances that Hon John Banks gave his office regarding his compliance with the Local Electoral Act which he has accepted include an assurance that any donations for radio advertising during the 2010 mayoral election were correctly recorded? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: As the Prime Minister stated in the House on Tuesday the chief of staff sought and received an assurance from Mr Banks that he had fully complied with the requirements of the Local Electoral Act in respect of donations. There were no assurances sought or received about the details of any particular donations. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How can advertising be donated anonymously when there is a requirement for authorisation; and if the Prime Minister does not know why did his office not ask Mr Banks? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I understand the member has already made a complaint about an anonymous donation for radio advertising and that this has been referred to the police for investigation. He could perhaps await the outcome of that investigation to get answers to those questions. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can the Prime Minister assure the House there is no link between the soft Crown loan Steven Joyce arranged for a radio chain he used to own and this radio advertising giving shortly afterwards to the National Party’s preferred candidate for the Auckland mayoralty? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. I think last week it was charter schools that were part of this conspiracy and now something else is. The fact is the member has a complaint he has referred that to the police and his attempts to get more media attention by constructing conspiracy theories might or might not work. We will see. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With the National Party as we speak conducting polling in the Epsom electorate with the question—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member please proceed with his question and I do want it to be something that is the Minister’s responsibility. National Party polling certainly has nothing to do with the Minister’s responsibility. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With the National Party as we speak conducting polling in the Epsom electorate with the question: “Who would you vote for?” is that an ominous sign in respect of Mr John Banks that the assurances are not being accepted by the Prime Minister? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Bill English in so far as there is ministerial responsibility. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister accepts the assurances of the member for Epsom. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did he say that he had absolutely no reason to doubt John Banks was unaware of the Dotcom donation given that ACT’s own party president has said that splitting the donation from Dotcom was one of the suggestions John Banks made to Dotcom? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister made that statement because he believes it to be the case and has not seen statements or evidence otherwise. The matter is in the hands of the police who are rightfully investigating. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has he or his office questioned Mr Banks about the suggestion by the ACT Party president that one of the $25000 donations was in fact from John Banks himself and did Mr Banks explain how he could give himself a donation and not know it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I said in the first answer an assurance was sought from Mr Banks that he had fully complied with the requirements of the Local Electoral Act in respect of donations. That assurance was given. No assurances have been sought about particular donations. 
Tourism and Conservation—Department of Conservation and Air New Zealand Partnership 
11. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What are the likely benefits of the new tourism-conservation partnership with Air New Zealand? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 The Government recently signed a tourism-conservation partnership between the Department of Conservation and Air New Zealand. This partnership is worth $1 million a year for the next 3 years and represents a win-win for our flagship airline our tourism industry and conservation. It includes formalising the agreement to transport some of our most endangered species on Air New Zealand planes to breeding sites across the country. It will also help fund a range of new biodiversity and conservation programmes in national parks to preserve and protect native plants and wildlife along the Great Walks network. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What other benefits will this partnership offer? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Heaps! It is not always acknowledged that the Department of Conservation is one of the largest tourism activity providers in New Zealand. Under this partnership Air New Zealand will use its global marketing network to help the Department of Conservation to promote the Great Walks in both the domestic and international tourism markets. More than 50000 people enjoy our Great Walks every year. These walks bring in around $3 million annually—money that is put back into conservation. Air New Zealand will also contribute through its 3000-strong Green Team who will volunteer their time for conservation initiatives. This partnership demonstrates that conservation can be good for business business can be good for conservation and we can work together to achieve shared goals and protect our native species. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I move that Mr Auchinvole be allowed to ask another question so that he can truly justify the rubber stamp National gives backbenchers to ask— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I could not hear what the member was seeking leave for. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I move that Mr Auchinvole be given a chance to ask another question so that he can truly justify the rubber stamp— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member was lucky I did not hear it the first time around. We do not waste the time of the House that way I say to the right honourable member. 
KiwiRail Railway Workshops—Minister’s Statements 
12. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement to the  
Otago Daily Times 
 on 21 April 2012 that he was not aware of KiwiRail’s decision to sell off the Dunedin Hillside workshop prior to the announcement? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes I do. I understand that my office was notified later in the day before the announcement. However if the member is suggesting that the notification is important in the sense that either I or other Ministers would have intervened in the decision then that expectation is incorrect. We would not have. 
Clare Curran 
: Is he aware of the no-surprises policy outlined in the  
Owner’s Expectations Manual for State-Owned Enterprises 
 which states: “Under the ‘no surprises’ policy shareholding Ministers expect to be informed well in advance of any material or significant events”; if so given that the sale of Hillside is a significant event how can he not have known that KiwiRail was planning to sell up? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well I think I just gave the answer. Of course Ministers were aware that that was one of a number of things discussed but I would have to say it was a small part of discussions with KiwiRail. The Government is investing $4.5 billion in a 10-year turn-round programme with KiwiRail. We expect the board of KiwiRail to make sensible operational decisions to back up the investment of $4.5 billion in turning round KiwiRail. We do not expect to be part of every single decision involved.  
Clare Curran 
: If KiwiRail neglected to inform him and other shareholding Ministers well in advance of its intention to put the Hillside workshops up for sale has he asked it to explain why it did not given that it is a significant community event; and if he has not asked it is he not then negligent in his duties as a shareholding Minister? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. We were aware that the discussions had been going on about the Hillside workshops. In fact anyone in New Zealand who can read a newspaper would know that that has been going on for a number of years. However it is a matter for the board to make the decisions. As I have said the Government has committed $4.5 billion to a 10-year turn-round plan including an injection of $750 million. We do focus on whether the overall plan is on track and we have done. 
Clare Curran 
: Does he support the KiwiRail decision to sell the Hillside workshops and is it Government policy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government policy is to try to turn KiwiRail into a viable commercial business and the taxpayer is going to invest one way or another $4.5 billion in achieving that. That is the Government policy. In respect of the Hillside workshops— 
Andrew Little 
: Why won’t you keep Kiwi jobs? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We cannot have it all ways. If we put in billions of dollars to upgrade the wagons and the locomotives so they are new then they do not need nearly as much maintenance as when they were 50 years old. So by putting in a taxpayers’ investment to upgrade the gear now we do not need the same maintenance capacity. The board has the responsibility of making those balanced decisions. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What reports has he seen on the involvement of Ministers in respect of State-owned enterprise decisions? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The House might not be surprised to hear that an Acting Minister of Finance stated: “as a matter of policy the Minister of Finance as shareholding Minister does not intervene in the operational affairs of the airline.” That particular quote was from Trevor Mallard in respect of Air New Zealand and I think it is a longstanding practice that State-owned enterprise Ministers do not try to run these businesses. 
Clare Curran 
: Does his refusal to intervene in KiwiRail’s decision to sell the Hillside workshop and its reluctance to repair the Gisborne to Napier rail line not prove that this Government does not give a damn about regional economic development? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think that is an extravagant statement. In fact the Government is investing— 
Grant Robertson 
: You’re not saying it’s not true though. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well it is an untrue statement. The Government is investing $4.5 billion in KiwiRail and that is going to enhance the infrastructure right through New Zealand including in Dunedin. We want to make this into a viable reliable rail company. The plan is well under way and we are reasonably optimistic that it can be achieved. 
Immigration Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the Immigration Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the committee report back finally to the House on or before 10 September 2012. 
People-smuggling is a transnational crime that grossly undermines a country’s sovereign right to determine who crosses into its territory. It circumvents border security and threatens the integrity of the immigration system. It also puts the lives of those who are smuggled in extreme danger. New Zealand has not yet experienced a mass arrival but attempts have been made as has been evidenced by recent events which I will address shortly. The bill is one component of a wider package of policy measures aimed at deterring people-smuggling. It will assist in deterring people-smuggling by making New Zealand a less desirable target. It will also enable the effective and efficient management of a mass arrival of illegal immigrants should this occur. 
In introducing this legislation I would like to focus the House’s attention on three points regarding a mass arrival of people being smuggled to New Zealand. A mass arrival is possible but less likely under these changes. A mass arrival is not in the best interests of New Zealand or those being smuggled given the safety risks. A mass arrival should be deterred and indeed if it does happen it should be managed effectively and efficiently. 
We know that New Zealand has been in the sights of people-smugglers in recent years. Ten Chinese asylum seekers were trying to sail to New Zealand from Malaysia just last month. As well we had the 90 Sri Lankan asylum seekers who were intercepted in Indonesia last year and shown on television holding up signs saying they wanted to come to New Zealand. That indeed illustrates the risk. Ten illegal migrants may seem like a small number but once such an arrival has been achieved New Zealand could be seen as a more attractive option for like-minded people. 
It is not only small boats that may be involved as Canada found out a couple of years ago when a steel-hulled freighter sailing from Thailand was intercepted off the coast of British Columbia with around 500 people on board all of whom claimed asylum. If people-smugglers can reach Canada they can certainly reach New Zealand. Our distance and perceived remoteness does not make us immune to such risks. We need to make sure that we properly address and mitigate those risks. 
New Zealand has a sovereign right to determine who enters our country whether as visitors students skilled or business migrants or refugees under our annual refugee quota. We welcome genuine immigrants. We facilitate the entry and stay of legitimate workers students and visitors. We grant residence to those who have the skills investment and abilities to contribute positively to our New Zealand economy and our society as a whole. But although the vast majority of people who wish to enter New Zealand do so for genuine reasons others have ulterior motives. We need border protection measures to prevent these people from entering and we need tough measures to deter groups of illegal immigrants from travelling to New Zealand. 
People-smugglers do not care for a country’s sovereignty or laws because they can make big money from other people’s desperation. They do not care about those they smuggle. Boat people tragedies in various parts of the Pacific over the last few years highlight the need for a robust regional response to people movements refugee resettlement and illegal migration. Ongoing illegal movements of people en masse in Asia-Pacific are not in the region’s best interests. New Zealand cannot be seen as a soft touch in the region. The Government of course is committed to upholding New Zealand’s obligations under international law and New Zealand’s reputation as a good international citizen. We will continue to accept 750 refugees per year through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees process. This is the appropriate way to come to New Zealand as a refugee and we expect proper immigration processes to be followed.  
 The bill I am introducing today balances protecting our borders and upholding our international obligations. It contains a range of measures to deter people-smuggling making it unattractive for people-smugglers to target New Zealand but it does not jeopardise the process for those who make a genuine claim for refugee or protection status. The Ministry of Justice has also advised that the Immigration Amendment Bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Immigration Amendment Bill will also enable officials to better manage the immediate risks posed by a mass arrival of illegal immigrants and will streamline the complex administration of such a situation. 
The bill proposes several key changes to the Immigration Act. Firstly it identifies that illegal immigrants will be subject to the changes if they are a group of 11 or more people arriving together all with the intention of arriving together by an unscheduled service. 
Secondly the bill allows for mandatory detention under a group warrant issued by a District Court judge for an initial period of up to 6 months with the possibility of further detention for periods of up to 28 days or release into the community on binding conditions. Detention will enable the relevant agencies to inquire as necessary into the background of illegal immigrants pending decisions on refugee or protection claims. This will help to confirm identity or assess whether illegal immigrants pose a risk to national security or public safety. Although mandatory detention may seem like a strong stance to take it will not be used for arbitrary purposes and will be used only for as long as necessary as decided by the District Court judge. Detention could be at the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre in Auckland or a defence or correctional facility. The bill also allows for exceptions to mandatory detention where this is warranted. 
Thirdly the bill will allow the processing of asylum claims to be suspended for a group of people where for example information for determining a refugee or protection claim is not immediately available due to the conditions within their country which could be as an example in a state of flux. These measures do not apply to unaccompanied minors who will be dealt with under the existing processes. 
The bill also streamlines various aspects of existing legislation in terms of refugee and protection claims and appeals generally to increase efficiency. 
In addition to these changes set out in the bill there are also going to be some policy changes. Those granted refugee or protection status as part of mass arrival will initially be granted a 3-year temporary visa rather than residence. Their status will be reassessed after 3 years and if their reassessment is successful only then may they apply for residence. Those granted residence after reassessment will be able to sponsor only immediate family which is a partner or dependent children for entry to New Zealand rather than the wider family such as siblings or parents as those granted residence under refugee categories are otherwise able to do. 
In conclusion this bill sends a strong message to people-smugglers that New Zealand is indeed not a soft touch and that illegal immigrants are not welcome. The bill’s provisions make it unattractive for people-smugglers to target New Zealand but if illegal immigrants do make it here the provisions also uphold our international obligations in terms of considering refugee and protection claims. I commend the Immigration Amendment Bill to the House. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Labour will oppose the Immigration Amendment Bill because it is just one big overreaction to a non-existent problem. It is a waste of parliamentary time when there are so many other important things that we should be dealing with like the fact that unemployment has gone up again today and so many of our young people cannot find a job. This bill is being rushed through. I do not understand why it is being rushed through its first reading. It was deliberately introduced on Tuesday in an attempt to divert attention from the tawdry scandals surrounding this Government. Those tawdry scandals extend to immigration and any other piece of legislation that this Government thinks it can put up for sale to the highest bidder.  
The Government is determined to divert our attention from the real issues by talking up what it believes is a populist move while at the same time it will not front up on the real immigration issues. Firstly there is the secret deal done with Warner Bros which we learnt about on Friday. We have watered down immigration rules for our film and video production industry. Despite special deals and favours to Warner Bros this Government has done nothing to ensure that the growth of our film industry can result in New Zealand jobs. The New Zealand public have a right to know why it is necessary for Weta Digital to be seeking 369 foreign workers to come in and work for it in the next year. Goodness knows how many other foreign workers it has. The Government has bent over backwards to do special deals and special favours and New Zealanders are not benefiting from them.  
Government members also need to explain to us why there are increasing numbers of applications from employers in low-paying industries to bring in workers from overseas and pay the minimum wage. Why is that happening? Why is that acceptable in New Zealand? Does the Government think it is acceptable for Filipino nurses to be tricked into bondage as caregivers in the aged-care industry? That is people-trafficking and nothing is being done about that. I also want to know whether the Government thinks it is OK for secret deals for secrets to be kept by Immigration New Zealand under section 61. It keeps them secret from the public so that no one can find out the reasons for the decision. The Government still has not told us why only 10 applicants have succeeded under its migrant Investor Plus scheme and of course the poster boy for that scheme is none other than John Banks’ former very good friend Kim Dotcom.  
This bill is a cover-up for a whole range of dodgy arrangements including the Government’s willingness to make special rules for those with lots of money and ignore the rights of everyone else. This bill will not work as a deterrent to desperate asylum seekers who could take the extremely unlikely decision to risk the treacherous sea journey to New Zealand. It will not stop people-smugglers in other countries who encourage them and it puts at risk New Zealand’s reputation as a good international citizen. 
 The bill copies the former Australian Conservative Howard Government which successfully divided that country over a hysterical response to so-called boat people and did that by arresting them and putting them in detention centres. I do not want to see that happen here.  
The Minister of Immigration mentioned the 10 asylum seekers who had fetched up in Darwin who by the way would not be covered by this bill because it is for only 11 or more. They said they were considering making the long journey to New Zealand the very hazardous trip to New Zealand. We worked with negotiation and diplomacy. Our officials worked with the Australian Government to dissuade those people from attempting the journey on the grounds that it was dangerous and they would likely not succeed. That is good diplomacy and negotiation. It kept New Zealand’s dignity and it kept our reputation. But in a short space we have gone from worrying about the potential for 10 asylum seekers from Darwin coming to New Zealand to legislating for the possible arrival of 500. How did that happen?  
New Zealand is one of the most geographically isolated countries in the world and we are never going to be swamped by mass arrivals. The regulatory impact statement from the Department of Labour actually admits that “It is not possible to quantify exactly what the likelihood is of a mass arrival occurring in the future or when this might occur. It is also not possible to be sure about the characteristics of the people involved in any such event.” So the Government bases this bill on the assumption that 500 people would be involved in a mass arrival when there has never been a real threat to New Zealand’s borders of 500 people turning up on a boat seeking asylum.  
Labour is not saying that we should not have a plan for the very unlikely event of a mass arrival at our borders but it should be based on reality and the decent practices for which New Zealand has earned an international reputation. Locking up asylum seekers who are desperate to find a place of safety simply does not work as a deterrent and Australia’s experience should tell us that. I never want to see asylum seekers in New Zealand locked up behind fences holding up signs going on hunger strikes committing suicide and becoming a political football in the way that they have in Australia.  
The bill proposes a mandatory detention for 6 months which is horrific with the possibility of ongoing detention. That will also come at a cost to our reputation but it will cost the New Zealand taxpayer as well. The Minister said: “Oh well we can lock them up in Mangere.” Actually there has been discussion about closing that centre. So the other alternative is to put them on some part of our Devonport naval base. I wonder how the member for North Shore will explain to the nice people of Devonport that they will have mass arrivals arriving at the naval base and being locked up. The regulatory impact statement says that actually more detention facilities will be needed for longer and additional facilities would need to be commissioned and operated. So in the extremely unlikely event that 500 people wash up on our shores we will spend money and build more detention centres and this is from a Government that claims it is practising austerity.  
Another amendment in this bill would mean that a claimant’s refugee status would be reassessed after 3 years—the Minister talked about that—with permanent residence not granted unless that reassessment is approved. The Australian Government is saying that this is similar to what Prime Minister Howard did under the Conservatives. It is similar to the temporary protection visas introduced by his Liberal-led Government. Those visas did not work there and they will not work here. This is what the Australians are saying. The overwhelming number of people who get temporary protection visas actually have ended up as permanent residents in Australia. It is hardly a deterrent. These changes are not only an overreaction but they are probably in breach of our international humanitarian laws and our convention obligations.  
New Zealand is highly regarded for its refugee policies internationally which include taking up to 750 refugees every year through the United Nations system and offering asylum to a smaller number of people who reach our borders in other ways and meet refugee criteria. We have all celebrated over the years Helen Clark’s decision to allow the  
Tampa 
 refugees to come to New Zealand and settle here. Most people in this House will have met them at some stage. Their children are well settled and they are now working. They have been through study and they are now working and contributing to New Zealand society in ways that we could never have imagined.  
The thing about anybody who fetches up here is not to have the sort of mass process that this bill proposes. Everyone who seeks asylum in New Zealand or seeks refugee status should be considered on a case by case basis and they should not have to languish for indeterminate periods in custody because as this bill proposes they arrived as a group. New Zealand already has measures for dealing with people-smuggling under the Immigration Act or the Crimes Act. We have had 15 successful convictions in the last 6 years. We are part of the Bali Process on People Smuggling Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime and the Government is always boasting about that. There are other solutions to this problem than this ridiculous unnecessary diversionary bill. The Government should be spending its time thinking about the real issues that are facing New Zealand. It should be cleaning up the immigration issues and favouritism that is going on at the moment in New Zealand instead of wasting our time. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Today we discuss the Immigration Amendment Bill which the last party to speak the Labour Party said it will oppose. It is very disappointing because members of this House would have expected most parties to agree on this especially parties that have New Zealand’s best interests in their heart. When we look at the context of immigration it is a very vocal and emotive subject and people have a lot of opinions on it. But essentially New Zealand survives on immigration. It is a big part of the history of our country. It is also a big part of the future of our country as we have many migrants in our country and we have many migrants in this House who have made New Zealand their home and have found that it has been very successful for them as a place to live.  
Migration is one of those things that will be important for our region. As part of the Asia-Pacific region we will see that there will be increasing trends of migration within this region. We will see a very successful Asian regional economy on our doorstep which will enable people to have money and then choices. With money and choices people will look for lifestyle. New Zealand has the opportunity I guess to pick the best migrants from that region but also that has some risks because people will see New Zealand as an opportunity as a country that has a low population has a clean green environment and has a very strong social system. Our education and health systems would not be comparable to many other Asian countries. Australia has found that to be a reality. From the areas of the subcontinent and through South-east Asia many people see Australia as very attractive because what does Australia offer? It offers a low population a large land mass and social services such as education and health care that are very difficult to obtain in those people’s country of origin.  
Naturally there is a desire to come to New Zealand and Australia. New Zealand and Australia will be the focal points for that growing population of people who will have the ability to make that transition out of their country of origin. The question then for New Zealand is whether we enable people to come to New Zealand and I do not think anybody in this House would say no that we do not want people to come to New Zealand because we need to have a growing population and new people bring in new values new histories and new diversity to our country that add to and build this country. But we have a choice of whom we bring into New Zealand. We need to make sure that we use and exercise that choice properly. We need to be able to bring in people who will add value to New Zealand in the sense that they have skills and are willing to make New Zealand their home and their future.  
Although we have a bit of choice as a Government as to whom we allow into New Zealand and how the individuals coming to New Zealand also have some choices. They have some choices about meeting the criteria to move to countries like New Zealand and Australia. The criteria are very simple. New Zealand and Australia will be looking for skilled migrants going forward. The policies that you see around migration are primarily based on having skills. Do you have the ability to speak English? Do you have the ability to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Does the individual have the ability to provide skills to the country and also to develop New Zealand into a stronger place? When you look at that policy decision we have in migration this bill becomes very important. It sends a signal about what New Zealand seeks and it also sends a signal— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That we are a soft touch. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The member over there says that New Zealand is a soft touch so I look forward to him supporting this bill. This bill shows that we are not a soft touch but I do not know whether he is going to support it. He is talking about— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It’s a dog-whistle bill. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Oh now it is about democracy. A minute ago it was that we are not allowed to be seen as a soft touch. This bill tightens the rules around that issue yet the member over there will not support it. Now tell me how that works. Tell me whether there is the degree of strength of conviction that we should see from the New Zealand First Party a party whose name is based around issues such as this when that member does not want to see a tightening of these rules.  
The other side of this bill is that we have to take into account the many migrants who have come to New Zealand and make a lot of sacrifices to come here. The thousands of people who learn the English language who make sure they have the skills to come to New Zealand—those people need to be treated with respect for the sacrifice they have made to make New Zealand their home. If we do not give them that reward in the sense of their becoming New Zealand residents and citizens—for learning the English language and bringing those skills to New Zealand—we send them the wrong signal as well. I think it is important for those migrants who have come to New Zealand to see fairness and equity within the New Zealand system and not to see some people bypass them in the system just because they got on a boat and came through a process like that.  
When we look at this legislation we must look at the signals it will send to the migrants who are here and the migrants who intend to come here. When we look at the legislation we look at other countries that are in a similar boat like Australia. They have looked at this issue as something they have had to deal with. The Australians have had to deal with it as an issue right on their doorstep now. In New Zealand we do not have to deal with it right on our doorstep as we are not as close to those regions as Australia is. But it will come. At some point it will come. If we are not prepared then we will be in trouble and part of being in this Government and being in Parliament is to be prepared.  
Andrew Williams 
: You’ll blame the Christchurch earthquake for that as well. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: And we will be prepared and it is in the best interests of New Zealand that we be prepared for this going forward.  
Andrew Williams 
: For the earthquake? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Opposition members are talking about being prepared for an earthquake. Well if they have a crystal ball then that would be great to see. We look forward to their supporting this legislation rather than being contrary to it as we normally expect. This legislation is good for New Zealand because it prepares our country for any future situations that may arise. We need to have some rules and regulations in place. This bill is good for New Zealand in that it sends the right signals to those people who see New Zealand as their future. It shows that we are an open country but we are open only if you fulfil the rules and regulations—that is if you have the skills and you fulfil the immigration rules and you do not try to use the process in a way that is not fair to those who have made those sacrifices and those who are willing to make those sacrifices in the future. It also shows that we are a country open to migration because that is part of our future and our history. It is very important— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What’s that got to do with the bill? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: —it is important—because New Zealand was built on migration and it is going to be a big part of our future and we cannot discount that. We need to recognise the importance of migration in our future and we need to recognise the importance of that in regard to people who make the right choices and do the right things and not on the basis of some kind of perception of what may be the case.  
The Immigration Amendment Bill is a good bill. It sends the right signals it protects New Zealand for the future and we look forward to other parties voting in favour of this legislation as they should.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Labour opposes the Immigration Amendment Bill for the reasons that were very ably set out by my colleague Darien Fenton in her speech earlier. I will summarise the key reasons for that opposition. This bill addresses an issue that simply is not before New Zealand as a threat at the moment. It is a waste of the time of Parliament and that is why people have legitimately asked during this debate already why we are dealing with this issue in this Parliament now. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that it is because of the scandals that National is facing and having to manage at the moment. “What shall we do if we are faced with scandal? We know” say the managers of Government business “we will come up with targeting an unpopular group we will come up with some imaginary enemy and we will come up with legislation that makes us look tough in dealing with them.” Well I think we can do better than that. New Zealand is a better country than that. I thought we might have a better Government than one that was simply going to channel John Howard at his worst. But at least when John Howard was dealing with this issue he was dealing with a real issue. 
New Zealand simply does not face the threat that this bill would contend with. If anybody needs proof of that they just need to look at the regulatory impact statement that is advanced supposedly in justification for the legislation. First of all it contains a number of very questionable assumptions. The assumption that officials were working with either because they were instructed to by Ministers or otherwise is that there would be 500 people involved in a mass arrival. Let us just remember the geography here. The Minister himself in his introductory speech conceded that the recent cases involved some 10 people in Darwin who by all learned accounts from people who have navigated from Australia to New Zealand just had no chance of getting here given the size of their craft and the time of the year that they were planning to sail. Everybody agreed that it would be a suicide mission if they tried it which is why they did not and which is why we do not get arrivals of boat people in New Zealand. It is because we have a series of natural defences that just make it very difficult if not impossible for that sort of exercise to be contemplated in a way that the Australians have to face a threat in reality that we simply do not. 
If we want to think about further questionable assumptions there are all sorts of strange figures in the regulatory impact statement. There is an assumed 62 percent decline rate for those who would come and the assumption that the appeal and review process that would be invoked by all unsuccessful asylum seekers would be completed in around 18 months but by then they would have been granted refugee or protected person status or become eligible for deportation. But what is even more disturbing about this regulatory impact statement is the appearance throughout of the sinister words in square brackets and bold “information withheld”. Anywhere that the reader tries to get an idea of what the actual threat is: “information withheld”. Anywhere that the reader tries to gain some understanding of the real justification for this bill “information withheld” appears in square brackets and bold. 
The other problem with this legislation is that the leader of the National Party himself recently admitted that it is not necessary. In July 2011 he said that New Zealand was “ready to deal with a boatload of asylum seekers should one make it to our waters”. That was in the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 12 July 2011. Apart from the scandals that beset National at the moment we have to ask what has changed. He said: “We’ve upgraded our operating manual … in the way that we’d deal with a mass migration issue if it came to New Zealand and we’re confident that we understand our legal position. I don’t want to go into detail but all I will say is we’ve got the capability and we’ve modelled that we understand what we need to do.” He also said: “We haven’t proposed major changes at this point because we don’t think that’s necessary although we’d be in a position to do that if required.”  
What also demonstrates the political opportunism at play here is the minutes of the Cabinet committee on domestic and external security. On 16 August 2010 the committee first looked at this issue and then it got a report back from officials on 30 September 2010. Presumably the Prime Minister in July 2011 was reporting back the fruits of that exercise—that is no major change required and everything is OK as it is—and yet 18 months after that committee meeting we see this legislation. This is the worst sort of legislation before the House a waste of the Parliament’s time and opportunism trying to stoke up fears amongst the public that simply do not exist. 
Why are we not looking at a Government doing something that would really make a difference to the people-smuggling problem? Why not do what the Prime Minister said should be done when he was in Indonesia recently? Why is it that we have a leader who is a lion overseas and a lamb at home on these issues? He said we should work with our friends in the region to target the people-smugglers themselves—the people who make enormous amounts of money offering and peddling false hope to people in desperate situations by cramming them into boats and then shipping them to Australia which is where most of them end up. Those are the people who need to be targeted and the way to target them is to negotiate with the Indonesians and with the Malaysians and with other Governments in South-east Asia which is the transit route for most of the people who end up in Australia and who are targeted by a similar regime there to the one that this legislation would set up. That would not require a showy piece of legislation at an opportune time for the Government. It would not require Nathan Guy to go on  
Checkpoint 
 and sound tough on a problem that does not exist. It would not allow for the sort of scaremongering against this group of people that we are seeing now but it might actually make a real difference to the reality of the threat. 
Deal with the people-smugglers. Look to those who profit—cui bono—and deal with them. Deal with them properly. Ensure that there are reciprocal agreements in place as between New Zealand and Indonesia and Malaysia so that there is an undertaking by the police forces of those countries and by the immigration agencies that those people-smugglers those who really stand to gain from the traffic in human misery are targeted are subject to proper punitive regimes and are hit in the pocket when they try to make massive profits from that traffic in human misery. But instead what we see is a bill before the House that is offensive in many ways.  
David Bennett 
: Rubbish! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: First of all—oh “Rubbish!” said David Bennett. Well it has Draconian penalties including provision simply on the warrant of one District Court judge for mass detention of human beings. It suspends the right—the ancient right that everybody has—to go to the High Court and ask the question: “Did the lower court get this issue right?”. You have to get— 
Moana Mackey 
: David Bennett said it’s not an ancient right. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Oh it is not an ancient right according to that jurist on the other side who knows these things back to front. Well I am sorry but it is. It is a fundamental right for anybody. It is one of the things that makes our democracy great. The ability to go to the court at any time and ask whether or not the Government or any agency of the Government has got it right is suspended and is available only by leave under this legislation. 
I am ashamed of this bill. The Minister of Immigration spoke of how good New Zealand’s reputation is concerning bona fide refugees and migrants. Once I would have agreed with him until I recently had some personal contact with the system and saw how precarious its funding arrangements are in order to deal with people who come properly and lawfully to New Zealand and when I saw the refugee study grant cut by the National Government making it much harder for bona fide refugees in New Zealand to complete a tertiary qualification and properly integrate into this country. 
One of the finest moments that I can recall—one of the proudest moments I can recall—about being a New Zealander was when we stood up to xenophobia and we took those  
Tampa 
 boys out of the Australian system and we saw those people become fine upstanding members of the New Zealand community. That is New Zealand at its best not taking this shabby leaf out of the Crosby/Textor manual. We can do better and the Government should be ashamed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If the member is seeking the call then she must do so. I would refer her to Speaker’s ruling 25/2. 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 The stated purpose of this bill the Immigration Amendment Bill is to amend the Immigration Act to enhance New Zealand’s ability to deter people-smuggling to New Zealand. The Green Party will be opposing this bill as its purpose is opaque and it seems to contravene international and domestic human rights obligations. I would like to initially look at what we know about people-smuggling in New Zealand and at some of the principles that seem to be behind the thinking of this bill before getting into the details of the proposal.  
From 2004 to 2010 15 people were convicted of people-smuggling within New Zealand and none of those cases to my knowledge involved mass arrivals. The people convicted of people-smuggling under section 98 of the Crimes Act have been treated pretty leniently by our courts actually with the harshest penalty in recent years being 8 months’ home detention. So that is a sign of how seriously our country takes people-smuggling—8 months’ home detention is the strongest response. Surely if people-smuggling was an issue in this country or even if we thought it might become one then the most appropriate response would be to look at our identification of smugglers and our response to them not to penalise the victims of that smuggling. It seems the bizarrest response imaginable to me. The way this is framed to me is a little bit like trying to deter burglars by promising to punish the people whose houses get burgled. It does not make sense. It seems to me we cannot really consider this as an intervention or a deterrent against people-smuggling because it has got nothing to do with the smugglers. 
So let us then consider some of the Minister of Immigration’s comments when he announced the legislation to see whether there are other clues to the purpose. When announcing it he said: “The recent events in Darwin show that New Zealand is a target for dangerous and illegal mass arrivals by boat. We need to be prepared.” He has also made mention of a freighter with 500 people that made it to Canada a few years ago. Yet the Government itself stated there was no intelligence at the moment that would suggest a group of boat people is on its way. There has never been a landing of illegal immigrants in New Zealand by boat with the journey being considered too dangerous for people-smuggling operations to attempt. Also I would like to draw attention too to the cost of fuel. If we are talking about this dystopian future where things are going to get worse and more people are going to be coming to New Zealand we also need to factor in the increasing price of oil which is going to make that option of getting this far that much more difficult. Within that cost the refugees have to factor in the cost of the boat which would be confiscated on arrival. So it would require a big freighter like in the Canadian case to get this far and they would have to be able to afford that. It is not likely. Immigration figures a decade ago showed that about 2500 asylum seekers were arriving in New Zealand every year mostly by plane. Almost all of them were refused residency and the numbers have plummeted and have since flat-lined at around 250 per annum. These have been further reduced by advanced processing. The Government is not just exaggerating the risk of mass invasion by boat people; this Government is creating the idea of a risk.  
I would like now to talk just a little bit more about the reality of refugees in the world because they are ultimately the ones whom we are talking about. The world’s largest sources of refugees include countries like Afghanistan Iraq and Sierra Leone and some of the countries hosting the most refugees include countries like Pakistan Syria Jordan Iran and Guinea. Approximately 70 percent of the world refugee population is in Africa and the Middle East and these people are escaping war persecution torture and things that most of us cannot even imagine and here we are drumming up a sense of them being a threat to us. It is a joke and it is an offensive joke. Imagine yourself alone or with your family fleeing for your life and then being treated as a threat and a danger to the citizens of the country you had made it to. To make it to New Zealand by a boat would be an epic feat and in fact I would go so far as to say that a few years ago in earlier times someone capable of such a feat would have been the subject of great books and poems. Their bravery would have given us all inspiration because of the lesson in the tenacity of the human spirit and our ability to cope through extreme hardship. Yet this Government is choosing to demonise these people and treat them as a threat? Worldwide there are about 11 million to 12 million recognised refugees but less than 1 percent are offered resettlement to a third country. Desperation is a natural response to that reality.  
I would also just like to address the issue of the term “illegal migrants” which has been used by the Government. This term is problematic for several reasons. Firstly it criminalises the person rather than the act of entering a country illegally but also it just shows a complete misunderstanding around the reality of refugees because international law recognises that refugees may need to enter a country without official documents or authorisation. That is part of the reality of being a refugee. Similarly a person without status may have been coerced by traffickers and should be recognised as a victim of crime not treated as a wrongdoer which is what this legislation is seeking to do. Refugees and asylum seekers and people wanting to come to New Zealand are not queue-jumpers and they are not illegal migrants. If the Government truly wanted to address the issue of refugee desperation then surely the most compassionate and definitely most sensible approach would be to improve processing of refugees to seek to get more places for refugees to be resettled in and to reduce the levels of war that we have in the world so that there is less need for people to escape their countries.  
Now to talk quickly about some of the specific changes in this bill where it seeks mass detention and processing of arrivals. According to the Minister this will enable Immigration New Zealand to be able to focus on managing the immediate risks rather than being tied up in paperwork and clogging up the courts. You know efficiency is good but group detention is contrary to the fundamental concepts of law and fairness and already Joris de Bres from the Human Rights Commission has noted that “Mandatory detention on the basis of group warrants raises issues of reasonableness and ultimately could amount to an arbitrary detention breaching section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.” According to Professor Max Abbott the director of Auckland University of Technology Centre for Migrant and Refugee Research this is also probably a breach in international humanitarian laws and conventions.  
So this is what this Government is about. It is about solutions for problems that do not exist and a complete denial of the importance and the validity of fundamental human rights. Shame. Shame on this Government.  
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I take absolutely no shame in standing up and supporting this bill the Immigration Amendment Bill this afternoon. I take absolutely no shame in supporting this bill because this is about New Zealand getting ahead of a potential problem in the future. Many of the criticisms that we have heard this afternoon many of the concerns that have been levelled at us this afternoon are the same types of arguments that were made in Australia in years gone past. And do you know what? If the Australian Government of the past had listened to that type of criticism and those types of concerns and done nothing then it would have an even bigger problem than what it has got today.  
The fact of the matter is that we are a nation that is desirable for people to come to. We have a beautiful country. We have natural fauna and flora we have great seaside areas to live in we have great environmental areas that people want to live in we have good education systems and we have good health systems. Naturally people want to come and live in New Zealand and I completely understand that. I have an electorate where half of the population was not born in New Zealand. There are a lot of migrants in my electorate a lot of people in my electorate who have worked hard done the right thing and gone through the right processes to come to this country and it is absolutely unfair on the people who work hard do the right thing and come to New Zealand through the right channels to see people having the opportunity to come here illegally and getting fast tracked and jumping through the queue. Sure we may not have a huge number of them coming just yet but should we sit back and do nothing? Should we just say: “It’ll be OK. We won’t deal with it and we won’t get ahead of the issue because this may never happen.”? The fact of the matter is that people will want to come here. This happened in Australia. We are very close to Australia. Our nearest neighbour is Australia and they do have this problem. If we sit back and do nothing then we will have exactly the same problem.  
It is quite interesting to see. I disagree with a lot of what the Green Party stands for and what it believes in but you have to say that at least it opposes things on principle. The other guys over the other side actually do not know why they are opposing it. They just oppose things for the sake of it. They are just opposing it because they are the Opposition and they think the only thing they can do to get some attention is to oppose things. They seem to think that we have a case here where we are trying to avoid distractions. Well their leader needs some distraction because he is just not getting anywhere at all. If they are wanting to accuse us of trying to avoid distractions well they are looking for some relevance for their leader. Where has he been? What has he had to do in the last few weeks? Who is David Shearer? Most people around the country do not know who he is. So I do not accept the criticism they have made because they have got a far bigger problem on the other side.  
It is depressing to hear the Opposition’s comments today. It is depressing to hear Opposition members say that we should not have this legislation before the House because there is no problem. We need to show that New Zealand is not going to be a soft touch. We need to show that good people who work hard to come here through the proper channels who do follow the law and who do recognise New Zealand’s law should be rewarded. They should not be in a position where people who can queue-jump do so.  
I perfectly accept that there are a lot of people in the world who have had a lot of bad things done to them. We cannot get away from that; it is a fact. But we are not a country that can take everybody. We are not a country that can sit back and accept every person who has had something bad happen in their life. Sure the people who come here on boats the people who try to get through the system without going through proper processes and the people who seek asylum by coming here on boats do have a lot of genuine problems that they have had to face in their lives. But should they be fast tracked over and above the good people who go through the proper process?  
Moana Mackey 
: We haven’t had any.  
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: Well look at the heckling from the other side. She has got nothing interesting to say. The Opposition has had no real reasons to be opposing this bill. It is just opposing it for the sake of opposing it. That is all it does. It wants to know why it is so low in the polls. It is because all it does is just oppose things for the sake of it.  
Darien Fenton 
: Shame.  
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: I take no shame in standing in support of this bill Darien Fenton. You know people often ask me what Darien Fenton is like. I say: “She is a unionist but she is actually a nice person.” I am starting to change my mind after this Darien.  
This is legislation that we need to get ahead of the game to make sure we are prepared and to make sure New Zealand is not seen as a soft touch. We will in the future have problems if we do nothing. The Opposition wants to see nothing done. It does not want to tackle the problems that New Zealand has and potentially will have in the future. This is a Government that wants to get ahead of the game. I congratulate Nathan Guy and thank him for bringing this legislation to the House. I am looking forward to the select committee process.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As a former Minister of Immigration I take offence at several of the references in that speech. The first is to queue-jumping which does not apply— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! If a member has a point of order he should bring it up at the time that it is said not after the event.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Sometimes you hear a new member rise in the House who is capable of assembling an argument that is soundly based and who is aware of the facts and frankly the political system is advantaged by it. Sad to say that last speech by Jami-Lee Ross was not one of those occasions.  
New Zealand First’s immigration policy is one that is planned that is focused that is in New Zealand’s economic and social interests and that is aware that we already have here significant numbers of unemployed homeless and sick people whom we at the last election were required to have regard to. The second thing about New Zealand First’s immigration policy is that every political party in Asia—no matter where you go; all the way to Turkey—supports the principles behind it. Just in case anybody is going to shout words of xenophobia and racism you cannot find one political party in any part of Asia all the way to Turkey that is not in line with New Zealand First’s thinking on this matter.  
The Immigration Amendment Bill was pulled out of National’s sleeve as a decoy for the scandal that is going on in respect of Epsom and John Banks. That is why National did it out of left field in the same way as it announced at about the same time a change of access to student loans. You can see there is no research behind this bill. There is no hard-core work behind it and National wants us to come out and support it in what is purely a dog whistle.  
Let me tell that last member who was on his feet that on any given day right now—go and check with the Minister of Immigration—there are 20000 overstayers in New Zealand. There are 20000 overstayers in an age of computerisation where not manually but in terms of technology you can instantly know who has not left. So what National is running is a total circus in immigration at the moment. It has no idea who is here what they are doing and why they are here. So do not get up and tell us you have got a bill preparing for the future when the face of the future is with you now. You have got massive numbers of overstayers in this country—most of whom I might add are white not Asian not Polynesian and not Melanesian—and you do not know who is here.  
 And then you have got a man called Kim Dotcom who paid $10 million in respect of Government bonds. 
Andrew Williams 
: How much? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: $10 million. He bought his way into the country with a criminal conviction. How on earth he has survived the—to put it in ordinary terms—fat index factor which is required to pass the health certificate is beyond me. But there he is 26 stone of him in this country because for the National Party assets and placement in this country are for sale. It is a disgraceful policy without one shred of principle at all. Now it has pulled this out of its sleeve because the ACT Party is in trouble. Take this legislation back to where it came from and do it properly.  
New Zealand will be under international scrutiny if and when refugees start landing on our shores and if they can make Canada they can certainly make New Zealand. It is a shorter reach from Australia for them to get here than to go to Canada. 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: Then support our bill. Support it.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No no. We are not going to support a shibboleth. We are not going to support an exercise in deception. We are not for dog-whistle legislation. We are for real policy. If you cannot tell me why 20000 overstayers are here—if you cannot tell us why 20000 overstayers are here—then you have no plan at all in respect of this legislation.  
Let me ask you this very simple question. Where is your detention facility? You have not got one have you? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Gerry’s place. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Gerry’s place. You might have one Mr Assistant Speaker but— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Don’t bring me into the debate. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I know; I appreciate that Mr Assistant Speaker. That is the last thing I wanted to do. Where is National’s detention centre to go with its much-lauded bill in the House today? What is the answer to that question? Not a syllable not a sound not a mutter not a murmur because there is no detention centre to back this legislation up. But National wants to look tough just in case a boat arrives and it can say that all the rest of the parties did not support it. One more time: where is the detention centre that goes with the detention policy? 
Hon Member 
: Devonport. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh Devonport. That is not a detention centre. You can just walk out the door when you feel like it. That is not what a detention centre looks like in any part of Asia or in any part of the world. Does New Zealand really want a Christmas Island type of detention centre run by Serco which is currently dealing with mass hunger strikes in Australian detention centres? Remember who Serco is? The National members should because it also is the private prison contractor for the Mt Eden prison. In case you just did not know Serco is not covering itself in glory running a private prison either. It is having some real problems and these will be coming out over the next few weeks. But that is the point. Where are the policy and the structure to back up this statement in the House? No doubt National will go around and bore the chambers of commerce and the Rotary clubs witless saying “We have got strong policies to meet any contingency.” No it has not. It has just got a statement that it is doing something and it is hoping that nobody will notice.  
We say that if you are going to have legislation then you need to have full impoundment facilities both in respect of trained officers and also in respect of facilities themselves. But let me ask you this question. How can you even claim to have an immigration policy or control policy when your customs borders are understaffed massively? Sometimes when there are two boats in at the Auckland harbour and planes are coming in they have a shortage of dogs—one dog to three handlers. There are the handlers but no dog. 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: Send his caucus. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Pardon? 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: Send your caucus. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: What did he say? Actually the Labour member whom he was admiring really has to be— 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: No I wasn’t admiring. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The Labour member whom he was admiring must be seriously concerned now. Because if a guy like that admired me I would be in trouble. So would my caucus.  
My point is we all know that our customs facilities are massively understaffed. We have not got trained animals. All sorts of things are going on. Now we have got a threat—and it is a real threat—that a boat will make this place will make New Zealand one day and here National has got a piece of legislation that is not backed up by the impact statement document. This impact document says: “A ‘mass arrival’ for this purpose means an arrival by a substantial group of people (by sea or air); not on a craft that is providing a scheduled international service;”—I do not know why that is of importance—and “not as a crew or passengers on a vessel that is travelling to New Zealand in the ordinary course of business.” Frankly that is the kind of business these people-traffickers are engaged in. That is their ordinary course of business. That is what they specialise in.  
So in short you have got here a piece of legislation that is without any rhyme or reason without any structure and is probably compellingly best imaged by the people National has put up to speak on it.  
Jami-Lee Ross 
: You’re up. I’m so hurt. I’m hurt.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No I am speaking against it. National put the man from Waikato up and he gives us a story about the whole world wanting to come to New Zealand. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: “Cue Ball”. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is right. He is for mass immigration. He is. This is despite the fact that this country used to be No. 2 in the world when we had a seriously focused immigration policy and brought people here whom we needed not those who need us. That is our difference. That is the difference between our policy and that Government’s policy. Happy to have people who cannot make it to hospital cannot get treatment cannot get jobs cannot get homes and here National is putting up a policy that it says will prepare us for any contingency.  
You might call it the Maginot Line policy—the Maginot Line policy that it has got. So in come the Germans straight around the Maginot Line and history is repeating itself. Here they are. National has got a bill for detention of 10 or more people excepting that it has got no place to put them. And if 500 arrived it would have no idea what to do with them.  
This is a party that once let over 234 people out of detention when they had TB because it said they needed to be reunited with their families for Christmas. Does everybody forget this? That is the National Party’s record time and time again—20000 overstayers and it has got no idea who is here. Frankly this bill is a total waste of time and New Zealand First will not support it. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 What an opportunity one would think to follow in the speaking order two political luminaries Charles Chauvel for Labour and the Rt Hon Winston Peters for New Zealand First. What an opportunity to listen as they match themselves blow for blow riposte and counter-riposte the sharp exchange of finely honed arguments against policy perception but no! No! All we had from Charles sadly was a party political diatribe against National taking sensible and prudent legislative steps towards a likelihood of mass arrivals of illegal immigrants.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is no one in this House called Charles. Perhaps Sir Charles or the honourable Charles and his full name but not just Charles. We cannot lower our standards here any more. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] No I am dealing with the point of order. The member is correct. I know that the member in future will abide by the rulings. Members are called by their full names. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I am very happy to do that Mr Assistant Speaker. Charles Chauvel is a person who does not—I do not think—lose any standing through simply being known as Charles but as the Rt Hon Mr Winston Peters would prefer I will refer to him as Charles Chauvel. But all we heard from Charles Chauvel were the groans about taking legislative steps towards the likelihood of mass arrivals of illegal immigrants. I have no doubt that Mr Chauvel would also be one of the first to say that we are unprepared once the arrivals do occur if we have not got this type of legislation under way.  
Then we heard from the Rt Hon Winston Peters—a person who is I trust immensely proud of his Scottish ancestry as we should all be proud of the genetic mix that our human bodies glory in. But what did we hear from Mr Peters? We heard about Epsom John Banks and student loans and we heard a moan over overstayers. He said: “You don’t even know who they are. Mind you they are not Asian they are not Pacific and they are not Maori.” So— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well they could hardly be Maori could they? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I do not know about that but let us talk about Maori migration. There is a bigger Maori migration now to Australia which is larger than the first one that occurred during the period of the Labour Government— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: —that occurred during the period of the Labour Government— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table the latest immigration figures from Immigration New Zealand showing 1000 people a week are leaving this country—it may reinforce the member’s point that he has just made—under his Government. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is an interruption of a member’s speech. It is proper that you can ask for leave but I just would have thought that at the end of a speech you might want to seek leave then. But you have sought leave and it is proper that you can do that. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It will certainly lead to disorder if a member of this House can get up and accuse the Maori people of being both boat people and overstayers when they have been here 1000 years.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: These are debatable points— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Oh no it’s not. What? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am on my feet. In the course of this debate there will be I am sure some robust debate.  
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I do not actually expect too much in the way—and I do no think any other member of the House will expect too much in the way—of general courtesy from some of the speakers who raise points of order. We are not going to be particularly upset by them. Mr Cosgrove we love you anyway—we love you anyway.  
But back to the speech from Mr Winston Peters. In fact the whole speech was a shibboleth because it came through with no substance. It was only towards the end that he started to cite what he thinks should be included in this type of legislation. I would suggest to him that a modicum of thought will show that in fact the points he has raised are there and he would do well to support the bill the Immigration Amendment Bill in its entirety because this bill has a number of key messages. It takes a firm stance on illegal immigration ventures. We continue to work with our international partners on combating people-smuggling which must be one of the filthiest trades that occurs in the world today. They have no regard for the people whom they allege they are trying to help and they take large amounts of money from them.  
Exception was taken to the term “queue-jumpers” by one of the members opposite who wished to remind us that he had once been a Minister but that is in fact a proper term to use when people are pushed in front of genuinely needy refugees. The Government’s overall package of changes is firm but fair and it sends a strong message that New Zealand is not a soft touch. The changes are compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and New Zealand’s international obligations.  
The reality is that mass arrivals of illegal immigrants are occurring. We heard the Rt Hon Winston Peters say that Canada is a target. New Zealand is closer. It will occur. We owe it to the country and we owe it to genuine migrants to be prepared. This bill will do that and that is why I am very proud to support it. Thank you. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 The Immigration Amendment Bill is not about immigration. This bill is a distraction. It is a badly thought-through piece of legislation that has been thrown on to the Order Paper at this moment in order to deflect attention from some of the Government’s current headaches. That is why we have seen today the withdrawal from the Order Paper of the pieces of legislation in the name of John Banks and we now have this inadequate and ill-thought-through piece of legislation which is designed to address a problem that we clearly do not have.  
Labour opposes this bill for a number of reasons. We recognise at the outset that human trafficking is one of the most despicable activities that human beings can engage in. We recognise that human trafficking requires coordinated intelligence from around the globe in order that it be defeated and that it be defeated in the places where it starts not in the places where the poor victims finally fetch up.  
We need to ensure that New Zealand is not a soft touch but we need also to balance our reputation for compassion and neutrality in these matters and this legislation is inadequate on every count. The United States for example has a special visa category which is called the victims of human trafficking visa. The United States has a process for addressing the problem. Our Minister of Immigration who has brought this bill in—New Zealand’s Minister not the Labour Party’s clearly by any stretch of the imagination—just this week had dinner with the Secretary of Homeland Security for the United States Janet Napolitano. I would have thought he would find that out. In the course of conversation he might have discovered that there is a visa category for victims of human trafficking. Surely that is a place to start not an asinine piece of legislation that says that more than 10 people is a crowd and that we will prevent any mass invasion on our shores of more than 10 people—which is a crowd—coming from the most oppressed the most impoverished and the most needy parts of our neighbourhood.  
So simply on humanitarian grounds this legislation is inadequate. If the Government wants to deal with human trafficking then say so and do not get an inadequate Minister of Immigration to put up an inadequate piece of legislation. This does not deal with human trafficking; this is a knee-jerk scaremongering piece of law that in no way enhances New Zealand’s reputation and in no way addresses the need for international cooperation in order to lessen reduce mitigate and get rid of human trafficking.  
The truth of the matter is that we do not have a problem at this point. And even if we were to safeguard against this happening in the future due to all of those people who are the victims of human traffickers getting highly sophisticated pieces of naval equipment that enable them to navigate their way from the Middle East and Asia to Auckland then we need to make sure that we are starting in the right place and this law is not the right place. The people we see on our television screens who are the victims of human trafficking come in boats that can hardly make it from Indonesia to the tip of Australia. They cannot even make it across that narrow strait. They sink lives are lost and they sell everything they have in order to pay exorbitant amounts to human traffickers who have no interest in whether these people live or die. So they are sent out on rust buckets—or perhaps Mr Banks’ cabbage boats; I do not know but that is about the size of it. They are sent out on these vessels and they perish. To say that we are at imminent risk—so imminent that this piece of legislation has to be introduced today—of an invasion of boat people is a complete nonsense.  
What we have in the regulatory impact statement is the following statement in the section about status quo and problem definition: “Recent experience in Canada confirms that a mass boat arrival in New Zealand of up to 500 people is now a real possibility.” That captures my attention. And then what do we have? “[Information withheld].” I am sorry but if we are to debate this bill intelligently information should not be withheld from this House. If people have been able to make it in rust buckets from somewhere in Asia to Canada and on that basis we know that they are also setting sail for New Zealand then let us have the information. But quite frankly if they fetched up in Canada they took the wrong turn. If they fetched up in Canada where is the link that says we are imminently at risk? There is no evidence. The Minister has failed to produce it and what we have got is a piece of legislation that damages our reputation.  
Let me go on and quote another bit from the regulatory impact statement: “500 people arriving and claiming asylum would be costly and challenging to manage.”—yes I agree with that—“Currently only about 350 claims for refugee status are received annually and about 85 percent of these claims are made by people who entered New Zealand lawfully.” We are not even taking the people we should be taking. We have an allocation a quota of 750 refugees per annum. We are doing about 350. There is capacity for us to take more of the right people—the people whom we with all the privileges and advantages that we have in this country ought to be taking to assist to rehabilitate and to become functioning human beings again.  
 This legislation with its inadequate un-thought-through ridiculous provisions quite frankly is an affront to any intelligent immigration policy. But worse than that it will do damage to our international reputation. We took those boys from the  
Tampa 
—that Norwegian vessel that picked them up—and years on they are contributing members of our society. We take Burmese refugees; they become contributing members of our society. We are a long way off the non-existent problem that this stupid piece of legislation purports to address. There is no more profound waste of Parliament’s time than a piece of legislation that addresses a problem that does not exist. This should be turfed out on its ear and the National members who have spoken in favour of it to date should go back look over their  
Hansard 
 and be ashamed of the position they have adopted. Thank you. 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am looking forward to looking back on my  
Hansard 
 entry and reflecting on the importance of this necessary piece of work the Immigration Amendment Bill. It is always very easy to sit and moralise and talk about compassion and so on. I think that if one was to actually look at the etymology of the word one would see that “compassion” means to suffer with and I think I have suffered with my colleagues so far from the speeches from the Opposition members as they have tried to deride this simple but necessary piece of legislation.  
We live in a changing world. We live in a changing global environment. This piece of legislation is a prudent and timely response. It is a statement that is ultimately about reducing harm. If there has been one part of commonality it is the concern across the House at the harm that is done by people-smugglers individuals or whatever who are trying to make their way outside of the normal process into this country.  
But you see it is wrong and it is reckless to encourage people to risk their lives to come to New Zealand. It is reckless and those who oppose this legislation are in some ways tacitly supporting that recklessness. For New Zealand we through this piece of legislation do not want to give the impression to any person that they can enter this country without any consequence or with success. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at the reference—and that again as a former immigration Minister. The suggestion that members on this side of the House and I personally would be supporting that kind of practice is ridiculous as is the rest of the member’s speech.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: These are debatable points and each party has the opportunity to rebut what is being said. This is a point of view of a National member and it is totally in order and I will ask Simon O’Connor to continue. 
Hon Member 
: Touchy today. 
SIMON O’CONNOR 
: Very much so. Many many adjectives have been thrown across the House. I think “asinine” was one that I heard earlier as we move further up the alphabet towards the letter “R” but you know we just sort of move on. So we are back here about this whole industry of allowing people to jump the queues to sort of move illegally into New Zealand. I come back to what I said at the start. This bill is about minimising harm. That is a principle that is incredibly important I am sure across the entire House. And so this bill is an important and useful tool for managing this potential issue.  
We have heard that there is no problem though. We have heard from different parts of the House that there is no problem and that this is not going to happen. Well this is not a solution without a problem. This bill they say is an overreaction and it is ineffective. They do not call it dangerous. They do not say that we are going down the wrong path. No they even call it a waste of time. Yet of course they have wasted much time debating from the other side of the House against this.  
You see this is very short-sighted—very short-sighted. There is nothing like not reacting to a problem until after it has occurred. Labour wants us and other parties to put up a fence on the cliff after someone has fallen off it. It is very Labour—let the problem develop tinker with it and then claim to fix things. You see this party is about anticipating issues and making a very clear statement of what is appropriate and what is not. It is not appropriate for people to jump the queue to enter into this country.  
We have a range of avenues for people to enter into this country already. We have a whole panoply if you like of options. We also have as has been noted on the other side of the House the refugee quota and there is space there. There is space there for people to come into this country continuing through the refugee quota. We have that opportunity. If people wish to pursue that though the avenues they have from the countries that have been mentioned there are processes for that. But what members opposite are encouraging here is “first in first served”. They are saying: “Don’t follow the process. Don’t follow the rules. If you make your way here we’ll just allow you to jump the queue.” That is just not appropriate.  
This is a developing and potential problem for the future. I am not saying that there are piles of people coming in here right now but this Government is about anticipating where the future goes. We are not looking at this 50 years ago. This is a developing issue for this country and for the world. I was reading  
The Economist 
 a bit earlier and it was saying that there are more than a million people who have been crossing the boundaries be it into America or into the European Union.  
This is not a small problem. New Zealand exists within that global community and needs to put up and make a very clear statement that there are processes by which to enter this country. We put through a manner of law in this bill to manage that which is entirely and completely appropriate. As I said before we have these avenues and I think this bill makes it very clear that that is the appropriate way for people to enter this country. On that point I will end. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand the next call is a split call. I will ring the bell with a minute to go. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I find it a bit rich that Simon O’Connor finished his speech by talking about the rule of law in New Zealand when we all know that this bill the Immigration Amendment Bill has been brought in this week as a dog-whistle diversion in an attempt—in the way that the Australians do on a regular basis—to divert the attention of the public away from the goings-on of the ACT member John Banks.  
Jami-Lee Ross 
: Go back to TradeMe. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Here he goes again. The poor man’s Paul Quinn is interjecting. What is his name? Lee-Jami Ross. Lee-Jami Ross the poor man’s Paul Quinn is interjecting. We have lost Paul Quinn— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the honourable member is well aware of the correct name of our honourable colleague here. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am actually not. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Just hang on. We had this before. We actually like to hear the names of who the speakers are so I just ask members to respect the courtesy extended and call members by their full names. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Can you remind me? 
Hon Member 
: Jami-Lee not Lee-Jami. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sorry Jami-Lee Ross not Lee-Jami Ross. I apologise to the member. The point that I was making is that Paul Quinn made better interjections than that member and he ended up so far down the list that he got dropped.  
This is a dog-whistle bill. I spent some time as a Minister on the committee that looked at these matters. We saw very carefully what the threats are and the threats are pretty well summarised: “We’ve upgraded our operating manual … in the way that we’d deal with a mass migration issue if it came to New Zealand and we’re confident we understand our legal position. I don’t want to go into detail but all I will say is that we’ve got the capability and we’ve modelled that we understand what we need to do. We haven’t proposed major changes because we don’t think that’s necessary …”. I agree with that. Do you know who said that? John Key. John Key said that not 1 year ago. He was telling the truth then and is it not a pity that some of the people opposite did not listen to him before they got their dog whistles out and started blowing them?  
We know what the story is. People do not come here on cabbage boats the way that John Key—John Banks sorry. I am mixing them up now. They are so far into each other’s pockets it is hard to tell what the story is. The way John Banks describes migrants to New Zealand is as people who come in cabbage boats. Well that is insulting. That is absolutely insulting but we know that those boats hardly make it from Indonesia to Australia. We know that people drown all the time from those boats. We know that people are rescued from those boats all the time between Australia and Indonesia. There is not a snowball’s chance in Hades of those boats making it to New Zealand.  
The Prime Minister has had those briefings. The Prime Minister knows what the truth is and we here also understand what politics is all about. It is the Australian Liberal approach to politics: if you are in trouble throw a bit of muck. Pick on the brown people—pick on the brown people. And that is the approach that National is taking with this legislation because that is its normal approach when there is trouble. It does not matter whether it is the days of Muldoon when it started the dawn raids. National was in trouble in those days so what did it do? It went and raided Polynesian homes. Well it is not quite as politically acceptable to do that now. National is slightly more politically correct. But what it is doing here is trying to raise a non-existent brown-Asian threat in New Zealand and it is raising it in an attempt to avoid the resident of the Grand Hyatt Hong Kong—at whatever price he paid and whoever arranged it. I will make it clear: it was not a cabbage boat; it was a plane that he went on. But what is also clear is that he got a discount. He said yesterday he did not. Today he admits getting a discount. Therefore what is happening is a diversion from the activities of John Banks. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 As a great-grandson of boat people I rise to address the Immigration Amendment Bill 2012. This bill is yet more sleight of hand from a Government that is increasingly desperate to distract the New Zealand public. The Minister of Immigration on introducing the bill today said that its purpose is to streamline the existing legislation. In fact the bill is a tough new immigration measure to prepare for boat people who do not exist in our waters. This is not the first time the Government has put political expediency ahead of principle but it is one of the more egregious examples—an affront to cite Maryan Street.  
Consider first off the international legal dimension. The bill applies to “a mass arrival group” defined as a group of more than 10 people who arrive in New Zealand essentially on the same craft. The Race Relations Commissioner says the changes in the bill “threaten New Zealand’s obligations under the UN Refugee Convention and potentially lack compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.” How is that? He says: “Our international obligations under the convention are clear. New Zealand must protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in New Zealand regardless of how or where they arrive and whether they arrive with or without a visa.” The reference to group warrants contravenes the principle that asylum cases ought to be treated individually. The Refugee Council of New Zealand says: “Each case is an individual matter and entire groups of people cannot be illegally placed in detention on the basis of being a member of a group. This would be a fundamental breach of human rights.”  
We just heard about asylum seekers being described by Government leaders here as having arrived on cabbage boats. As a New Zealander as a New Zealand diplomat in Thailand during the 1980s I had a bit to do with Cambodian boat people on Thai beaches and I find that offensive.  
Look at the definition of “risk” that has been entered into the bill. The bill’s stated motivation is that New Zealand faces “an ongoing risk of a mass arrival of illegal immigrants.” Defining such arrivals as “risk” is a problem. It securitises vulnerable people in the form of refugees. Defining asylum seekers as illegal immigrants is also problematic. Neither seeking asylum nor being a refugee is an illegal activity. The bill defines people as illegal before they are so. 
 Making New Zealand a “less desirable target” as the Government has said in explanation is wrong too. New Zealand should be desirable to refugees and asylum seekers as a place that upholds human rights. Even the very use of the word “target” securitises the relationship between New Zealand and asylum seekers.  
What then should the Government be doing? If the Government is worried about refugees arriving on boats it should do more to address the reasons that people want to. Last year the UN Security Council defined climate change as a potential threat to international peace and security. If this Government is worried about a mass arrival of refugees it could do more to combat climate change. The Government says “We need to deter them before they take to the sea.” If we are to take action it should be by working to ensure that the appropriate channels for refugees to take are workable usable effective and in line with international law. New Zealand’s strong reputation as a global citizen could be put in question by the Government’s immigration crackdown.  
John Key appears to be taking tips straight from John Howard in demonising asylum seekers yet some of us in this House had mothers who were children during the European Holocaust and who ended up in New Zealand as refugees. Their mothers may have had aunts who fled to Britain and purchased a marriage of convenience. They may have paid for the vows taken then walked out of the registry parted company and never seen each other again. Such acts became the basis for family reunification. Now in the context of such a dramatic and compassionate history what is this Government doing a century later? It is demonising the 21st century refugee. I ask the Prime Minister what the difference is between a marriage of convenience for refugeehood and family reunification and a boat trip. Have some compassion. Show some statesmanship just this once. Do not be dragged down by Australia. Have your Government act as a responsible global citizen. And shame on you if you do not. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 As we draw to an end this first reading debate on the Immigration Amendment Bill it is a great pleasure for me to rise in the House today to support the bill and to support it with vigour. 
We are a very desirable part of the world. We are one of the world’s most favoured nations and we live in a global environment where there is no shortage of desperate people living in desperate circumstances. They are living lives that they want to remove themselves from because of those desperate circumstances. There is no shortage of despicable people—despicable people—who would seek to trade in human misery. They are happy to smuggle people around the world in the most offensive and miserable circumstances. We must stand as a responsible international citizen to ensure that they cannot and do not prosper. 
So this piece of legislation this very good and wise piece of legislation is designed to ensure that we are prepared for the onslaught that may yet come. I hear voices on the Opposition benches and we have heard them during this debate so far today. We have heard from people who would be the first to criticise if this legislation were not in place and we were to find ourselves being swamped by people-smugglers who were bringing in the desperate the poor and the impoverished who have very few choices. Because we live in this desperate world the responsible thing we must do is be prepared because this country is such an attractive destination. 
As I have listened to this debate this afternoon I have heard members from the Opposition and the Green Party talk in very high-handed and mighty tones about all sorts of things except the protection of what this country values most of all which is its border. We value our border because it is such a wide border. It is a border that has until recent times been protected largely due to our position on the globe. Distance has for our trade environment been a great burden but in terms of protecting our border distance has actually been our greatest protection. But these days with modern science innovation and engineering there is the capacity for very very sophisticated vessels to arrive on our shores laden with the desperate and the poor who are the customers and the victims of people-smuggling. It is this legislation that we must support in order to ensure that that cannot and does not happen. This is the sort of legislation that Australia should have been considering many years ago. The arguments we have heard today are the sorts of arguments we probably heard from people who opposed that sort of thing back then and who now have lived to rue the day. 
We find that people-smugglers today are well resourced well funded and well organised. They will leave no stone unturned in terms of plying their evil trade. They have access to sophisticated technology. They have access to sophisticated steel-hulled vessels. They can and will make the journey to our shores. We must use this piece of legislation as a deterrent to people-smuggling to ensure that their filthy evil trade cannot succeed in our part of the world. This piece of legislation will enhance our ability to do exactly that—to deter people-smuggling. We need to make that option as unattractive as possible so that those people will not seek us out as a soft touch. 
New Zealand takes a firm stance on illegal immigration ventures and we will continue to do so. Queue-jumpers should not be able to push in front of people who are genuine refugees and asylum seekers. We adhere to and respect the process that we have signed up to as a responsible member of the international community. We have an obligation—an absolute obligation—to ensure that that is true. As we conclude this debate I am speaking today very much in support of the legislation and I endorse and commend it to the House.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Immigration Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee consider the bill. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Question agreed to. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Acting Leader of the House)  
on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: I move  
That the Immigration Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 10 September 2012. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill be now read a second time 
. I also move that the House take note of the Commerce Committee’s report on the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill.  
Global business is becoming increasingly complex with the growing interaction and collaboration between businesses under multiple jurisdictions. This bill seeks to authorise the Commerce Commission to assist equivalent overseas regulators in the enforcement of competition and consumer laws. One of the key underlying principles of the bill is reciprocity. If the commission is able to provide investigative assistance to overseas regulators this will provide the opportunity for overseas regulators to do the same. Over time this should promote deeper cooperation efforts between the Commerce Commission and overseas regulators which would promote a more effective and efficient investigation and enforcement of competition and consumer laws.  
The bill fulfils part of New Zealand’s duties under the single economic market framework jointly announced by Prime Ministers in August 2009. Australia enacted legislation in 2007 to allow enhanced cooperation between the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—the ACCC—and overseas regulators. The Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill is our equivalent legislation.  
I would like to acknowledge that this bill was introduced by the previous Labour Government under the former Minister of Commerce the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I understand that at the time it enjoyed and I hope it continues to enjoy broad cross-party support. The bill will serve to strengthen and build upon New Zealand’s existing cooperation and coordination efforts with Australia in the effective application and enforcement of competition and consumer laws.  
The bill amends the Commerce Act the Fair Trading Act and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act to enable the Commerce Commission to use its statutory powers to assist the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission or other overseas regulators with investigations. It sets out how the commission may share compulsorily acquired information and provide assistance to regulators from Australia and other countries. Importantly the bill has safeguard provisions requiring the commission to take specific public interest matters into account before responding to requests for assistance from overseas regulators to ensure that assistance is provided for a proper purpose.  
A Supplementary Order Paper to the bill has been tabled to amend the Telecommunications Act in order to promote enhanced cooperation between the Commerce Commission and overseas regulators in respect of telecommunications investigations. This would enable the commission to participate in investigations into cross-border telecommunications markets such as those related to international mobile roaming. The amendment would reflect the powers held by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in respect of its telecommunications work and would also enable New Zealand to further reciprocate the assistance that Australia can provide to us. I intend to move Supplementary Order Paper 26 during the Committee of the whole House stage. I note that because of changes to the Standing Orders the amendment set out on this Supplementary Order Paper which was tabled before the last election can now be considered without leave of the Committee of the whole House.  
At the first reading of the bill the Commerce Committee was invited to consider several issues regarding the bill’s application and I am pleased to see the committee has taken these matters into account and recommended amendments to the bill. More specifically the committee has recommended that regulator to regulator cooperation agreements should be allowed as an alternative to intergovernmental arrangements. I consider that this will provide flexibility to decide in the most appropriate and efficient way to implement mutual assistance arrangements. This also recognises that different jurisdictions also have different requirements about how mutual assistance arrangements are implemented. For example Australia does not prescribe the level at which a mutual assistance agreement is implemented but the United States requires such arrangements to be conducted at a Government to Government level.  
I am pleased to also note the committee’s recommendation regarding information-sharing situations where significant international trade concerns may arise. In particular the committee recommends that in such situations the Commerce Commission will consult with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and with the Minister of Trade. This will enable the consideration of possible prejudicial effects on New Zealand’s international trade interests. Importantly it will ensure that the commission will provide assistance that aligns with our international trade interests.  
The committee has also recommended amending the bill so that it covers compulsorily acquired information that has been acquired both before and after this bill’s passage. This ensures that information able to be provided cannot be excluded by the presumption against retrospectivity. In the interests of keeping the legislative framework consistent I note that the committee has recommended amending the bill to ensure that protections in relation to the use of statements is targeted to those statements that are self-incriminating. This aligns the bill with the provisions of the Commerce Act as well as with the proposed amendments to the Fair Trading Act. I am of the view that the committee’s recommendations will improve the effectiveness of the bill both in fostering greater cooperation with overseas regulators and more effective enforcement action as well as in safeguarding the public interest.  
In summary I am confident that this bill will play an important role in promoting and deepening mutual assistance between the Commerce Commission and overseas regulators in enforcing competition and consumer law. Given the harm that anti-competitive and unfair trading practices can have on individuals businesses and the economy as a whole I consider that ensuring the commission is equipped with the modern tools for combating such behaviour in the global economy of today is essential. This is even more important in the context of supporting the Government’s objective of fostering a single economic market with Australia. As such I would like to conclude by thanking the members of the Commerce Committee for their work in considering the bill and by acknowledging the contributions of those who provided submissions on the bill. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 This is one of those rare occasions in the House when there is unanimity in respect of legislation. This bill the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill is a common-sense piece of legislation and I simply reiterate the sentiments of the Minister of Commerce. We have for some time over many years going right back to the initiation of CER attempted to get closer to our Australian cousins. A predecessor of mine Mike Moore once said that Australians are our best mates whether we like them or not and there is a bit of truth in that I suspect. But any measure that brings us closer together economically deals with monopolistic behaviour and anti-competitive behaviour and deals with unfair trading practices has got to be mutually beneficial and agreeable to both partners to the deal—that is obviously our Australian counterparts others and us.  
It is often because we are a small country. I believe 97.2 percent—according to a question that I posed to the Hon John Banks that venerable Minister for Small Business—of businesses in New Zealand are small to medium enterprises going by the Government or the Inland Revenue Department definition of 20 staff or fewer. It is often those entities that struggle if they are engaged in exporting to come to terms with intercountry trading practices in respect of monopolistic behaviour anti-competitive behaviour and unfair trading practices. Anything that this House can do to bring the jurisdictions closer to alleviate those sorts of issues or to deal with them in terms of enforcement and in terms of consumer law and competition law and effectively to implement that has got to be good for both sides of the Tasman but particularly for our own businesses and commercial enterprises in New Zealand.  
The Minister did note quite rightly that when this legislation was in the embryonic stage it was a product originally introduced by the then Minister of Commerce from our team Lianne Dalziel and it was adopted by the Minister Simon Power and now by Mr Foss. It is beneficial for what we are trying to do in terms of harmonisation and there has been a great history of harmonisation in commercial banking terms to some extent in our law and in other areas. All these harmonisation moves make it easier for business to be transacted internationally.  
We expect this bill to facilitate greater reciprocal assistance from equivalent overseas regulators. It is increasingly important for a number of jurisdictions and as the Minister said it will allow either Government to Government cooperation arrangements or regulator to regulator arrangements subject to ministerial approval which is a provision that has been inserted by the Commerce Committee.  
If you look at some of the rationales behind this legislation the international nature of transactions and territorial limits on regulators make it increasingly desirable for regulators to cooperate to manage competition as we have said and consumer effects of transactions on domestic markets. The Commerce Commission of course is currently constrained from providing investigative assistance and compulsorily acquired information it holds to overseas regulators. The commission’s statutory powers of compulsion can be used only in relation to enforcement and adjudication within the New Zealand jurisdiction. That of course is a major limiting power. There are also legal constraints on the provision to overseas regulators of confidential compulsorily acquired information already held by the commission. This in turn limits the willingness of overseas regulators to provide assistance to the commission as cross-jurisdictional assistance tends to be based on mutual assistance. Most overseas regulators of course consider the likelihood of reciprocity as a factor in determining whether to provide assistance or information to the commission. This is going to create increased flexibility this is going to create enhanced cooperation between the commission and overseas regulators in a number of jurisdictions and it seeks to do this while ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards in place to address public interest considerations.  
I think the select committee gave this incredibly detailed scrutiny. There were a number of concerns raised in respect of telecommunications. It was the submission of the Commerce Commission and its request that this bill also apply to information gathered under the Telecommunications Act 2001. I note that Telecom and Vodafone were opposed to the inclusion which is included in the Australian legislation and this has been incorporated by way of the Supplementary Order Paper. The select committee has recommended a consultative procedure where the commission is concerned that requests for assistance might have significant international trade implications. The commission may consult the Minister of Trade after consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and then rely on a statement from the trade Minister as to whether providing the information or assistance would significantly prejudice New Zealand’s international trading interests. Before providing such information the commission would have to be satisfied that the information would not significantly prejudice those trading interests in respect of New Zealand.  
There will be a need I think for the Government to provide some support to commercial entities as it should do when new legislation is brought in particularly legislation of this kind—education support as it were. The big end of town of course will always come to grips with legislative change far easier than small to medium sized enterprises for instance that may be engaged in export and products and services. The big end of town tends to have far more resources far more expertise and a far bigger budget to call on resources to change systems and to come to grips with legislative change. The smaller end of town small to medium sized enterprises do need support I think to deal with this. I do not think this bill makes reference to that. As we go through this process in the House we will be seeking some advice from the Government as to what sort of ancillary supports would be put round to ensure that small to medium sized enterprises are supported and can come to grips with this legislation and with how to deal with it in their day-to-day practices.  
As I said at the start this is a pretty straightforward piece of legislation but a necessary and important piece of legislation. It does have the support of the Labour Party. I believe the select committee worked very diligently and collegially to produce a high-quality piece of legislation. I am sure this will not turn the lights off and on too often in media circles and other places but it is one of those mechanical pieces of legislation that is necessary to grease the wheels and to mow down some roadblocks for—being selfish for a moment—New Zealand enterprises as they try to battle it out internationally and battle it out in jurisdictions where commercial entities from time to time do engage in anti-competitive behaviour and unfair trade practices. There are environments where there is monopoly behaviour. There is a need to have rules there is a need to have a rule-based system and there is a need to have mechanisms whereby regulators can cooperate to deal with those commercial evils if you will so that we can facilitate enterprise innovation and entrepreneurship in our country across our borders and in the jurisdictions overseas. So it is with some degree of pleasure that we simply add our words to the Minister’s. It has been a cooperative process. We look forward to this being expedited relatively swiftly and we support the bill as it stands.  
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 Acknowledging the work of the previous Government in commencing this work is important also the work of the Hon Simon Power and now the work of the Hon Craig Foss. It is great that we can cooperate across the House as we can cooperate across the Tasman and we all want to work for the success of New Zealanders and Australasians in a world that is incredibly competitive and increasingly so. As I noted in my first reading speech on the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill here in New Zealand we are a small trading nation. We export 85 percent of what we produce so it is imperative that we have very good relationships understandings and regulations agreed to by our trading partners in order for us to have a level playing field. That is what I think most people if not all people in commerce look for—a level playing field. They want to have certainty. They want to know that if they can apply their resources their hard work and their capital they have every chance of success. We know through the free-trade agreements that we are seeing developed that this is the sort of playing field that we want to create for New Zealand enterprise. One thing we are certain of is that we are an innovative nation. We are a nation of people who are hard-working with great ideas and with endeavours that can bring great success to this country.  
This bill which was introduced in September 2008 was adopted by this Government and carried forward because it is very much part of our agenda of focusing on improving access for our exporters to world markets. The Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill amends a number of Acts of Parliament: the Commerce Act 1986 the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 and the Fair Trading Act 1986 and it seeks to authorise the commission to share information with equivalent overseas agencies about unfair trading practices and as the previous speaker mentioned anti-competitive behaviour. This bill is part of the National-led Government’s focus on improving access for our exporters to world markets. Boosting innovation and improving export access is one of the key policy drivers for the ongoing rebalancing of the New Zealand economic performance that we seek to see happen.  
 It is known by all that only by lifting economic performance can we create the jobs boost the incomes improve the living standards and provide the world-class public services that Kiwi families need. So though the intricacies and the mechanics of this bill may not be understood by many New Zealanders the benefits of it will be. The benefits will flow through greater success in our companies.  
We understand that the single economic market is a development that is important to the economies of both New Zealand and Australia. Under the single economic market concept both Governments have been intensifying efforts to remove regulatory barriers to trans-Tasman trade. It was back in 2009 that both Prime Ministers—our Prime Minister John Key and the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd—agreed on the imperative for continued strong and coordinated international action to restore confidence in global economic growth there in the midst of the global financial crisis. But that same commitment has been continued with the Rt Hon Julia Gillard. It was just over a year ago that a new investment protocol and a CER trade agreement was signed between both Prime Ministers. I will just quote what Bill English our Minister of Finance said regarding that. He said: “New Zealand and Australia have one of the most open bilateral economic and trade relationships of any two countries. This relationship is underpinned by CER which is the oldest and most comprehensive set of trade access arrangements that either country enjoys.” He said: “Australia is both the single largest source of direct foreign investment in New Zealand and is the largest overseas destination for New Zealand investment.”  
So in many regards we are joined with common necessity but also common aspiration that this corner of the world continues to succeed and be prosperous. It is recognised that strengthened trans-Tasman economic integration including through the single economic market work programme is vital for both. We are the third-best place in the world to do business according to the World Bank’s estimations. But for that business success to be optimised easy access to overseas markets is paramount for our country. With 85 percent of our products manufactured going to export markets it is imperative that we have this easy access and that we have regulation that is harmonised to the very best of our ability so that we create a level playing field for our enterprises here in New Zealand. We are committed to this process—very much so.  
We need to offer a better policy environment if we are to overcome the economic disadvantages that our country has. Being small in size is one of them; our geographical isolation is another. If we want to attract and retain increasingly mobile talent—which can go anywhere in the world but we want those people to stay here and we want to retain their skills here—and if we want to retain encourage and invite capital technology and entrepreneurship then a better policy environment is what this Government determines and desires to provide to businesses in New Zealand. Regulatory reform is very much improving that and this bill goes towards that as well to create that environment where New Zealand companies can have a presence in the Australian market and where the ease of business for them there is as easy as it is here. That is where we want to head with a harmonisation of our commerce laws. I believe that this bill which was progressed by the previous Government under Lianne Dalziel and also under the leadership of the Hon Simon Power and which is now under the leadership of the Hon Craig Foss is moving us very well and positively in that direction. I commend this bill to the House.  
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the second reading of this bill the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill. I would like to make some comments on the importance of this bill and on what the Commerce Committee sought to achieve where there were a number of considerations following the submitters that appeared before us and then I would like to make some comments taking up from the previous speaker Jonathan Young on the importance of harmonisation. I would like to make the point up front that the way I see it this Government actually pursues harmonisation with our closest geographical neighbour across the Ditch when it suits it on very light-handed legislation and not on other issues that are probably of equal importance to New Zealand’s economic situation and its future particularly in fostering innovation within its own environment and competition.  
But first of all I would like just to acknowledge as I think previous speakers have that this bill was introduced initially by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. It is important to acknowledge that. It was adopted by Simon Power and now by the new Minister of Commerce Craig Foss. The select committee that heard it I think nearly 2 years ago was actually chaired by Lianne Dalziel—and very well chaired. It is good that we now have a new chair in place who seems to be doing a very good job. The Commerce Committee is a sensible committee. It treats every piece of legislation that comes before it very seriously and takes into account the views of the submitters.  
Although this bill aligns us with Australia there were some quite serious issues raised during the discussion on it which I want to just briefly touch on. There were some important submitters that came before it—namely the Meat Industry Association Meridian Energy Vodafone and Telecom. They pointed out some as they saw them significant issues in terms of the risks of having information being provided one way but not necessarily coming across the other way and the risks for those organisations of feeling vulnerable in that situation and possibly being opened up to adverse circumstances.  
The committee took that very seriously and although you will see that there is a Supplementary Order Paper being put before the House on addressing the anomaly on the importance of including the Telecommunications Act under the ambit of this bill the select committee also recommended that there should be a consultative procedure where the Commerce Commission had concerns that any request for assistance might have significant international trade implications that might adversely affect organisations within New Zealand. In those cases the commission may consult the Minister of Trade after consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and then rely on a statement by the Minister of Trade as to whether providing that information or assistance would significantly prejudice New Zealand’s international trade interests.  
I think that was probably the most significant thing that came out of discussions in the select committee because although we were committed to the harmonisation principle we certainly did not want to see companies that trade and are active in New Zealand feeling disadvantaged by such a piece of legislation. The commission has to be satisfied that any information provided to comparable regulators overseas would not significantly prejudice New Zealand’s international trade interests. So that was seen as being pretty important and I think it is important to acknowledge the good work that the committee did on this.  
I would like to turn though to consideration of the harmonisation principle because I have heard a previous speaker across the House talking about the importance of cooperating across the Tasman. I would certainly concur with that particularly where we can have an advantageous arrangement and relationship with our Australian cousins. But the most important thing to acknowledge is that there is an awful lot of legislation and there is an awful lot in our current regulatory environment where there is clearly not harmonisation and instead we are seriously out of step.  
I would contend we have got our heads buried in the sand on a number of issues. I actually want to mention some of them because with regard to this particular bill which is based on a principle of harmonisation that is pretty important particularly around taking us into the 21st century and ensuring that we have got a competitive environment that truly fosters innovation with new technologies. There are some serious examples.  
First of all let us look at this Government’s refusal to countenance a converged regulatory environment for the telecommunications and broadcasting environments. We have currently got two Ministers across the House. We have got regulation for the telecommunications sector but no regulation in the broadcasting sector and instead we have got an absolute refusal to acknowledge the clamour for change that is coming right from across industry from concern from the public and from a number of other places.  
When you look particularly at how this is affecting new technology platforms where their success depends on companies for instance in the broadcasting sphere having access to premium content with the take-up of ultra-fast broadband currently most of the rights to this content in New Zealand are held by a very small number of market participants. Instead what we see from the current Minister for Communications and Information Technology and from the Minister of Broadcasting who happens to also be the Minister of Commerce with the carriage of this particular bill that is concerned with the principle of harmonisation is an absolute refusal to acknowledge that there needs to be any change whereas across the Ditch in Australia we see a converged regulator we see regulation for content and we see a serious acknowledgment of the importance to embrace change.  
In fact right at this very moment in the last couple of days there has been a new review come out that was driven by the Minister over there the converged Minister on convergence which is a huge step forward. Of course it is not going to be perfect. There is going to be a lot of public debate and discussion around it but at least they are having that public debate and discussion whereas here this Government is actually trying to quash it and pretend it does not exist. The Convergence Review’s final report was released on Monday and its task was to develop a framework where all media communications could be regulated equally regardless of whether it was distributed by radio television or the internet.  
If we wanted to take harmonisation seriously that is where we would be looking. We would be looking at ensuring that a similar review was undertaken here that we were addressing these issues that we were taking them seriously and that we were not burying our heads in the sand. You have got to ask yourself why we are burying our heads in the sand because essentially we will not go near these issues and the reason I put it to you is that it is because there are too many vested interests involved. There are too many vested interests involved with too much power by too few organisations that can disproportionately influence Government policy.  
With regard to the harmonisation and principle within this bill that is being debated today upon which there is agreement across the House it would be good to see some agreement across the House on some other issues. The lobbying bill—I would just like to mention the Lobbying Disclosure Bill which is being put forward by the Greens. That is certainly supported by Labour and a number of parties across the House that see that it is actually going to drive some important change and put the spotlight on the organisations that have disproportionate access to Ministers who are making decisions important decisions around policy and legislation and it may actually start to reduce the cronyism and deal-doing that has dogged this Government’s behaviour in the last 3½ years. I put it to you that although politics is certainly about influence and influence is important it should also be about conscience and ethics and it is a sad fact that under this Government we are seeing very little of that.  
So just returning to this bill that is before us today Labour certainly supports it. We support the values behind harmonisation and we would like to see harmonisation occurring on other issues such as the convergence of broadcasting and telecommunications. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand to take a short call on this Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill. My pleasure is only slightly spoiled by the fact that some members who as recently as last night were bellowing that the Greens always oppose everything are not here to see our agreeable side. The Greens are naturally agreeable people. We will always support well-thought-out legislation that does some good does no harm and achieves its goals. On that basis we are very happy to support this piece of legislation that we are debating today.  
The bill before us has a fairly straightforward objective but an important one: to harmonise and to allow a higher degree of cooperation between regulators in New Zealand and regulators elsewhere equivalent to our Commerce Commission. Particularly in Australia of course one of our key trading partners it ought to be reasonably easily achieved given the similarities in the two countries’ culture and practice. Not to say it will be very simple but clearly it is an appropriate ambition to enable that regulation of the wider market the Australia - New Zealand market initially. We know very well that in the absence of regulation markets fail. We are still suffering consequences internationally as well as in New Zealand of aspects of unregulated and inadequately regulated markets that inevitably lead to enormous economic social and environmental costs. To the extent that this bill endeavours to get common approaches to regulation to enable regulators to communicate and cooperate with each other that is a good thing and it is likely to enhance the potential for genuinely fair trade within and between countries.  
There was one issue that came up in the course of submissions to this bill which now seem a very long time ago. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight it is apparent perhaps that to include the telecoms regulators within this bill would have been a good thing. The Commerce Commission itself made a fairly robust submission encouraging the inclusion of telecoms regulators. It was deemed—I am sure correctly by the select committee—that to expand the scope of the bill to include those regulators was not possible or appropriate. That is a reasonable decision but I just flag that as work perhaps for another time.  
The Commerce Committee has come back with recommendations that the bill be amended to allow regulator to regulator as well as Government to Government arrangements and cooperation arrangements subject to ministerial approval. That would seem to be a sensible approach. The examples given were the difficulty of having otherwise to establish relationships not only with the Australian Federal Government but the state Governments as well. It has the added advantage of ensuring that the regulators can speak to one another independently of Government engagement or involvement when that might be appropriate and we think it may well be. I think the select committee’s willingness to support and indeed recommend the regulator to regulator relationships be inbuilt assumes a level of comfort around the independence of the organisations with which our Commerce Commission could engage both their independence and indeed their trustworthiness and their reliability. I believe that is appropriate. But I also think that given that these relationships will to some extent be built on a degree of trust it is incumbent on our regulators and indeed on our Government to lightly monitor the evolution and development of those organisations with which we do develop regulator relationships as opposed to Government ones just to ensure that the level of trust that is implied in this recommendation is sustained over time. That is not a suggestion—I am not implying—that there is any immediate harm or likelihood of a reason to lose that trust but I do think it is incumbent on us and our regulators to maintain some alertness to that possibility.  
For the Greens our only initial concern about this bill in its original draft was the implication that some organisations some entities could be exempted from the necessity of paying fees. So we looked into that and the conversation went through the committee clearly and it became apparent that the target for that the intended recipients of that goodwill—the exemption of the fees—was the small to medium sized enterprise sector. With that reassurance we are entirely happy to support that. I think it is fair to say that we know that the small to medium sized enterprises are a major contributor to our economy. Something like 40 percent of the value-added economic activity in our economy is through the small to medium sized enterprises. They are arguably an inadequately acknowledged and respected sector and part of our economy and I think it is good that they are being given this consideration in the bill to remove them from the liability of fees that are scaled more appropriately for large corporate entities which can carry that cost structure and that cost burden.  
I think that is as much as I need to say on this bill. It has been fairly well covered by other speakers. We do support it. We think it is good legislation and we are pleased to see it progress through this House. Kia ora koutou. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to firstly commend Craig Foss the Minister in charge of this bill the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill and the Commerce Committee for the good job that they have done with this legislation which is part of the Government’s broader agenda of providing the right sort of framework for New Zealand to be internationally competitive to grow and to create jobs.  
One of the most complex areas of law is around this issue of anti-trust legislation that goes back more than 100 years. And it is particularly critical for very small countries like New Zealand where a large amount of commerce occurs within an international context and particularly for New Zealand with Australia. So where you get a very consistent picture from members of the Government is that we see ourselves as an international trading nation that is open to New Zealand picking up the opportunities from globalisation but also wanting to have very clear rules about making sure that that occurs fairly and in a competitive way and this bill is part of that agenda.  
Where I do find it a bit contradictory is that there are members of this House who are sort of confused about when they support internationalisation and when they do not. What you get from this Government is a consistent approach of supporting the growth of businesses and supporting clear international rules. In my view this bill in allowing greater cooperation between New Zealand’s Commerce Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is actually about providing the right sort of framework for all business to be able to grow competitively create jobs and ensure that this economy is able to match up internationally. So it is very good in my view that the House broadly supports this legislation and we should get on and progress it through the House. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill on behalf of New Zealand First. It is good to see at the end of a parliamentary week and a parliamentary sitting day unanimity across the House on a matter such as this particularly affecting our commerce our competitiveness and our openness in terms of our trading economy with our sister country across the Ditch in Australia.  
We have always said as New Zealand First that we will support good policy but we will oppose bad policy. In this case this is good policy. It was policy that was introduced by the former Labour Government; it was introduced in 2008. It is somewhat disappointing that it has taken the best part of 4 years to get to this point and one would wonder why a good policy like this does take 4 years to get through the processes particularly when Australia had already introduced such legislation and was basically waiting for us to catch up. As is the case once again Australia shows us up and it would be good if New Zealand could perhaps pick up its act and work a bit closer with our Australian partners in areas such as this in a swifter nature.  
The primary objective of this Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill is to facilitate that cooperation between the Commerce Commission in New Zealand and its overseas counterparts but most notably the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The bill proposes improving cooperation by enabling the commission to exercise its statutory information-gathering powers to assist an overseas competition authority and also to provide any information acquired under its powers to an overseas competition authority.  
These new powers will also be included in each of the Commerce Act the Fair Trading Act and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act and reciprocity is the main justification for this bill: any assistance provided by our New Zealand Commerce Commission to an overseas regulator should be reciprocated. This is achieved by requiring formal cooperation arrangements to be in place before the commission can offer any investigative assistance or information. That is a good thing. It means that it has to work both ways. It has to work in the interests of New Zealand but also of the partner country.  
There are safeguards and it is good to see that New Zealand firms have already complained about the sluggishness of the Commerce Commission in reaching decisions on mergers and other such investigations and so this is a good thing for our New Zealand companies. For them a diversion of the commission’s limited resources away from its core function would be unwelcome. The bill provides some safeguards in this regard. The bill also provides for the commission to seek payment from an overseas regulator for any costs it incurs in assisting so in that sense it is a user-pays bill and those overseas authorities that may require assistance from our Commerce Commission can be charged for its services.  
The proposed powers—the bill seeks to better equip regulators both here and overseas to detect and deter anti-competitive behaviour—again can be only good for consumers and can be only good for the people of New Zealand to ensure that there is no anti-competitive behaviour taking place within New Zealand. The bill overcomes international difficulties by providing an alternative and some would say back-door route for obtaining international legislative documents. Again that can only help in terms of our commercial competitiveness.  
Where information is to be provided to an overseas regulator the commission must advise any person to whom it relates about that unless disclosure compromises the overseas regulators or the commission’s investigation. So this is not smoke-and-mirrors sort of stuff; this is above board. It does mean that the commission will be required to disclose to any corporates or companies that there is an investigation under way. The only time this will not happen is if it will compromise or prejudice that investigation. That would perhaps refer to any unlawful activities that may be taking place and in that regard that is a route for the commission to work in a more confidential manner.  
There are existing agreements already in place with the likes of Australia Canada the United Kingdom and Taiwan. However these provide for cooperation on certain matters but do not provide for that reciprocal arrangement. This bill does provide for that with those existing countries where we do have an understanding. The bill is an acknowledgment however that without compulsorily acquiring information that is able to be shared mutual cooperation is somewhat limited. These existing arrangements are likely to be amended to incorporate the new proposed powers.  
New Zealand First supports this bill. We are pleased that all parties are supporting it. We are concerned that it has taken this long. We do support the fact that the trans-Tasman relationship the CER relationship is a very very important one. This will help to facilitate business between Australia and New Zealand. It will help the two commissions on both sides of the Tasman to do their jobs more effectively. It will ensure that there is a more competitive level playing field and it will limit any anti-competitive activities that might be happening in any jurisdiction where we have agreements signed under this bill. So it will support New Zealand. At the same time it can only support commerce. It can only help our companies be more competitive on the global stage and therefore New Zealand First certainly supports this and we commend this bill to the House. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill. This bill like the others presented by this National-led Government reaffirms our commitment to increase the New Zealand economy’s performance which will lead to job creation and to higher incomes and thereby to better living standards. It is part of our four priorities outlined by our leader the Rt Hon John Key for this term. This bill leads to an increase in our economic performance because its main aim is to facilitate and increase cooperation between the New Zealand Commerce Commission and its counterparts in other parts of the world particularly the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and other relevant regulators in Australia. I sincerely feel that the bill will serve as a big help for our exporters. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill. In doing so can I acknowledge the Commerce Committee and its chair Jonathan Young who is with us in the House and acknowledge the work that he is doing as chairman of that committee through a very busy programme. I acknowledge that contribution.  
I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the member who has just resumed his seat Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. I would however like to observe that there was a very important debate on the previous bill in relation to migration and I noted that he did not take a call. I could not possibly comment on whether he was in the House or not but it was only half an hour ago. It was unusual that we did not hear from him on that as the Government is taking Draconian measures to abrogate proper process in respect of asylum seekers. I am disappointed for him and his community that as he was sent to Wellington to convey a message he seems to have forgotten what the message was.  
I go back to the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill. Labour is supporting the bill. It was a bill originally introduced by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. It was adopted by the Hon Simon Power and is now in the hands of the Hon Craig Foss. It was reported back from the select committee in November 2010. It has unfortunately been languishing on the Order Paper.  
So what does the bill do? Well this is firstly part of the work programme on a memorandum of understanding between Australia and New Zealand on business law coordination. It is a part of the single economic market programme which is designed to harmonise business law between New Zealand and Australia. It is important before we dive down into the substantive provisions of the bill that we set the context for it. The first point is that of all foreign direct investment into New Zealand about 80 percent—$4 in every $5—is sourced from Australian investors and parent companies including 95 percent of our banking system a fair bit of our agricultural service companies and the parent ownership of a large part of our manufacturing sector. Implicit in this debate is that New Zealand needs to find the best legal framework to get the best it can out of its relationship with Australia.  
Labour has been broadly supportive across the previous Government and still is of the broad outline of the SEM—the single economic market process—but with some important provisos. The first point we note is that the Government has changed the objective for New Zealand from doing what is in New Zealand’s national interests which one would have thought was its day job to doing what is in the joint interests of Australia and New Zealand. The trouble with that is that when you try to work out or calculate what is in the joint interests of the two countries New Zealand’s interests tend to get a bit swamped by the big fella over the Ditch. Therefore the potential is heightened for New Zealand’s interests to be subsumed. So it is with that cautionary note that we acknowledge the role of the single economic market in this bill and encourage the Government always to focus on New Zealand’s national interest and on the quality not the quantity of the investment flows. I see that Dr Huo is here and I would like to just acknowledge that our investment law is and should be non-country specific and should not differentiate between source countries. We ought to have a set of rules that are applied without prejudice and that serve our national interests.  
Let me turn to some of the substantive provisions. This bill is designed to allow regulators on both sides of the Tasman and more broadly to ensure that they can swap information and swap best practice. They need to do that because multinational business—often the poachers in the language of the regulators—do not respect borders because they are multinational. So the gamekeepers need to be able to catch up with them across the borders too. That means they need a memorandum of understanding for cooperation and for protecting information that has legal consequences when they are involved in joint operations.  
There are some important examples—which we support—that have been given by the Government around cross-border cooperation in the telecommunications aspect and in particular on mobile termination rates between the New Zealand Commerce Commission and the Australian competition authorities. In doing so can I say that we think that is a very good thing. The powers that our Commerce Commission is using are powers that were conferred by the previous Government following a stocktake review in 2006. They have led to a more robust and rigorous regulatory framework for the sector that has interestingly enough led to a rough doubling of investment a drop in the price of broadband and a massive lift in the uptake. Likewise there has been a drop in the price of mobile phones and a lift in uptake and this is another part of that.  
Can I acknowledge in doing so the work of the regulator the ACCC—the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—which is of a high quality and also acknowledge the work of Dr Ross Patterson the Telecommunications Commissioner in New Zealand. He has held that job for some time. He was the commissioner in the mid-2000s when I was the Minister and he has always done an extremely professional job. I wish to acknowledge that he has been a senior practitioner on both sides of the Tasman. He knows the markets on both sides and the practices of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission so no doubt under his leadership the Commerce Commission will make extremely good use of the provisions in this bill.  
All has not always been good in the area of telecommunications regulation. It was a sad day when the current Government decided to sell the law down with a 10-year regulatory holiday in order to facilitate the structural separation of Telecom. No problem with structural separation—that is a good thing—but selling the law with a 10-year holiday is not and I am pleased to say that pressure brought to bear by the industry and the Labour Opposition forced it to think better of that idea. We have a slightly watered-down law but it is not as bad as it could have been. But it does show that that Minister Mr Joyce has a habit of cutting deals—like his boss Mr Key—that threaten our legal framework.  
The same Minister Mr Joyce was responsible for a deferral of the spectrum licence fees totalling about $45 million to the company that he used to personally own and I wonder what provisions were in place under the  
Cabinet Manual  
to avoid any possible perception of conflict of interest. I assume that he has used some—[ 
Interruption 
] No I assume that he has used some but it is not a good look none the less. Not a good look. The same Minister has been involved in yet another deal with Skycity to build a casino convention centre with another 500-odd pokie machines and a very important but little-known provision that is called ticket-to-ticket betting. I want to put that name up in lights: ticket-to-ticket betting. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I remind the member that we are on the second reading of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill and the member is departing from that. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Only very very briefly under your guidance. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No not at all—not any more. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Not any more because I was about to mention that in line with the terms of this legislation the South Australian Government and its regulator when confronted with exactly the same proposal from the same company said: “They must be dreaming.”—they must be dreaming. No new pokies for them in Adelaide and no ticket-to-ticket betting— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —which is illegal under the Australian authorities but which Skycity I understand is seeking to make legal in New Zealand and apparently that is worth more to it than the additional pokie machines. So I just want to have that on the record as we look at trans-Tasman regulation.  
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission however has historically been more robust than our Commerce Commission. It did not fall into the hole that was known as “Ruthanasia” or neo-liberalism here in New Zealand. It never went as light-handed. It never had a wasted decade. It managed to have reform that was more balanced than what occurred here under the National Government previous to this one and therefore there has been less need to wind back that ill-fated experiment than there has been in New Zealand. So we are pleased that New Zealand having fought its way back to the international mainstream is now able to cooperate with our Australian cousins where it is in our interests to do so.  
Andrew Little 
: A tenuous grip. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is a tenuous grip under the current Government as my colleague Mr Little has said. You have always got to wonder with the current Government whether it is really New Zealand’s interest as a whole that it is seeking to serve or whether it is some corporate in the big end of town that might have had dinner with the Prime Minister in the last month or so. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill. I have enjoyed listening to the debate in the House today. I am pleased to see that my colleague David Cunliffe is supporting this bill. I do not think there is anything more I can really add at this time so I am very pleased to stand in support of it.  
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Is this a split call? 
RAYMOND HUO 
: Yes it is. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! The member should indicate. Is this a split call with the Greens? [ 
Interruption 
] No it is not. Thank you. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: It is on my own. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Proceed. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a call on the second reading of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill. I have in front of me the  
Hansard 
 copy of my speech on the first reading of this bill which was delivered on 25 May 2010. I gave my detailed explanation of why this is a very important bill and why Labour supported this bill. I congratulated the Hon Lianne Dalziel who initially introduced this bill and the Hon Simon Power who subsequently adopted this bill. I wish Mr Power good luck in his new interests and new commitments. I congratulate the Hon Craig Foss who is the Minister now responsible for this bill.  
The bill has been held up. The Government was quoted in the media as saying that it had been held up because of the Government’s workload. That may be the case but if we look at the way the House progressed a number of bills that have been passed into law we are satisfied that certainly this Government has its priorities wrong. For instance last night it passed into law the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill despite the fact that it creates inconsistency and challenges legal precedent. Labour is opposed to that bill simply because we cannot support inconsistencies in law. The Building Amendment Bill (No 3) was delayed initially and then rushed through because unless it was passed into law a number of good initiatives including New Zealand’s long DIY tradition would not be able to continue in its current form. Overall that bill was passed into law initially in a “wait wait” fashion and subsequently in a “hurry hurry” fashion. That is not a good way to demonstrate competency in the way this House should be run.  
Coming back to this bill the main purpose of the bill is to facilitate increased cooperation between our Commerce Commission and other overseas competition and consumer regulators particularly the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The bill aligns us with Australia which passed similar legislation in 2007. I note that the Commerce Commission in its submission requested that this bill also apply in respect of information gathered under the Telecommunications Act 2001. Telecom and Vodafone opposed the inclusion which is included in the Australian legislation. I am sure we will look at that closely during the Committee of the whole House stage. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time. 
Sittings of the House 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 We have 30 seconds to go. In the interests of tidiness I seek leave for the House to rise at this point until the next sitting day. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise at this point. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted.  
The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.